<p>Where’s the quotation from this time? It’s not on the linked page in that form. </p>
<p>After a Google search, I think you meant to link to </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/05/10/mccormick[/url]”>http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/05/10/mccormick</a></p>
<p>Token, thanks for the correct link - that is the one I meant to post. No need to do a google search for it from that page since there is a link to the McCormick article “Hidden in Plain View” in the “related stories” box.</p>
<p>So, now Moravian College joins the ranks of a growing number of small, nationally ranked HEIs who want to pressure USNWR to change and do it right. Although the college’s Institutional Research Office will continue to submit all of the quantitative data for the survey: the Main Statistical Survey, the Financial Aid Survey, as well as the Finance Survey, the college will not participate in the PA Survey. In terms of the battle lines of the boycott movement, Moravian College’s decision puts it in the company of the fence sitters who feel compelled to take a stand on the issue but have no interest to opt out or cut off from the magazine survey. In this case fence sitting does have its advantages because it isn’t an entirely empty gesture -the public announcement and link on the college website is quite a leap from the benevolent collusion and assumption of public trust that merely checking off the “I don’t know” box on the survey gives USNWR. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.moravian.edu/news/releases/2007/049.htm[/url]”>http://www.moravian.edu/news/releases/2007/049.htm</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are there any prominent colleges aside from Reed that have taken a public stand, but are not in the fence-sitting camp? </p>
<p>Another interesting tidbit buried in the Moravian story is that USNews acknowledges that the # of schools providing the PA was only 58% even before the boycott. This figure is lower than they’ve admitted in the past, at least as far as I recall. There are a lot of schools who, without fanfare, have been subscribing to the fence-sitting position for some time.</p>
<p>
Exactly, and I think the Moravian article is so interesting because it really highlights that angle of the boycott story. Of course, compared to Reed’s lone stance all of the colleges participating in the boycott are, in one way or another, fence sitters and even fence straddlers but the whole point is to go beyond a symbolic, empty gesture (re your post 186) and not only embrace the fence sitting position but make it public. The Moravian article is also telling because it does show that the movement is starting to make headway among those smaller third and fourth tier schools that have a stake in being nationally ranked and want to be ranked accurately and fairly - for these colleges joining the boycott at this point might act as a badge of distinction to sell their college. So, it is important to note that within the boycott movement itself, that there are fence sitters and fence straddlers prepared to take a public stand on the issue - the ultimate success of the boycott hangs not just on the prominent colleges that will sign on but on those little underdogs that lack prestige and national recognition and depend on the rankings to get some notice. Again, some of these places will gain quite a bit of notice by signing on, and I suspect many of these fall within the group of colleges and universities, like Moravian, that want to be ranked but also want to make sure that USNWR gets all the facts straight. Last year, a reported 30 percent of the surveys were unreturned, quietly and without fanfare, and we really do not know just how many colleges grudgingly fill out the forms a la NYU or send it in with all the boxes ticked off “I don’t know” a la Williams. What we all do know is that Brian Kelly says that he will consult department chairmen, high school guidance counselors and other reliable sources for data to fill in the gaps. I do think that making the gaps evident is a matter of public trust and that is why I am interested to follow which colleges sign on and their reasons for doing so, like Moravian, leading up to the Annapolis meeting and the other scheduled meetings with prominent IHEs. I also like watching “Underdog” and “Top Cat” reruns.</p>
<p>Good update article in the Baltimore Sun on the lack of consensus and fence sitting as the boycott movement strives to catch-on and reach a “tipping point” - some colleges decline and others decide to “wait and see”:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.boycott12may12,0,5801823.story?coll=bal-local-headlines[/url]”>http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.boycott12may12,0,5801823.story?coll=bal-local-headlines</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Another disappointing detail buried in this story:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/education/bal-te.md.boycott12may12,0,2533197.story?coll=bal-home-headlines[/url]”>http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/education/bal-te.md.boycott12may12,0,2533197.story?coll=bal-home-headlines</a></p>
<p>Two top-20 LACs whose presidents have been outspoken critics of the rankings, Amherst and Colby, are declining to participate in the boycott.</p>
<p>The lack of traction of “the” letter can be traced directly to its originator:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fwiw, it is ironic that the EC does not seem able to convince the schools it so gleefully lists as supporters to participate in the action. The sad reality is that the Education Conservancy is still desperately searching for its first clue. In the past, I have described the group and its leader as dogs barking madly at every car passing by, and unfortunately not much has changed: Lloyd Thacker is simply unable to address the issues correctly and concisely. </p>
