<p>
</p>
<p>In order to avoid the same fate as his old buddy from MIT, Thacker might start correcting erroneous introductions. </p>
<p>Of course, his profesional background is hardly relevant. What is, however, more relevant would be to see some evidence of the “research” done by EC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That guy is amazing.</p>
<p>Maybe Thacker will be the next news story in the admission world. He was slated to share a speaking engagement with Marilee Jones in September 2007, although I think she is no longer expected to appear there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, lest anyone think this kind of data is simple to put together, these offices are laboring under a number of different requests of these types, with data needing to be parsed different ways according to the requestee. And although the CDS was supposed to be the document that, once compiled, would make it easy to fill out the USNews survey, that is no longer the case. The USNews survey has grown to be a real bear–dozens of pages and hundreds of items. Only about half the items on it can be filled out using the data gathered for the CDS.</p>
<p>
That’s true about response rates to NSSE. However, I think it’s important to remember that it’s not really an “opinion” survey. A number of the NSSE questions aren’t prone to this kind of ambiguity. Students are asked to report the frequency of certain behaviors, not how happy they are with the place.</p>
<p>I don’t get the “bury their enemies” idea that comes up here (not just in the above post, but earlier, too). I guess there are academic rivalries out there, but this implies a kind of cutthroat viciousness that it’s hard for me to imagine. The worst you can do is give your “enemy” a 1 instead of a 5. That’s hardly burying them when you’re one of hundreds who are rating that school. </p>
<p>
I don’t think you should be so puzzled or confused over its acceptance. Anonymity/confidentiality is not a concept unique to the USNews reputational survey; it is frequently found in survey research and in some cases is considered a near requirement for honesty and validity, if not for meeting human subjects research protocols. </p>
<p>Many of the statistics you may read in the news regarding people’s feelings, behaviors, attitudes, and lifestyles were obtained using survey research under which respondents’ confidentiality was guaranteed. Marketing, business, and public policy decisions are based on exactly this kind of research. Now, I’m not equating Synovate with the best of the survey research organizations (I don’t know Synovate), but I’m saying that anonymity is not considered by most people to be an indicator for suspicion or outrage.</p>
<p>There has been suspicion cast on the PA results before, but it wasn’t for their anonymity.</p>
<p>Actually, the total number of schools that signed the petition has grown to 64, including a couple of schools that are … ranked by USNews.</p>
<p>Here’s the latest list of the rebels.</p>
<p>Albright College
Alma College
Augusta State University
Aurora University
Austin College
Berea College
Bethany College
Birmingham-Southern College
Coe College
College of Santa Fe
College of the Holy Cross
College of the Southwest
Denison University
Dickinson College
Drew University
Earlham College
Eckerd College
Franklin Pierce College
Furman University
Gordon College
Goucher College
Hampden-Sydney College
Hampshire College
Hardin-Simmons University
Hendrix College
Heritage University
Hiram College
Kenyon College
Kutztown University
Lafayette College
Lake Forest College
Luther College
Marlboro College
McDaniel College
Missouri Baptist University
Moravian College
Muhlenberg College
Naropa University
Norfolk State University
Northwest Missouri State University
Northwestern College (MN)
Ohio Wesleyan University
Paul Smiths College
Philander Smith College
Presbyterian College
Ripon College
Saint Mary’s College of California
San Francisco State University
Shimer College, Chicago
Southwestern University
St. John’s College (Annapolis)
St. John’s College (Santa Fe)
Sweet Briar College
Trinity (D.C.) University
Trinity College (CT)
Unity College (ME)
University of Illinois at Chicago
University of Wisconsin-Superior
Ursinus College
Washington and Jefferson College
Washington College
Wesleyan College
Wheelock College
Wittenberg University</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thacker has been reported to be quite a “punster” as he loves to refer to the USNews as ranksters --probably because of the similarity with gangsters. I’ll wager that he might learn a few new puns, including a few for himself. There is no coincidence that he was the first in jumping to the defense of Marilee Jones and finding excuses and justifications for her charades. </p>
<p>Despite being a convenient for-hire mouthpiece for the colleges that are supporting his campaign for LESS transparency, Thacker’s day of reckoning will come sooner or later. While people are willing to forgive the hypocrisy of fighting the commercialization of the admission process while sitting in an office paid by Collegenet, Inc. (the same benefactor from which Thacker received his starting money,) they will be less charitable with the continuing absence of meaningful ideas that defend the interests of the … students and families.</p>
