 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
CarolynLawrence
Administrator
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 3309 |
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Wed Apr 11th, 2007 08:26 pm |
|
From my blog today: College Presidents Asked to Opt Out of Rankings
Reactions? Does anyone think that enough schools will get on the bandwagon to force US News to change the way they do things? How would that affect students? Any other thoughts on how colleges can improve the way they share information with prospective students?
Last edited on Wed Apr 11th, 2007 08:29 pm by CarolynLawrence
|
CalifCarolyn
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 573 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Apr 11th, 2007 08:55 pm |
|
If you are a 'college junkie' you might know to wade through the University Web Sites and discover the University's Common Data set. I found this process frustrating I totally agree with you for stating
" Some colleges currently make their Common Data Set available on their websites, but many do not. If all colleges and universities agreed to make the Common Data Set easily available to prospective students, students would have much of the information they need to make informed decisions, without relying on rankings."
We looked at the US News rankings to obtain the overall data because the majority of schools have the common Data Set hidden deep within their web site (or not available) which made it difficult to tell if their 'typical stats' were within the correct range for my D to realistically look at the school. We wanted to pick schools that were a combination of academic reaches/matches/safeties and eliminate those that would not be challenging enough for her as well. Geographical and Racial Diversity were also big issues and those statistics are well hidden on some college sites too. The rankings had little meaning but the information that we wanted in one easy to read place made magazine a good resource for us.............HOWEVER a publication of Common Data Sets would have worked just as well for our needs.
|
CarolynLawrence
Administrator
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 3309 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Apr 11th, 2007 09:19 pm |
|
Carolyn, I get annoyed when I hear admissions types say they can't possibly stop participating in the US News & World Reports rankings is that they'll lose control over their data. Why can't they just provide the data directly to students? While many schools DO post their CDS somewhere on their website, many don't. And, those that do typically make it pretty hard to find. I don't understand why. I think the underlying issue is not a decision not to participate in a ranking, but to rather decide to provide more transparency in giving information DIRECTLY to students/parents. I feel that way about FA information as well -- you have to really dig to get information on any school's FA website. Why can't they simply say, "here is how many people qualify for aid, here is how many get it, here's what the average FA package looks like..."
Oh wait. That would actually give students some power in the process. The power to compare facts instead of marketing hype.
|
atlantamom
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 7th, 2006 |
| Location: | Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 112 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Apr 11th, 2007 09:40 pm |
|
Am I crazy or isn't some of the more detailed info that is included in the CDS available through the online version of US News? I am almost positive that I have looked at this info for all the schools my daughter is considering and I am rather sure that I was not able to access the common data set for all of these. Carolyn, am I right?
BTW, I agree that the rankings are not very helpful. When we first started looking at schools for my son, I spent time trying to tease apart the information that mattered to him and us. I think Interesteddad was the first person who mentioned the CDS to me and I searched for it from then on.
At the beginning I looked at the peer rating as most important, until I realized that it wasn't a rating by professors, but by administrators. I also finally realized that some of these ratings were based on the "name" value of a school and not on any actual knowledge. That's why I don't like these rankings. I think they are not really useful or even meaningful, except in a very rough way.
|
Chedva
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 575 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Apr 11th, 2007 10:39 pm |
|
| I believe that the data gathering (not necessarily the rankings) done by US News - at least the on-line version - is helpful. Having the CDS on the schools' websites is great once you've identified the schools you're interested in. But how do you first identify them? I used the US News info to find some of the schools we wanted to explore more closely. Of course, I also used the Fiske Guide, but those are cumbersome. I liked being able to scroll down the various lists and get snapshots of schools, comparing them, and then going to guidebooks and websites.
|
CalifCarolyn
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 573 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Apr 11th, 2007 11:22 pm |
|
CarolynLawrence wrote:
Oh wait. That would actually give students some power in the process. The power to compare facts instead of marketing hype.
 so true!
|
mmaah
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 27th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 67 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Apr 11th, 2007 11:49 pm |
|
I think we need some genius (probably some parent on this site) to propose to the protesting group of presidents, that they promote an open site that would allow people to compare and contrast common data set categories in a useful way,
And we need voices from academia and grass roots and reputable media to start exposing the hype, marketing and "enrollment management" techniques that shape the "objective" rankings....Not just on sites for those of us addicted--but on everyday media sites and probably on some outlets like Oprah and John Stewart.
Students and parents and schools do need (and deserve) true descriptive data--and ready access to how "rankings" are created. Even more important is some basic education on how to set up variables for one's "own" rankings among real possibilities.
|
WestrnMom
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Fri May 26th, 2006 |
| Location: | West Coast, USA |
| Posts: | 1213 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Apr 12th, 2007 12:21 am |
|
I couldn't find CDS for most of the schools we were researching, so the US News site became one of the best sources. I also like NCES.ed.gov for information on graduation stats. You can see how many graduate from each school in each major. It lags a few years, but it's still very valuable because it tells you which majors are strong. Graduation rates tell me much more than enrollment information.
