How I Chose a College

So how did I select my college? I asked a relative I respected how she did it. Her method seemed reasonable, so I adopted it. Here it is:

1) Write down the qualities you want in a school (say up to 10 things).

2) Find a book that lists colleges. (I don’t recall which one I used.) If a college fails to match ALL your criteria, don’t consider it. There are so many quality colleges you will find plenty that meet ALL your criteria.

3) Visit the colleges on your list. Do you feel comfortable or at home there? Can you picture yourself there? Go with your gut instincts.

I asked my relative what things were on her list of criteria. I used some of hers, added some of my own. My list was something like:

a) small (definately less than 2,000 students, preferably less than 1,500)

b) small student:teacher ratio

c) coed with roughly 50-50 male:female ratio

d) strong in foreign languages, world issues/politics

e) no greek societies (I felt & feel they are not necessary on small campuses.)

f) north of the Mason Dixon line (I’d spent my entire life in the South and felt I could benefit from experiencing another part of the country.)

I don’t recall what else. After I whittled down my list I visited several colleges. Upon returning home, I lamented to my father that the trip and visits were a waste of his money because I couldn’t envision myself going to most of the colleges I’d visited. Indeed there was only one place I liked and another was a distant second. With great wisdom, he told me knowing where I didn’t want to go was equally as important as knowing where I did want to go.

Did I consult the US World & News Report? Hadn’t even heard of it at the time! Did I make a good choice for myself — absolutely. I do agree with Carlton’s President Oden’s advice to high school seniors not to agonize over this decision. With the large number of quality institutions students who put some thought and effort into the process are very likely to make a good choice.

In the interest of full disclosure, I’m an alumnae of Earlham College.

Evelyn S Garner Araujo, at 2:50 am EDT on July 2, 2007

Blame Canada!

They tried it in Canada — why not here?

http://insidehighered.com/views/2007/04/02/samarasekera

Sheila, at 6:20 am EDT on May 7, 2007

“This job seem much more appropriate for an organization like AAUP, or perhaps publications like Inside Higher Ed or The Chronicle of Education.”

Such rankings are completely unnecessary: Who cannot foresee how the sources you name would evaluate colleges and why?

JBM, at 7:40 am EDT on May 7, 2007

I read with great interest the comments of Mr. Kelly, the editor of USNEWS (and I represent one of the institutions that signed the letter)defending the use of the “rankings.” Firstly. Mr. Kelly equates “rankings” with accountability (a mistake) and claims that colleges and universities by not participating in his magazine’s rankings are once again displaying their disregard for accountability. This appears to me to be a most specious comment since just about all the substantive (not subjective) information USNEWS uses in its rankings is already publicly available—either through government sources or from colleges and universities themselves. So what aspect of accountability are we failing to engage that USNEWS does (only the highly subjective “Acadmic Prestige” portion, perhaps)? The accountability he is talking about may rather be our lack of accountability to USNEWS—that is, non-profits failing to serve the commercial interest of a for-profit. It strikes me also that he is throwing out the word “accountability” for strategic argumentative reasons—pure combative rhetoric. Accountabilty is, of course, a loaded word at the moment and nobody wants to operate without it. So simply to accuse someone of not having it (even if they do—but not your kind) pulls a negative trigger in segments of the public and is as tricky as accusing someone of not being “patriotic” because they are not acting as you desire. Secondly, I am also stunned by Mr. Kelly’s assertion that by college presidents not filling out the “Academic Prestige” portion of the USNEWS rankings we are somehow deficient in comparision to other “industry leaders” who regularly evaluate their “competitors.” Hmmm. Last I looked I see no USNEWS publication ranking various segments of corporate America— best oil companies, for example (I am familiar with CONSUMER REPORTS)—and I certainly see no publication of CEOs evaluating each others company as part of such an effort (I’d be delighted to be informed otherwise). All this said, I truly hope that liberal arts presidents can seize this educative moment to work individually, together, or with third parties (to include USNEWS) to surplant the notion of “rankings” with that of accountability and, in so doing, provide a transparency of performance that will offer the American public substantive information about the variety of contribution among our institutions. There is an opportunity here that we must take.

Bill Durden, President at Dickinson College, at 7:50 am EDT on May 7, 2007

rankings

Shame on Kelly of US NEWS for his cynical analysis that Bill Durden correctly points out. This is all about money making for Kelly and his colleagues as they smile all the way to the bank, knowing full well that higher education simply has neither the courage nor wisdom to do much about the rankings.

Shame on the academy for thinking that withholding voting from the reputational rankings will strike a blow for anything other than to make Kelly and his colleagues laugh harder. If the presidents had any courage at all, they would all agree on withholding sending in any data whatsoever to US News—there is no law requiring colleges to cooperate with a ranking scam. Sure, US News would get much of the data from public sources but the predisents could say a lot by each year letting it be know they are not cooperating with a “service” that does a terrible injustice to the issue of quality.

