Virginia college presidents point out flaws in Obama's college rating plan

[flyingiguana]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/07/28/50-virginia-college-presidents-protest-obamas-planned-school-rating-system/

 

The letter from the presidents is the most interesting part, particularly point 2. Unfortunately, it's an image in the article, so I can't quote the interesting bits. But they're making the case that basing a college's standing on income of graduates is silly -- any graduates who go into low paying jobs that provide a substantial benefit for society are going to be counted as losers and therefore the college won't look as good in this rating system.

[G5052]

Yes, lots of discussion about this on my faculty email list this morning.  I haven't done the background reading, but the points they make have serious implications.

[Reefgazer]

Yes, their arguments are legitimate complaints.  But they don't even touch on other problems with the plan, such as using graduation rates to rank colleges (which would make community colleges look really bad because many people attend with no intention of a degree), or the fact that rewarding graduation rates will likely result in grade inflation to keep that ranking up.  For an intelligent man, Obama has surely fallen down on the education job and is a huge disappointment, IMO. 

[Teachin'Mine]

For the colleges we're familiar with, I'm sure we could all fairly easily designate them as excellent, good, fair or poor.   I don't see the big deal about it.  I do agree with community colleges likely coming out poorly due to many part time students and many who drop out, but if this is balanced against their low tuition costs, they may not rate so badly in the end.   I'm wondering if some colleges have a bigger problem with the goal of increasing diversity in colleges.  I can imagine that being balked at by some colleges in Virginia.   Generally the schools with the highest costs also have some of the highest retention and graduation rates and average salaries are above average, even with a higher percentage of students pursuing post-graduate education and having lower or no income.

[creekland]

One ought to beware of wanting too high graduations rates.  It has already led to many schools bending over backward making sure students graduate... it really reminds me of high school - and that's NOT a good thing.  Easier majors are being created and those who are headed toward failure are aimed at them.  Employers are starting to notice graduates lacking skills... need I say more?

[regentrude]

One ought to beware of wanting too high graduations rates.  It has already led to many schools bending over backward making sure students graduate... it really reminds me of high school - and that's NOT a good thing.  Easier majors are being created and those who are headed toward failure are aimed at them.  Employers are starting to notice graduates lacking skills... need I say more?

 

 

:iagree:

Liking was not sufficient - it had to be repeated.

[Teachin'Mine]

I agree that the colleges shouldn't lower standards to increase their graduation rates.   I think the goal is to have students make their college choices having more information.  Not all students are savvy (that looks so, so wrong bur spellchecker tells me it's right lol) and do the kind of research that would help them to avoid the colleges which will take their money and offer them little in return.   Some colleges may have lower graduation rates because they have a high admission rate but have rigorous courses.  Hopefully that would be taken into account in this rating system as well.  At the same time, such colleges should let prospective students know that while many try for their major, only a few are able to handle the academic course load.  It's great for all to have a shot, but not all are going to succeed and they should know this ahead of time.  Maybe there should be special advising for students who can't continue in their chosen field to help place them more appropriately at another school with a broader set of majors.   I don't think the solution is to lower standards, but to give prospective students a bit of a realistic outlook and to have a safety net if they need to transfer.  The goal is to have graduates with job prospects instead of college drop outs with high loans to pay off while earning a low income.  

 

Forgot to mention that another reason a college's graduation rates might be lower than similarly academically ranked colleges is that financial aid is insufficient for the student to continue to graduation.   Some colleges offer lower aid the first year which makes it a tough stretch and then further reduce aid in the next years.  These students may not be graduating due to finances.  I will be curious to see how these fare in the ratings.  They deserve lower ratings. 

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I don't think that an A-F rating is going to give the kind of information we need to make a good choice. Anymore than an A-F rating would tell me if some car is the one I need. No if the rating focuses on gas mileage and what I care about is towing a trailer.

 

How would an A-F rating evaluate schools with majors ranging from ethnic studies to fine arts to mechanical engineering? How will it assess the value added based on the prep and ability of the students? The intellectual attitude within the classroom?

 

Just as an example, I would have misgivings about UNC because I think they've been deceitful regarding the readiness of their athletes for college and have permitted fraudulent courses and perhaps degrees to reward ball players. But that really doesn't tell me anything about their poli sci or physics departments.

