As we debate the Obama administration's plan for rating colleges, it's worth noting that the most important thing that goes on in higher ed is missing from the framework, write Carol Geary Schneider and Daniel F. Sullivan.
Current efforts devalue learning and the responsibility of students for their own success, writes Christopher B. Nelson.
Stephanie Bond Huie shares how the University of Texas is collecting and sharing information without violating anyone's privacy or dictating academic choices.
Instead of criticizing professors as unhelpful recalcitrants, administrators should admit that assessment shapes what is taught and include the faculty as partners in creating the right kind of assessment, Jeffrey Alan Johnson argues.
Reporters too rarely cast a skeptical eye on proposals and buzzwords that promise change and promote innovation in higher education, Bernard Fryshman argues.
The controversy over Facebook's manipulation of data raises vexing issues for educational researchers at a time of great promise -- and risk, Justin Reich and Mitchell Stevens argue.
Too many colleges are focusing their analysis of student data to find the students likeliest to fail. Instead, they should identify which interventions will help which groups of students succeed, Dave Jarrat writes.
With debate raging over college ratings, David R. Anderson asks a straightforward question and outlines an answer.
In an open letter to Arne Duncan, Thomas Foley compares how success is defined in the education secretary's beloved sport to methods of measuring higher ed performance.
We must give students and families the right kind of information -- about multiple factors, and not blended into a single institutional rating -- about one of the most expensive purchases they will ever make, writes Carrie Warick.
Search for Jobs
Chemical, Paper and Biomedical Engineering: Assistant or Associate Professor in Biomedical/Bioengineering