Another College Ranking Report Proves Ranking is Relative
Stuart Nachbar
September 08, 2009
This month, Washington Monthly released it's annual rankings of national universities and liberal arts colleges. They use a different formula than U.S. News or Forbes. It is based on three factors:
1) Social Mobility: Does the school assist students who are from low-moderate income families and how effectively does the school help all of their students graduate?
2) Research: Is there cutting edge scholarship among the faculty and do they effectively pursuade students to pursue advanced study at the doctoral level in math, science and engineering?
3) Service: Do students serve their community or country while in school as well as after they leave, as measured through participation in the Peace Corp or ROTC?
The Washington Monthly rankings have the University of California-Berkeley at the top for research universities and Amherst College as the top liberal arts school. Berkeley won the university category going away, and two University of California campuses: UC-San Diego and UCLA followed behind.
The interesting observation from these three California schools is the percentage of students who were eligible for Pell Grants; it is approximately a third of the student population at each school. Historically black schools as well as private schools in large cities had high percentages as well. The California schools stand out among state-supported universities.
But there is something else to consider for future rankings: the state of California has plans to cut its own grant-in-aid programs. I had to wonder if state support should be part of future rankings; after all, state universities exist to educated state residents. That also impacts the school's ability to minimize tuition increases, which is not considered in these rankings.
None of the top three California schools were exceptional in terms of ROTC recruitment, but we don't know if students opted for alternatives such as Officer Candidate programs which offer military training and summer salaries but no obligation before graduation, or serve in the military in a reserve unit. Another missing factor, if military service is considered public service,would be veterans returning to school under GI benefits. So, I consider the military service portion of this ranking to be quite incomplete; it should encompass all ways that students could serve in the military or utilize benefits for prior service.
On the flip side of the service coin, Peace Corps recruitment and work-study money were the only factors, possibly because data was available. I was surprised, given the service orientation of these rankings, that Teach for America was excluded. This is glaring since Teach for America is not only one of the largest recruiters of college graduates, but they look for students of all majors. The Peace Corps will favor graduates who have language or scientific and technical skills. I realize that the Peace Corps has been around since JFK, but Teach for America has a 21 year history of service to public schools and it receives support from politicians of both parties.
There is also a problem with using percent of work-study money for public service.For one thing, some schools run community-based projects while others do not. Some faculty who work in the community, others don't. So, if my school allocates more work-study students to, for instance, the social work or urban planning departments than the physics department, does that elevate my ranking?
I understand, but personally dislike, the research portion of this ranking. For one thing, flagship schools and the most selective private schools have a built-in advantage because they have the best access to grants and awards committees as well as lawmakers who ask for money on their behalf.
In addition, if a school tells their faculty to be teachers first, or does not grant the PhD, then it is less of a research school. I'm less concerned if the faculty are winning awards, because it makes me wonder how much time the devote to teaching undergraduates. And consider this:top scholars are recruited to universities with a promise of more time for research and less time for teaching.
I have less of an issue with the student portion of this ranking, since intellectual curiosity is a positive measure of a school. But why not add smeasures for non-science doctorates or students who continue their education within a certain timeframe after graduation?
I also noticed something conspicuously absent: the military service academies do not appear in the liberal arts ranking. U.S News ranks West Point and Annapolis among the top twenty national liberal arts schools and Forbes has West Point as the top school with Annapolis at thirty. I had to ask myself: how would these service academies fare in Washington Monthly?
My guess is that they would rank high in serving the disadvantaged student: everyone goes for free and those who survive freshman summer go on to graduate in four years. I can't guess the research side since there are civilian academics and military instructors; not all of them have advanced degrees. However, it's not unusual to see career officers with doctorates in engineering. On the service side, every graduate serves in the military while they're in training and after they graduate.
So, the military rank would be at the top, with no rank for the Peace Corps and public service work-study, because neither applies to a military academy. That might be the only reason the academies don't appear with Washington Monthly's top schools; the military is the only public service option and it's forced upon the students. If that's true, then fair enough.
I know I'm picking nits but Washington Monthly intends to have a respected ranking of schools. The problem is that the methodology is incomplete.
