President Obama’s college-rating plan met with skepticism last week, at a forum held at California State University-Dominguez Hills.
During the daylong hearing, the first of four that the U.S. Education Department will hold this month, dozens of faculty members, administrators, and students raised doubts about the data that could drive the ratings, and warned of a host of potential unintended consequences.
The White House announced its plan to develop a college-rating system comparing institutions on measures of access, affordability, and outcomes in August, during a three-campus swing through upstate New York and Pennsylvania. Though the administration doesn’t plan to release its rating system until the spring, the plan is already generating plenty of controversy.
Critics worry that the ratings will punish institutions that serve low-income students and those that prepare graduates for high-need but low-paying professions, like teaching and social work. They fear that the ratings will compel poorly performing colleges to turn away at-risk students, relax graduation standards, or drop degrees in low-paying fields.
Community colleges say the ratings won’t be useful to their students, who typically choose institutions on the basis of convenience and location. Tying federal student aid to the ratings, as the administration has proposed, would punish their students, who often have few options, the colleges argue.
Perhaps there is “a hope that students will ‘vote with their feet’ and attend higher-rated institutions,” said Thomas Fallo, superintendent and president of the El Camino Community College District, at the forum. But “most community-college students are not in a position to choose an alternative college.”
Limited Data
Other public-college leaders reminded the department that their institutions have suffered steep budget cuts in recent years, and asked officials to take that into account in the ratings. They fear that a loss of federal money will compound state budget cuts, deepening the gulf between rich and poor institutions.
Faculty members argued that an education can’t be reduced to graduation rates and earnings, and warned that a ratings system would fail to capture the full value of a college degree. Other speakers pointed out gaps in the information the Obama administration is expected to use in its ratings. Federal graduation rates count only first-time, full-time students, for example, and data on graduates’ earnings are limited.
David Levitus, who is California deputy director of Young Invincibles, a youth advocacy group, urged the department to work with Congress to lift the ban on the creation of a “unit record” system for tracking students’ outcomes.
“Without the right inputs, a new rating system will not be an effective tool for students,” he said.
Several students at the forum shared anecdotes of their struggles with student debt, and asked the department to take steps to ease their financial burdens.
Education Department officials did not respond directly to the comments but reassured the audience that they would compare institutions against their peers only.
“We’re being very sensitive to the mix and the ... values, the purpose each institution has taken on, and the student population,” said Jamienne S. Studley, a former president of Skidmore College, who was appointed a deputy undersecretary for higher education in September. She said the ratings would take into account such factors as the percentage of Pell Grant recipients that an institution serves.
The department didn’t address concerns about the outcomes data, but Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has repeatedly urged colleges not to “let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” He has promised that the agency would update the measures as better data become available.
“The data is always imperfect,” he told reporters recently. “We will use the best data we have.”
Andy Thomason contributed to this report.
