Classify programs, not colleges

Bravo to Alexander McCormick for this important reality check on college classification systems. There are additional factors that current off-the-shelf rankings don’t consider. The most important of these is the great variation in program quality inside institutions, which I discussed in “Classify programs, not colleges” (Inside Higher Education, December 2, 2005).

There is no such thing as a research university, there are only research programs. Likewise, a university can have an excellent program in psychology and a lousy program in mathematics. That’s why many academics, when they look at large-scale rankings at all, often use the National Research Council rankings, though they tend to run half a generation behind reality.

It is perfectly fine to compare like things: do colleges A, B and C have rock-climbing walls on campus, or better than a 90 percent pass rate for architecture licensure. Comparing unlike things is a waste of time.

Also, McCormick hints at the basic labeling problem: does a school with one graduate program, say a law school, magically become a university? No. That is especially true of the huge numbers of regional colleges that have a dubious superstructure of MEd and EdD degrees standing off in one corner of the campus to serve teachers.

Alan Contreras, Administrator at Oregon Office of Degree Authorization, at 11:55 am EDT on May 10, 2007

ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz ...

This is a completely uninteresting perspective. Indeed, the only circumstances under which McCormick’s critique would have any relevance at all is if the USN&WR rankings were either scientifically defensible or practically useful even if we “repaired the damage” by taking McCormick’s advice. Beneath the surface of his “fundamental aspect of the rankings [that] has gone relatively unquestioned” is so much that is wrong with the rankings, he adds virtually nothing.

Forgive the analogy, but his essay amounts to little more than saying “grade inflation in higher education is bad because it puts undue wear on the “A” key on the keyboards of so many university faculty.”

RWH, at 1:20 pm EDT on May 10, 2007

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

In my opinion analogies are like cockroaches ... the only good one is a dead one.

Nevertheless, in response to A.G. Rud – and I suppose by default to McCormick as well —and sticking with my earlier analogy, “grade inflation may be bad, but it’s PRACTICED! And that is why we should discuss ways to keep the paint from wearing off the “A” key on academics’ keyboards.

I’m looking for adjectives to describe an argument (Rud’s) that goes ...

1. A is FUNDAMENTALLY flawed.

2. The thing that is wrong with A has nothing to do with B.

3. We will change A by altering it in accordance with B.

4. Ergo, A, having been changed in accordance with B is now good (or even “better”).

Okay, I’m still looking for adjectives ...”illogical” ... “specious” ... “weird” ... “brain-dead” ... I’ll let you know when I find one that’s appropriate.

By the way, I’m all for “valuable” discussions. Next time lets talk about why teaching students to maintain healthy diets will keep them from cheating.

RWH aka Hostile Man, at 6:25 am EDT on May 11, 2007

Programs and Colleges

I enjoyed Alan Contreras’s previous column on classifying programs, and I agree that for certain purposes (e.g. doctoral education and certain kinds of quality rankings) it makes a lot of sense. But to assert there are no research universities, only research programs, is kind of like saying there are no farmers’ markets, only vendors of fruits and vegetables. Research universities have a robust infrastructure, with deans/vice provosts for research, offices of sponsored research, as well as a variety of tools to support knowledge production (libraries, computer networks and support personnel, etc.) that amount to far more than the agglomeration of individual programs. So I’m not prepared to abandon the institution as a meaningful unit. And (to get back to the matter at hand), for students and parents deciding which college to apply to or enroll in, I think it ignores reality to think they are considering programs (or even should, at least in the case of recent high school grads).

And to RWH, well, I hope you’re not wearing town that Z key, which you seem to use a lot:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/02/27/carnegie

Alex McCormick, at 1:40 pm EDT on May 11, 2007

Why try to fix classifications

It seems to me that McCormick is saying that there are two things wrong with the USN&WR ranking. Yes, I know there are more than two, but for the purpose of this discussion the two things are ‘the classification scheme’, and ‘everything else’. These are RWH’s A and B above.

RWH seems to be saying that even though we are going to continue to use the rankings and we can’t fix A, we should ignore B, and that simply doesn’t make any sense.

Sure, if we paid attention to the classification issue that McCormick describes, and even if we are able to bring about positive change in that area, all the other things that are wrong with the rankings will still be wrong, but to ignore problems you might be able to fix because there are other problems that you think you can’t fix is crazy.

SDE, at 10:40 am EDT on May 16, 2007

Heal thyself

RWH lectures SDE to “read the article and the comments before responding” but in the very same paragraph, attributes to me statements and sentiments that appear nowhere in the article.

For the record, I do not claim that the comparison groups are the only problem with the USNWR rankings. Nor do I claim that fixing the comparison groups will fix the rankings. I don’t even take a position on whether students and parents will continue to use the rankings. My point is simply that for all the criticisms and calls to action over the years, it seems odd that the comparison groups have gone relatively unquestioned, despite problems and contradictions.

Alex McCormick, at 3:50 am EDT on May 22, 2007

Who Benefits from the Comparisons?

As a former Dean of Admissions at one of the institutions that benefited from its inclusion in what I would argue as the “wrong” competitive set in the USN&WR rankings, I think it is important to understand how these categories of institutions are developed.

The college where I worked was—and still is—a regional liberal arts institution, offering a handful of Master’s degrees (usually in the evening). Unquestionably, the academic program and almost every other aspect of the college was focused on the traditional undergraduates, with graduate and adult education and needs as an afterthought.

Yet, the institution was included in the “Masters Institutions in the Northeast” contingent, where it generally ranked quite well (usually in the top 20). However, had the college been ranked against other liberal arts institutions, even regionally, there is no doubt in my mind that the institution would have appeared far lower in the rankings.

Even the senior staff at the institution knew this to be true, as we discussed it in Cabinet meetings (often with a “Thank God we’re in the Master’s group” sentiment, if not that actual phrase). Of course, that didn’t hold the President and PR staff back from touting the college’s ranking at every opportunity, even though we knew it was a sham.

Not Crazy Enough to Give It, at 10:30 am EDT on June 1, 2007