The US News rankings are terrible for students. Why don't colleges stop them?

[Tugg Speedman]

The US News rankings are terrible for students. Why don't colleges stop them?
Updated by Libby Nelson on September 5, 2014, 7:40 a.m. ET @libbyanelson libby@vox.com

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/5/6106807/college-rankings-us-news-boston-clemson-problems

In a few days, US News and World Report will release its latest college rankings. Everyone will click to find out who rose and who fell, and an Ivy League college (or Stanford) will top the list as it always does, and college presidents will publicly bemoan the invidious power of US News.

And then, privately, they will start scheming about how they, too, can climb the ranks.

The usual critique of rankings is that they're meaningless. But the problem is actually much worse. The rankings encourage a rogue's gallery of unethical behavior. Well-intentioned changes to the methodology won't fix them. The proliferating rankings from other publications won't dethrone them.

But the good news is that the US News rankings are not, in fact, an unstoppable juggernaut. Colleges themselves could cripple the rankings — if they were brave enough to try.

The US News rankings lead colleges to lie

The US News rankings are influential. Studies have found they impact both where students apply and where they actually attend. That strong influence may explain why colleges aren't always honest when they tell US News about themselves.

COLLEGES AREN'T ALWAYS HONEST WHEN THEY TELL THE RANKINGS ABOUT THEMSELVES

Since 2012, five colleges admitted to falsifying data they submitted to US News. These weren't one-off typos or brief ethical lapses. They were systemic campaigns of misinformation that lasted for years, mostly located at colleges that are generally well-known but aren't quite Ivy League caliber — the kind of place where rankings really matter.

Bucknell University (no. 32 on the US News list of national liberal arts colleges) admitted to submitting six years' worth of inflated SAT scores. For eight years, Claremont McKenna College (no. 9) inflated students' class rank and claimed the college rejected a higher proportion of applicants than it actually did. Emory University (no. 20 on the list of national universities) had been inflating the qualifications of its freshman class since at least 2000. George Washington University (no. 51) did the same for at least a decade.

"We have no reason to believe that other schools have misreported data," US News said in a blog post published after four of those instances were uncovered. College admissions officers themselves suspect the dishonesty is more widespread: 91 percent said in a survey conducted by Gallup and Inside Higher Ed that other colleges (although not their own, of course) were probably lying too.

The real scandal is what the colleges who don't lie do
But the worst thing is it might be more ethical for a university to just lie to US News than to climb the rankings through putatively honest means. Putting rankings front and center leads colleges to increase tuition and spend the money on things that have little to do with education, all while encouraging prospective students to apply whom they have no intention of accepting.

At least lying doesn't actively hurt the students you are trying to educate.

IT MIGHT BE MORE ETHICAL FOR A UNIVERSITY TO JUST LIE

Starting in the 1990s, Northeastern University set out to reverse-engineer US News' formula, according to a recent article from Boston Magazine's Max Kutner. Then they did everything they could to climb the rankings. They lowered the enrollment cap on classes to 19, because 20 students is no longer seen as a small class in US News' eyes. They began using the Common Application, which makes it easier for students to apply — at a cost of $75 per application, of course — so that they could turn more students away. When that wasn't enough, they spent liberally on recruiting in the US and abroad, hoping to become ever-more selective.

Admitted students with so-so high school grades and SAT scores were encouraged to study abroad for their first semester in a newly created program, because students who start in the spring don't count for US News purposes. Meanwhile, the university's former president went out of his way to meet leaders of highly ranked colleges and even lobbied US News itself to tweak its formula to benefit Northeastern.

It worked. Northeastern rose from 162nd in 1996 to 49th last year.

And Northeastern wasn't the only one. Clemson University took similar steps, shrinking classes from 25 students to 19 while letting enrollment grow in others. It increased tuition in order to pay faculty more. Because the rankings take alumni giving rates into account, they hired an outside company to help find alumni who weren't donating. That cost money, of course. The university even engaged in some sabotage, purposefully giving lower marks to competitors when it was asked to evaluate them for US News' survey.

