A new college rankings scandal
(MoneyWatch) George Washington University is the latest institution to confess to generating bogus admission statistics.
The private Washington, D.C., university recently announced that its admission office had inflated the class rank statistics of its freshmen for more than a decade. GWU had reported that 78 percent of its latest freshmen were in the top 10 percent of their high school classes. The actual figure, however, was 58 percent.
Even this figure is highly suspect because the school only collected class rankings from 38 percent of its freshman. (To learn more about the university's dubious tactics, read this eye-opening article in The Washington Monthly.)
GWU joins a long list of schools that have confessed to, or been caught, manipulating admission statistics in a way that makes them look more exclusive, including Claremont McKenna College, U.S. Naval Academy, Baylor University and Emory University. Colleges are tempted to fudge their figures, at least in part, because U.S. News & World Report college rankings reward colleges and universities that appear more elite.
But the problem is almost certainly not confined to these institutions. Someone with inside knowledge of U.S. News' college rankings told me that the publication has noticed plenty of questionable statistics among schools.
That is no surprise, since school admission statistics aren't audited. They should be, as an admission director at Texas Christian University recently acknowledged.
As for GWU, U.S. News has punished the school for misrepresenting its admission numbers. GWU had been tied for 51st place in the national university category this year with Tulane University and Boston University. But US News has delisted GWU until next year's rankings are released.
As I have said in previous posts on college rankings, families should understand that the U.S. News college rankings are deeply flawed. You shouldn't make any decisions on what school to visit or attend based on what these faulty numbers appear to show.
Popular on MoneyWatch
- When it comes to vacations, the U.S. stinks 111 Comments
- Reverse cell phone lookup service is free and simple
- Amy's Baking Company could face legal 'nightmare'
- IMF chief named key witness in French payoff case
- Ellen DeGeneres buys Brad Pitt's Malibu home
- Snapple co-founder Leonard Marsh dies at 80
- Amy's Baking Company: Post-meltdown PR campaign
- TGI Fridays nailed for doctoring booze
Students with disabilities, Older students, Different Race's, and etc. are Discriminated against, hazed, assaulted...
The majority of reports made to Staff are tossed out. but after making contact with staff and police I found out that the staff has made false statements saying no reports were made. when staff admitted to me in email's that we did meet and talked.
It is worth noting that GW informed USNWR of the error first, to give the editors time to analyze the data and prepare their response. But when USNWR decided to "unrank" us, they didn't give us a heads-up, a move that left many observers bewildered by its apparent belligerence. In any case, it is the decision itself that raises new questions. For example, will other universities now be more or less willing to conduct the kind of internal audit that led GW to its findings? Imagine that USNWR had not decided to unrank us. That would have signaled that honesty is indeed the best policy; instead, one can't help but fear that this turnaround creates incentives for less rather than more transparency. USNWR thrives on accurate reporting by its participating schools, and should therefore reinforce institutional self-disclosure of errors in measurement.
Inevitably the GW data mishap raises other more fundamental questions. At the risk of sounding like I'm complaining about sour grapes, I do think it pays to look "under the hood" and check on the validity of the rankings even when all the included numbers are assumed to be accurate. What exactly is the meaning of a ranking if previously included institutions are suddenly extracted? All else equal, the schools originally listed below GW would now jump up a notch, although that doesn't seem to have happened. Perhaps more important, given that students' positions in their high school graduating class are reported for only a small percentage of all schools, it's not clear whether the statistic is a valid indicator for the institutions still in the ranking. Other questions abound, and without in any way trying to excuse GW's mistakes, I would argue that basic technical issues and underlying behavioral assumptions warrant a broader discussion. Perhaps the best outcome of this unfortunate episode will be a commitment on the part of the entire higher education community to invent a more stable, valid, and reliable way to provide useful information to current and future constituents.
