Clemson Tigers Claw Their Way Up the U.S. News Rankings and Cause a National Uproar
Stuart Nachbar
June 10, 2009
Clemson University has recently jumped from 38th to 22nd among large national public and private research universities in the 2009 U.S. News College Guide, and that has caused an uproar within the academic community. Outside of Clemson, of course/
The uproar has been caused by a report by a former university administrator over how the school might have gamed the rankings. The report supposedly acknowledged that the university had systematically lowered class sizes below the U.S. News threshold of 20 while increasing class sizes where the additional students wouldn't hurt its standing in the rankings; and that they had regularly given low scores on the rankings' "reputational" survey to other colleges and universities in order to make Clemson look better.
But while the university and educators have criticized Clemson for so called "scam tactics" the institution reported that the number and proportion of its undergraduate classes with 10 to 19 students rose to 790 and 32.8 percent, respectively, in 2008, from 356 and 18.8 percent in 2004, while the comparable figures for classes of 20-29 have fallen to 360 (15 percent) in 2008 from 591 (31.2 percent) in 2004.
Clemson's six-year graduation rate has also risen: from 72 to 78 percent. However, Clemson has maintained excellent freshman retention rates since 2001; they have risen from 87 to 92 percent, an excellent performance for a large state university that is primarily a technical school.
However, better performance has come at the cost of large tuition increases to compensate for state legislated budget cuts. With approximately 13,000 undergraduate students, Clemson, according to the U.S. News guide, charges in-state students $9,600 for tuition. By comparison, the University of South Carolina charges $8,300.
In reading the comments on stories in The Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed I see blame placed on the rankings, as if Clemson was using them to guide a business strategy. I can't see how a university could do this; the ranking formula is periodically changed.
But, really, all the rankings are meant to do is collect numbers based on one formula developed by one magazine. But here's the kicker: they don't mean a darn thing to a future freshman class. What matters is value and student satisfaction with the undergraduate experience. Did the people ahead of me get what they wanted academically and socially, and did they leave smarter and without a huge mound of debt?
The Princeton Review reported that Clemson has the happiest students of any of the 368 colleges and universities they study. Clemson is also famous for an acronym, IPTAY, which means: I Pay Ten a Year. IPTAY has driven athletic department fundraising since 1934. Clemson has won only one national championship since then, but the alumni keep giving.
It is just as impractical for state-supported schools to try win an academic "arms race" by pursuing highly noted researchers as it is to pay a football coach seven figures with the promise of a national championship. But Clemson has tried to advance in both arms races with more successes than failures. I'm more inclined to give Clemson a tiger's smile instead of a fierce growl. So should you.
Stuart Nachbar blogs on thought and fiction in education and politics at www.EducatedQuest.com. His new novel, Defending College Heights, is an investigation into the murder of a U.S. Army recruiter within a college community. Learn more at www.DefendingCollegeHeights.com
The uproar has been caused by a report by a former university administrator over how the school might have gamed the rankings. The report supposedly acknowledged that the university had systematically lowered class sizes below the U.S. News threshold of 20 while increasing class sizes where the additional students wouldn't hurt its standing in the rankings; and that they had regularly given low scores on the rankings' "reputational" survey to other colleges and universities in order to make Clemson look better.
But while the university and educators have criticized Clemson for so called "scam tactics" the institution reported that the number and proportion of its undergraduate classes with 10 to 19 students rose to 790 and 32.8 percent, respectively, in 2008, from 356 and 18.8 percent in 2004, while the comparable figures for classes of 20-29 have fallen to 360 (15 percent) in 2008 from 591 (31.2 percent) in 2004.
Clemson's six-year graduation rate has also risen: from 72 to 78 percent. However, Clemson has maintained excellent freshman retention rates since 2001; they have risen from 87 to 92 percent, an excellent performance for a large state university that is primarily a technical school.
However, better performance has come at the cost of large tuition increases to compensate for state legislated budget cuts. With approximately 13,000 undergraduate students, Clemson, according to the U.S. News guide, charges in-state students $9,600 for tuition. By comparison, the University of South Carolina charges $8,300.
In reading the comments on stories in The Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed I see blame placed on the rankings, as if Clemson was using them to guide a business strategy. I can't see how a university could do this; the ranking formula is periodically changed.
But, really, all the rankings are meant to do is collect numbers based on one formula developed by one magazine. But here's the kicker: they don't mean a darn thing to a future freshman class. What matters is value and student satisfaction with the undergraduate experience. Did the people ahead of me get what they wanted academically and socially, and did they leave smarter and without a huge mound of debt?
The Princeton Review reported that Clemson has the happiest students of any of the 368 colleges and universities they study. Clemson is also famous for an acronym, IPTAY, which means: I Pay Ten a Year. IPTAY has driven athletic department fundraising since 1934. Clemson has won only one national championship since then, but the alumni keep giving.
It is just as impractical for state-supported schools to try win an academic "arms race" by pursuing highly noted researchers as it is to pay a football coach seven figures with the promise of a national championship. But Clemson has tried to advance in both arms races with more successes than failures. I'm more inclined to give Clemson a tiger's smile instead of a fierce growl. So should you.
Stuart Nachbar blogs on thought and fiction in education and politics at www.EducatedQuest.com. His new novel, Defending College Heights, is an investigation into the murder of a U.S. Army recruiter within a college community. Learn more at www.DefendingCollegeHeights.com
Print
Email
