Search News


Browse Archives

News

New Rankings Controversy -- Over Community Colleges

August 20, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The annual rankings frenzy each fall features rankings of top colleges, party schools and everything in between. But the sector of higher education where more than 40 percent of freshmen start -- community colleges -- has been notably absent.

But a brand new ranking system unveiled by The Washington Monthly attempts to identify the top 30 community colleges in the country.

The magazine ranked colleges using data in different categories of the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (worth a total of 85 percent) and graduation rates (15 percent). While community college leaders frequently complain that reporters ignore their sector, many are not at all pleased with the new attention from Washington Monthly -- even though the magazine is full of praise for two-year institutions and features a cover line that says "Community colleges that beat your alma mater."

That's because the two sources of the new rankings are both problematic to many experts on community colleges. The Community College Survey of Student Engagement turned down the Monthly's request for the data set because the researchers behind the project believe their data are not suitable for rankings, forcing the magazine to re-enter data. "I explained in as many ways as I knew how that it was a really dumb idea to use CCSSE data or any other data to rank community colleges," said Kay M. McClenney, director of the project, which is based at the University of Texas at Austin.

The magazine cites only pro-community college reasons for its rankings. "Prestige simply isn't synonymous with good teaching," writes Paul Glastris, editor of the magazine, in an explanation of the project. "Some unknown community colleges offer more challenging educations than do certain well-regarded four-year universities."

Other reasons the magazine cites for doing rankings of two-year colleges include their growing enrollments, their role in "the toughest job" in higher education in teaching low-income students, and the importance of teaching at these institutions.

The primary tool the magazine has adopted, the Community College Survey of Student Engagement, involves surveys of students about certain characteristics of their educations that are designed to show whether learning is active, the extent of faculty-student interaction, and other qualities. One of the principles behind the survey (unlike that of its four-year counterpart) is that all data are public. But another one of its principles, outlined in a statement on "responsible use" of data, is that they shouldn't be used for rankings.

"CCSSE does not support the use of student engagement survey results for the purpose of ranking community and technical colleges. Such uses would obscure complex dimensions of institutional performance and student behavior," the statement says. "Because of differences in institutional focus, student characteristics, and resources, comparisons of survey results from two single institutions serve little constructive purpose and may in fact be wholly inappropriate."

Many measures of student engagement tend to favor small colleges, where it is easier to provide close personal attention. Of the top 30 community colleges identified by Washington Monthly, 8 have enrollments under 1,000 and another 11 have enrollments of 1,000-1,999. Size matters for all kinds of reasons in comparing community colleges. Just this month, the Education Department released an analysis of two-year colleges that found that the smaller institutions among them are more likely to enroll traditional college-age students and full-time students -- the students most likely to graduate quickly.

McClenney said that making the information public is intended to allow people to find out more about a community college in their area and -- most important -- to enable community colleges to compare themselves to similar institutions and figure out which practices are effective. So a group of large, urban community colleges might notice that one among them had higher ratings on faculty-student interaction and then look for the policies or practices responsible. Community colleges are so different in their student bodies, academic programs, and goals that McClenney said it was "silly" to use her survey's data for a ranking.

Others object to the use of graduation rates. The analysis is based on the federal definition, which is the percentage of students who graduate within 150 percent of the standard times, or three years for an associate degree.

George Boggs, president of the American Association of Community Colleges, said that while it was "good that people are paying attention to community colleges," he did not see the need for rankings and questioned the use of graduation rates for comparisons.

Small community colleges are more likely to focus on preparing students to earn an associate degree and transfer, while many larger urban institutions have a much broader mission, helping students who only want to take a few courses or to learn English. The data also exclude part-time students, a majority at many large urban institutions, Boggs said.

Before he came to AACC, Boggs was president of Palomar College, a two-year California institution. Students there routinely took six years to graduate, he said, for both educational and financial reasons. Boggs noted that many students enroll needing remedial work, and then can take only a limited number of courses at a time due to family and work obligations. If a community college student takes longer, but really learns, that's a success, and measures that ignore such success have limited value, he said.

"Our population is not as homogeneous and it takes our students longer to get their degrees," he said.

The Washington Monthly rankings were compiled by Kevin Carey, research and policy manager at Education Sector, a Washington-based think tank that has been critical of many college rankings. Carey wrote an Education Sector report last year that criticized most rankings for emphasizing factors that correlate with wealth instead of learning. Rankings based on student learning and graduation rates, he wrote, would be better and could include community colleges.

