Criteria for profiles rank

lewleadbeater.com

notes from the edge

Home

Email Me

				THE
Column Archive				VIRGINIA GAZETTE
				WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA
Criteria for profiles rank				August 8, 2009

In its latest publication of 371 college profiles, the Princeton Review gave high marks to William & Mary for its environmental progress, as well as for academics and improving its admissions procedures.

Among the Top 20, Swem Library took seventh place in the Best College Libraries category, and overall the college ranked eighth in “Professors Get High Marks” and 14^th in the “Happiest Students” category.

Ranking colleges and universities is, of course, a lucrative business not only for publications such as U.S. News & World Report and the Princeton Review, but for the colleges that show up on their lists. Ranking guides (the Princeton Review sells for $22.99) have become the educational bibles for thousands of prospective students and their parents, and college admissions applications tend to increase significantly when schools find their names listed as among the best.

In any such rankings, however, questions arise relative to authenticity, accuracy, methodology and the manipulation of data.

In a recent article in the Boston Globe titled “Our obsession with college rankings,” Jaclyn Saffir quite correctly points out that, when it comes to choosing a college, we seem to be overly fixated on meaningless numbers. What is the difference, for instance, between a college ranked 19^th and one ranked 16^th? And how reputable or significant are the differentials? Furthermore, while the rankings may indicate overall preferences, how applicable are they to individual student needs?

More importantly, how far are colleges willing to go to get their names included in the rankings? According to Saffir, one Southern university decided to lower some of its class sizes from 25 or 20 to 19 in order to meet one ranking criterion. As a result, students tossed out of small classes were dumped into classes with enrollments of 55 or more.

Alarming as all that is, my problem with ranking systems has to do with the question of subjectivity. While there may be objective criteria for judging libraries, graduation rates, admissions procedures and environmental concerns, what on Earth does it mean to be ranked 14^th in the “Happiest Students” category? Or eighth in “Professors Get High Marks”?

Having taught for 36 years at W&M, I have no idea what makes students happy, other than, perhaps, getting a higher grade than they expected or earned in a class.

If you look at some of the responses given by students to the U.S. News & World Report study, you find that happiness criteria run the gamut from small class sizes to great Greek organizations to fantastic parties and spring break. One student mentioned “academic rigor,” though I could count on one hand the number of students I taught who thought that academic rigor was about as good as it gets.

A student from St. John’s College (ranked 5^th in happiness last year) noted that he was happy because there were no tests, no quizzes, no lectures and no professors at the college. The curriculum consisted of discussions run by tutors.

Aristotle and Plato wrote reams about what constitutes happiness, though I found none of their conclusions relative to civics, citizenship, friendship or one’s proper relationship to the state mentioned by any students. The responses were totally subjective and dependent on no established criteria. Hence to suggest that W&M ranks 14^th in terms of student happiness is ludicrous. It means absolutely nothing.

Perhaps the only two objective criteria for judging happiness on campuses are graduation rates and the number of suicides that occur each year.

Similarly disjointed is the business about professors getting high marks. High marks for what? And from whom?

At the end of each semester, students at most colleges are asked to write evaluations of their classes and professors. As you might imagine, the subjectivity of these evaluations far outweighs their objective value. If a student likes a class and gets a good grade, the evaluation will reflect his frame of mind. Students who get grades lower than expected may well decide that this is the professor’s fault and so slam him or her on the evaluation.

Hence professors who teach what are considered easy courses and are liberal with their grades frequently do far better on evaluations than those who are more rigorous.

If the Princeton Review is awarding professors high marks solely on the basis of their degrees, the institutions from which they graduated, teaching awards, scholarship and their overall contributions to their discipline, so be it. That’s fine. But if student opinions are their primary criterion, forget it.

In the end, prospective students and their parents should consider any ranking system as little more than a very broad, frequently subjective, overview of the academic and extracurricular performance of any college. To do otherwise could lead to grave disappointment.