 

I'd love to see more detail and manipulability within IPEDS. I want to be able to manipulate the database to see scores and retention for engineers or ROTC members or varsity swimmers. I want to see more on how much families paid (no counting a loan as financial aid) and defaults arranged by degree.

 

College costs are in the $50,000 - $250,000 range if not higher. It ought to be based on more than a single grade.

 

But I don't think that some overarching grade adds value. Further I doubt the ability of the government to give an honest grade, when I look at other lists like states sponsoring terrorism or human rights abusing countries. And if schos will manipulate data to up their college rankings now they sure will once the government gets involved.

[Teachin'Mine]

I agree with you that a single rating won't give the total picture.  This is being done for the benefit of those who are least educated on the college selection process and aren't even considering graduation rates or other criteria.  I agree that it would be great to have more info available.  I also agree that graduating athletes without the most basic skillns is appalling.   I also think it's appalling that those with the least finances and the most to lose from making a wrong decision are choosing colleges without even some basic information.  Ideally this would be given by guidance counselors in the high schools, but when you hear of graduating classes of 500+ having just one GC, then it's obvious that this isn't happening.  The government is trying to help these students approach college selection with their eyes more opened to potential problems.   Doing something is better than doing nothing.   Maybe it would be sufficient to make it mandatory for colleges to provide applicants with a form listing their graduation rates, tuition and other sometimes hidden costs, what the cost will likely be in the following years and what their loan payment amounts would be when they provide then with their financial aid packet.   Full disclosure of all of this would help most in making better choices, but likely some would still need some help in sorting out what it all means for them specifically.  Again it comes back to needing more counseling at the high school level. 

[regentrude]

I agree with you that a single rating won't give the total picture.  This is being done for the benefit of those who are least educated on the college selection process and aren't even considering graduation rates or other criteria.  I agree that it would be great to have more info available.  ...

 

  I also think it's appalling that those with the least finances and the most to lose from making a wrong decision are choosing colleges without even some basic information.  Ideally this would be given by guidance counselors in the high schools, but when you hear of graduating classes of 500+ having just one GC, then it's obvious that this isn't happening.  The government is trying to help these students approach college selection with their eyes more opened to potential problems.   Doing something is better than doing nothing.  

 

Maybe it would be sufficient to make it mandatory for colleges to provide applicants with a form listing their graduation rates, tuition and other sometimes hidden costs, what the cost will likely be in the following years and what their loan payment amounts would be when they provide then with their financial aid packet.   Full disclosure of all of this would help most in making better choices, but likely some would still need some help in sorting out what it all means for them specifically.  Again it comes back to needing more counseling at the high school level. 

 

But aren't colleges already required to publish graduation rates and tuition and fees etc?

This debate about a single rating reminds me of the proposed labeling of foods with red, yellow and green stickers to classify how healthy a food is... somebody making rather arbitrary decisions to condense information that is already available in detailed form (in the nutrition info) into one single bit of data. The result will be influenced by the precise criteria through which the rating is generated, and will be less informative than the raw data which allow a person to make choices depending on their specific situation (that may, to stay with the example, require a high fat or a no-dairy diet with a need not being reflected at all in the simplistic labeling).

 

I think the single most useless criterion in the proposed rating is the average income of graduates. Our school has a very high starting salary of graduates, the average is about 60k - because 95% of our students major in STEM. The mix of majors will be the deciding factor.e

Doing something is better than doing nothing.  

 

 

I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with the above statement, applied to many different contexts.  Frequently, doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing.

[Teachin'Mine]

But aren't colleges already required to publish graduation rates and tuition and fees etc?

This debate about a single rating reminds me of the proposed labeling of foods with red, yellow and green stickers to classify how healthy a food is... somebody making rather arbitrary decisions to condense information that is already available in detailed form (in the nutrition info) into one single bit of data. The result will be influenced by the precise criteria through which the rating is generated, and will be less informative than the raw data which allow a person to make choices depending on their specific situation (that may, to stay with the example, require a high fat or a no-dairy diet with a need not being reflected at all in the simplistic labeling).