As research has shown, nothing US News uses as ranking criteria correlates with the definitive measure of quality-student learning— and while Kelly is correct that there may be better methods for evaluating quality, the presidents havecome forth with none and Kelly knows full well they will not do so for one simple reason—the academy fears getting substantive lest the truth be know about the randomness of quality. In this sense, their protestations notwithstanding, this really is about accountability. The presidents cyncially know that contending with the nonsense called US News is far easier than really doing the work needed on accountability!

And shame on president Oden who along with president Shapiro and many others—virtually all in the Annapolis Group of “leading” colleges— publicly rationalize their decision to cooperate with the fraud US News perpetuates. Clearly they see it in their narrow institutional interests to maintain this fantasy knowing full well lower tier schools will not take the lead on this for fear of being labeled “sour grapes.”

And why does the US News fraud still work—perhaps because graduates of all these high quality colleges (including many of these presidents)—now called alums and parents—find the rankings useful, obviously not able to tell the difference between irrelvant data and factual assertion.

Meanwhile, the admissions frenzy goes on dumbed down by “higher” education leaders unwilling and unable to rise above self-interest. What a shame!

Richard Hersh, at 11:23 am EDT on May 7, 2007

Common Data Set/ IPEDS

Dick Hersh makes a great point when he challenges presidents to refuse to complete the data questionnaire for US News. The letter from the 12 college presidents doesn’t go quite that far, in part because of a need to take one step at a time. The reputation survey is seriously flawed, while publicizing the rankings in promotional literature is hypocritcal if, in fact, we truly believe that rankings do not indicate quality. Refusing to complete the data form, however, as Reed discovered many years ago, can have some unintended consequences.

That said, the Common Data Set and IPEDS contain most of the data elements (though not all) that US News asks colleges to provide. Since the data elements used by US News to determine an institution’s ranking are somewhat arbitrary anyway, why can’t US News simply use what is publicly available to determine its ranking? Put another way, why should colleges and universities, certainly having better things to do than complete data surveys for news magazines, help US News sell the “Best Colleges” issue — especially when many of us question the validity of the rankings in the first place?

I have worked in higher education for 33 years, so very little surprises me today. But I am more than a little miffed at the unwillingness of some college leaders to take action in support of their private rhetoric on the rankings.

The USNews rankings will not go away. That is fine. But why should we promote and encourage a system of ranking colleges that permits students to base their college selection on superficial substitutes for quality — wealth, selectivity and reputation. This is the antithesis of a liberal arts education and we should not be encouraging this approach to college selection.

Bob Massa, Vice President at Dickinson College, at 11:25 am EDT on May 7, 2007

While I sympathize with Bowen’s efforts, it turns out that none of the quality indicators he mentions have anything to do with student learning as the research attests. Indeed, his listing enumerates the demands his faculty organization constantly makes but they are no substitute for what really makes a difference-rigorous teaching, caring, and mentoring by dedicated faculty. The effects of such a culture of teaching and learning are not determined by his list but something far more elusive on most campuses—a collective dedication to and reward system of the kind of teaching and learning proffered by virtually all college viewbooks and catalogues.

no nonsense, at 12:05 pm EDT on May 7, 2007

None of you really seem to question what the “point” of the rankings are. The reason I read the rankings and tell all young people to, is I want to know what the “value” of a degree is. “Value” to most people, deep down, means: 1) chances of using it to get a good job now; and 2) chances of getting a good job in the future. Sure, we like to say that this has something to do with the number of library books or the student-faculty ratios, but unless other people know about these benefits, it is worthless.

There may be some people that care about education purely for its own sake, or would choose one school over another because of its faculty-student ratio or number of library books. But, those people will seek out the more introspective rankings.

Larry, at 12:10 pm EDT on May 7, 2007

P.S.

Oops ... every time I admit that I’ve been a big fan of the Gilmore Girls from day one, I feel compelled to point out that I’m a 70-year-old male. This, their seventh season, will, unfortunately, be their last; but as soon as the DVD is out, every high school junior should rush out and purchase it. There you will discover how Rory Gilmore’s Yale roommate, Paris Geller, created a decision mechanism to choose a graduate school.

And were her choices “optimal?” All I can say is that she was accepted at Harvard Medical School, Yale Law, and the Medical Schools at Penn, Columbia, Johns Hopkins, and Stanford.

One lesson you can all learn from Paris is that no decision mechanism is worth a hill of beans if you don’t position yourself well to begin with.

RWH, at 1:30 pm EDT on May 7, 2007

So how many of the signees’ institutions participate in the Colleges that Change Lives marketing blitz? It’s really not all that different than the rankings, a different marketing tool w/ a different name.

Alan, at 2:40 pm EDT on May 7, 2007

What schools did they attend?

Has anyone figured out what school Brian Kelly attended? Or the Dir of Research for US News? It’s just fun to imagine the conversation if the president of Mr. Kelly’s alma mater called him up to say the ratings issue is bunk and the school is going to revoke his credit for any statistics or journalism courses taken.

