Search News


Browse Archives

News

'U.S. News' Sees Drop in Participation

August 22, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Even though many colleges will boast today about their placement in the annual rankings by U.S. News & World Report, more colleges than ever are declining to participate in the survey that makes up the single largest part of the magazine's formula.

Only 46 percent of colleges returned the "reputational" survey, where presidents rate similar institutions. This peer survey is particularly controversial because it is viewed as unscientific and likely to reward colleges that had great reputations in the past. But it makes up 25 percent of the magazine's formula -- more than the statistics gathered on such factors as graduation rates, faculty resources and so forth.

This year's 46 percent participation rate is down from 51 percent last year, 58 percent the year before that, and 67 percent a few years prior. The drop this year was particularly steep for liberal arts colleges -- to 44 percent from 55 percent. Much of the opposition to the magazine's rankings has come from that sector of higher education.

Robert Morse, who leads the rankings project, said in an interview that while participation saw a decrease, "it's still pretty high for a mail survey like this, so the results are still high enough to be statistically significant." Morse declined to say whether there was some level to which participation could fall to make the results invalid. "We're not concerned," he said.

So why has participation been dropping so rapidly over the last several years -- and doesn't that mean something when it's the largest factor in the formula? Morse said that the magazine hasn't done "a scientific survey to determine why the results have slipped," and said that "there could be several factors."

One factor, he said, might be "survey fatigue." Another factor may be competing campus priorities. "Certainly there has been chaos on campus," he said. "People are worried about other things than the U.S. News survey -- there's the Higher Education Act, and how are we are going to finance our incoming class."

Asked whether one factor might be the protests organized by the Education Conservancy, Morse said he could not comment. The Education Conservancy is an anti-rankings group that encouraged college presidents to sign a letter pledging not to fill out the survey on other colleges and not to use rankings in promotional materials.

Lloyd Thacker, founder of the group, said he was "encouraged" to see fewer colleges helping the magazine with its rankings. While he said he has never thought that the survey of presidents had validity, he questioned how the magazine could say it was so important -- and express no concern about such a drop in participation. "If they say that the reputational survey should account for 25 percent of ranking, how can they say a drop of that percentage over a few years doesn't affect the validity?"

The magazine's view that the fall in participation doesn't mean anything "is just another example of how they are not interested in educational validity -- but in selling magazines," Thacker said.

For his part, Morse predicted that two new features this year -- a list of "up and coming" colleges and a survey of high school counselors -- would respond to criticisms of the rankings and may well encourage more colleges to participate next year. "It could reverse itself," he said.

For the high school counselors survey, the magazine turned to counselors at the high schools that U.S. News has ranked as the best public high schools in the United States. Half were sent the survey for national universities and half the survey for liberal arts colleges. The results show that high school counselors (at least those evaluating universities) like the Ivies. In terms of participation, 800 high schools received the university survey and 26 percent responded, while of the 800 high schools that received the liberal arts survey, 27 percent responded.

The "up and coming" category, Morse noted, was a direct response to criticism that the rankings reward longstanding reputations over colleges that have recently made great strides. The methodology for this category was 100 percent based on the presidential survey, with no objective data added. Presidents, while filling out the main survey, were also asked to identify up to 10 colleges that they believed were making significant improvements.

The colleges were ranked based on which ones received the most points. Here, institutions that aren't normally at the top of U.S. News lists did appear: George Mason University, for example, topped the university list, while Davidson College topped the liberal arts list.

This new category also provides an interesting test case for those colleges that pledged not to promote themselves. When the Education Conservancy's movement started, some defenders of the rankings suggested that the critics just had a case of sour grapes. After all, the colleges that signed the pledge were not the colleges that were turning up in the top five of various U.S. News categories, this line of attack went, so of course they favored less emphasis on the magazine's ratings.

But in the new U.S. News category of "up and coming" liberal arts colleges, two institutions whose presidents have signed the pledge were included in the top five: Ursinus College and Furman University. So are their presidents having second thoughts about the pledge now that they could have material with which to boast?

David Shi, president at Furman, said that he could answer with a "hearty No" on the question of whether his university would change its opinion of U.S. News rankings.

John Strassburger, president at Ursinus, said he was pleased that people are noticing the progress at the college, but that it was real accomplishment, not rankings, that mattered. So there will be no press release coming from Ursinus.

"I am concerned that all ordinal rankings can create a distinction where there is no real difference," he said via e-mail. "I think when parents look at Ursinus they see our first year program; they see it widely praised, they see one of the biggest and most successful Undergraduate Summer Fellows programs around, and they note we are one of 50 schools whose students win Watson Fellowships. So I do not plan to change our pledge regarding U.S. News, even while I am happy to think in this case that they got it right."