 

I think the single most useless criterion in the proposed rating is the average income of graduates. Our school has a very high starting salary of graduates, the average is about 60k - because 95% of our students major in STEM. The mix of majors will be the deciding factor.e

 

Okay, using the food labeling analogy those most knowledgeable on nutrition will read labels fully for nutritional information, but the majority of those buying food do not do this, or misinterpret the information.  The idea is to give people who likely wouldn't give a second glance at the specific nutritional info a way to quickly see how the food "rates".  Generally if someone who tended to buy a lot of foods in the red and yellow range tried to move more towards the green and yellow range, they will probably end up eating healthier.  Those with specific dietary needs tend to be the ones reading the labels more, but not always.  In the same way, the ratings would give some info at a glance and hopefully encourage the applicant to ask more questions and find out how the college is for them and their major.  As I mentioned above, while this information is available online, although not as detailed as many of us would like, it is the students most at risk of making a poor choice who aren't doing this research.   These ratings will mean nothing for the majority of college applicants on this board and other college boards, but it might help someone who doesn't have anyone at home to ask for help and isn't getting guidance at school.  

 

I agree that the average income can be influenced by majors, geographically where the students are employed, whether many students are in graduate programs, etc..  Still if a college has an average income well below the national average, that should prompt the student to explore why that is. 

[Teachin'Mine]

I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with the above statement, applied to many different contexts.  Frequently, doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing.

 

I'm sure many will agree with you.

 

In my opinion, having a huge problem and doing nothing about it is seldom, if ever, the answer.  Trying something and having it fail and not reevaluating the situation to improve is also not the answer.  Ideally something should be tried and then continued or modified based on the results.  NCLB was an abysmal failure and yet it continued for years.  IMO good individual counseling would likely be more helpful, but the costs would be huge in comparison to providing ratings.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

But aren't colleges already required to publish graduation rates and tuition and fees etc?

This debate about a single rating reminds me of the proposed labeling of foods with red, yellow and green stickers to classify how healthy a food is... somebody making rather arbitrary decisions to condense information that is already available in detailed form (in the nutrition info) into one single bit of data. The result will be influenced by the precise criteria through which the rating is generated, and will be less informative than the raw data which allow a person to make choices depending on their specific situation (that may, to stay with the example, require a high fat or a no-dairy diet with a need not being reflected at all in the simplistic labeling).

 

I think the single most useless criterion in the proposed rating is the average income of graduates. Our school has a very high starting salary of graduates, the average is about 60k - because 95% of our students major in STEM. The mix of majors will be the deciding factor.e

 

I graduated from a highly competitive, technical leaning institution.  But a large number of my female classmates end up leaving the paid workforce after 5-10  years.  These women are some of the most deeply involved, community minded people I know.  But they down have an income.  Many of my other female classmates have chosen to move into more portable professions.  One of my friends just completed an RN program and has started as an ER nurse in her mid 40s.  If you purely crunched numbers, it might well look like there is a severe income disparity among male and female graduates of my school.  But this would describe only a fraction of the picture. 

 

Similarly, the school made a list recently as the school with the highest paid graduates upon graduation.  Of course, that statistic left out the consideration that almost no graduates fail to be fully employed on the day after graduation. 

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with the above statement, applied to many different contexts.  Frequently, doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing.

 

:iagree:

 

I am highly suspicious of how the stick of a government rating system will be used.  The government is currently chiding schools for how they deal with sexual assault cases.  The governmental answer is that schools need to be more aggressive in handling accusations of assault and rape through school based disciplinary boards, where rules of evidence and rights of the accused need not apply. 

 

Will a school that wants to use local law enforcement to handle what is a crime be given a downcheck on the government college rating because they aren't complying with what a bureaucrat has decided is necessary for meeting the qualification of the highest standard of campus safety?

 

 

 

 

[Teachin'Mine]

:iagree:

 

I am highly suspicious of how the stick of a government rating system will be used.  The government is currently chiding schools for how they deal with sexual assault cases.  The governmental answer is that schools need to be more aggressive in handling accusations of assault and rape through school based disciplinary boards, where rules of evidence and rights of the accused need not apply. 

 

Will a school that wants to use local law enforcement to handle what is a crime be given a downcheck on the government college rating because they aren't complying with what a bureaucrat has decided is necessary for meeting the qualification of the highest standard of campus safety?

Here's an article about what the bill actually proposes.  Which part of it do you find troubling?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/us/college-sexual-assault-bill-in-senate.html?_r=0

 

The problem is not that the victims were being directed to local law enforcement, it was the opposite.  They were discouraged from reporting it and often blamed.   The incidents never appeared on any campus reports and the perpetrators went unpunished  What's proposed is a step in the right direction in my opinion.   I'm sure that being in the military you're aware of similar problems there.   Doing nothing is definitely not the answer. 