<p>Being an outspoken critic of the Peer Assessment of US News, I should also support the EC’s letter. However, the lack of substance and hypocrisy of Thacker and his group are simply too much to swallow. </p>
<p>Parents and students have NOTHING to gain from the existence of this sorry and crooked outfit. Absolutely NOTHING. Schools will soon find out the same!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have expressed a sad truth in a funny turn of phrase.</p>
<p>Given Colby’s president William B. Adams position on the subject of rankings, Colby decision to decline was not at all unexpected.</p>
<p>“Putting College Rankings in Perspective :President Adams discusses the meaning of rankings” from the fall 2006 online edition of the Colby Magazine:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.colby.edu/colby.mag/issues/current/articles.php?issueid=36&articleid=559&dept=fromthehill[/url]”>http://www.colby.edu/colby.mag/issues/current/articles.php?issueid=36&articleid=559&dept=fromthehill</a></p>
<p>Greetings.</p>
<p>I’ve been a college prof for almost 20 years. But I am also a parent who just went through a year-long college selection process with my daughter; so I definitely understand the desire for some “objective data”. I have sympathy for both those who say “A college education is not a product!”, and those who counter “Of course it’s a product–especially at these prices!” So I’m a dual “stakeholder” here.</p>
<p>Many people in this forum and others have referred to the first 12 colleges signing the letter as small, unknown schools. This is simply incorrect. By USNWR’s own system, several are top tier LA colleges.</p>
<p>I think we’ve lost sight of some of the particulars of this issue:</p>
<p>USNWR told Sarah Lawrence they were going to make up a (low) SAT score for them, since SL doesn’t use them at all any more. </p>
<p>The president of Arizona State was told he’d get a salary increase of $10K if their ratings went up.</p>
<p>Many top LA colleges have made SATs optional so that students would self-select whether to submit scores, leading to…Ta da! Higher selectivity! When we did college tours last spring, one top school told students in no uncertain terms that they should only submit their SAT scores if they were at or above the college’s reported median (1300)!</p>
<p>Similarly some top schools have made applying free if you file your application electronically via the Common App. So they get more apps and lower their acceptance rate. </p>
<p>While the rankings have actually led to improvements on many campuses, they’re at least partly responsible for the dramatic increase in college costs. </p>
<p>These 12 presidents are certainty not the only ones expressing GENUINE concerns. As noted earlier, the rankings issue will be an the agenda for The Annapolis Group and at individual campuses around the country. Frankly it would have been a good thing if some folks at the top of the list were amongst the first signatories. (What do Amherst & Williams have to lose by signing? And note that even Sarah Lawrence did NOT sign the letter.) Here are some interesting thoughts from Bard’s president (not an initial signatory) from back in 2001 (UChicago Magazine): School administrators decry the rankings as a ridiculously inaccurate measure of an institution’s quality. Some, like Leon Botstein, president of Bard College, are moved to anger-fueled hyperbole. “It is the most successful journalistic scam I have seen in my entire adult lifetime,” Botstein told the New York Times recently. “A catastrophic fraud. Corrupt, intellectually bankrupt and revolting.” </p>
<p>Hopefully something good (or at least better) will come out of all this.</p>
<p>welcome cadbury!</p>
<p>Do you have any particular documentation to support your claim that rankings are “partly responsible for the dramatic increase in college costs.”?</p>
<p>Obviously, if one of your students made that point without substantiation…</p>
<p>Hi Bluebayou</p>
<p>Point well taken. I should have tempered my remarks here since they are based on miscellaneous informal observations of my own. That said, “IT SEEMS LIKELY that they’re at least partly responsible for the dramatic increase in college costs given the competition to increase one’s standing.” We know that tuition has greatly outpaced inflation. We also know that a school’s ranking plays a role in the college decision process. And we know that schools are “benchmarking”, trying to be as good as college X (which takes $) as indicated by an earlier poster. And finally we know that “resources” (e.g. faculty salaries) are factored into the rankings.</p>
<p>What would you think of a college that had very impressive webpages promoting its science programs, tried to lure students into the sciences with large merit awards, and then you found out that the programs were largely smoke and mirrors? Hundreds of college chemistry programs are accredited by the American Chemical Society, but this college was not accredited. This type of information is not part of the USNWR rankings so this college might have a much higher ranking than reasonable.</p>
<p>By the way some people, myself included, might even consider this issue to be more than false advertising and might even view it as fraud. Leon Botstein of Bard might want to look in his own direction before he points a finger.</p>
<p>Hi edad.</p>