<p>
This is what bugs me, too. O.K., USNews rankings aren’t perfect. So now what? I personally think the peer assessment is a crock. But I still value the transparency of the other data used to prepare the rankings all conveniently located in one place. The actual ranking an individual college is assigned isn’t all that interesting to me.</p>
<p>if a college boycotts the usnr solicitation of data, can they still be meaningfully reported and - or ranked, on that list?</p>
<p>I believe I saw somewhere on this monster thread that those colleges boycotting would have reside in a NA/NRpted category, true?</p>
<p>^ U. S. News seems to take this case-by-case: Reed has provided no data for years, but U. S. News feels that they can get sufficient data from other sources (mainly Reed’s own web site), so they continue to be ranked. Sarah Lawrence declined to furnish SAT scores, since they stopped accepting them as part of the admissions process, and U. S. News moved them to unranked, considering this hole “unpluggable.” Many schools get footnotes to one or more datapoints, saying that the information has been furnished from some nontraditional, incomplete, or outdated source.</p>
<p>BTW, none of the boycotting institutions are refusing to supply data to U. S. News ala Reed. They simply won’t fill out the peer assessment.</p>
<p>Idic, the colleges that were --and many more that should have been-- unranked are schools that are missing or refuse to disclose key admission data. Sarah Lawrence was “demoted” because they no longer require or USE the SAT, and refused to allow USNews to extrapolate it via an acceptable scientific method. </p>
<p>On the other hand, for all its brouhaha, the rebels led by Lloyd ended up with a petition that is NOT a refusal to provide data or participate in the OVERALL ranking exercise. As much as Lloyd decries the commercialization of the admission process and pretends to clamor for additional transparency, the letter he --apparently-- prepared contains a toothless attack of the Peer Assessment and a rather hollow promise not to use the results of the rankings in promotional material. The sad reality is that the schools that “endorsed” the EC are probably as confused as any observer of Lloyd’s outfit are about the direction of the Portland operation. Thacker’s messages are dense, filled with generalities, and simply stated never mask his complete lack of understanding of the issues THAT MATTER, and the linits of his experience as a small time high school counselor. In fact, one of the first articles that described his “rise” was titled, “The education of LLoyd Thacker.” And learning he has to do! Every once in a while, like a mad dog barking at every passing car, he’ll hit onto something that makes sense. After all, how hard is it to find something --anything-- wrong with the current system. </p>
<p>To make things worse, one has to understand where Thacker obtained his funding and original support: from the very same parties RESPONSIBLE for all the malaise. How does an outfit such as Collegenet, Inc. help the students? Who is responsible for the misleading information on college admissions? The organization that create and implement the policies or the … press that merely reports their results? </p>
<p>And there resides the blatant hypocrisy of Thacker and his small outfit. He is PAID by colleges and a few foundations to broadcast the position of the schools. Hence, the calls for LESS transparency and the calls for allowing the “educators” to be responsible for the appraisals of their successess and failures. Are we supposed to trust a bunch of people who do not feel it necessary to simply publish their CDS forms … as a first step? Are we supposed to trust Thacker and the groups of educators who meet behind closed doors and do not find offensive to keep their own “formulas” hidden from the public? Why are the COFHE surveys never released? Why are the Profile formulas kept secret while the US government finds a way to detail them to the penny. </p>
<p>In the end, Thacker is simply advocating for the return of the good ol’ days. The good ol’ days when small time guidance counselors like him worked through a small network of buddies, kept the “secret” information behind the doors of their dusty offices, and met a couple of times every decade to keep up with the “progress.” Thacker and his duplicitous supporters are hopelessly trying to revive a time when people did not have access to computers and could apparently not analyze information without a … counselor who was in the “know.” </p>
<p>To their dismay, students and families, WANT the information in its purest and rawest form … not in a distilled way. They do not want a GC a la Thacker who is hopelessly stuck in the past century and knows a lot less than a sixteen year armed with an internet connection.</p>
<p>Ohh yes, the “genius” does get standing ovation at the NACAC, as this reflects the state of mind of the people who are SUPPOSED to help students and families staying abreast of the evolution in admissions. Of course, this group does applaud a return to “normalcy,” or a time when the one-eyed and half-deaf could lead the blind! </p>
<p>Pffft!</p>
<p>The LAC’s typically do a bad job of publishing career placement and other such info. What are they hiding?</p>