"We have walked the fine line between illegal, unethical, and really interesting," Clemson's former institutional researcher, Catherine Watt, who now directs the university's Master of Public Administration program, said at a conference in 2009, according to Inside Higher Ed.

Some might argue that they crossed that line a long time ago. But Clemson rose from 38th among public universities in 2001 to 21st last year.

Along the way, both colleges made some beneficial changes. Northeastern hired more faculty, for example. They also spent $1 billion on new dorms so that students could live on campus, which makes them more likely to graduate. It's possible students at Clemson really did benefit from being in a class of 19 instead of 25. But those benefits accrued almost by accident.

In each case, according to reports, presidents said climbing the rankings was the primary goal. Clemson's mission statement says the university is "committed to the personal growth of the individual and promotes an environment of good decision making, healthy and ethical lifestyles, and tolerance and respect for others … shaped by a legacy of service, collaboration, and fellowship."

Clemson's vision statement is simpler: "Clemson will be one of the nation's top 20 public universities." On its website, the vision statement comes first.

Lots of costs, no clear benefit

It should be no surprise that colleges lie and cheat and game the system. That's not necessarily a reason the rankings shouldn't exist. If we got rid of programs because they could be gamed, we'd have no financial aid to attend college, no college admissions process — in fact, no social safety net.

But in most of those cases society has decided the benefits outweigh the potential dishonesty. So far, the consensus is that it's better for colleges to choose students deliberately and not at random; that society is better off if more people can afford college; that people should not go hungry in the US. If the system doesn't work perfectly every time — if there are reports of waste or fraud or gaming the system — well, that's the price we're accepting in exchange for the benefits we reap.

What benefit do we reap from US News? Perhaps the rankings help students choose among colleges. That might be true for the handful of students with the academic abilities to get into the top universities and the financial means to afford them. But even if it is, research has found that going to a more prestigious college usually doesn't make a difference in how much students earn.

Even if determining prestige were an essential task, the US News rankings mostly confirm existing prejudices. When the federal government tried to rate colleges in 1911, it picked a cream of the crop that persists in the US News rankings today. In a draft of early US News rankings, a lesser-known college once topped the list. According to a Washington Monthly article published in 2000, the statisticians quickly changed the methodology to better reflect existing perceptions. The US News rankings are a system precisely calibrated to tell us what we already know.

COLLEGE RANKINGS ARE USELESS, BUT FUN

"College rankings aren't dangerous or misguided so long as they are used prudently, safely and appropriately," former George Washington University President Stephen Joel Trachtenberg told The Atlantic in 2011. "They shed some light: they are interesting, entertaining, useful sources of gossip, and helpful for puffing but they shouldn't inform the decision about where a student decides to matriculate, at least not definitively."

So college rankings are useless, but fun to gossip and argue about. On the other hand, they have a documented history of encouraging unsavory behavior at universities whose presidents should want to discourage it. It's hard to argue the benefits outweigh the costs.

How to end the influence of US News once and for all
US News has tried to respond to criticism over the years, but the company will never voluntarily slaughter its cash cow. And it's unreasonable to ask it to do so now.

Happily, there's a trick — ending the dominance of US News rankings doesn't require the magazine to do anything. All it requires is that good college presidents do nothing.

HERE'S WHAT COLLEGE PRESIDENTS HAVE TO DO TO BREAK THE FEVER: STOP

One of the two biggest components of US News rankings is the score for a college's reputation.To get that number, US News asks colleges to fill out a survey indicating their opinions of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of other institutions. (They ask the same of high school guidance counselors.) Along with the survey, colleges submit other information about themselves, including their average freshman SAT and ACT scores and grade-point averages, the proportion of alumni who donate, and the proportion of applicants they admit. Cooperation rates are extraordinarily high: 91 percent of the more than 1,300 ranked colleges submit this data.

Here's what college presidents have to do to break the fever: Stop. Just stop. Stop filling out the forms or allowing your employees to do so. Stop submitting the data. Stop collaborating with a system that encourages your subordinates to lie and cheat, that leads to a "vision" for your university focused solely on the arbitrary position you hold on a numbered list. You've had the power to end this madness all along.

