Rankings and University Decision Making
College rankings have become a global phenomenon since U.S . News first published our America's Best Colleges rankings in 1983 and are perhaps becoming a positive force for innovation at some colleges. There are now more than 40 countries with national rankings systems, and there are also a few international ranking systems that compare colleges across the world, including our World's Best Colleges and Universities.
Of course, it's clear that rankings are controversial, and many in academia in the United States and around the world have many issues with these systems. Some even believe that rankings do far more harm than good in terms of influencing higher education policy.
However, a recent report, "Impact of College Rankings on Institutional Decision Making: Four Country Case Studies," concludes that rankings have had a positive and innovative impact and that U.S. institutions should study those results. The report was published by the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) in Washington and was based on interviews with key institutional stakeholders in Australia, Canada, Germany, and Japan.
IHEP President Michelle Asha Cooper said that:
"at a time when institutional accountability, assessment, and data-driven decision making pressures are at a high both in the United States and abroad, this report provides a useful framework for considering how rankings add to and distract from institutional improvement efforts. It is our hope that institutions will consider the strategies used in other countries to reexamine the positive and negative ways rankings are influencing their own work."
The report says rankings influence institutional decision making in strategic positioning and planning, staffing and organization, quality assurance, resource allocation and fund raising, and admissions and financial aid.
Based on the case studies, the report recommends five ways that American institutions could use rankings to run their institutions in more innovative ways.
"1. Improved data-based decision making. Rankings can prompt institutional discussions about what constitutes success and how the institution can better document and report that success.
2. Increased participation in broader discussions about measuring institutional success. Rankings can encourage institutions to move beyond their internal conversations to participate in broader national and international discussions about new ways of capturing and reporting indicators of success.
3. Improved teaching and learning practices. While the case study institutions continue to point to their changing practices that alter input indicators—increasing selectivity, favoring research over teaching, and strengthening the faculty profile—a number of institutions are also reporting changes to practices directly related to student learning and success.
4. Identification and replication of model programs. Institutions should be open to using rankings to identify and share best practices.
5. Increased institutional collaboration. Rankings can be important starting points to identify institutions with which to collaborate and partner."
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (2) | Print
Reader Comments
Graduate School and undergraduate rankings
Which School is better ?, a program that admits students in the 95th percentile of test scores (GRE), GPAS and ability, but their graduates end up in the 90th perrcentile of quality in the work force, and by their impact in academia or industry Or a program that admits students in the 80th percentile of same performance and ability and makes them better by making them employed/employable and productive with impact at the 90th ranking of acadenmic or competitive parameters ?.
The concept of ranking is most welcome, but it is bedevilled by methodological flaws. The training institutions to be ranked, should ideally have comparable input, and the OUTPUT ( the graduates and their accomplishments in academia and the work force) will be a more accurate measure of the QUALITY of the institution attended. This approach may be pedantic and is not feasible or practical in the real world. Alumni networking and other non-meritious or 'reputational factors" are known to determine job and other opportunities.
The quality of a program's academic staff as reflected by their academic distinctions, awards, prizes, publications and patents
as well as the quality of their graduates and postgraduates, as indicated by where they get employed and what they achieve is the best measure of acadermic rankings. More of these parameters which are not easily obtained are needed for more accurate rankings. Further, rankings need not be done annualy for all disciplines, as the the impact of changes in institutional recruitment or policy may have a longer gestation period, than the one year interval of the annual rankings.
Who and What Defines Success?
I'm not sure anyone would dispute the idea that rankings could be a valuable tool for students and educators alike, if and only if there were such things as objective standards for a successful institution or for the best fit for each student. In the absence of such universal standards, it is not the existence of rankings which is questioned, but the methodology and implementation of such information. Too many students (and advisers) do not view these rankings with a critical eye, but instead treat them as a gold standard. They feel pressure to get into a top-10 school, whether it's the best learning environment for that individual or not. I'd rather see a student attend the 82nd ranked school if it is the right fit for him or her, than to shoehorn themselves into a more highly ranked school because of an artificial perception that it is somehow better.
advertisement
