 "Photo:")
Each year, high school juniors and seniors frantically browse online and through newspapers and magazines gathering information on the nation's top universities. They blow their money, or their parents' money, on pricey Princeton Review books and others that claim to have the "official" college rankings list.
Those of you currently going through orientation have fresh memories of this process, judging each potential college destination on where they fall on the list of "Best Buy" and "Happiest Campus." From what I remember, many guys are well aware of the SEC schools that have high markings for best looking campus. And yes, Clemson supposedly had the happiest campus.
But what do these rankings really mean? And how legitimate are they?
Or the biggest question looming right now around our friends from the fields down in Greenville, do they do more harm than good?
Last week, reports came out saying that Clemson University President James Barker swayed a little from the ethical path when it came to the U.S. News & Report World Rankings, giving the university the only "strong" markings and leaving the 60 ranked above it only satisfactory ratings. While it doesn't technically break the rules, and many don't see anything wrong with a little tweaking, I think we should all be able to agree that it makes these rankings less reliable. It also unleashes a series of questions about other university practices of "rank-steering."
When you dish out thousands of dollars and countless hours of hard work to your educational institution of choice, you expect that institution's priority to be, well, your education.
Managing a school for the sake of rankings makes me question the purpose of rankings at all. It's one of those things that makes sense until people go overboard and ruin it. Competition is a good thing. Knowing the difference between one school and the next and sizing up their values is a tool for prospective students. Making a school look better than it really is, or more prestigious than it is or more intimate than it is, is unacceptable and plainly forgery.
Besides, it makes absolutely no sense to me why a university that cares about its students and wants to foster a university community, such as the one we have at Carolina, would want to trick students into attending. That's a great way to show you care, right?
I've heard countless university mission statements and promises of existing to serve the students for a better tomorrow and all that, but these reports make these promises a little shallow.
Maybe "to manipulate the system in efforts to be a top-ranked school" should be added to the fine print.
Be the first to comment on this article!