Monica, at 3:25 pm EDT on May 7, 2007

RWH One thing

I would not refer to CTCL as simply a book:

http://www.ctcl.com/

There are admissions people who talk of it as a marketing tool.

In the spirit of full disclosure: I attended one (before it was noted as such an institution),and I teach at another.

Alan, at 5:50 pm EDT on May 7, 2007

Quality = Gimme

Instead of “reputation,” rankings should account for the quality of an educational experience, and we have some ready-made indicators that will help: percentage of faculty who are full-time and on tenure-track; faculty teaching load; faculty compensation; faculty control over curriculum decisions; the diversity of the faculty and gender equity within the faculty; compensation and benefits for contingent faculty and the college’s reliance on part-time faculty; faculty-student advisee ratio; resources for faculty research and course development; institutional resources devoted to administration versus resources for faculty and students; institutional policies promising academic freedom for faculty and students; the health of the administration-faculty relationship; and faculty representation on the board of trustees.

All of which are measures of inputs and about two-thirds of which are devoted to rendering the lives of faculty more agreeable.

Art Deco, Garden Gnome at Whatamatta U, at 7:20 pm EDT on May 7, 2007

us news rankings

I couldn’t agree more with Dick Hersch. All rankings demean our prospective students and their parents. Rankings are bad because they encourage us all to find ways to limit rather than expand choice. Rankings assume that we can measure by a single metric a clear best/worse college when we all know that our sons and daughters are unique individuals who require a look at distinct colleges to find an institution that best serves their interests.

Every college I know would provide all the information anyone might want to help them make a decision about what’s best for them. I will not respond to any survey that engages in rankings because I don’t believe any ranking can provide any prospective student with useful information. Thus, I oppose filling out reputational surveys and surveys for all other data that will be used in any rankings whatever. And, there are several Annapolis Group presidents who agree. We will be discussing this question among us at our meeting this Spring.

I have five children, all of whom attended different colleges. I am convinced that the college that was most effective for, and well loved by, one was not the college that would best serve the others. Each of our children is unique and each of our colleges distinctive. Let the two each find one another, looking at the educational experiences they each may reasonably expect to find rather than some silly ranking that would pretend that one standard might actually be appropriate for each of these youmng people.

Chris Nelson

President, St. John’s College. Annapolis

Chair, Annapolis Group

chris nelson, peresident at st. john’s college, annapolis, at 5:10 am EDT on May 8, 2007

If you can invent a better mousetrap....

or better college ranking system, and make it easily and readily publicly available, then you will find it eclipsing the USNews rankings.

While USNews is obviously in the business of making money (as, frankly, are all of the colleges and universities which constantly seek income and donations and grants), a magazine like USNews succeeds only by providing something that a sufficiently large portion of the buying public is willing to pay for.

While it’s easy to find fault with the USNews rankings, it is simply a fact that it has succeeded because if fills a perceived need of parents and prospective students to distinguish among what is surely a most bewildering array of college choices. While, as some have suggested, much of the information could be dug out elsewhere, the time and effort costs of a wide college search would be enormous. Most parents and prospective students want a handy means of organizing the data and narrowing their search, based on whatever criteria are important to them.

If you read college websites and promotional literature, they sound surprising similar in emphasizing the excellence of each school. It’s like Lake Woebegone, where all of the children are above average. It just ain’t so.

One of the great virtues of the USNews list is that by seeing lists, especially of top-ranked liberal arts colleges and universities, prospective students and their families can easily become aware of possibilities which might not otherwise present themselves within the limited range of their own (probably outdated) knowledge of colleges, the guidance department of the child’s school, and the peer misinformation network.

It also serves a function schools don’t much like — it lets a parent get a feel -very limited, but usefully- for the cost/value ratio. Where a parent might be willing to pay top dollar for a liberal arts college or university near the top of the rankings, as you move down the quality level, at least a substantial number of parents, reasonably enough, consider price to be an important factor — if I can pay $30,000 for a tier 2 school or $50,000 for a tier 2 school, why ever would I pay more?

Rob Perelli-Minetti, at 9:35 am EDT on May 8, 2007

alas

Some years ago, the deans of the ABA-accredited law schools took up arms against USN&WR’s rankings of their institutions. A letter cautioning against relying on such inherently flawed devices was sent to all takers of the LSAT. There was discussion of refusing to cooperate with future surveys. In the end, nothing changed. And the LSAT is still the overwhelming criterion for admission — and ranking.

Peter, at 1:05 pm EDT on May 8, 2007

While I do agree that the way the rankings come together is not credible, USN&WR knows the audience. Crazy parents buy into the rankings- and colleges that collect over $40,000 per year from these crazy people know this. Whether or not colleges support the idea, this letter is not going to change the fact that parents want this. It makes them feel good around the water cooler and when they sign the tuition checks. It is clearly not a perfect system. And as a somwhat educated person who cares about schools, I don’t like it. But if this letter stops the USN&WR from putting together the survey, some other money hungry guy will fill the hole.

Scott Bohan, at 10:20 am EDT on May 27, 2007