Clemson--Gaming US News Ranking

bclintonk
Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:19:52 +0000

gadad:

if Clemson is truly seeking to enhance all the criteria upon which rankings are based - e.g. student selectivity, faculty-student ratios, per-student expenditures, etc. - they are, in fact, becoming a better university in the process.



I think you’re missing the point. Schools can increase their selectivity scores as measured by US News without actually increasing their selectivity. Really increasing your selectivity is hard. Improving your selectivity score is easier. Two obvious methods: 1) Go SAT-optional. Only the top SAT-scorers will report their scores. The school’s reported 25th-75th percentile SAT scores will go up, even if they’re admitting exactly the same applicants. 2) Reduce the size of the entering freshman class so as to actually increase selectivity (and derivatively, reported selectivity stats) for the entering freshman class, and make up for the lost revenue by filling the empty chairs with transfer students whose SAT scores and other stats will go unreported on US News (because it measures only enrolled freshman stats). Reported selectivity will rise; the actual selectivity of the freshman class will rise; but the selectivity of the school as a whole—and the strength of its student body—will remain constant or possibly even decline a little. It’s a “costless” move in the sense that it’s revenue-neutral. It will make the school look better in US News. But it won’t make it a better school.

Same for spending-per-student. If a school hikes tuition by 20% and gives the faculty a 20% raise, is that a better school? It could be, if they use the enhanced salaries to attract and retain a stronger faculty. But if the faculty remains the same, is it really a better school just because it spends more? If a school hikes tuition 20% over 2 years and recycles all that additional revenue back into increased financial aid to offset the tuition increase (another revenue-neutral move), the increased financial aid will boost reported “spending-per-student.” But the school will have exactly as much net tuition revenue, the net cost to students will be exactly the same, and no additional resources will be created to go into improving or upgrading educational or other services for students. Yet through the magic of an accounting gimmick, the school will look like it’s spending more per student. Is that a better school? I don’t think so.

It’s all a sham, and the Clemson situation has blown the lid off.