<p>Actually, A LOT of them publish six-month employment data on “job in one’s field”, or “satisfaction with current job”, together with data on graduate school placements. </p>
<p>Try to find similar data on “liberal arts majors” separated out at the big universities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Could it be because they lack the cheap labor force for such projects? For the record, Barrons, I am surprised you’d even read anything produced by the typical LAC’s.</p>
<p>I tried to find it for an older thread on the same topic. Slim pickings. It seems a few student interns on work-study could do most of the work. It’s hardly rocket science to do a survey and some follow-up on a few hundred grads. A nice resume padding project to boot.</p>
<p>No the big schools don’t do a greatr job either but at least they do have details on the more pre-professional majors such as engineering, business and the like. The complications of size impact this for the big schools. At least they post recruiting schedules and the like so you have some idea.</p>
<p>My d’s school and my alma mater both post recruiting schedules and the like. Both do six-month follow-up studies, and graduate school entrance studies.</p>
<p>xiggi said–</p>
<p>Why are the Profile formulas kept secret while the US government finds a way to detail them to the penny. </p>
<p>do you mean that the public schools expose their admission formulas, but the privates do not?</p>
<p>and - great post. yes, this is the internet age. we don’t buy a car the way we used to since we all have the dealer cost info to keep 'em honest. NOWADAYS, savvy buyers START at dealer cost and go up from there, instead of starting from the STICKER and going down as we did in the pre-internet / info savvy days.</p>
<p>i have been wanting to express this metaphor as I wade thru the muck of the college search process.</p>
<p>paying for college seems to me quite like buying a car from a dealer, in the OLD WAY! The school is in the ‘driver’s seat’ and starts from the sticker price. </p>
<p>the next level of info that I want, that I need, and that expect, is to know the ‘unit cost’ of the student at college X. then we can go from there. </p>
<p>also, even tho i liked xiggi’s defense of the uwnw, </p>
<p>I do not like the peer assessment portion of the usnw precisely because it is NOT good solid info but subjective. the c presidents probably have some sort of old boy’s nw too where they give each other a good plug.</p>
<p>I have to admit, also, ranking something that is so different for different people might be problematic. i agree - keep the data raw as possible and let the consumers sort or prioritize or rank each factor as they see fit. no way is havard or williams number one, for example, for a guy who is big in the culinary arts.</p>
<p>i saw that the wa monthly did this online and, while I liked the intent, I disagreed with their assumptions on what is important.</p>
<p><a href=“xiggi:”>quote</a></p>
<p>Thacker has been reported to be quite a “punster” as he loves to refer to the USNews as ranksters --probably because of the similarity with gangsters. I’ll wager that he might learn a few new puns, including a few for himself.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Rankmaster L T must be rankled to know that even the qualitative data available freely on internet, most often on the universities’ own web sites, can be aggregated and churned into rankings. Search engine hits, citation counts, news article references, the list is endless. Common Data Sets just add to the pile.</p>
<p>It is beyond stupid to bravely raise a 60-school finger to plug one particular dike, when the ocean levels are rising and rising…</p>
<p>^I’m pretty sure the rankmeister would be tickled pink to have USNews’ influence over the public imagination thoroughly diluted by more aggregations. they’re already out there: laissez-faire, The Washington Monthly poll, etc…</p>
<p>The aggregations that try to measure the same things as US News (selectivity as in the laissez-faire rankings; relative yield as in the Revealed Preference rankings; “quality” as in Princeton Review or Gourman Report) all come out with very similar lists. </p>
<p>Whatever of value is published by Rankmaster Lloyd and his crew can just be plugged in as a component of the US News or other rating schemes. They will, in effect, increase the credibility and unanimity of the US News and other numerical rankings, and thus reduce the room for arguing with the results. A school that is low in the rankings will find it harder and harder to climb out, thanks in part to this anti-USNews crusade.</p>
<p><a href=“hoedown:”>quote</a> </p>
<p>I don’t get the “bury their enemies” idea that comes up here (not just in the above post, but earlier, too). I guess there are academic rivalries out there, but this implies a kind of cutthroat viciousness that it’s hard for me to imagine. The worst you can do is give your “enemy” a 1 instead of a 5. That’s hardly burying them when you’re one of hundreds who are rating that school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That “problem” can be also be cleaned up by more sophisticated number crunching. It is hardly the strongest objection to the Peer Assessment.</p>
<p>Letting go of peer assessment would shake up USNews more than any additional bell or whistle.</p>