Search News


Browse Archives

News

Rankings Tail Wags the Dog

October 17, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Over the last year, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching completed one of the most thorough reviews ever of the Carnegie Classifications, which for decades have been used to group colleges for institutional research and participation in programs, and to create peer groups. The new system gives researchers and educators unprecedented flexibility to group colleges in different ways and attempts to move away from the idea that there is one single way to group colleges.

Many educators have praised the revised system for being more nuanced and sophisticated. Many others have worried about one question: How would the new system affect the U.S. News & World Report rankings? The latter group is now getting its answer. U.S. News, which has based its ranking system on the Carnegie Classifications, will continue to do so -- even if that means some colleges will find themselves in new groupings next year in the magazine's popular (and widely criticized) rankings.

And that announcement in turn appears likely to prompt more colleges to appeal their Carnegie Classification status -- for reasons having very little to do with the actual classifications. Several institutions have already made successful appeals and more are expected.

The reason for the frenzy is that Carnegie this year decided to try to make its classifications (at least the basic institutional part that is the outgrowth of the traditional classifications) more consistent. In the past, Carnegie had allowed dozens of institutions that identified in one way (typically as liberal arts colleges) to stay in the baccalaureate categories even if they offered significant numbers of master's degrees. This pleased colleges that wanted to be grouped in the "top" U.S. News category for liberal arts colleges. But this year, Carnegie decided to enforce its rules, and colleges that met certain tests were placed in master's categories -- much to the horror of college officials.

They have since been lobbying U.S. News to ignore the latest Carnegie changes -- while also lobbying Carnegie to let them stay as strictly undergraduate colleges.

Robert J. Morse, director of data research for U.S. News, said Monday that the magazine has decided to go with Carnegie's system -- even if colleges are moved as a result. Carnegie, he said, "sets the standard for higher education" and it would "not be our role" to disagree with that standard.

If colleges unhappy about their Carnegie placements can get the foundation to change them, U.S. News will honor the changes, Morse said. But the decisions will be Carnegie's. "We're not going to be in the appeals business," he said.

Already, he noted, four colleges have convinced Carnegie to keep them out of master's categories: Bryn Mawr College, Bucknell University, Furman University and Smith College.

For the Carnegie Foundation, which never intended its classifications to be used for magazine rankings, more appeals are taking place and more are expected.

Alexander C. McCormick, a senior scholar at Carnegie who directs the classifications, said that the foundation was now in the position of having some colleges focus on a single part of its classification -- just what it was trying to avoid with the more sophisticated system it has just adopted. "We intentionally introduced a whole set of classifications in explicit acknowledgment that a single classification isn't up to capturing the complexity," he said.

Carnegie will consider appeals based on the validity of the college's claims, not the impact on rankings, McCormick said. Of the U.S. News decision, he said that "it does end up being a fairly powerful influence focusing attention on this one classification that is 36 years old," he said. "There are better ways to do it."

How does Carnegie feel about having colleges come to it motivated by rankings? "We don't think our classification decisions should be driven by how one organization is using or misusing the classification," he said. McCormick added, however, that the foundation has offered to help U.S. News "make better sense of our classifications" and that he is "still hopeful that they will take us up on that offer."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Rankings Tail Wags the Dog

  • Carnegie
  • Posted by Jerry Pattengale , AVP for Scholarship & Grants at Indiana Wesleyan University on October 17, 2006 at 8:00am EDT
  • Dear Scott,
    Thanks for this glimpse of the near trite debate, and for a little but useful insight into the Carnegie rankings situation. Through the years I've found the folks at Carnegie to be squarely focused on principle, and it's positive to hear the magazine's reliance on the foundation. At first I thought the Bucknell decision seemed a bit forced, but upon checking its website, from my distant view would agree with Carnegie: "With our [Bucknell's]ideal size of 3,350 undergraduates and 150 graduate students, we are one of the few institutions in the nation that successfully combines the personal attention of a small college with the academic resources of a large university." Of course, "ideal" is relative. With 4,500 colleges and the comprehensive nature of many, including Ivy Leagues, the US News paradigm likely won't survive a decade without changing. In fact, I'm surprised creative editors like those behind these web articles haven't discovered another venue for rankings for the public sector. Formerly in charge of IR here at IWU--also "ideal" by Bucknell's standards on our main campus but with 10,000 on other campuses--I became a bit frazzled at the onslaught of surveys from for profit organizations, esp. since they seemed to misconstrue our main campus every time (with the exception of the Foundation Rankings by John Gardner et al at The Policy Center for the First College Year, Brevard, NC). And, during an era that voices like Mortenson and Spellings warn of slipping results and growing attrition, our creativity in educating students formerly disenfranchised at our remote campuses kills our main campus ratings--which appears counter intuitive. This is a common yawp echoing from most comprehensive and masters institutions this time of year. Also, many efforts have been made through the years to use a formula that looks at incoming student profiles and their change or success based on "what the college had to work with" (or more correctly, their preparation). However, it seems to avoid easy quantification for U.S. News and other rankings. The recent Collegiate Learning Assessment survey (CLA) by CAE also shows cognition gain based on incoming profiles and provides a national norm. While hundreds of colleges have tried to boycott U.S. News that approach has proven impotent in the face of the free market. U.S. News is in business to inform, and so is Carnegie. And, creativity resolves things in tension. Your article calls for creative responses and I trust a collaborative effort will result. Again, thanks for summarizing the current development. jp