Other colleges -- whose presidents didn't sign the pledge -- started issuing press releases many hours before the rankings were officially released, at 12:01 this morning. Generally, those releases don't come from those on the top of the lists, but from those wanting reporters to know that the colleges were at the top of some subcategory or made a top 100 list. For those dying to know who is on the top of the research university category (usually the one that captures the most attention), some university based in Cambridge displaced one in New Jersey.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on 'U.S. News' Sees Drop in Participation

  • Methodology scrutiny
  • Posted by John on August 22, 2008 at 9:50am EDT
  • By way of comparison (and just for laughs) Forbes' list of "America's Best Colleges" places 25% weight on the student ratings and rantings posted to MTV's RateMyProfessor.com. They do not disclose whether extra merit is awarded faculty who have earned the coveted Chili Pepper of Hotness.

  • Actually...
  • Posted by JO on August 22, 2008 at 11:00am EDT
  • ...from the Forbes methodology section:
    "There is also a chili (hotness) component that assesses the professor's physical appearance. A professor receiving more hots than not hot is given a chili by his or her name. We ignored the chili component in the determination of this component of the rankings."

    And while I would be among the first to criticize the bitterness and ignorance exhibited on RMP, trying to use a measure of student satisfaction with teaching is one of the best features of Forbes' system.

  • About time!
  • Posted by Joe Stehno on August 22, 2008 at 11:31am EDT
  • I am happy to see more colleges & universities opting out of this ridiculous survey. Despite the "spin" US News puts on the decline, the bottom line is that the whole idea of ranking colleges is so superficial and does nothing but drive sales of the edition while contribiting to the hysteria surrounding "name-brand" institutions. I'll be happy when there's 0% participation...the sooner the better.

  • Inside the survey participation drop
  • Posted by Ed on August 22, 2008 at 11:31am EDT
  • The total number of returned surveys may retain statistical significance, but 100% of the completed surveys do not evaluate 100% of the institutions.

    How does US News account for this? Maybe every president feels qualified to evaluate a Harvard or Stanford, but the environment around the survey may have also caused presidents to narrow the field of peers they feel qualified to evaluate -- West Dakota State, as a hypothetical example.

    Just one more reason the "black box" of reputation needs a little sunlight in order for US News to retain any credibility for their ratings.

    ...And I think the availability of the US News and other ratings is a good thing.

  • Posted by Claire on August 22, 2008 at 11:45am EDT
  • If US News would do its rankings without including the "reputation" score, but provide a separate listing of schools arranged by reputation score, they would

    (a) present a more accurate record of accomplishments based on statistical data for those who value this &
    (b) provide a hierarchically arranged list that parents and students who value reputation highly could consult.

    Most importantly, US News should do random checks of data submitted by schools each year by requesting internal documentation. I know at least one school where, despite deep misgivings expressed by the Director of Institutional Research, acceptance rates are represented nearly 10 percentage points higher and where graduation rates are regularly misrepresented.

    Self reporting assumes an honor code, and while many adhere to it, high levels of competition make for a few cads within the system as well.

  • College Rankings, Ratings, & Rantings
  • Posted by Jerry Pattengale , Assistant Provost at Indiana Wesleyan University on August 22, 2008 at 12:30pm EDT
  • Scott, First, your last line is among your best to date. Clever. As for the issue at hand, I wish poignant pens could resolve the dissonance. I'm struck by the context of this debate--we're operating in a new economy. During this "flat world" and against the backdrop of the Bologna project, it's perhaps indicative of the Academy's woes that we can become too preoccupied with a for-profit's actions. I've written about this before, and my frustrations with the rankings (even though our school seems to be treated well) are not to convince them to stop but to improve. If the academy had thought of such a magazine, successfully assessed ourselves, we could have generated millions for scholarships. The client drives this money maker, and we're not the client. It's the parents of these millennials not the professoriate. It seems that U.S.News would want to hire Paul Gore, Randy Swing, Ed St. John and John Braxton (and of course, Cliff Adelman) to assess their process, and then to post recommendations to U.S.News to improve the survey's validity. Then, two years later, post a follow-up (and do so on this site, with you and Doug as the gatekeepers). Also, it seems that Foundations of Excellence's results should factor into the scoring. John Gardner and Betsy Barefoot (Brevard, NC) have produced a remarkable means for assessing colleges, and with HLC endorsements, not to mention praise from a host of institutions. Thanks for the article—especially so close to the reports.

