US News and Tuition Inflation

Most people realize that the U.S. News and World Reports rankings of America's best colleges are a bit silly. What they tend not to realize is that since a change in rankings has real impact on a college administrator's career, real things happen in higher education in an effort to move up the rankings, and this has real -- and very bad -- consequences. Kevin Carey has one example here, noting that a large proportion of the U.S. News score is based on pure input measures (spending per student, etc.) rather than anything related to educational outcomes:

That tranlsates into incentives that virtually guarantee inefficiency and constantly rising costs. If a university were able to figure out how to reduce its costs by, say, 10 percent, while holding quality constant, and it chose to pass those savings along to its customers in the form of a tuition decrease, its U.S. News rankings would go down. If, on the other hand, it became 10 percent less efficient and passed the cost onto customers in the form a tuition increase (not a hard thing to do if you're a selective college), its ranking would go up.

But nothing's good for magazine sales like a much-discussed list, and so the madness continues.

Comments

If a college became 10% less "efficient," that could come to be reflected in the other measures of quality, more people could be dissuaded by the higher cost, alumni could get angry, students could drop out, the Prisoner's Dilemma peer assesment may even be affected. If the college retains efficiency but cuts costs, then more students may be attracted by the lower cost.

No it is not a perfect measure by any standard, but I do not believe that having a standard definition of what a college does and then giving entrance exams and exit exams to students based on that definition to see how much the college contributes is really a viable alternative.

It is always useful to be able to categorize things, even something as silly as college rankings.

Another thing, it is one thing for colleges not to publicize their rankings, but it is ridiculous, relativist, self-righteous hooey for colleges to refuse to participate. If the education a school provides is special and valuable and is not reflected in these rankings, then the college should still be able to articulate its merits without the rankings, especially considering that people who make their decisions based on U.S. News are not likely to be open to the special value of the school. (Yes, I know it may be the parents making the decision, but still!)

Posted by Moral Panicker | October 23, 2007 9:09 AM

There are a number of things that would have to take place to solve this problem.

(1) A cultural shift to deemphasize the importance of higher education. In the 19th Century, when less than 1% of the population went to college, it was (adjusted for inflation) quite cheap.

(2) So many of the degrees offered today are proletarian, vocational nonsense (e.g. business degrees, "education" degrees, public policy degrees, many political "science" degrees, et alia) and should be relegated to trade schools.

(3) End all international admissions (except perhaps from the UK and Europe, as we have long-standing ancestral ties). The international demand for our colleges has driven up the cost, but our primary concern should be for American students.

(4) Get rid of administrators. I don't remember the exact statistic, but it was something the effect that colleges in the 1930s had 1 administrator for ever 12 college professors. Now there are about 25 administrators for ever 1 college professor. This is also the case for primary and secondary public schools. In both cases, states should pass laws requiring that a set percent (e.g. 75%) of expenditures be for instructor salaries.

Posted by Bede | October 23, 2007 9:30 AM

I know I've already told the story about Wesleyan's ranking and how they improved them a few years ago in the space... what drives me crazy is that everyone you ask admits that these rankings are ridiculous and without merit, but they can't get outside of the system that values them despite their obvious worthlessness. It's madness.

it is one thing for colleges not to publicize their rankings, but it is ridiculous, relativist, self-righteous hooey for colleges to refuse to participate.

Uh, why? You're begging the question. You seem to assume that everyone agrees to the value of the various rankings. But that's the controversy exactly. There is no value to many of the quantifiable criteria-- the rate at which a school rejects applicants, I promise you, will not affect your undergraduate education-- and from these, the US News people create rankings with other, utterly opaque rankings, often seemingly arbitrarily. I think opting out is precisely what to do.

Posted by Freddie | October 23, 2007 9:49 AM

This is also the case for primary and secondary public schools.

1:25 teacher/adminsitrator ratio seems a bit high.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | October 23, 2007 10:07 AM

1:25 teacher/adminsitrator ratio seems a bit high.