Carey is out of town and could not be reached for comment about the criticisms of his methodology. The editor of Washington Monthly also could not be reached.

In a note on methodology published with the rankings, Carey acknowledged that CCSSE and graduation rates are imperfect measures, but defended their use. He writes that "unlike the lists in the myriad guidebooks to four-year colleges that choke the shelves of newsstands and bookstores each year, this list is entirely based on measures with a research-proven link to student success -- or, in the case of graduation rates, a measure of success itself."

Using that system, the top 10 community colleges according to Washington Monthly are: 1. Atlanta Technical College, 2. Cascadia Community College (Washington State), 3. Southern University at Shreveport, 4. Southwestern Community College (North Carolina), 5. Hazard Community and Technical College (Kentucky), 6. North Florida Community College, 7. Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College, 8. Southeast Kentucky Technical and Community College, 9. Zane State College (Ohio), and 10. Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College (Georgia).

Robert Morse, who directs the U.S. News rankings, said that his magazine has been trying to put more information about community colleges on its Web site, but has been held back because there are not as many reliable data sources, and much of the demand for the magazine's rankings comes from high school students and their families who are looking many colleges, not the more "place bound" students who enroll at two-year institutions that are close to home, without doing a national search.

While those issues remain, Morse said, "that doesn't mean they will hold us back in the future," adding that the magazine was "studying ways to assess them and measure which ones are doing a good job or not quite as good."

Morse, who has not seen the Washington Monthly rankings, said he found some of the criticism they are receiving ironic. "How many times is U.S. News told to look at student engagement and what really goes on in the classroom," he said. When another magazine does so, Morse noted, it is not being praised, but criticized.

The Four-Year Alternative Rankings

Beyond releasing the first community college rankings, Washington Monthly also released -- for the third time -- its rankings of four-year colleges. The magazine uses a formula that favors colleges that promote social mobility (as measured, for example, by percentage of Pell Grant recipients), support for the research enterprise (research grants awarded and also percentage of undergraduate alumni who go on to earn Ph.D.'s) and national service (through such measures as ROTC participation and percentage of alumni who enter the Peace Corps).

Applying such a system yields a very different picture from the U.S. News rankings. The top 30 lists for national universities and liberal arts colleges in Washington Monthly feature three historically black colleges (South Carolina State University at No. 10 university; Spelman College at No. 10 liberal arts college and Morehouse College at No. 20). The U.S. News rankings don't feature any historically black colleges in the equivalent top 30s. The top liberal arts colleges in Washington Monthly is Presbyterian College, which ranks 106th in U.S. News.

Washington Monthly is known as a liberal-leaning magazine, so the No. 1 national university, Texas A&M University, may surprise some. But the magazine has a long history pushing for national service by college students. The magazine's use of ROTC in its formula was a big part of Texas A&M's top rating (and also helped Virginia Military Institute gain the No. 5 slot among liberal arts colleges).

In the national universities category, the U.S. News rankings yield a largely private group at the top and Washington Monthly tilts public. Among privates, the Washington Monthly priorities also tend to upset standard hierarchies. Here for example is the Monthly's take on the Ivies: "Harvard, Yale, and Princeton may make up the top three finishers on this year's U.S. News list, but by our measures they don't perform nearly as well. The alma maters of John F. Kennedy, George W. Bush, and Brooke Shields come in at, respectively, 27th, 38th, and (yikes!) 78th place. Our top Ivy? Humble Cornell, which places seventh, thanks to the large number of its graduates who earn Ph.D.'s or join the Peace Corps."

Here is the Washington Monthly's top 10 national universities, with their U.S. News scores as well.

Monthly Rank University U.S. News Rank
1 Texas A&M 62
2 UCLA 25
3 Berkeley 21
4 UC San Diego 38
5 Penn State 48
6 U of Michigan 25
7 Cornell 12
8 UC Davis 42
9 Stanford 4
10 South Carolina State n/a
See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on New Rankings Controversy -- Over Community Colleges

  • Flawed and unnecessary
  • Posted by Tom McCool on August 20, 2007 at 7:55am EDT
  • Community college administrators already know who the top CC's are in comparable markets, and routinely share best practices. They certainly don't need Washington Monthly's help in that area.