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I think there is a serious disconnect between folks who want to see as many students who are capable of college work be able to get a quality education and those who advocate that a college education should be available to every student who wants to go to college.

 

There are a great many students who want to go to college who are not ready for the academic load, are not ready for the responsibility of getting themselves to class not hung over, are not able to read a syllabus and understand that it means they should attend class and complete homework.  This lack of readiness applies across racial/ethnic demographics, rural/urban/suburban and economic levels. 

 

Yes, there is a great deal of information that needs to be collected and analyzed in order to make a wise college choice.  But there is also a lot of info to analyze in all sorts of life decisions.  How on earth does a simplified rating system tell me or my kid if a school is the right fit for them? 

 

If you do much reading about education rating systems you will see things like "bubble kids" (schools that focus on raising scores of students who are right on the edge of passing a standardized test, while ignoring those who have much lower results.  Raising the scores of the kids on the edge will raise the school ranking.  Raising another kid from failing to a D level doesn't help the school.  Too bad for that kid.)  On the college level you have schools that game ranking systems by doing things like caping certain classes at 23 students, while leaving other courses as large 250+ seminars, because that lets them game the statistics about average class size (where if they weren't trying to impact the rankings, they might have chosen to have smaller intro classes with 50-70 students or allow 30 students to get into the smaller course).  In the last few years, several schools have gotten in trouble for how they reported the standardized scores of "accepted students".  Other schools have started doing fast applications, in part because it lets them appear more selective.

 

And that's not even considering the potential for abuse of a rating system if a school has a religious mission (do they get a C in LGBT categories?) or doesn't have the right percentage of women or minorities. 

 

I really think you could spend a fraction of the amount that this proposed rating system would require on improving the search ability of what is already collected and buried in IPEDS. 

 

I think there is a significant risk that less savvy students will think that a school with an A is a significantly better choice FOR THEM, without considering how well the school matches their goals and preparation. 

 

(Are there really a lot of people out there who need a green label to know that an apple is a better snack choice than fries?  Or that water is better than a can of Red Bull?)

 

 

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Here's an article about what the bill actually proposes.  Which part of it do you find troubling?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/us/college-sexual-assault-bill-in-senate.html?_r=0

 

The problem is not that the victims were being directed to local law enforcement, it was the opposite.  They were discouraged from reporting it and often blamed.   The incidents never appeared on any campus reports and the perpetrators went unpunished  What's proposed is a step in the right direction in my opinion.   I'm sure that being in the military you're aware of similar problems there.   Doing nothing is definitely not the answer. 

 

One of the many problems I have with stories like this is the issue that the researchers who review the surveys label as rape or assault incidents that are not so labeled by the students themselves. 

 

I have problems with schools that essentially put the accused into double jeopardy by making them go before a school based review board that uses a preponderance of evidence rather than reasonable doubt after the local prosecutor has determined there isn't enough evidence to prosecute..  Similarly, I think it is horrific that a school should have any influence on whether or not a victim makes a police report (vs. a book report as the linked article claims). 

 

ETA: If a school wants to hold a hearing to determine if a student who has been convicted of a crime should be retained as a student, that is one thing.  But I think that often, the accusation alone is taken as evidence. 

[Teachin'Mine]

Agreeing to disagree.  

[Reefgazer]

I think that floating this rating system is being done with the ultimate goal of dispersing federal aid based on graduation rates.  It's a (poor) way of deciding how to allocate money.

I agree with you that a single rating won't give the total picture.  This is being done for the benefit of those who are least educated on the college selection process and aren't even considering graduation rates or other criteria.  I agree that it would be great to have more info available.  I also agree that graduating athletes without the most basic skillns is appalling.   I also think it's appalling that those with the least finances and the most to lose from making a wrong decision are choosing colleges without even some basic information.  Ideally this would be given by guidance counselors in the high schools, but when you hear of graduating classes of 500+ having just one GC, then it's obvious that this isn't happening.  The government is trying to help these students approach college selection with their eyes more opened to potential problems.   Doing something is better than doing nothing.   Maybe it would be sufficient to make it mandatory for colleges to provide applicants with a form listing their graduation rates, tuition and other sometimes hidden costs, what the cost will likely be in the following years and what their loan payment amounts would be when they provide then with their financial aid packet.   Full disclosure of all of this would help most in making better choices, but likely some would still need some help in sorting out what it all means for them specifically.  Again it comes back to needing more counseling at the high school level. 