It's probably right--after all, no one said college administrators to college professors. You have to count GM, Microsoft, etc. in the mix.

Posted by calling all toasters | October 23, 2007 10:14 AM

In my capacity as a college professor and department chair, I have begged everybody above me who will listen to pay no attention at all to the US News ratings. Better yet, refuse to cooperate. As you say, they do much more harm than good.

I can use it as an accurate detector of when pigs start to fly.

As for Bede's call to end all international admissions -- only if you want to destroy America.

Posted by Ba'al | October 23, 2007 10:46 AM

1) The US News rankings survives because people know of no good alternative. The way to dump US News is to point out that there are better alternatives.

2) A university in Shanghai advises Chinese students re US Universities by looking at the research output of the US schools -- not only number of published articles but the extent to which a published article is cited by other researchers in the field. This doesn't necessary tell you if a school TEACHES undergraduates what it knows -- it just tells you that the University is probably up on the latest knowledge.

3) Several of the criteria that US News uses as proxy for lack of info are kinda dubious , in my opinion. As are the weights they give to the various criteria.

But I think their "Peer ranking" and "recruiter ranking" columns are of value and roughly match what other sources indicate. Probably because the professors they poll use the other sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_and_university_rankings#Faculty_Scholarly_Productivity_rankings

The "Top American Research Universities" report is very interesting , for example. It shows how Paul Wolfowitz's refuge -- John Hopkins University -- is basically a wholly owned proprietary of the US Government. In my opinion, the "policy papers" put out by Hopkins' Nitze School reflect that relationship.

The "Top American Research Universities" report also shows that little-know University of California at San Francisco gets a LOT more research money from Silicon Valley than does snooty Stanford. Given that entrepreneurs know value when they see it, this is something kids considering a Computer Science major might want to look into.

4) US News also makes the important distinction between colleges without PhD programs versus large Universities and between liberal arts schools versus national universities.

I think , however, it fails somewhat to see the difference in mission between public universities and private. Penn State, in my opinion, deserves the respect and support given to Harvard.

5) It was somewhat astute of US News to recognize the hilariously low-ranking Engineering programs within the Ivy League , for example.

Posted by Don Williams | October 23, 2007 11:02 AM

Re the Ivy League Engineering programs, Cornell and probably Princeton are respectable. But HARVARD???

No wonder poor Oppenheimer had to recruit all those European scholars for the Manhattan Project. Plus the guys from the University of California system -- which was basically the same thing.

Bede might want to reconsider his reco that foreign scholars not be admitted to US universities.

In 1939, the Ivy League was very inbred -- and we knows what inbreeding leads to. Look at George W if you doubt me.

If we had to depend upon the intellects of our rich elites in WWII--especially on the demanding Manhattan Project -- we would be goosestepping and speaking German today.

Posted by Don Williams | October 23, 2007 11:14 AM

A university in Shanghai advises Chinese students re US Universities by looking at the research output of the US schools

That is because that university is advising its students regarding how best to go about finding a good program for their graduate studies. And in that case the absolute most important thing is that you have a good advisor in a good department that produces quality research. That university in Shanghai is giving the best advice.

Posted by Tyro | October 23, 2007 11:41 AM

A university in Shanghai advises Chinese students re US Universities by looking at the research output of the US schools

This is excellent advice for graduate (esp. PhD) students. For undergraduates, it essentially says pick a school where you'll be taught by graduate students. That's not necessarily a bad thing --they will probably be very bright grad students -- but you do run a "luck of the draw" risk (I remember the idiot geology student who taught [very badly] my calculus course.)