    Graduation rates for CC's are deceiving for exactly the reasons Mr. Boggs states. One of my favorite stories about graduation rates occured during my first month on the job at my CC, nearly nine years ago.

    I ran into an old acquaintance from high school (the CC where I work is located in my hometown). I invited him into my office for a chat.

    He went to work at a local factory right out of high school, over 20 years prior to that day. He was tired of factory work, and had begun taking classes in heating and air-conditioning. I asked him how long he had been a student at the CC.

    "Ten years," was his reply. He was planning on graduating that spring, and he did. I watched him cross the stage and receive his associate of applied science degree.

    I saw my friend again at our 30 year HS reunion. He's working at a local heating and cooling company. He's not making the same salary if he had attended a four-year college right out of high school, earned a bachelor's degree, and worked in an administrative position (like me). But he is happy. What more does one really need?

  • An idea whose time has not come
  • Posted by Dawit Teklu on August 20, 2007 at 10:10am EDT
  • Thank you Kay for pointing out that trying to rank community colleges using the CCSSE data is a dumb idea. I would like to add that it is a waste of time and resources on the magazine’s part.

  • Hey!!
  • Posted by kgotthardt on August 20, 2007 at 10:10am EDT
  • I graduated from Middlesex Community College in MA and was taught by professors from Brown and Harvard. This is where I first got to apply my love of poetry, reading and thinking.

    The personalized attention and tutoring services I received there were exceptional. If it weren't for this college, I never would have continued my education at all. I didn't have high enough SAT scores to get into the state school and I didn't have the self esteem at the time. Earning high grades and having my young notions challenged through excellent teaching and support at the Community College was my saving grace.

    Personally, I feel rankings are part of the "business" of education and not indicative of learning or success. As Tom points out, lifelong learning and satisfaction are much more important than rankings. So far, there are few institutional types that offer the opportunity and accessibility Community Colleges can offer. Rankings are superfluous.

  • A Disservice
  • Posted by Rod Risley , Executive Director at Phi Theta Kappa Honor Society on August 20, 2007 at 10:30am EDT
  • Most who have a measure of understanding of post secondary education realize that "community" colleges are judged successful when they effectively fulfill their mission of providing instruction that meets the needs of those within in the local community. Some colleges must focus on workforce development and others tranfer programs. With needs of communities varying significantly, how could a ranking as prepared by the Washingon Monthly possibly have any usefulness? I agree with Dr. McClenney, that this ranking is "silly", and furthermore a disservice to community colleges.

  • Keeping score
  • Posted by Abbott Katz on August 20, 2007 at 11:35am EDT
  • In keeping with the rankings craze gripping higher ed and inspired by precedents set by other sports, the moment has arrived to inaugurate the idea whose time has finally come - Fantasy Academics.

    The game is simple: for the affordable entry fee (1% of your salary -- 1/2% if your school is nationally accredited), team managers get to draft 20 professors from the league’s talent roster (plus three support staff), each rated by an exclusive metric weighting citation indexes, percent of office hours actually kept, hits to their personal web page, (student) passing percentage, ratemyprofessors.com smiley icon status, and attendance figures, all to be updated on the FA weekly stats sheet. As with other such fantasy competitions, managers can trade staff to competing teams and scan the tenure-denial waiver wires to scout for recently released players - er, professors. Teams making the finals compete for the grand prize -- an all-expense-paid visit to the set of Ward Churchill’s guest appearance on Big Brother. The runner-up wins a dinner for two with E. Gordon Gee, once we find him. Get in now; leagues are forming fast.

    I don’t know about you, but I’m stoked.

  • Washington Monthly in the right direction
  • Posted by John S on August 20, 2007 at 12:35pm EDT
  • I can respect those who generally disagree with the usefulness of rankings. However, if rankings are going to happen anyways, at least the Washington Monthly's approach is much, much better than US News'. Much of the critique of their community college ranking methodology focused on the 15% derived from graduation rates. I share the view that such a measure is inappropriate for evaluating community colleges. A more appropriate measure would be to determine what percentage of those who entered with the intention of pursuing a degree, are still pursuing the degree. In the past few years I took a couple classes offered through a community college primarily out of interest. I never had any intention of pursuing a degree but perhaps I ended up getting counted a a drop out in spite of the fact that I already have a degree from somewhere else.