Stuart Nachbar blogs on 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. Learn more at www.DefendingCollegeHeights.com
1) Social Mobility: Does the school assist students who are from low-moderate income families and how effectively does the school help all of their students graduate?
2) Research: Is there cutting edge scholarship among the faculty and do they effectively pursuade students to pursue advanced study at the doctoral level in math, science and engineering?
3) Service: Do students serve their community or country while in school as well as after they leave, as measured through participation in the Peace Corp or ROTC?
The Washington Monthly rankings have the University of California-Berkeley at the top for research universities and Amherst College as the top liberal arts school. Berkeley won the university category going away, and two University of California campuses: UC-San Diego and UCLA followed behind.
The interesting observation from these three California schools is the percentage of students who were eligible for Pell Grants; it is approximately a third of the student population at each school. Historically black schools as well as private schools in large cities had high percentages as well. The California schools stand out among state-supported universities.
But there is something else to consider for future rankings: the state of California has plans to cut its own grant-in-aid programs. I had to wonder if state support should be part of future rankings; after all, state universities exist to educated state residents. That also impacts the school's ability to minimize tuition increases, which is not considered in these rankings.
None of the top three California schools were exceptional in terms of ROTC recruitment, but we don't know if students opted for alternatives such as Officer Candidate programs which offer military training and summer salaries but no obligation before graduation, or serve in the military in a reserve unit. Another missing factor, if military service is considered public service,would be veterans returning to school under GI benefits. So, I consider the military service portion of this ranking to be quite incomplete; it should encompass all ways that students could serve in the military or utilize benefits for prior service.
On the flip side of the service coin, Peace Corps recruitment and work-study money were the only factors, possibly because data was available. I was surprised, given the service orientation of these rankings, that Teach for America was excluded. This is glaring since Teach for America is not only one of the largest recruiters of college graduates, but they look for students of all majors. The Peace Corps will favor graduates who have language or scientific and technical skills. I realize that the Peace Corps has been around since JFK, but Teach for America has a 21 year history of service to public schools and it receives support from politicians of both parties.
There is also a problem with using percent of work-study money for public service.For one thing, some schools run community-based projects while others do not. Some faculty who work in the community, others don't. So, if my school allocates more work-study students to, for instance, the social work or urban planning departments than the physics department, does that elevate my ranking?
I understand, but personally dislike, the research portion of this ranking. For one thing, flagship schools and the most selective private schools have a built-in advantage because they have the best access to grants and awards committees as well as lawmakers who ask for money on their behalf.
In addition, if a school tells their faculty to be teachers first, or does not grant the PhD, then it is less of a research school. I'm less concerned if the faculty are winning awards, because it makes me wonder how much time the devote to teaching undergraduates. And consider this:top scholars are recruited to universities with a promise of more time for research and less time for teaching.
I have less of an issue with the student portion of this ranking, since intellectual curiosity is a positive measure of a school. But why not add smeasures for non-science doctorates or students who continue their education within a certain timeframe after graduation?
I also noticed something conspicuously absent: the military service academies do not appear in the liberal arts ranking. U.S News ranks West Point and Annapolis among the top twenty national liberal arts schools and Forbes has West Point as the top school with Annapolis at thirty. I had to ask myself: how would these service academies fare in Washington Monthly?
My guess is that they would rank high in serving the disadvantaged student: everyone goes for free and those who survive freshman summer go on to graduate in four years. I can't guess the research side since there are civilian academics and military instructors; not all of them have advanced degrees. However, it's not unusual to see career officers with doctorates in engineering. On the service side, every graduate serves in the military while they're in training and after they graduate.
So, the military rank would be at the top, with no rank for the Peace Corps and public service work-study, because neither applies to a military academy. That might be the only reason the academies don't appear with Washington Monthly's top schools; the military is the only public service option and it's forced upon the students. If that's true, then fair enough.
I know I'm picking nits but Washington Monthly intends to have a respected ranking of schools. The problem is that the methodology is incomplete.
Stuart Nachbar blogs on 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. Learn more at www.DefendingCollegeHeights.com
Print
Email
