To avoid the needlessly vague allusions to schools going on in this thread: I went to Princeton University for undergrad.
I'm sure Bill Gates has a more nuanced view on college ratings than this article suggests. Welcome to media.
We all know why the college rankings are the way they are. Frankly, no one cares who the "most improved" olympic athlete was in London. People generally want the unambiguity of an outright set of winners. Unambiguous winners may be ok in sports, but not in colleges, where the rankings have a big impact on education here in the US. Gates points out this flaw and argues instead for a "most improved student" metric.
Unfortunately, Gates' "solution" wouldn't really solve the problem either. What is the positive feedback loop for schools that rank highly on "produces the most improved students"? Would they receive extra government funding? Attract better students? I see neither of these as likely. Try again Mr. Gates.
What? "Improving", that is educating, students is the primary purpose of colleges. Seems perfectly reasonable to want to measure how effectivly they do their job.
The quality of the graduates of a college depend on a number of factors but probably the two most important are the quality incoming students and the college's ability to improve their quality. In effect colleges perform two functions: sorting and educating.
Sorting people based on standardized testing, high school grades, essays, recommendations, interviews and application details is a useful service in itself. However most of the value and almost all of the cost of colleges comes from educating not sorting.
The current college rating "system" can't possibly separate these two sources of quality. Clearly it would be something useful to know as within any group of similarly ranked colleges there will be differences in the quality of the education component.
All else being equal prospective students would choose the school that offered a best education. More applicants would to schools that were better at their primary mission, educating their students. In turn these schools could be more selective.
Building such a system will not be easy but should be very valuable. Please continue working on this Mr Gates.
> What is the positive feedback loop for schools that rank highly on "produces the most improved students"? Would they receive extra government funding? Attract better students? I see neither of these as likely. Try again Mr. Gates.
If nothing else, colleges that are publicly known for effectiveness will have an easier time recruiting and retaining talented employees. They would presumably also be a magnet for results-driven philanthropists, either through direct donations or being somehow accredited for scholarships.
Comments
To avoid the needlessly vague allusions to schools going on in this thread: I went to Princeton University for undergrad.
I'm sure Bill Gates has a more nuanced view on college ratings than this article suggests. Welcome to media.
We all know why the college rankings are the way they are. Frankly, no one cares who the "most improved" olympic athlete was in London. People generally want the unambiguity of an outright set of winners. Unambiguous winners may be ok in sports, but not in colleges, where the rankings have a big impact on education here in the US. Gates points out this flaw and argues instead for a "most improved student" metric.
Unfortunately, Gates' "solution" wouldn't really solve the problem either. What is the positive feedback loop for schools that rank highly on "produces the most improved students"? Would they receive extra government funding? Attract better students? I see neither of these as likely. Try again Mr. Gates.
What? "Improving", that is educating, students is the primary purpose of colleges. Seems perfectly reasonable to want to measure how effectivly they do their job.
The quality of the graduates of a college depend on a number of factors but probably the two most important are the quality incoming students and the college's ability to improve their quality. In effect colleges perform two functions: sorting and educating.
Sorting people based on standardized testing, high school grades, essays, recommendations, interviews and application details is a useful service in itself. However most of the value and almost all of the cost of colleges comes from educating not sorting.
The current college rating "system" can't possibly separate these two sources of quality. Clearly it would be something useful to know as within any group of similarly ranked colleges there will be differences in the quality of the education component.
All else being equal prospective students would choose the school that offered a best education. More applicants would to schools that were better at their primary mission, educating their students. In turn these schools could be more selective.
Building such a system will not be easy but should be very valuable. Please continue working on this Mr Gates.
> What is the positive feedback loop for schools that rank highly on "produces the most improved students"? Would they receive extra government funding? Attract better students? I see neither of these as likely. Try again Mr. Gates.
If nothing else, colleges that are publicly known for effectiveness will have an easier time recruiting and retaining talented employees. They would presumably also be a magnet for results-driven philanthropists, either through direct donations or being somehow accredited for scholarships.
Wonder if that metric would cause colleges to recruit the worst possible students in order to maximize the amount of improvement.