  • statistically significant?
  • Posted by jayvee on August 22, 2008 at 12:40pm EDT
  • Your article quotes Robert Morse, who leads the rankings project, as saying that while participation saw a decrease, "it’s still pretty high for a mail survey like this, so the results are still high enough to be statistically significant.'"
    NOBODY who says something like this is qualified to evaluate educational institutions. "Statistically significant" isn't a fuzzy rhetorical term of praise, like "epoch-making" or "lovable." It means that the mathematical probability is very high that what is being measured is accurately described by the statistics compiled. A 50% survey return, where there's no evidence that those who don't return the questionnaire have the same opinions as those who do, does not meet the test. US News' methodology is exactly like that of the Literary Digest, which in 1936 predicted the presidential victory of Alf Landon.

  • Looking For Information
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on August 22, 2008 at 12:46pm EDT
  • Scott, I heard something on the grapevine that I’d like share with you. First, I heard that U.S. News & World Report’s Robert Morse sent Furman president, David Shi, an announcement in the form of a limerick; to wit ...

    The “Report” says that Furman is great.

    Your rank is no longer “light weight.”

    But our sales rule the day,

    So next year you’re passé.

    Start bragging before it’s to late.

    Second, I heard he changed “that Furman” to “Ursinus” and sent the same limerick to John Strassburger.

    Third, I have been told that the revenue from the college and university ranking issue of USN&WR is 25% of their annual take (sort of like Christmas in August) ... so it’s in their best interest to keep tinkering with their “formulae” in order to move schools around and keep customers coming back.

    Is there any truth to those rumors?

  • Posted by Patrick Mattimore , Evidence of Harm? on August 22, 2008 at 2:20pm EDT
  • Along with Frizbane's question about whether the College edition is 25% of USN&WR's entire yearly magazine revenue, does anyone know the percentage of USN&WR issues that include "best of" rankings (either as cover or feature stories)?
    From someone who has either read "Colleges Unranked" (the Education Conservancy book) or has independently thought about it, what are the three most damaging criticisms of the USN&WR annual college rankings?

  • Posted by Retired Prof on August 22, 2008 at 2:40pm EDT
  • One must remember that, for US News, Forbes,or any other commercial enterprise that does such ratings, the rankings are merely something to fill the vast white spaces in between the advertisements.

  • Sorry jayvee, I Just Can’t Help Myself
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on August 22, 2008 at 2:40pm EDT
  • First, jayvee, I completely agree with your observation that when you hear someone say “it’s still pretty high for a mail survey like this, so the results are still high enough to be statistically significant,” you should immediately “sign off” and go back to watching Judge Judy. That’s true of a great many of Robert Morse’s statements; to wit:

    1. “...the magazine hasn’t done ‘a scientific survey to determine why the results have slipped.’”

    But of course ... no one would ever accuse USN&WR of knowing anything about scientifically based survey research. Why start now?

    2. “Certainly there has been chaos on campus.”

    Damn, I’ve got to start paying more attention. I have completely missed that “chaos on campus.”

    3. About the possibility that the Education Conservancy boycott reduced participation, he responded, “ ...... ”

    4. “The methodology for this category [who is ‘up and coming?’] was 100 percent based on the presidential survey, with no objective data added. Presidents, while filling out the main survey, were also asked to identify up to 10 colleges that they believed were making significant improvements.”

    Just more science I suppose. Additionally, who would ever imagine that presidents actually fill out these forms? “Martha, I need to fill out this form. Would you give it to the assistant to the Assistant Director of Institutional Research ... you know, the new guy ... what’s his name? ... Bill something.”

    5. Morse did get one thing right ... ”People are worried about other things than the U.S. News survey.”

    I could go on, but the purpose of this post, jayvee, is not to criticize Robert Morse; it is to criticize your statistics. You said “’statistically significant’ ... means that the mathematical probability is very high that what is being measured is accurately described by the statistics compiled.” I wish I had sufficient space here to explain it to you, but your statement is completely wrong ... not even close.

    In any event – i.e., independent of the error of your statement – “statistical significance” is a marginally important, greatly abused concept – even by statisticians who should know better – and it is often not even consistent with "substantive significance" (which, of course, we almost never discuss ... especially in our statistics courses).

  • Posted by Aneil Mishra , Associate Professor of Management at Wake Forest University on September 4, 2008 at 3:40pm EDT
  • Just because it's claimed to be "statistically significant," doesn't necessarily mean that that the results are valid. With the continuing decline in response rate, I would bet that the sample is less representative of that of the population; that there is strong potential for response bias.

    Aneil Mishra

  • Posted by Bonnie Holaday on September 16, 2008 at 5:15pm EDT
  • It is good to see that more university presidents and provosts are decling to participate in the peer assessment. It is far too easy to "game" US News' rankings. It is now time to get the word out to parents and high school counselors that this survey is meaningless. This is issue is published because it makes a lot of money and for no other reason.