Without colleges' cooperation, US News would be forced to rely on publicly available data that colleges report to the Education Department. The federal government doesn't ask about admitted students' high school class rank. Nor does it ask about alumni giving. The feds certainly don't ask colleges to evaluate their competitors' reputations.

In other words, much of the data would suddenly be out of reach. The rankings might not crumble entirely. But they would be forced to change, relying on the same publicly available information that competing ranking systems use.

It's possible for colleges to pull out. Reed College quit submitting data and surveys to US News more than a decade ago. US News retaliated at first, dropping the college out of its rankings entirely, but the college stuck to its guns. US News now sticks it somewhere in the second tier of liberal arts colleges. Yet Reed has not gone out of business; according to its former president, it is thriving.

Even if most colleges won't disarm unilaterally, as Reed did, higher education has proved it can organize effectively for collective action when necessary. Colleges have worked together many times to defeat government proposals they don't like. The logical conclusion is that their umbrella organizations have decided the power of a single ranking system is more fearsome and difficult to confront than that of the president and Congress combined.

Or perhaps college presidents are happy to have their cake and eat it too, denouncing the rankings in public and frantically trying to climb them in private. We'll know in a few days, when the cycle begins again.

Correction: This article previously said that the Education Department doesn't collect data on faculty-staff ratios or entering students' SAT scores. In fact, those data points are part of its annual surveys, so that data would still be publicly available even if US News quit asking for it.

[4everwarriors]

US News' rankings have been the best marketing tool a school could possibly use and therefore, are here to stay.

[GGGG]

US News' rankings have been the best marketing tool a school could possibly use and therefore, are here to stay.

That's because the public has been fooled about what the difference is between incomes and outcomes when it comes to education.

And Heisenberg, you are the same guy that posted how Marquette should follow Northeastern's lead and actually try to manipulate its ranking to jump ahead.  What Marquette, or any institution should do, is do things to improve the education it provides - improve faculty, become more affordable to students, reach out to a broad student base, raise money and spend it wisely, etc.  And the rankings will be fine.

To purposely manipulate rankings for the sake of rankings is foolish.

[Tugg Speedman]

That's because the public has been fooled about what the difference is between incomes and outcomes when it comes to education.

And Heisenberg, you are the same guy that posted how Marquette should follow Northeastern's lead and actually try to manipulate its ranking to jump ahead.  What Marquette, or any institution should do, is do things to improve the education it provides - improve faculty, become more affordable to students, reach out to a broad student base, raise money and spend it wisely, etc.  And the rankings will be fine.

To purposely manipulate rankings for the sake of rankings is foolish.

Sultan,

It is academic, MU is going to do it

http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/marquette-university-adopts-vision-to-raise-its-profile-7t9ptd0-205675301.html

Marquette University adopts vision to raise its profile
May 1, 2013

To be a first-choice university for bright and promising students, the strategic plan sets a goal for Marquette to be ranked among the top quarter of national universities by U.S. News & World Report.

----------

FYI - "top quarter" is top 50 as 200 schools make the national list.  Last year MU was in a six way tie for 83.

Let me repeat my argument ...

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=44687.0

These rankings matter, and matter a lot.  They shouldn't but ranking do matter, in every walk of our culture.  Rankings are why sites like Angie's list exist.

Yes, kids that walk to school in the snow everyday and get C's grow up to do unbelievable things.  But that is not what the rankings are about.  They are about furthering a schools reputation.

Based on the new directive from the BoT, I suspect MU is taking careful notes on how to do this ... and they should.

[GGGG]

Thanks for the information.  Now we are playing to arbitrary rankings.  You have given me even more evidence for why I have a problem with a number of things Marquette is doing and why, outside of watching its college basketball team, I have no interest in supporting my alma mater. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The RPI model is terrible for determining the best college basketball teams. Why doesn't the committee stop using it?

Both questions have the same answer. Because its how its always been done.

