Skip to main content

On Rankings, 1911, and Economic Mobility

If you're alive today, you have lived your whole life with college rankings.  Yes, even you.  You may not have knows you were living in the time of college rankings, but indeed, you have been, unless you were born before 1911 (or maybe earlier.)  If you're interested, you can read this Twitter thread from 2020 where I discuss them and include snippets of those 1911 rankings as well as those from 1957, written by Chesley Manly.

You can read for yourself, or you can trust me, that in fact the rankings as we know them have been surprisingly consistent over time, and most people would have only minor quibbles with the ratings from 1911.  Perhaps that's because they have always tended to measure the same thing.

But what if we did different rankings?  No, not like the Princeton Review where they make an attempt to measure best party school, or best cafeteria food, or worst social life.  Something more quantifiable and concrete, although still, admittedly, a hard thing to get right: An economic mobility index.

Enter Michael Itzkowitz the former director of the College Scorecard.  He's taken loads of data and attempted to create that index, essentially to rank colleges by several important criteria:

  • How many low-income students they enroll and graduate
  • How affordable the college is (which is a combination of low cost and income, equating to "time to pay back" the investment
Like any ranking system, this is not perfect, nor is it precise.  And some might argue that the real benefit of college is not in money, even if you acknowledge that it's more important today than it ever was.  Further, much of it may be structural: Some states have low tuition, larger income disparity, and higher median incomes.  So, if nothing else, it might only be fair to compare colleges within a single state.  Still, this is intended to call out the ones that do it well, not, I think, look down your nose at the privates who, it might be argued, are free to not consider social mobility as a part of mission.

If you don't like it, you're perfectly free to create your own rankings, of course.

My Itzkowitz has has graciously explained the system and made the data available for down load here.  And he gave me permission to use it on the blog.

It's pretty simple: Dashboard 1 plots Low-income performance against economic mobility index (there is a strong correlation here because one factors into the calculation of the other.) Marks are colored by control, and the data are arrayed in quadrants, with the top right being the highest ranking institutions.

As always you can filter the data to show smaller groups; I've kept the axis and the quadrants fixed to give you some sense of the actual, rather than relative, positions.

The second view shows a bar chart with the mobility index, arrayed by region and state.

As always, let me know what you see here.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Changes in AP Scores, 2022 to 2024

Used to be, with a little work, you could download very detailed data on AP results from the College Board website: For every state, and for every course, you could see performance by ethnicity.  And, if you wanted to dig really deep, you could break out details by private and public schools, and by grade level.  I used to publish the data every couple of years. Those days are gone.  The transparency The College Board touts as a value seems to have its limits, and I understand this to some extent: Racists loved to twist the data using single-factor analysis, and that's not good for a company who is trying to make business inroads with under-represented communities as they cloak their pursuit of revenue as an altruistic push toward access. They still publish data, but as I wrote about in my last post , it's far less detailed; what's more, what is easily accessible is fairly sterile, and what's more detailed seems to be structured in a way that suggests the company doesn...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Highly Rejective Colleges

If you're not following Akil Bello on Twitter, you should be.  His timeline is filled with great insights about standardized testing, and he takes great effort to point out racism (both subtle and not-so-subtle) in higher education, all while throwing in references to the Knicks and his daughter Enid, making the experience interesting, compelling, and sometimes, fun. Recently, he created the term " highly rejective colleges " as a more apt description for what are otherwise called "highly selective colleges."  As I've said before, a college that admits 15% of applicants really has a rejections office, not an admissions office.  The term appears to have taken off on Twitter, and I hope it will stick. So I took a look at the highly rejectives (really, that's all I'm going to call them from now on) and found some interesting patterns in the data. Take a look:  The 1,132 four-year, private colleges and universities with admissions data in IPEDS are incl...
Post a Comment
Read more

Changes in SAT Scores after Test-optional

One of the intended consequences of test-optional admission policies at some institutions prior to the COVID-19 pandemic was to raise test scores reported to US News and World Report.  It's rare that you would see a proponent of test-optional admission like me admit that, but to deny it would be foolish. Because I worked at DePaul, which was an early adopter of the approach (at least among large universities), I fielded a lot of calls from colleagues who were considering it, some of whom were explicit in their reasons for doing so.  One person I spoke to came right out at the start of the call: She was only calling, she said, because her provost wanted to know how much they could raise scores if they went test-optional. If I sensed or heard that motivation, I advised people against it.  In those days, the vast majority of students took standardized admission tests like the SAT or ACT, but the percentage of students applying without tests was still relatively small; the ne...
Post a Comment
Read more