March 1, 2012
For better or worse, college ranking panels such as The Princeton Review hold considerable sway over many prospective students’ higher education choices. On Feb. 7 The Princeton Review ranked Hamilton #10 in Best Value Colleges, including it among “America’s top undergraduate schools offering excellent academics, generous financial aid and/or relatively low cost of attendance.”
The Princeton Review ranking came just a few days before news that Claremont McKenna College’s admissions dean had artificially inflated students’ SAT scores in order to boost the school’s position in the U.S News & World Report ranking. Vice President and Dean of Admission and Financial Aid Monica Inzer described the event as “very sad,” and said she was “sorry that any administrator, particularly a good one with a long and successful career, ever felt like he had to be dishonest to keep his job or to inflate his college’s stature.” Other ranking panels include those of the Forbes and Kiplinger financial publications.
The scandal has sparked fresh debate over the real usefulness of college rankings. Although college ranking institutions factor heavily into some students’ decisions, Inzer admitted that “we don’t hear about rankings as much in admissions as you would think. My experience has been that alumni care more about rankings than any other constituency.”
Inzer added that “Hamilton…is in an attempt to not fuel the frenzy around or focus on rankings.” Hamilton has made decisions regarding this, including a “commitment to not publicize any rankings on our web site, or in our admission and marketing materials.”
Inzer described Hamilton’s testing stance as “unusual” and “a bit of a hybrid.” “We are SAT optional, but not testing optional. We maintain that you need some form of standardized testing in highly selective admission,” she continued. “Our testing policy allows students to use the testing that best demonstrates their testing ability, and we give them a menu of options to choose from. We work with the Institutional Research Office to regularly assess which test options are the best predictors of student success at Hamilton and the SAT IIs do a better job than the SAT.”
Assistant Dean of Faculty for Institutional Research Gordon Hewitt adds that “the IR Office works closely with the offices that create data here on campus so that we make sure we are reporting external data that are aligned with appropriate definitions and standards.”
“I don’t put a lot of stock in Princeton Review rankings,” said Hewitt. “The integrity of their methodologies have always been suspect at best. We don’t have a full accounting of what goes into their best value ranking beyond the vague outline they have published.” Inzer also comments that “The Princeton Review Best Value ranking is nice and validating, especially for a school that has worked hard to make access and affordability a focus as evidenced in our need-blind decision,” but she also concedes, “I won’t pretend to try to understand their methodology and/or how we ended up on the list.”
Students hold mixed feelings about college rankings. “They impacted where I looked, but not where I decided to go,” said Lauren Lanzotti ’14. Jessica Harper ’15 added that “they seem totally random and arbitrary.” “College rankings are potentially useful, but the process needs to become more transparent,” said Jacob Trahan ’13. Most students agreed with Walter Zonenberg ’14, claiming that Hamilton’s rankings “did not significantly affect” their final decision.
“My advice to families is to not focus on [college rankings] too much,” Inzer concluded. “I think that each student and family should use their own measuring stick, based on what is important to them, to figure out which colleges are the best fit.”