[Tugg Speedman]

The RPI model is terrible for determining the best college basketball teams. Why doesn't the committee stop using it?

Both questions have the same answer. Because its how its always been done.

+1

Look at all the threads about the rankings of recruits.  And where do these rankings come from?  Why so-called experts literally guess!!!

So why do we obsess over them?

[brandx]

Same old, same old.

Hustlers are everywhere. The ones at universities and corpoerations are just smarter and have better lawyers than street hustlers. Same moral values, though.

I am shocked, however, that those with the power and money try to manipulate the system.

[forgetful]

Same old, same old.

Hustlers are everywhere. The ones at universities and corpoerations are just smarter and have better lawyers than street hustlers. Same moral values, though.

I am shocked, however, that those with the power and money try to manipulate the system.

Are you sure they are smarter.  They have more money and more power and better attorney, but I would argue are definitely not smarter.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Because monopolists tend to act like monopolists, whether in corporate America or academia.

[rocket surgeon]

Thanks for the information.  Now we are playing to arbitrary rankings.  You have given me even more evidence for why I have a problem with a number of things Marquette is doing and why, outside of watching its college basketball team, I have no interest in supporting my alma mater. 

+++1  and to further expand on a previous quote of yours-"to purposely manipulate the rankings for the sake of rankings is foolish"  i would like to add, "immoral".  i guess, coming from a jesuit/roman catholic institution, imho, is unacceptable.  unrealistic?  probably, but practice what ya preach and let your product speak for itself?  whatever happened to-do the right thing and then, do the next right thing.  lots of funny chit happens when humans/money gets involved

[GGGG]

Well stated rocket.

Really it comes down to the question...what is the purpose for Marquette University?  The purpose is to admit, teach, and mold young men and women in the Jesuit tradition.  So when I see strategic objectives like "Move into the top quarter of national universities ranked by U.S. News & World Report," it makes me want to puke.

Just do the former, and the latter will take care of itself.  Become more competitive for students by enlarging your scholarship base.  Attract better faculty by creating more professorships and chairs.  But don't engage in that other crap that schools like Northeastern do.  In other words, don't mess around with the inputs and participate in beauty contests for the sake of rankings. 

[Tugg Speedman]

+++1  and to further expand on a previous quote of yours-"to purposely manipulate the rankings for the sake of rankings is foolish"  i would like to add, "immoral".  i guess, coming from a jesuit/roman catholic institution, imho, is unacceptable.  unrealistic?  probably, but practice what ya preach and let your product speak for itself?  whatever happened to-do the right thing and then, do the next right thing.  lots of funny chit happens when humans/money gets involved

In the article above they cite the following schools that have manipulated their rankings.

Northeastern
Bucknell
Claremont McKenna College
Emory
George Washington
Clemson

So these are all immoral schools

Since Northeastern, Emory, GW and Clemson are rated higher than MU.  Are you saying they cheated and it worked as they all now have all better rankings than MU and do not deserve it?

--------

Here's the bottom line, you can be naive and pretend this ranking doesn't matter ... and you would be wrong.  It matters, and it matters a lot.  I agree it should not matter but it does.  That is what the article above says, (it should not matter but it does).

So, what should MU do about their ranking?  Some, like me argue, they should "do they right thing" and present the school in the best possible light and do what they can to improve their ranking because it is that important to the University.  That DOES NOT, repeat DOES NOT, include lying and presenting false data like the schools above did.  Certainly their are things that are not objectionable the MU could do to help improve its ranking.

[Tugg Speedman]

Really it comes down to the question...what is the purpose for Marquette University?  The purpose is to admit, teach, and mold young men and women in the Jesuit tradition.  So when I see strategic objectives like "Move into the top quarter of national universities ranked by U.S. News & World Report," it makes me want to puke.

From the 1890s to the 1930s the University of Chicago was a power house football school.  UofC was a founding member of the Big 10.  Then the University decided it was outside their mission to admit, teach, and mold young men and women.  So they dropped football.

If MU argued the same, that maintaining a national ranked basketball program was outside their mission and looked to Regis or Springhill** as examples and decided to drop basketball, you would support that?

