Ranking Rigging at USC?

Roger_Dooley · 06-08-2009, 08:31 AM

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

tenisghs · 06-08-2009, 08:57 AM

Congrats, Sam Lee, for alerting the news media about rankings rigging at USC!

NealJ2K · 06-08-2009, 11:11 AM

Yay for CC!

Sezon · 06-08-2009, 12:00 PM

Bad publicity is good publicity. Great for College Confidential.

derek328 · 06-08-2009, 12:24 PM

^ I think the saying goes "Any publicity is good publicity", as opposed to "bad"?
good job Sam, the CC community is proud of ya! XD

endlessrecession · 06-08-2009, 01:08 PM

After reading the article, I sort of see both sides to this argument. Essentially they are arguing whether a faculty member must be full time tenure track in order "to count" in the Academy numbers submitted by USC. I recognize that significant CEO's who are adjuncts do indeed play a huge role at any institution and add significantly to the school's mission and experience for students. Its sort of splitting hairs. But yes, it does appear that USC was stretching the terminology a bit to enhance their reputation with USNWR.

It just goes to show you, that rankings are not really much of anything but another beauty pageant. And the extent to which some "contestants" will go to win it.

Mr Payne · 06-08-2009, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Its sort of splitting hairs.

No, it's not. If other schools are *not* counting similarly credentialed people then USC needs to stop.

sfgiants · 06-08-2009, 02:22 PM

While they are at it, they should also investigate UC's figures of percentage of incoming class in the top 10% for the undergrad rankings. UC Davis reports 95 percent, UCSB 96, and UC Irvine 96. By comparison Harvard reports 95 percent, Stanford 91 and Vanderbilt 80. (I am quoting harvardgator in this post: http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...8-post252.html Evidently, the figures are all estimates that UC Administrators make and are not based on hard data. Clearly they are rounding up significantly.

Columbia_Student · 06-08-2009, 02:55 PM

According to Sam Lee, other schools sent US News higher numbers than what are given on NAE website.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Lee

USC probably isn't the only school that does that. I found that Maryland and UCLA sent US News higher numbers than what are given on NAE website.

ag54 · 06-08-2009, 03:26 PM

Also pretty disturbing to read the attached articles regarding the manipulation of numbers going on at Clemson U. I'm sure they aren't alone in this practice either.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/03/rankings

Quote:

When President James F. Barker took over the South Carolina institution in 2001, he vowed in his initial interview to move Clemson into the top 20 (a distinction that many research universities covet, but few can achieve, given that most of those already in the top 20 aren't eager to relinquish their spots). Although many people on the campus were skeptical, Clemson has pursued the goal almost single-mindedly, seeking to "affect -- I'm hesitating to use the word 'manipulate,' " Watt said -- "every possible indicator to the greatest extent possible." She added: "It is the thing around which almost everything revolves for the president’s office."

Quote:

And to actual gasps from some members of the audience, Watt said that Clemson officials, in filling out the reputational survey form for presidents, rate "all programs other than Clemson below average," to make the university look better. "And I'm confident my president is not the only one who does that," Watt said.

I wonder if she's currently working on her resume?

rc251 · 06-08-2009, 04:07 PM

Evidently, the figures are all estimates that UC Administrators make and are not based on hard data. Clearly they are rounding up significantly.

harvardgator's accusations weren't based on "hard data' either, and I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that "clearly" they are rounding up. In fact, harvardgator backtracked in post #260, now instead claiming that the mid tier UCs should be ranked lower because those top 10% rankings are skewed because they include students from low performing high schools (in essence confirming that those figures are actually accurate).

Reddune · 06-08-2009, 05:31 PM

I applaud Sam for speaking out. Good luck transferring out of USC. The dean is going to make your life miserable.

bluebayou · 06-08-2009, 06:31 PM

Not sure why this is a surprise. IMO, ANY school that fails to publish its common data set has to have something to hide. (And, USC does not make its cds public.)

sfgiants · 06-08-2009, 07:18 PM

Quote:

harvardgator's accusations weren't based on "hard data' either, and I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that "clearly" they are rounding up. In fact, harvardgator backtracked in post #260, now instead claiming that the mid tier UCs should be ranked lower because those top 10% rankings are skewed because they include students from low performing high schools (in essence confirming that those figures are actually accurate).

I don't have access to the current rankings, but I did in the past and I remember laughing out loud at the top 10% numbers at UC Riverside. You need a 3.0 and a pulse to get into the school.. "Historically, UCR has accepted all students who qualify for admission to the UC system based on grade-point average and scores on college-entrance exams unlike the more selective campuses such as Berkeley, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and Irvine. About 4,100 UC-eligible students who were not offered admission to their campus of choice were referred to UCR and UC Merced, the system's newest campus." Link: UC system fall '07 freshman admission numbers up | Riverside | PE.com | Southern California News | News for Inland Southern California

As I understand it, the numbers are not based on any sort of hard data, the top 10% numbers are simply "estimates" by administrators. There is a strong incentive for these administrators to simply make up really high numbers for top 10% in class, as there is no accountability whatsoever.

FindAPlace · 06-08-2009, 07:21 PM

Perhaps these and similar threads should be titled "Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics, Volume 1, 2, 3 .....