It is worth noting that GW informed?USNWR?of the error first, to give the editors time to analyze the data and prepare their response.? But when USNWR?decided to "unrank" us, they didn't give us a heads-up, a move that left many observers bewildered by its apparent belligerence. In any case, it is the decision itself that raises new questions. For example, will other universities now be more or less willing to conduct the kind of internal audit that led GW to its findings?? ?Imagine that?USNWR?had?not?decided to unrank us.? That would have signaled that honesty is indeed the best policy; instead, one can't help but fear that this turnaround creates incentives for less rather than more transparency. USNWR thrives on accurate reporting by its participating schools, and should therefore reinforce institutional self-disclosure of errors in measurement. ?
Inevitably the GW data mishap raises other more fundamental questions.? At the risk of sounding like I'm complaining about sour grapes, I do think it pays to look "under the hood" and check on the validity of the rankings even when all the included numbers are assumed to be accurate. ?What exactly is the meaning of a ranking if previously included institutions are suddenly extracted? ?All else equal, the schools originally listed below GW would now jump up a notch, although that doesn't seem to have happened. Perhaps more important, given that students' positions in their high school graduating class are reported for only a small percentage of all schools, it's not clear whether the statistic is a valid indicator for the institutions still in the ranking. Other questions abound, and without in any way trying to excuse GW's mistakes, I would argue that basic technical issues and underlying behavioral assumptions warrant a broader discussion.? Perhaps the best outcome of this unfortunate episode will be a commitment on the part of the entire higher education community to invent a more stable, valid, and reliable way to provide useful information to current and future constituents.
Michael Feuer
This incident has nothing to do with the Washington Monthly article, which in and of itself had inaccuracies and failed to capture the university's transformation in recent years, including the fact that GW has made significant investments to increase financial aid and the quality of education offered to students. You can read more about our public disclosures regarding this incident at:
http://mediarelations.gwu.edu/george-washington-university-announces-changes-class-rank-data-after-review
http://gwtoday.gwu.edu/message-president-steven-knapp
http://gwtoday.gwu.edu/question-and-answer-forrest-maltzman
http://gwtoday.gwu.edu/university-leaders-answer-student-questions
-GW spokeswoman
I would like to share with your readers the message that the president of George Washington University sent to the entire GW community, As you can see the university came forward with the information, apologized for the error and most importantly took steps to correct the situation.
To the George Washington University Community:
This past summer, Provost Steven Lerman reorganized the university's undergraduate enrollment management functions under new leadership. In the process, the Provost's Office reviewed the university's admissions statistics and found a flaw in the method used to determine the percentage of incoming freshmen who rank in the top 10 percent of their high school class. Upon closer review of the records, the percentage of the incoming freshmen for the class of 2015 in the top 10 percent of their class was found to be 58 percent rather than the 78 percent that had been reported.
While class rank is not one of the statistics reported to the U.S. Department of Education, it is one of many statistics we provide to U.S. News & World Report. We have informed U.S. News of this error and provided corrected data for the class of 2015.
The Finance and Audit Committee of the George Washington University Board of Trustees engaged Baker Tilly Beers & Cutler, an independent accounting and advisory firm that serves as the university's internal auditor, to assess the undergraduate enrollment data the university provides annually to the U.S. Department of Education, U.S. News & World Report, and other entities. The assessment revealed no reporting issues other than class rank. The data reviewed included the number of applications, the acceptance rate, the percentage of accepted students who enrolled, high school class rank, and SAT/ACT scores.
Furthermore, the Provost is conducting a national search for a Senior Associate Provost for Enrollment Management. In the interim, the Office of Academic Planning, Institutional Research, and Assessment, under the direction of Senior Vice Provost Forrest Maltzman, will be responsible for overseeing the collection and reporting of all admissions data.
In this as in every other matter, I am committed to ensuring that the university maintain the highest standards of integrity and accuracy in all its communications. I deeply regret this error and want to assure you that corrective action has been taken and safeguards put into place to prevent such errors from occurring in the future.