AggieJohn
08-11-2006, 08:59 AM
A&M rated over UT — and Harvard
By RICK CASEY
The annual magazine rankings of colleges and universities is hot off the press, and here's the headline as I see it:
"Texas A&M beats out the University of Texas at Austin."
<A TARGET="_top" HREF="http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v7/343e/f/52/%2a/z%3B42138300%3B3-0%3B0%3B13030849%3B4307-300/250%3B17674577/17692472/1%3B%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://servedby.advertising.com/click/site=0000693431/mnum=0000344239/optn=64?trg=http%3a%2f%2fwww.gametap.com/home/Home%3Fmcd%3DCMT07132006000487"><IMG SRC="http://m1.2mdn.net/1155076/shoot_300x250_20k_500.jpg" BORDER=0></A>
The subhead: "As well as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Duke and Rice universities."
No, it isn't U.S. News & World Report's rankings, the most widely used and (perhaps therefore) the most controversial.
I don't want to confuse you Aggies, but the magazine that ranks you fifth in the nation (compared with 17th for the University of Texas and 28th for Harvard) is Washington Monthly.
Never heard of it? It's a small but influential political journal described as "neo-liberal" long before V.P. Cheney brought in his swashbuckling band of neo-conservatives.
Neo-liberal translates roughly into non-bleeding-heart liberal. The 37-year-old magazine is constantly busting stereotypes.
'They do a lousy job'
It favors government programs — but only if they work. It is constantly exposing waste and stupidity in government (and in the private sector), and did so during the Carter and Clinton administrations as vigorously as during Reagan and Bush administrations.
The magazine's editors argue that U.S. News & World Report's rankings don't work.
"We agree with U.S. News that ranking colleges on academic excellence is a good idea," said Washington Monthly editor-in-chief Paul Glastris, who worked for U.S. News for 10 years. "But we think they do a lousy job."
The reason: Colleges and universities either resist measuring the quality of their programs, or jealously guard data that might do so.
Serving the nation
The most prominent academic measure used by U.S. News is the SAT or ACT scores of students entering college. The elite schools are elite mainly because they only let in the kids who have been prepared the best.
But that doesn't tell you what happens at the university.
So rather than try to make assessments of how well universities serve students when data isn't available, Washington Monthly tries to measure how well universities serve the nation, using data that is available.
It assesses three broad categories.
•Social mobility: How well does a college or university help moderate- and low-income students improve their earning skills? The magazine determined the percentage of low-income students who received Pell Grants at each institution.
Combining that information with SAT scores, it used a statistical tool to determine a predicted graduation rate for each school. It then ranked schools on the basis of how its actual graduation rates compared to the predicted rates.
•Research: The editors felt that conducting research and producing students with Ph.D.s is a value to society. So they ranked the schools as to federal research grants they receive, percentage of students who go on to receive Ph.D.s and the numbers of Ph.D.s awarded.
•Service: Does a university produce students who serve the nation or the community? The magazine ranked the schools on how many Peace Corps volunteers and ROTC graduates they produced. They also ranked them on what percentage of work-study funds went to community service jobs rather than, say, sweeping the cafeteria.
It's no surprise, given these criteria, that A&M did so well, ranking fifth nationally, compared with its U.S. News ranking of 60th.
A&M ranked 28th in social mobility, 11th in research and 13th in service, putting it among the most well-rounded of schools by these criteria.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which ranked first overall, ranked 189th in social mobility and 73rd in service. Research propelled it to the top.
The University of Texas was strong in research and service, ranking seventh and 11th respectively, but it ranked 75th in social mobility. Overall, it ranked 17th.
Rice University ranked 26th overall and was strongest in research. Not surprisingly, it was 149th in social mobility, with its students graduating at slightly less than the predicted rate.
Overall rankings for other Texas universities: Texas A&M-Kingsville, 77th; Texas A&M-Commerce, 123rd; Baylor, 133rd; Southern Methodist, 156th; Texas Christian, 161st; Texas Woman's, 187th; Texas Tech, 198th, University of Houston, 208th; University of North Texas, 220th; UT-Arlington, 222nd, and UT-Dallas, 229th.
In a separate ranking of liberal arts colleges, Texas did poorly. Only Southwestern University cracked the top 100, at 65th.
Will Washington Monthly's rankings help us pick the right school for our sons and daughters? Probably not. But unlike U.S. News, it doesn't aspire to.
It should start us thinking, however, about which schools are contributing the most to the nation.
You can write to Rick Casey at P.O. Box 4260, Houston, TX 77210, or e-mail him at rick.casey@chron.com.
