The ‘U.S. News’ College Rankings: a Modest Proposal

As I enter my 16th year as a college president, it is long past time for me to correct an oversight about which I have been in recent times most troubled.

I want to thank the good people at U.S. News & World Report for generously and wisely deciding to rank colleges and universities. While I recognize that the college rankings might not have the same value to society as other projects of U.S. News, such as “The Best States for Recreational Marijuana” or “The Best Full-Size Pick-Up Trucks,” it is important nonetheless to acknowledge a job supremely well done.

Indeed, it is painful to think back to the days before 1983 — the first year of what I shall hereafter call The Rankings — a time when prospective college students were forced to select an institution without a number affixed to its name. Even to imagine a time when the distinction between College #37 and College #39 was concealed from the consumer is difficult.

In the benighted days before The Rankings, students might not have realized that Williams College — liberal-arts college #1 for 15 consecutive years — was very wealthy and prestigious, or that Princeton University, #1 in the university rankings, by coincidence had the highest ratio of endowment dollars per student. They might not have known that extremely selective colleges, with more affluent and privileged students, have higher graduation rates than those that served fewer affluent and privileged students — and that those selective colleges and universities deserved to be rewarded for performing so invaluable a service to society.

While the cynical might believe that U.S. News ranks colleges as a way to make money or even to survive, the truth is that the goal of The Rankings is, as the website explains, to “take some of the stress out of the school research and selection process.” Any parent or admissions counselor can attest to the fact that college applicants are now far less stressed than they used to be, thanks to the efforts of the U.S. News editors.

Without The Rankings, one might have been misled by all the talk about the high cost of college into believing that colleges’ spending less is desirable, rather than realizing that spending more, regardless of necessity, is a very good thing that results, through the wisdom of the special U.S. News formula, in a better position in The Rankings.

Even the most successful of human endeavors, however, can aspire to be better, so, while of course deferring in the end to their greater wisdom, I would like to offer to the compilers of The Rankings a modest proposal for their improvement that would save time and effort and offer greater benefits to colleges and their future students.

I have been assured by a very knowing Administrator of my acquaintance that many colleges are willing to spend a good deal of money to improve their position in The Rankings. I suggest, therefore, that U.S. News determine the order of its lists not on the basis of some complex and mysterious formula, but simply on the basis of money: To the highest bidder would go the highest ranking. Colleges would be encouraged to bid actively against one another, creating a spirited and friendly tournament. Since Swarthmore will always be able to offer more than Susquehanna, and Harvard more than Howard, there would be little alteration at the top of The Rankings. And, since no one much cares about the order of colleges beyond the first few dozen, any shuffling in the lower tiers would be of little consequence.

The benefits of my proposal to all involved in the composition and dissemination of The Rankings would be considerable. Rather than devote countless hours to the accumulation and analysis of meaningless statistics, the newly unburdened (and significantly wealthier) list-makers at U.S. News could instead spend their time adding to their list of lists. Readers might, for instance, be fortunate enough to see a list of “The Best Creme-Filled Cookies” or “The Best Airports for Restroom Facilities.” Imagine the additional stress that such lists might help to relieve.

Colleges, in turn, would be freed from the pretense of not caring about The Rankings and could openly demonstrate their competitive fire. Consider the potential effectiveness of fund-raising campaigns to support “rankings bids,” since, one would assume, alumni would be more enthusiastic about moving up on a list than about supporting such unrankable activities as teaching and learning, which do not figure into the U.S. News formula.

By seeing which colleges were willing to offer the highest bids, prospective students could more easily determine which institutions truly cared about them. This would doubtless be of great consolation to the tens of thousands rejected by Stanford and Yale. If a college were not willing to sacrifice for a better place in The Rankings, what would that say about its willingness to sacrifice for other things of central importance, like intercollegiate athletics and food service?

The only objection that I can imagine to my proposal is that it would reduce The Rankings to a grossly materialistic money-grab on the part of U.S. News & World Report, one that overprioritizes wealth and reinforces the status quo. But since that is already the case and seems to be met with no great outcry from the public, I do not believe that this objection would be convincing.

I profess, in the sincerity of my heart, that I have not the least personal interest in endeavoring to promote this salutary change, having no other motive than the public good of my country, making more transparent the workings of higher education, and giving some additional pleasure to the rich.

Brian Rosenberg is president of Macalester College, ranked #26 last fall among liberal-arts colleges by U.S. News & World Report.