Restated, you're all for MU spending millions to hire experts (Wojo) and build facilities (the AL) to manipulate its ranking in the weekly AP men's top 25 basketball poll.  But you're ready to puke if they decided to do something similar with their US News ranking?  (Note "manipulate"  DOES NOT mean cheat)

** who are Regis and Springhill?  They are fine Jesuit universities that do not have nationally ranked sports programs.

[rocket surgeon]

In the article above they cite the following schools that have manipulated their rankings.

Northeastern
Bucknell
Claremont McKenna College
Emory
George Washington
Clemson

So these are all immoral schools



Since Northeastern, Emory, GW and Clemson are rated higher than MU.  Are you saying they cheated and it worked as they all now have all better rankings than MU and do not deserve it?

--------

Here's the bottom line, you can be naive and pretend this ranking doesn't matter ... and you would be wrong.  It matters, and it matters a lot.  I agree it should not matter but it does.  That is what the article above says, (it should not matter but it does).

So, what should MU do about their ranking?  Some, like me argue, they should "do they right thing" and present the school in the best possible light and do what they can to improve their ranking because it is that important to the University.  That DOES NOT, repeat DOES NOT, include lying and presenting false data like the schools above did.  Certainly their are things that are not objectionable the MU could do to help improve its ranking.

i could relate a story to you to illustrate my "immoral" point to you re: one of mu's nationally ranked graduate schools that is on going as we speak.  i will not name the school due to it's ongoing status and my intent is not to libel anyone.    basically, the rules are only rules whether or not you have money or have or are contributing to the university. oh, and if a parent is working for said school.  both students should have been dismissed.  one was, the other is pending. the pending student's outcome is to be determined by $$$ and subsequent grades on some re-education and tests.  i'm sure we could find many stories like this in many other schools and or real life institutions that use, as a basis, a "higher moral value" but my point is as stated above.

  once you involve money and people, funny chit happens.  yes, rankings do matter, but we have a real sticky wicket here if ya know what i mean. i personally believe in "word of mouth" and let the rest fall where it may.    that's probably a very naive view re: large institutions, but has worked in my 2nd generation business for over 50 years.  both of us marquette alumni. maybe there should be a competing, alternative form of ranking schools using other criteria than us. news and business?  i don't really have an asnwer, but just saying   

[ChicosBailBonds]

I tend to agree with Berg here.

Academics bemoan these rankings, but out of the other side of their mouth they want to tout them.  The general public has neither the expertise nor the time to waste on getting information.  US News provides them a shortcut to do so.  We can argue until we are blue in the face if the rankings are accurate, influenced, piece of crap, whatever....but they are used by people.  Likely far more than other, more academic ranking systems.

Schools can't wait to use them on their websites, their marketing materials, etc.  They would be stupid not to use them.

The other part of this argument is you have different constituencies as alumni.  I've found MU to be in an odd situation.  There are many schools out there that are ok, nothing great, they get tier 2 students, crank them out, etc.  Then there are the upper crest schools that have the best of the best, their alumni donate millions, the networking means something, etc.  MU, a bit of both.  Some outstanding students while also admitting more risk based that would not be admitted at a top school.  Some will argue that is part of MU's mission.  Others will argue it keeps MU's degree value surpressed and a school like MU is going to need to rely on giving more than ever with gov't cutbacks.  Who is more likely to donate in the future, top students that earn top jobs and top $$$$ or riskier students that probably don't?

Those are some of the realities that MU, IMO, has to deal with.  USC went through this in the 1980's and 1990's, where they had a broad range of students.  Now, they are a top 25 school, very difficult to get into, and rolling in $$$ right now.  We can argue about morality, but they have positioned themselves to be relevant and to be around in the next 50 to 100 years.  MU has an obligation to be relevant and to be around, and that may mean the mission changes and the strategy shifts.

[GGGG]

From the 1890s to the 1930s the University of Chicago was a power house football school.  UofC was a founding member of the Big 10.  Then the University decided it was outside their mission to admit, teach, and mold young men and women.  So they dropped football.

