Laurabelle's Blog

I'd be the first to tell you that college rankings are not worth much more than the paper they're printed on. (How can anyone quantify the quality of education that I will receive at a given institution, which is what I really care about?) I'm especially critical of mainstream rankings, U.S. News & World Report foremost among them, that always list the conventional elite universities at the top. The only change from year to year is a shift by a couple of places, mere statistical noise. #1 is not, to my mind, measurably and meaningfully better than #10 or even #100.

In spite of my skepticism, I read about the first annual Washington Monthly College Rankings with some interest. Perhaps I am susceptible to the American fixation with lists (to borrow a phrase from New York University's Vice President, John Beckman), but I was also intrigued by The Washington Monthly's criteria.

The first question we asked was, what does America need from its universities? From this starting point, we came up with three central criteria: Universities should be engines of social mobility, they should produce the academic minds and scientific research that advance knowledge and drive economic growth, and they should inculcate and encourage an ethic of service. We designed our evaluation system accordingly. (See A Note on Methodology.)

I won't go over their specific criteria; the Washington Monthly site covers that clearly enough. What I found most interesting is that by their ratings, many state universities and lesser-known liberal arts colleges found their way to the top, while prestigious institutions like Harvard fell into relative shame and obscurity. The reason for the mix is that the editors of Washington Monthly purposefully chose criteria, for example promotion of social mobility, that are just as well (if not better) served by small or public universities rather than the big-name Ivies.

I am pleased that both my institutions of higher learning ranked very highly by these standards: Mount Holyoke College weighed in at #11 among liberal arts colleges, and the University of Washington earned an equally respectable #14 among national universities.

More important than the actual rankings, however, is the impact that rankings have on the universities and colleges themselves, as these institutions jostle for rankings. I experienced it myself as a student at Mount Holyoke, hearing the frenetic buzz every time new rankings came out, and as an alumna I feel the pressure of the alumni-donations score. The Washington Monthly editors not only acknowledge this phenomenon but express their intention to exploit it for positive change:

The U.S. News rankings, and others like them, have had an impact. A growing body of reporting and scholarship shows that the criteria these guides use have sent administrators scurrying to increase the amount of money given by their alumni or the SAT scores of their incoming freshman in order to improve their score. Such measures have arguably very little impact on how well a school serves its student body, but as schools compete for students, every little thing—including rising or dropping two spots on a list—counts.

Imagine, then, what would happen if thousands of schools were suddenly motivated to try to boost their scores on The Washington Monthly College Rankings. They'd start enrolling greater numbers of low-income students and putting great effort into ensuring that these students graduate. They'd encourage more of their students to join the Peace Corps or the military. They'd intensify their focus on producing more Ph.D. graduates in science and engineering. And as a result, we all would benefit from a wealthier, freer, more vibrant, and democratic country.

Wow. What a powerful idea.