This week, the fate of the next class of American university attendees will be mailed to them. High school seniors nationwide will open letters of acceptance and rejection, catalysts of elation or dejection. And when the smoke clears, the power has shifted from the institution to the individual. Now, with notification deadlines imminent, the college-bound high schooler and their family will be confronted with tough choices and emotional decisions. After all, it is a rare occasion when the divergent paths of life appear so concretely before us. In light of the enormity of the decisions the students must make, I am concerned that trends in the decision-making process have begun to adversely affect both the prospective student and the schools themselves.
Every year, U.S. News and World Report releases the rankings of hundreds of undergraduate institutions. Widely considered the premier numerical ranking system, this publication influences the perceptions and choices of countless college-bound individuals and their families. Every year this publication collects empirical data and subjective opinions, crunches them through a formula, and creates a comprehensive ranking of colleges.
In a day when transparency of information is essential, college rankings are intended to break down the positive and negative aspects of each school. Additionally, in explaining their rankings U.S. News provides caveats: "Use the rankings as one tool to select and compare schools. Don't rely solely on rankings to choose a college."
However, lists such as U.S. News have become so influential that they have burgeoned beyond their intentions. Although people may not use these rankings as the sole decisive factor, they are becoming increasingly dominant. I fear that college-bound students no longer weigh the intangible merits of a school as highly as its name and rank. Consequently, universities have shifted their policies, dramatically, in order to superficially conform to the rankings' formula and to improve their spot on the list.
In some instances this may be a good thing. Colleges with low graduation and retention rates will be forced to improve these numbers to ascend the rankings. However, the largest component in U.S. News' rankings is a "peer assessment" comprising 25 percent of the ranking value (20 percent and five percent for retention and graduation rates respectively). The peer assessment survey as "allowing top academics...presidents, provosts, and deans of admission...to account for intangibles such as faculty dedication to teaching. Each individual is asked to rate peer schools' academic programs on a scale from one (marginal) to five (distinguished)."
This is where I believe the primary source of college rankings has corrupted America's top universities. The best schools, inherently, have similarly strong numbers in many of the crucial academic categories. Thus, the importance of the peer assessment, based wholly on the perceptions of others, is increasingly important. In other words, the most subjective category has become the most influential.
This fact, combined with the alarming dependency on and fixation with rankings, leads me to the conclusion that there is a problem. Colleges have been whittled down to names and numbers. Superficial decisions are made about concrete places. Consequently, public relations campaigns at colleges have become of the utmost importance. And Dartmouth is no exception. Many have criticized our administration for investing too many resources on P.R. and not enough on more academically integral factors. I fear if this trend continues, dilapidated academics may lurk behind the facades of pretty buildings and brochures.
With this, I offer a radical idea: Dartmouth should boycott the rankings. U.S. News, in describing the rankings' methodology, states that "most of the information comes from the colleges." By not providing U.S. News with the information and subjective surveys, our administration can effectively boycott.
Many may be skeptical of this idea. However, I feel that as one of the most prestigious colleges in the country, we are in a unique position to make a statement and incite a national debate. I guarantee if Harvard or Yale were to boycott, they would be taken seriously and influence the debate on perceptions of colleges. I believe that the effect of a Dartmouth boycott would be comparable.
We should forgo the pride of being the "9th best national university in the country," in order to demonstrate our commitment to academic integrity. We should remind everyone: be weary of who manipulates our perceptions. We should not spend nearly as much money as we do to make ourselves look like the best, we should spend the money to be the best. The "College on the Hill" should stand above -- displaying our own merits and downfalls through concrete actions not abstract rankings.