If MU argued the same, that maintaining a national ranked basketball program was outside their mission and looked to Regis or Springhill** as examples and decided to drop basketball, you would support that?

Restated, you're all for MU spending millions to hire experts (Wojo) and build facilities (the AL) to manipulate its ranking in the weekly AP men's top 25 basketball poll.  But you're ready to puke if they decided to do something similar with their US News ranking?  (Note "manipulate"  DOES NOT mean cheat)

Its not the same.  Marquette doesn't have a goal to move up the AP poll.  They have a goal to win basketball games and the results follow.

And Marquette's basketball team is a marketing expense for the University.

[MU82]

Marquette is No. 1!!

We don't need no stinkin' magazine rankings!!!!

[forgetful]

If the consumer public didn't want rankings like this, then they wouldn't buy the magazine or look at it when they are making college decisions.

The fact of the matter is, people want some kind of ranking so that they can be sure they are making a good decision. 

The problem with any ranking is that people are going to lie and cheat to get to the top of it.  Colleges aren't run by academics anymore, the vast majority of them are essentially run by big business so you are going to see the same tactics business uses to improve the bottom line…including deception and manipulation.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The RPI model is terrible for determining the best college basketball teams. Why doesn't the committee stop using it?

Both questions have the same answer. Because its how its always been done.

Not terrible, but certainly flawed....like all ranking systems.  Every one of them has issues.  The reason the RPI is used is because the RPI is owned and created by the NCAA.  It wasn't always used.

[GGGG]

The fact of the matter is, people want some kind of ranking so that they can be sure they are making a good decision. 

A magazine ranking is close to the last thing you should care about when making the decision about a college.

[Tugg Speedman]

A magazine ranking is close to the last thing you should care about when making the decision about a college.

Agreed but reality is a majority of High School kids are heavily influenced by this magazine's rankings?  So what should a University do?  Pretend it does not exist and suffer the consequences should your ranking fall or try and manage the process?



 

[GOO]

Agreed but reality is a majority of High School kids are heavily influenced by this magazine's rankings?  So what should a University do?  Pretend it does not exist and suffer the consequences should your ranking fall or try and manage the process?

Exactly, it is there and you have to deal with it.  To ignore it would be imprudent. If we were ranked 150, a lot of current students would not have applied and would not be showing up and paying big $.  Just the way it is.

MU better pay attention to marketing and this is a large piece of it.  This ranking, right or wrong, has to be one of the top 3 marketing issues that need to be addressed yearly.  To the extent that the school can cost effectively keep or increase its ranking, without compromising its values and education process, it has to be considered as part of the marketing budget/expense. 

Too important to ignore. Part of doing business currently.  We had better have this as an important issue that the President on down addresses ongoing. 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Exactly, it is there and you have to deal with it.  To ignore it would be imprudent. If we were ranked 150, a lot of current students would not have applied and would not be showing up and paying big $.  Just the way it is.

MU better pay attention to marketing and this is a large piece of it.  This ranking, right or wrong, has to be one of the top 3 marketing issues that need to be addressed yearly.  To the extent that the school can cost effectively keep or increase its ranking, without compromising its values and education process, it has to be considered as part of the marketing budget/expense. 

Too important to ignore. Part of doing business currently.  We had better have this as an important issue that the President on down addresses ongoing. 

Yes and no.

You have to look at the rankings because prospective customers (students) look at the rankings. It's like consumer reports.

However, the rankings aren't really a good indication of the actual product, so chasing the ratings is not likely to make MU a "better" product. MU might be better served to produce the best product it can, and then let the ratings eventually follow.

[Lennys Tap]

Yes and no.

You have to look at the rankings because prospective customers (students) look at the rankings. It's like consumer reports.

However, the rankings aren't really a good indication of the actual product, so chasing the ratings is not likely to make MU a "better" product. MU might be better served to produce the best product it can, and then let the ratings eventually follow.

In other words, choose substance over form, beer over foam. I'm on board.