<p>You raise several issues here. First, the college in question is spending a lot of money to promote this new program. Bard is not unique in this regard. Second, SOME might argue that the fact that this important new initiative is not accredited should be reflected in the college’s ranking; BUT IT’S NOT. A limitation of the rankings!</p>
<p>Another informal observation…It is no secret that many LA colleges have far more females than males. It seems (IMHO) that many schools are trying to take steps to address this issue. Bard is spending $ on science programs, and Skidmore is pushing it’s Management program (!). I suspect that these are (expensive) bids AT LEAST PARTLY designed to attract more males as well as to improve/maintain rankings.</p>
<p>College costs (that is, sticker prices) have been rising faster than the general rate of inflation for a long time. They have been doing that since before the first U.S. News listing of colleges. </p>
<p>Welcome, cadbury. As a parent and as someone employed in academe, what data do you suggest should be gathered to inform applicants about reasonable college choices?</p>
<p>Hi tokenadult.</p>
<p>I obviously don’t have any easy answers. To the extent that rankings have introduced competition and internal soul-searching, I think they have had some value for institutions and their students. But I think we’ve moved beyond that to insanity (e.g., administrators being offered big $ for improving their ranking). </p>
<p>Personally, I’d be much happier with the USNWR if they excluded, or dramatically cut the weight of, peer assessment ¶. You & I could probably fill that survey out as well as many college presidents! We know that Amherst and WIlliams are among the most prestigious colleges. (Incidentally I think the PA builds in some double-counting, since reputation is reflected to a certain extent in size of endowment.)</p>
<p>All that said, when using USNWR, PR or whatever, we have to take the info with a grain of salt. And that translates into visiting colleges and asking questions, reading more than Admissions materials (which are almost uniformly wonderful), and thinking about fit as well as reputation/ranking. Even with that, in the final analysis, for many of us it will come down to who can offer our S/D the best financial aid package. I know someone (edad?) has issues with Botstein, but I’m going to quote him again: </p>
<p>Leon Botstein, president of Bard College, says it doesn’t matter where you go to college, only “what you do there.” Botstein says American colleges and universities are among the best in the world. “College is a chance to really make something of yourself,” he says. “And you can do that anywhere, at a state university campus, or in a not well-known, small- or medium-size private institution.” (original source forgotten)</p>
<p>To his credit, he actually stressed this point with parents when I heard him speak last fall. (My D got into Bard; but she is going to Drew.)</p>
<p>The source for that Botstein quote is NPR’s 7-part series on college.</p>
<p>I seem to be the only one still stuck in this conversation! ;-)</p>
<p>Anyway, quick follow-up…</p>
<p>I had suggested that basically anyone could rate the colleges in terms of reputation, but that’s probably only true for USNWR’s top 30-50, depending on how hooked into higher education you are. And even then, a lot depends on your geographic location. Being from New England, I knew very little about high ranked Pomona (CA); and very few people south of metro NYC or west of Philly know much about Bard. I still don’t know what the big deal is about Kenyon College (Ohio) or Lafayette ¶. More to the point, those not going through the college process still don’t know much about ANY of these schools.</p>
<p>After some thought, here’s what I’d see as a better, more useful approach in the USNWR rankings. I’d keep all the individual ratings (including PA), but dump the weights AND tiers. (Washington Monthly includes over 100 additional schools in their “Top LA category” and really shakes up the USNWR’s rankings quite a bit.) </p>
<p>In order for PA to make any sense, I’d break ALL the LA colleges into geographic groupings under the assumption that college presidents would be most knowledgeable about colleges in their area for two reasons: easy access to general college news, and because they are also most likely to be their direct competition. I’d use finer geographic categories then USNWR currently employs in their other rankings. For example, “North” is just too big a category. I’d use New England, Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern to cover the eastern seaboard. Then schools would be listed alphabetically within geographic category, but people could sort on whatever dimension they wanted to including PA. </p>
<p>The methodology description and footnotes would need to be VERY CLEAR of practices like SAT optional (which leads to self-selection and inflated scores), free applications (which increases the denominator in acceptance rates), etc.</p>
<p>This approach would provide the same basic info, but defuse the controversy over the rankings. Of course USNWR would never go for it because they probably think (rightly so?) that the American Idol aspect of the rankings is what keeps the $ rolling in.</p>
<p>Thanks, cadbury, for the specific suggestions. Just to ease data gathering, I might suggest using the existing College Board regions for data-gathering by region. </p>
<p><a href=“College Board - SAT, AP, College Search and Admission Tools”>College Board - SAT, AP, College Search and Admission Tools; </p>
<p>Those regions aren’t quite as fine-grained as what you are suggesting, but they do distinguish New England from the middle Atlantic states.</p>