  • Posted by No More on October 17, 2006 at 8:20am EDT
  • Academic institutions are complicit in these US News rankings; they provide data gratis that are then turned into 'rankings' that sell magazines for profit. These one-size-fits-all rankings have had all kinds of perverse effects, among the worst being a tendency toward conformity that weakens the variety in higher education that has been this country's strength, and cheating to move up (just as in the sports-page rankings). Universities in our country are clustered in many ways, leading to meetings of groups of Presidents. How about the Presidents of the Ivy League, Big Ten, etc. each joining together to just say no to providing data. If the Ivys could act in unison with regard to sports a half-century ago, similar groups of Presidents should be able to get things started today.

  • Posted by Larry on October 17, 2006 at 12:55pm EDT
  • Mr. More, Why are you so against colleges disclosing information about themselves, and students choosing colleges based on that information?

    Are you arguing that students should know what the student-faculty ratio is, or whether alumni hate their schools so much they refuse to give?

  • rankings tail wags the dog
  • Posted by alexa harrington on October 18, 2006 at 5:30am EDT
  • I think the current ranking systems for colleges (and, ahem, universities and, ahem, liberal arts colleges--if you offer graduate degrees, you're no longer technically a college, liberal arts or no) is reminiscent of Wonder Bread: it's real for those who want to believe that it is. Any student or parent choosing a college/university/liberal arts college based on these numbers aren't really researching the schools. Crunching a bunch of cheatable numbers doesn't say much about a given school, or whether a given student will be a good fit at that school.

  • Posted by Larry on October 18, 2006 at 6:15am EDT
  • Mr. Harrington, Of course the number may be defective. But, quite frankly, just because they are self-reported doesn’t make them invalid.

    Whether students are comfortable or uncomfortable at a school, to many, doesn’t matter. They just want to go to a good graduate school and make money. Some just want to party and never do an ounce of work. Some want to have close relationships with professors, and some want to be treated like a number. One can get a pretty good idea of what the school will be like by reading USN.

  • The Carnegie Rankings vs. the USN rankings
  • Posted by Barb H. , graduate at Shimer on October 18, 2006 at 4:45pm EDT
  • Since when has the higher ed at large decided that the US News rankings are totally legitimate and utterly correct? These rankings should be considered with great caution by anyone inside higher ed. As for the Carnegie rankings, perhaps we need to start seriously looking at these-again. There must be a more qualitative way of ranking success and failure in our institutions than those numbers as reported by US News. Ms. Harrington is correct on several points. If the USN rankings are allowed to be the barometer for ranking our colleges and universities, then the United States is in real trouble.

  • Comments
  • Posted by Robert Morse , Director of Data Research at U.S. News on October 19, 2006 at 12:20pm EDT
  • Some of the comments imply that U.S. News is ignoring outcome, assessment or learning measures that are currently being collected in a way that they are comparable/available on a nationwide basis. That is just not the case. The Sec. of Education's Comm.'s report made it clear that currently that kind of information is just not available. In fact, the point of the report is that this kind of information is not widely available and in fact doesn't exist except at a few schools. That fact is what the current debate is all about. I would agrue that U.S. News is not what this debate is about, it's about government mandates for higher eduction.

  • Outcomes Data
  • Posted by Kim on October 23, 2006 at 7:40pm EDT
  • Mr. Norse,
    Data related to outcomes is more readily available than you suggest. And while some of the measures used by USN do get close to measuring institutional quality, some of the items have no real connection with quality. I have in mind the rating determined by polling higher ed administrators who then rank other institutions. Although I have worked in higher ed for more than 20 years I throw the survey in the trash each year. I know I am not qualified to rank peer institutions. I wish others would do the same.