Tidbits from College Unranked

[SV2]

<p>The book, College Unranked has come up on several other threads previously. It is a collection of essays written by college admissions deans, college presidents, and secondary school college counselors that speak critically of the rankings-driven, over-commercialized process that is the college admissions crisis today in which colleges, media, and The College Board all collude.</p>

<p>I’ve now read the book and thought I would post some of the tidbits that caught my eye:</p>

<p>

William Shain. Unforutunately, the problem is compounded by the practice of bond-raters for institutional borrowing to rely heavily on freshman admissions statistics, using the Ivy League as a prototype.

</p>

<p>

Sean Callaway. The economic dynamics that drive institutional competitiveness are not going to go away because we wish it to. Economics are not going to permit the overthrow of enrollment management. Clearly there is a legitimate and necessary ranking system for colleges and universities – Moody’s Bond Ratings. And that ranking system does pay attention to the number of applications, denial rates, and yield rates as part of its analysis. Lie to Moody’s and you will pay.

</p>

<p>

Paul Marthers. The biggest tease letters go out in “the search,” to PSAT, PLAN, or ACT takers with high scores and high grades. Prospective students and their parents probably do not realize that many colleges, Reed among them, sometimes contract out the writing of the search letter to direct mail firms skilled at crafting catchy phrases.

</p>

<p>

Ted O’Neill. However, the event that stands out as different, as too much, as a turning point, was the moment when the [College] Board made a tactical error, at the meeting those of us present will never forget, when Gaston Caperton announced that we had amassed a surplus of $100 million and then led us off to the top of the World Trade Center to have a party. […] After checking out the views from Windows on the World, word came down that the College Board, the membership organization, would also be a for-profit company, collegeboard.com. […] In short the Board seemed more and more to be about marketing and revenue generating, for a time boldly as a dot.com, but still unrelentingly as a not-for-profit. […] There is no longer a dot com. Does that mean that marketing efforts have subsided? Every time there is a new Board forum, national or regional (and now, with the overwhelming Board presence – short-lived, one hopes – selling goods through NACAC “panels”), new schemes emerge for the selling of more things. A plan to offer lists of students who should be taking APs but who are not, with more rebates built in for schools with more test takers; an “AP diploma” that would pretend to rival a rigorous and coherent curriculum like the IB (more tests sold); and who knows what next? Just today, an announcement arrived, ill-worded and ill-conceived, that the College Board is “rolling out a new brand and is branding – is branding – is branding.” Is this education? Is this English?

</p>

<p>

Lloyd Thacker. Another story about commercialism’s "cultural’ influence via sports involves a high school coach’s involvement in ensuring the NCAA academic eligibility of his star running back. Concerned about this athlete’s very low PSAT scores, the coach arranged to proctor an individually administered SAT. A 310 point score increase was achieved! However, College Board policy prohibits coaches from proctoring tests. So the coach asked the high school counselor to sign, indicating that the test was proctored legitimately by the counselor. When the counselor declined, the high school prinicipal got involved and somehow smoothed the waters with the College Board.

</p>

[mol10e]

<p>Is there a point you are trying to make here?</p>

[White_Materia]

<p>mol, </p>

<p>This is a discussion board, and the topic he posted is about the college admissions game being overcommercialized, marketing-driven - a status industry. So I think the point is for you to discuss. </p>

<p>I do agree with what was said about College Board. My personal opinion is that they are a money-making monopoly. I don’t believe the SATs are a good indicator of academic performance. I give that role to GPA, courses, and grades. A school that really wants to be “selective” on the quality of the a student body shouldn’t put in too much emphasis on a 3+ hour long exam. One whose measure of academic quality relies on test prep books, tutors, and courses. That’s not rating student quality, it’s rating a parent’s ability to pay for such things. </p>

<p>I do think that college rankings like US News hurt the college admissions process more than help it. Alot of schools are forced into being pit against each other and as a result student applicants are being forced into being pit against each other as well.</p>

[SV2]

<p>mol10e -</p>

<p>No particular point. This book has been brought up before - it presents some insights and anecdotes from the pens of “insiders” that I haven’t often seen. I thought that CC readers might find the quotes intriguing, read the book, and as informed consumers exert some pressure toward the producers and sellers to make the college admissions process more student-friendly and less crazy; that colleges would decide to eliminate all early decision programs and would divert funds toward education that are now being used for marketing to students (thousands of dollars per enrolled student) and other college presidents (so that their peer assessment scores with USN&WR are high); that USN&WR would develop more meaningful, nuanced assessments of the quality of colleges; that the College Board would focus less on sales and lower their fees; and that students and parents could get off the admissions treadmill and take a walk in the woods, enjoying each others’ company while they still have a chance. That’s all.</p>