The US News rankings are relatively useless because they are based on information that wasn't important to us. I don't care how other people rate services. The data that mattered was all listed in the individual school's pages.
|
CalifCarolyn
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 573 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Apr 12th, 2007 12:33 am |
|
My D and I also used the http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cool/ info although it was comprehensive it did provide a nice snapshot of the schools. It was here that we were able to look at diversity and retention rates whaich was important to us
|
CarolynLawrence
Administrator
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 3309 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Apr 12th, 2007 01:14 am |
|
mmaah wrote: I think we need some genius (probably some parent on this site) to propose to the protesting group of presidents, that they promote an open site that would allow people to compare and contrast common data set categories in a useful way,
I'd be happy to propose this on the NACAC listserv, which is read by many college admissions people. 
|
mmaah
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 27th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 67 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Apr 12th, 2007 02:11 am |
|
You go, girl! (the junior form of the feminine being used here in the colloquial form and with the utmost respect, of course!--just don't let my teens hear me using their slang...)
|
ChicosBailBonds
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 12th, 2007 03:15 am |
|
Allow me to be the contrarian. I like the USNews rankings, not because I use them, but because others do.
Many people invest in the stock market. Most people have little confidence in their own ability to "pick" stocks, so they rely on experts--stock brokers, periodicals, mutual fund managers--each with his or her own biases and agendas. As a result, certain stocks appear, again and again, in people's portfolios--Microsoft, IBM, Coca-Cola, etc.,etc. They are followed by many analysts.
Some of these are good, well-run, profitable businesses. Some will continue to increase profits and, in all likelihood, stock prices will increase. But, they are unlikley to be undervalued for very long.
Now, I own some of these stocks. However, I prefer to own undervalued stocks--stock in companies that earn good profits, have a high book value, and a relatively low P/E ratio. Many of these stocks are in very unsexy industries, such as copper mining , steel manufacturing and insurance, not biotech or pharmaceuticals. Over time, a portfolio of these stocks will outperform the "safer" portfolio. However, owning stock in these companies requires some research and the courage, if you will, to go against the grain.
I see the college selection process much the same way. Because people, particularly 17 year olds, have very little ability to determine which school is likely to provide the best educational outcome for them, they use the list to find the "highest ranking" school to which they are likely to be admitted. They will apply to a limited range of schools, leading to a frenzy in the marketplace unrelated to the actual quality of the education provided.
My daughter and I took a different approach, one that I know a lot of people on this site, also subscribe to. Call it the Benjamin Graham or Warren Buffett approach to college selection. We decided to look at schools that were "undervalued." These were schools that seemed to provide a good quality education, at a reasonable price, but had qualities that artificially deflated their worth. For example, some were in "unsexy locations" (Beloit and Kenosha, Wisconsin, for example) or were perceived as "too conservative" or "too religious" (Valparaiso, for example). They had acceptance rates higher than one might expect given the quality of instruction. The college application process was relatively stress-free for my daughter, and she had great success.
Now, I'll admit that my analogy is not completely appropriate. There are far more data about "outcomes" in the investment world than in the educational world. I can call up all sort of data about company performance that I can use to make investment decisions. Sadly, there is very little outcome data available about college performance. Even the CDS has only one real outcome measurement, graduation rate. As a result, most people use input data as a proxy for output data. So, you'll see threads on that other site about how little Johnny will get a great education at College X because he'll be surrounded by all those high SAT scoring, high class ranking, high EC engaging kids--all data about who goes in to the school, not what they do once they get there, or what happens once they leave.
Personally. I'd like schools to more rigorously track educational outcomes. Some of these could be employment and salary. Some could be educational satisfaction 5, 10, 20 and 30 years after graduation.
|
DesperateDad
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 846 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Apr 12th, 2007 03:55 am |
|
unfortunately, its the Peer Assessment that drives the colleges crazy. They just can't handle that their brand of education (which, obviously, cant' be "measured"), is not has good as x, y, and z college. The rest of the data is easily reportable, but many colleges still refuse to publish it in their CDS.
carolyn: since I don't have the link of the 12 signers, can you tell us if they ALL make their CDS available online?
fwiw: I'm with Chico. I enjoy USNews (and Consumer Reports for that matter), but I read the details and ignore stuff that is not important to me. For example, I like Peer Assessment (as flawed as it is), but ignore alumni giving which gives points to schools that attract wealthy kids.
|
CalifCarolyn
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 573 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Apr 12th, 2007 04:29 am |
|
I think most of US pay attention to the details and ignore the RANKING like Chico and his D my D looked for the under rated schools like Guilford and ElizabethTown (oops need to put those on acceptance list) and Valpo. We read peer reviews to get a general feel of the school but after sorting through the CDS the choices were based on what my girl thought would work for her.