By RICK CASEY
The annual magazine rankings of colleges and universities is hot off the press, and here's the headline as I see it:
"Texas A&M beats out the University of Texas at Austin."
<A TARGET="_top" HREF="http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v7/343e/f/52/%2a/z%3B42138300%3B3-0%3B0%3B13030849%3B4307-300/250%3B17674577/17692472/1%3B%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://servedby.advertising.com/click/site=0000693431/mnum=0000344239/optn=64?trg=http%3a%2f%2fwww.gametap.com/home/Home%3Fmcd%3DCMT07132006000487"><IMG SRC="http://m1.2mdn.net/1155076/shoot_300x250_20k_500.jpg" BORDER=0></A>
The subhead: "As well as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Duke and Rice universities."
No, it isn't U.S. News & World Report's rankings, the most widely used and (perhaps therefore) the most controversial.
I don't want to confuse you Aggies, but the magazine that ranks you fifth in the nation (compared with 17th for the University of Texas and 28th for Harvard) is Washington Monthly.
Never heard of it? It's a small but influential political journal described as "neo-liberal" long before V.P. Cheney brought in his swashbuckling band of neo-conservatives.
Neo-liberal translates roughly into non-bleeding-heart liberal. The 37-year-old magazine is constantly busting stereotypes.
'They do a lousy job'
It favors government programs — but only if they work. It is constantly exposing waste and stupidity in government (and in the private sector), and did so during the Carter and Clinton administrations as vigorously as during Reagan and Bush administrations.
The magazine's editors argue that U.S. News & World Report's rankings don't work.
"We agree with U.S. News that ranking colleges on academic excellence is a good idea," said Washington Monthly editor-in-chief Paul Glastris, who worked for U.S. News for 10 years. "But we think they do a lousy job."
The reason: Colleges and universities either resist measuring the quality of their programs, or jealously guard data that might do so.
Serving the nation
The most prominent academic measure used by U.S. News is the SAT or ACT scores of students entering college. The elite schools are elite mainly because they only let in the kids who have been prepared the best.
But that doesn't tell you what happens at the university.
So rather than try to make assessments of how well universities serve students when data isn't available, Washington Monthly tries to measure how well universities serve the nation, using data that is available.
It assesses three broad categories.
•Social mobility: How well does a college or university help moderate- and low-income students improve their earning skills? The magazine determined the percentage of low-income students who received Pell Grants at each institution.
Combining that information with SAT scores, it used a statistical tool to determine a predicted graduation rate for each school. It then ranked schools on the basis of how its actual graduation rates compared to the predicted rates.
•Research: The editors felt that conducting research and producing students with Ph.D.s is a value to society. So they ranked the schools as to federal research grants they receive, percentage of students who go on to receive Ph.D.s and the numbers of Ph.D.s awarded.
•Service: Does a university produce students who serve the nation or the community? The magazine ranked the schools on how many Peace Corps volunteers and ROTC graduates they produced. They also ranked them on what percentage of work-study funds went to community service jobs rather than, say, sweeping the cafeteria.
It's no surprise, given these criteria, that A&M did so well, ranking fifth nationally, compared with its U.S. News ranking of 60th.
A&M ranked 28th in social mobility, 11th in research and 13th in service, putting it among the most well-rounded of schools by these criteria.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which ranked first overall, ranked 189th in social mobility and 73rd in service. Research propelled it to the top.
The University of Texas was strong in research and service, ranking seventh and 11th respectively, but it ranked 75th in social mobility. Overall, it ranked 17th.
Rice University ranked 26th overall and was strongest in research. Not surprisingly, it was 149th in social mobility, with its students graduating at slightly less than the predicted rate.
Overall rankings for other Texas universities: Texas A&M-Kingsville, 77th; Texas A&M-Commerce, 123rd; Baylor, 133rd; Southern Methodist, 156th; Texas Christian, 161st; Texas Woman's, 187th; Texas Tech, 198th, University of Houston, 208th; University of North Texas, 220th; UT-Arlington, 222nd, and UT-Dallas, 229th.
In a separate ranking of liberal arts colleges, Texas did poorly. Only Southwestern University cracked the top 100, at 65th.
Will Washington Monthly's rankings help us pick the right school for our sons and daughters? Probably not. But unlike U.S. News, it doesn't aspire to.
It should start us thinking, however, about which schools are contributing the most to the nation.
You can write to Rick Casey at P.O. Box 4260, Houston, TX 77210, or e-mail him at rick.casey@chron.com.