Friday five: college wranglings

It’s that time of year again: students returning to class, and U.S. News & World Report‘s annual rankings of America’s “best” colleges. Campus admissions officers, deans, presidents, faculty and PR folks across the nation are now scrutinizing the lists, comparing where they fall on the list to the rankings of their competitors, wondering why they slipped or rose in a certain category and lamenting the unjustness of a system that would exclude their institution from, say, the “best values” list. No doubt factions at every university in the nation — other than Princeton, that is — will spend hours critiquing the U.S. News methodology today.
So, before I begin my earnest investigation into how my employer rose from No. 51 in last year’s ranking of best engineering programs to 48 this year but dropped from No. 109 to 112 among national universities, let’s see what the blogosphere and mainstream media have to say about the rankings:

  1. From Tony’s Kansas City, an opinion about the tie in the rankings between two Big 12 universities known for their “border wars” in sports: Equally worthless schools tie in meaningless list.
  2. U.S. News rankings: What they mean for RIT is a post from a PR staffer at Rochester Institute of Technology. It’s a valiant attempt to make sense of the whole rankings hubbub and offer some perspective. “The U.S. News report is only one list and should be put into context with many other variables when determining the reputation and prestige of any university.” That’s pretty much our standard line, too.
  3. An op-ed piece from Ohio State’s student newspaper comparing OSU’s U.S. News ranking from last year (60th) with its No. 27 designation in yet another publication’s list. The op-ed piece wrongly asserts that “U.S. News’ much maligned college ranking system is based solely on academic quality.” It is not. Reputation, exclusivity, fund-raising and other factors come into play in the U.S. News rankings, too.
  4. Look beyond ‘U.S. News’ for college quality, an opinion piece by John A. Roush, president of Centre College, who criticizes U.S. News and other rankings organizations for relying on “flawed research methodology and inaccurately reported data.” He adds: “My real worry about the rankings and the guides is that they are based almost exclusively on ‘inputs’ — the size of a college’s endowment, for example, or the percentage of Ph.D.s on the faculty, or the median GPA of incoming freshmen. Such quantitative criteria, while important, say nothing about what actually takes place when a student attends and graduates from your institution.”
  5. Only in Chicago: Recount helps university rise in magazine’s ranking.

Friday Five: higher ed’s future, web buzzwords, the blogging boom, and garage rock

Five things on my mind this Friday:

  1. What’s really going to happen with the recommendations put forth in the Commission on the Future of Higher Education’s final draft (pdf)? The report calls for “a broad shake-up” (as The New York Times put it) of the U.S. higher ed system. But the report is a far cry from Chairman Charles Miller’s desire for a “punchy report that would rattle academia with warnings of crisis”; a number of educational groups are criticizing the report; and the lone dissenter on the 19-member panel, American Council of Education President David Ward, is getting considerable mileage out of his contention that the report is one-sided. At least one blogger — ePluribus Media — suggests the report is “just what the Chair (read: Secretary) ordered.” If you don’t have time to read the full report, read the Times article, and maybe take a gander at ePluribus Media’s commentary about the report.
  2. Web what-dot-evah. Morgan Davis’ erelevant blog is brand new, but he’s off to a great start. His recent post, Buzzword 2.0, takes a lot of us to task for tossing “web 2.0” around in conversations and on our blogs (guilty). His advice: “let’s work on using alternative words and phrases to describe the concepts that we mean by web 2.0.”
  3. 50 million blogs, 18.6 posts per second. Just a few of the fun facts Dave Sifri, the founder of Technorati, shares in his latest state of the blogosphere report. With lots and lots of colorful charts.
  4. Speaking of buzzwords … Here’s a new one for you: clique-through. According to this blog review of a presentation on marketing with social media, it means: “The degree to which an exclusive group hears and accepts your idea. Cliques are built upon norms and group culture. To be accepted means to be built into that culture. To be effective, focus on the clique, not the wide audience.” You heard it here first.
  5. Now playing: Runaway Bombshell, by the Fondas. Great Detroit garage rock for a Friday morning’s blog reading.

Tags: