Clemson's Ranking Scandal
My dislike of ranking lists of educational institutions has undoubtedly been apparent in other posts I've made and in the design philosophy underpinning the eMM. An example of why I take this position is rather clearly shown in the recent comments on the U.S. News and World Report rankings and the extent some institutions may go to influence their position on the list.
Whether or not Clemson has acted dishonestly is almost irrelevant. The concern I have is the apparent goal of achieving a higher position on the rankings, rather than on improving student outcomes, and ease with which the results can be influenced. As with any performance indicator, the problem is that once you abstract away from from the thing you care about, you run the risk of people setting goals based on the characteristics of the measures. Rather than focusing on the core principle that students learn best when they have frequent opportunities to interact with staff and other students, Clemson has allegedly worked to ensure that they have classes sized to meet the arbitrary criteria defined by the US News rubric (< 20 students good, more than 50 bad).
New Zealand institutions are increasingly likely to come under some form of ranking system - ostensibly with the excuse that this will ensure teaching quality while also removing central control under the newly resurgent position that competition is always good. Lets hope the systems chosen can avoid the US News 'four legs good, two legs bad' approach.