However others (including my co-workers and some of my daughter's peers) rely on the ranking and the Brand Image that comes to mind with the well known schools...and unfortunately several of these kids end up disappointed because they only looked at the POPULAR schools as being of value.
There will always be those who only look at the surface for their choices,-the ones who purchase the "True Religion Jeans" even though for the same money the "Citizen Brand" Jeans fit better...but the brand on the pocket isn't as showy!! Just like an Ivy bumper sticker is flashier than even a highly regarded public school..
|
Chedva
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 575 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Apr 12th, 2007 11:50 am |
|
There will always be those who only look at the surface for their choices,-
And there it is in a nutshell. If US News drops its ranking, don't think for a minute that someone else won't come in with an equally flawed (or worse) ranking system for those people to whom "name brand" means everything. Nature abhors a vacuum, and in this "information age", that vacuum will be filled. The rankings are there for people who need to point to them, and the drill-down information is there for those who want to do more sophisticated analysis.
Blame it on David Letterman with his "Top Ten" lists, or Guinness with their world records, or "The Book of Lists", or the commercials dealing with the "best-selling" whatever in the world. Lists and rankings form a part or our world. Thus it will ever be.
Last edited on Thu Apr 12th, 2007 11:51 am by Chedva
|
riviera
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 107 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Apr 12th, 2007 04:12 pm |
|
I do believe that we need some kind of ranking in order to narrow down to a reasonable list of colleges. The problem is that each family have (or should have) its own set of criteria. I was lucky to find this wonderful article:
http://www.collegenews.org/prebuilt/daedalus/cech_article.pdf at the beginning of the search process. It helped us identify colleges that were strong in sciences. Then, another pass based on preferred location narrowed the list even more, leading to a reasonable set of colleges to explore.
|
CarolynLawrence
Administrator
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 3309 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Apr 12th, 2007 05:39 pm |
|
The main problem I have with the US news ranking is the peer assessment. It is not unbiased, and it is a bit like asking Ford to evaluate Chrysler. Colleges spend a great deal of money in essence "advertising" to other colleges in hopes of getting a better peer assessment, and US News also does not tell us how many "peers" evaluated any particular school. It could be one, it could be 20.
I'd be happy to see it go.
|
mackinaw
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Michigan |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Apr 13th, 2007 03:44 pm |
|
I want to weigh in on this quickly (out of town at a meeting). I am sympathetic to ChicosBailBonds' (CBB's) analogy, which involves shopping for "value" rather than "name." One of the uncertainties, however, is how much to value the name. If "value" is limited only to the quality of the education relative to the cost, then CBB's analysis holds up, I think. If, however, "value" is partly in the name -- in particular in whether the name affects the graduate's marketability down the road , something that might not be discernible in the immediately observable "outcomes," then one can't overlook the name value of colleges.
While there is some research along these lines, which suggests that the students' own abilities and skills ultimately determine their marketability (read: lifetime earnings), there really isn't a lot along this line, and what I've seen needs replication. Therefore, I believe from "life observation" but not from systematic data that the diploma matters, not just the education; but I also believe that the education and the students' own talents, energy, and ambition are probably a far larger component of life success.
That said, there is also some research in economics and sociology (e.g., the work by Christopher Jencks) that shows that "family background" also matters a lot in life-success, and some of this effect probably works its way in the college selection/attendance opportunities (including legacy admissions but not just this); while some of it works in helping the graduates get a good start on their careers (i.e., through "connections," family financial support in early careers, and other ways such as the "values" that the parents impart to the kids).
When our kids were looking at colleges, neither one had much interest in name value as such. No Ivy mania. As far as I know, neither ever looked at the U.S. News rankings; and I couldn't interest them in most of the guidebooks about college admissions. But I did look at this stuff, and as an educator felt I had some insight into evaluating colleges that might fit my kids' talents and interests. And I have to admit that they ended up at name schools of sorts (UChicago and RISD). However, they were both were looking at a range of colleges or a handful of colleges that best suited their interests. The sticker prices of the private schools that they applied to did not differ very much. My son wasn't offered serious enough discounts (for NMS, for example) to matter. My daughter was offered serious discounts ("merit" scholarships) at a couple of art schools but she felt the difference in quality of the schools she was admitted to was greater than the difference in the discounted prices. And so she, like her older brother, chose the best and most suitable school that she got into. (And as I've mentioned before on this board, we were able to afford letting them make this choice, in part because of help from the grandparents.)
Last edited on Fri Apr 13th, 2007 03:53 pm by mackinaw
|
Chedva
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 575 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Apr 13th, 2007 05:57 pm |
|
The main problem I have with the US news ranking is the peer assessment
Then the solution is quite simple - the colleges don't have to fill out the peer assessment, without requiring a wholesale boycott. (And, btw, Carolyn - I do agree. The peer assessment is pretty much worthless.)
|
Current time is 07:38 pm | |
|
|
|
|
