The soon-to-be delivered Duke Magazine provides a worthy read concerning academic rankings . . . and especially Duke’s attitudes concerning them. Given the time devoted to ceaseless debate of multiple topics centering on higher educational ratings (U S News and many others), this article may merit your time-investment.
I read this as soon as I received the alumni email and it was certainly a worthwhile meet. One thing that was particularly interesting is just how some schools game the rankings:
“…And there’s the tale of the flipping dollars: One school reportedly sent a dollar bill to each of its alumni and asked them to send it back, so the school would register a high percentage of alumni support.”
I’ve heard of schools enticing students to apply in order to reject them and look more selective but the alumni donations scheme is certainly a new low for me. How do alums feel about such a method? And what is USNWR doing to prevent such gaming of the rankings? It’s akin to law schools hiring their own students as full/temp workers in order to receive higher ratings in the law rankings.
@Jwest22: I, too, was struck by that example, as well as by the several others cited in that section in the article. One thing I have learned about “report cards” of all types, not just academic rankings,(and especially those that are quantitative and, therefore, allegedly “scientific”) is people will understand their basis and will often manipulate the result(s) to achieve enhanced scores – but with no real, substantive improvement(s).
To illustrate, there’s a very fine LAC in Pennsylvania that I hold in high esteem. I knew its President. In order to boost ranking (especially U S News’), he instituted an admissions policy where many “good” applicants would be accepted, but some “excellent” ones would be purposefully denied, only because the “good” candidates would be so thrilled to be admitted that they would matriculate in large numbers, whereas the better candidates (many of whom viewed this LAC as an outstanding “safety school”) would go elsewhere. In essence, this plan markedly increased yield, but intentionally admitted less qualified (although still good) students. I found that to be appalling and, of course, it’s only one example of this sort of “gamesmanship.”
The core problem is an over-fixation on ranking and their importance. As bad as this is domestically, I perceive this lamentable trend becoming even worse as more internationals apply to US universities and LACs. It is really difficult for many of these students – and their families – to visit the US and to gain a deep understanding of the an institution’s “culture” and “individual fit.” We frequently observe this in CC thread that state, “How can I be admitted to any Ivy?” (etc., etc.)? Columbia and Dartmouth are both SUPERB schools, but their cultures, communities, and so forth greatly differ. However, they are monolithically perceived, in large part because both are highly ranked and both are Ivies.
I can imagine no real solution this problem, as long as students, parents, GCs, and secondary schools (over) emphasize status, stature, and personal aggrandizement.