    Although the sponsors of the CCSE survey disagree with using the data for purposes of rankings, those measures are much more valid and meaningful than those used by US News.

    If the Washington Monthly wants to continue to improve this community college ranking system, perhaps they could break it into various categories based on type of institution and mission just like the broader ranking systems. Community colleges whose student bodies are primarily traditional and full-time ought to be compared against similar ones and not against those whose student bodies are primarily part-timer working adults.

  • Rankings
  • Posted by Marvin McConoughey on August 20, 2007 at 1:05pm EDT
  • I favor rankings of community colleges. Certainly, the colleges themselves are too conflicted to do the task.

    Rankings are one more source of information. Let the marketplace decide which ones attract the greatest use and reputation.

  • Posted by Art Cohen on August 20, 2007 at 3:05pm EDT
  • Thank you, Kay, for all the right reasons.

  • Market Fundamentalism
  • Posted by David Ayers , Assistant Professor at UNCG on August 20, 2007 at 3:05pm EDT
  • Let the markets decide? Who, exactly is the market? And should "the market" make decisions on flawed data sources? Does a place-bound community-college student really have a choice about which college to attend? The market is not a magical "sorting hat".

  • Posted by Robert on August 20, 2007 at 5:35pm EDT
  • What market? Students, across the country. Place-bound? Get with the 21st Century; community college students are the among the most savy in accessing distance learning. Notice the word 'distance.' That's the market.

  • Posted by jamy on August 20, 2007 at 5:50pm EDT
  • Yes, community college students are generally place-bound. But many have some range of choice, even if it's only two colleges or college systems. Plus, if a college particularly fails to engage students, the taxpayers who carry part of the bill should know. Public pressure might spur improvements.

    Completing a degree, or at least a certificate, does matter. Yes, some people find a job before completing a course of study, and some people are there for lifelong learning. But many students take a couple of classes, don't get enough skills to be marketable, and drop out. Their life situation is not improved.

    As a journalist, I can say the inability to get all the student engagement numbers is frustrating. It's a great tool, but why should administrators be the only ones who get to make comparisons. Those comparisons would be enlightening to the public, too.

    The historic tendency of USNWR to measure "reputation" and inputs is frustrating. But we should be trying to measure outcomes or added value, and prospective students should be able to see those numbers. Washington Monthly values particular outcomes, and is perfectly up-front about them. If you don't like what they're measuring for, come up with your own ruler. After all, Washington Monthly didn't like what USNWR was measuring for.

  • Limitations and Cautions
  • Posted by Alex McCormick at Carnegie Foundation on August 20, 2007 at 7:55pm EDT
  • Two quick points: First, not all community colleges participate in CCSSE, so apart from the various critiques already raised, it doesn't provide a comprehensive national portrait of community colleges. Looking across participants from 2005-2007 nets 525 colleges. At best, this is a ranking of those 525.

    Second, remember this is a SURVEY of students. The more closely students' responses to these surveys get linked to where their school comes out in a national ranking, their motivations to respond candidly are severely compromised. For more on this, see:
    http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/conversations/sub.asp?key=244&subkey=1898

  • Funny
  • Posted by Buzz on August 20, 2007 at 8:45pm EDT
  • " .. The market is not a magical “sorting hat"."

    Of course -- as opposed to "the truth" portrayed by college marketing departments, spin produced by college PR departments, clever-by-half parsing by college executives, etc. ..

    The great unwashed are a heck of a lot smarter than the aforementioned. Just ask Andy Cuomo, Ward Churchill, Taxpayers Against Government Waste, The Concord Coalition, and others.

  • Posted by Highwayman on August 21, 2007 at 3:45am EDT
  • Texas A&M is known by Texans as "the school". It is the pride of our state. Congratulations to the Aggies. I don't see my school, Concordia University on the list this year.

  • Posted by Sue G-P on August 24, 2007 at 9:40pm EDT
  • If you are going to reproduce The Washington Monthly's list, at the very least do it accurately. We at #8 are Southeast Kentucky Community and Technical College. We're very of what we do and we're proud of our name.

  • Community College Ranking based on CCSSE
  • Posted by John Boone , Director of IE and Research at Wake Technical Community College on April 4, 2008 at 2:05pm EDT
  • Please keep in mind that not all community college participate in CCSSE (in North Carolina for example an average of only 10 community college participate each year out of the 58 institutions in the NC System).