The most heavily weighted single factor in the Best Colleges rankings is Undergraduate Academic Reputation, which USN calls "Expert Opinion."
Here's the thing: there is absolutely no way the presidents, provosts, and deans of admissions they send the survey to can be qualified to answer the questions, let alone claim expertise.
This following screenshots are from a survey shared with me a few years ago. The dean of admissions was being asked to review **443** universities and rank them from 1 to 5.
Guess what he decided to do?
🚮
But wait, there's more.
USN doesn't ask deans, provosts, and presidents just to rank universities and colleges they have not attended, not worked at, and quite possibly never even seen in person.
They want them to go deep.
They ask people to nominate up to 15 universities that are, for instance, the most innovative or the most dedicated to teaching undergrads.
How does a president, provost, or dean know about any institution's dedication to teaching other than their own?
It gets worse.
Hey admissions dean, can you tell us about the First Year Experience at up to 15 colleges you don't work at?
Dear provost,
Please tell us about the undergraduate research and Senior Capstone at up to 15 colleges where you do not work.
Hello University President,
Please tell us about the internship & study abroad programs at colleges where you don't work. Bonus points if you can explain the basis of rating programs that neither you nor your employees have participated in.
🤪JK we don't care. Name some names!
I suppose it's possible for specialists in, say, study abroad programs to have enough knowledge about programs at other colleges to provide annual feedback to the president on their area of expertise, along with dozens of other people across the institution.
The amazing thing about this ridiculous, bordering on dishonest exercise is not that 4 colleges have now opted out of completing the reputation survey.
Let's talk about some dumb stuff people say about test optional admissions. 🧵
This might take a sec, so here's the tl;dr:
TO policies, in and of themselves, are neither a cure-all for what's wrong with American higher ed nor the end of what's good about it, but the evidence points to their doing some good and no harm.
Let's define TO first.
A test-optional policy is one that allows applicants to decide whether they want their test score to be considered. It does not "get rid of tests" or "ban tests."
Almost every 4-yr college in the US is currently test optional.
For decades, colleges, med schools, and law schools have all made the point that standardized tests exist to show readiness to succeed in college or grad school.
Rankings were one of the incentives to focus on scores well beyond the readiness threshold and overemphasize tests. That emphasis has excluded lots of people who were highly qualified to become lawyers and doctors.
While we're waiting for fall IPEDS data, I got curious about how segregated expensive private high schools are relative to public schools. 🧵
I used the 2019–20 Private School Universe Survey to identify schools that belong to the National Association of Independent Schools and go through twelfth grade. I got public school data from the Dept of Ed in each location. nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/pr…
I looked at just a few states. Here's my home state. I thought it looked bad, until I looked at...
McKinsey has a landing page and a recruiting team dedicated to a single university that claims to be training "citizens" and "citizen leaders." mckinsey.com/careers/studen…
There are several colleges with a landing page at McKinsey