 

[Reefgazer]

I think good, knowledgeable counselors at both the high school and college level are critical to solve the graduation problem.  On the high school end for obvious reasons, but also on the college end to run interference when someone is failing their courses and guide that person to a different major, better choices, or help them problem solve their issues.  This won't happen though.  I am on a committee at our local college to increase retention among a particular group of students, and while all in attendance suggested and agreed that more counselors who are in closer and more frequent contact with the group would be most effective, the provost flat out said they would be unable to get enough counselors to put that into place.  The only thing that flies with upper administration are electronic interventions, which IMO are just about worthless.  But they are cheap, so everyone goes for the supposedly quick fix.

I'm sure many will agree with you.

 

In my opinion, having a huge problem and doing nothing about it is seldom, if ever, the answer.  Trying something and having it fail and not reevaluating the situation to improve is also not the answer.  Ideally something should be tried and then continued or modified based on the results.  NCLB was an abysmal failure and yet it continued for years.  IMO good individual counseling would likely be more helpful, but the costs would be huge in comparison to providing ratings.

 

[Reefgazer]

I am suspicious of this passage in the bill (not necessarily against it, but I am suspicious because I have not read the bill in its entirety):

 

"The provisions of this legislation that would create financial penalties for noncompliance “is a real game-changer,†Ms. Buzuvis added, “because it creates, for the first time, an incentive for universities to address campus sexual assault in a proactive manner.â€

 

If all the bill is doing is only requiring that colleges report assaults and offer counseling, that's not really doing much to address assault; it's not a game-changer at all.  It's like closing the barn door after the cows escaped.  If it requires colleges to do more, then I want to know exactly what more they want the colleges to do, and if the demands of the bill will protect the idea that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.  Like I said, I am not against the bill at the moment, I just have not read it in it's entirety, and the devil is in the details.    

 

 

Here's an article about what the bill actually proposes.  Which part of it do you find troubling?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/us/college-sexual-assault-bill-in-senate.html?_r=0

 

The problem is not that the victims were being directed to local law enforcement, it was the opposite.  They were discouraged from reporting it and often blamed.   The incidents never appeared on any campus reports and the perpetrators went unpunished  What's proposed is a step in the right direction in my opinion.   I'm sure that being in the military you're aware of similar problems there.   Doing nothing is definitely not the answer.

[Reefgazer]

I can't agree with this more. 

 

To the bolded:  I have a daughter, so this issue is important to me.  But I also have a son, so the issue of fairness and not convicting a male in a kangaroo court where an accusation is as good as proof is also of concern to me.

One of the many problems I have with stories like this is the issue that the researchers who review the surveys label as rape or assault incidents that are not so labeled by the students themselves. 

 

I have problems with schools that essentially put the accused into double jeopardy by making them go before a school based review board that uses a preponderance of evidence rather than reasonable doubt after the local prosecutor has determined there isn't enough evidence to prosecute..  Similarly, I think it is horrific that a school should have any influence on whether or not a victim makes a police report (vs. a book report as the linked article claims). 

 

ETA: If a school wants to hold a hearing to determine if a student who has been convicted of a crime should be retained as a student, that is one thing.  But I think that often, the accusation alone is taken as evidence. 

 

[MarkT]

One item I would like to see from colleges is the average total debt load of a student after four years (whether they graduated or not). This is probably not easy info to get.  I don't need their income.

[Bootsie]

I'd love to see more detail and manipulability within IPEDS. I want to be able to manipulate the database to see scores and retention for engineers or ROTC members or varsity swimmers. I want to see more on how much families paid (no counting a loan as financial aid) and defaults arranged by degree.

 

[Bootsie]

Having done research with the IPEDS data, not only is it difficult to use, there are some problems with the data.  When I taught at a small school,, I could look at the data and see that what was reported according to IPEDS for certain majors was not what I would I have counted as graduation from certain majors because of the coding/classification system that is used.  The more specific you want to get about a particular school, the more inaccurate it is.