Many schools try to submit data to rankings groups in a way that make them look best, but USC is being accused of going too far in an article at Inside Higher Ed. And, CC is mentioned in the article as where this particular story began:
Quote:
The problems with USC's submission come days after a Clemson University official disclosed the extent to which she said the university attempts to manipulate the system to improve its rankings, renewing the debate over whether the rankings system encourages and rewards gaming of the system as opposed to sound educational decisions.
Inside Higher Ed was first alerted to the possible problems in the USC figures by postings on the Web site College Confidential, where Sam Lee, a graduate student, suggested that something was wrong with the National Academy membership numbers. Lee noted that USC came out in the No. 7 spot even though its rankings in all of the engineering subfields were lower than that, and he noted that the area that favored USC was National Academy membership -- and suggested that problems with that calculation might be unfairly raising USC's score. So Inside Higher Ed contacted U.S. News to find out how many academy members USC had claimed (30), the definition U.S. News uses (full time, tenure track faculty member), and the person at USC who prepares the report.
|
Ranking rigging, or just putting the best face on the data you have? Read the whole story:
News: More Rankings Rigging - Inside Higher Ed