Posted by Gene | October 23, 2007 12:09 PM

I kinda liked the rankings when my school was in the top twenty of liberal arts schools, but after it dropped out of the top 25 I didn't like it anymore. Ha ha. But seriously, it really is a bunch of bullshit. And now schools have learned to up their ranking by playing the numbers game——including raising tuition, which creates the appearance of value. The Times had a good article on that phenomenon, which had helped Ursinus and other schools raise their application numbers and other stats. ‘Hey, it costs $40k a year. It must be a great school!’ The whole system will break down when the majority of the working force consists of people who are paying off one or two degrees. I thought it was bad graduating with $15k in debt, but now it’s not unheard of to leave undergrad with three or four times that much. Ridiculous. And it’s not like wages have increased by 50%, so why has tuition?

Posted by tinisoli | October 23, 2007 1:11 PM

The US News rankings survives because people know of no good alternative.

When I went to college, there was very little good information about colleges. You got these glossy guides in the mail after taking the SAT, and they told you nothing. If you knew someone who had gone to a particular college in the recent past, you could talk to that person.

But most people chose colleges based on reputation, proximity or location, whether they had friends and family who went there, whether they had a good football team, etc. There was little objective information about a decision that has tremendous effects in one's life. I think the colleges liked it that way.

US News, for all of its problems, presents a method of evaluating colleges. It may not be perfect, it may have many flaws. But at least someone is trying to actually tell people whether the schools that they are applying to are really any good.

Posted by Dilan Esper | October 23, 2007 3:00 PM

The prestige of colleges is mostly related to how old they are. The top private liberal arts colleges, for example, have barely changed in makeup since F. Scott Fitzgerald's day. The USNWR ratings system at least gives college administrators some tangible way to compete and to get the word out that they are moving up. I know of one college that was quite awful in 1991, but has succeeded in raising average SAT scores of entrants for 16 straight years, and that shows up in the USNWR rankings. Competition is better than cartelization. Without ratings like this, colleges would coast even more than they do now on their ancient prestige.

Posted by Steve Sailer | October 23, 2007 4:28 PM

Re "The prestige of colleges is mostly related to how old they are"
---------
1)Wrong. William and Mary is the second oldest college in the USA (1693) -- yet ranks relatively far down on US News list. (33?)

2) It's not AGE -- it's Money. Endowment. Harvard has a $35 BILLION endowment --built on 300 years of compound interest on the profits from the slave trade.

So Harvard can acquire scholars the way Southern Plantation owners acquired cotton pickers -- she can buy them. She can outbid anyone for any scholar she wants. Which tends to impress the professors who rate the Universities.

3) Top Colleges by size of Endowment along with US News ratings:

a) Harvard --$35 Bil -- 2
b) Yale --$22.5 Bil -- 3
c) Stanford -- $17.2 Bil-- 4
d) Princeton -- $15.8 Bil -- 1
e) MIT -- $10 Bil -- 7
f) Columbia -- $7.1 Bil -- 9
g) Univ. of Michigan -- $7.1 Bil -- 25
g) University of Pennsylvania -- $6.6 Bil -- 5
h) Notre Dame -- $6.5 Bil -- 19

Anyone see a pattern???

Note: Above info is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._colleges_and_universities_by_endowment

Note: The University of California as a WHOLE has an endowment of $7.3 Billion -- but this is multiple universities.

The public universities --because they are state-supported -- generally have much lower endowments. Their promise of future state funding is not ranked as highly as actually having money in the bank, the way the private universities do.

Plus professors know that the state funding will require professors to actually --you know -- TEACH. Educate kids. A repulsive idea.

(U Penn , by the way, is a Private University, not a State University. Penn State is our public University --and has an endowment of only $1.4 bil. -- and a rating of 48. Hilarious to anyone who actually knows UPenn and Penn State.

Posted by Don Williams | October 23, 2007 9:33 PM

I've mentioned this on a number of threads regarding college costs. Did undergrad work at Berkeley and Columbia. Had to go back to school to take some pre-reqs for engineering graduate school and signed up at Austin Community College. The average course quality was as good as Columbia and better than Berkeley. Grading was harder than at Columbia too, but not Berkeley. And it was bout $115 a course versus $4000 at Columbia or $2500 at Berkeley.

Posted by Sarah | October 23, 2007 10:59 PM