By Sam Smith

College Rankings Fail to Measure the Influence of the Institution

Students， parents and educators increasingly obsessed with college rankings have a new tool： the Obama administrations College Scorecard.1 The new database focuses on a colleges graduation rate， graduates median earnings 10 years after graduation and the percentage of students paying back their college loans.2

While Scorecard adds potentially valuable information to the dizzying array that is already available， it suffers from many of the same flaws that afflict nearly every other college ranking system： There is no way to know what， if any， impact a particular college has on its graduates earnings， or life for that matter.3 “Its a classic example of confusing causation and correlation，” said Frank Bruni， the author of Where You Go Is Not Who Youll Be， a book about the college admissions process， and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times.4 “Anyone who has taken statistics should know better， but when it comes to colleges， thats what people do. They throw common sense out the window.”

Of course graduates of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology （average postgraduate earnings $91，600，5 according to the Scorecard） and Harvard （$87，200） do well. Thats because the students they admit have some of the highest test scores and high school grade point averages in the country， reflecting high intelligence and a strong work ethic6—two factors that cause high future earnings. That is generally true regardless of where such students attend college， as long as they go to a reputable four-year institution， various studies have shown.7

“Its absurd，” said Jerry Z. Muller， a professor of history at Catholic University of America and the author of The Costs of Accountability， a study of misplaced and misunderstood metrics.8 “Their graduates have high earnings because theyre incredibly selective9 about who they let in. And many of them come from privileged backgrounds， which also correlates with high earnings.”10

The College Scorecard does not rank colleges， but anyone can use the data to do so. M.I.T. （No. 6 on Scorecard earnings） and Harvard （No. 8） are the only universities in the Scorecards top 10 that are also highly ranked by the influential U.S. News and World Report. The other schools have a narrow focus on highly paid skills. The No. 1 school on Scorecard is MCPHS University11， whose graduates earn， on average， $116，400. （MCPHS stands for Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences， which is not even ranked by U.S. News.）

But pay， of course， says nothing about the relative quality of different colleges. “If you go to M.I.T. and earn a degree in engineering， youre going to make more than if you go to Oberlin12 and major in music performance，” Professor Muller said. “But you already know this. To rank the value of colleges based on the ultimate earnings of their graduates radically13 narrows the concept of what college is supposed to be for.”

Andrew Delbanco， a professor at Columbia University and author of the book College： What It Was， Is， and Should Be， agreed. “Holding colleges accountable for how well they prepare students for postcollege life is a good thing in principle，” he said. “But measuring that preparation in purely monetary14 terms raises many dangers. Should colleges be encouraged first and foremost to maximize the net worth of their graduates？15 I dont think so.”

And that is assuming the earnings data is reliable. Scorecard draws from a substantial database of tax returns， but measures the postgraduate incomes only of students who received federal loans or grants， which excludes most students from high-income families.16 And high family income is a factor that correlates strongly with postgraduate earnings.

PayScale， which ranks colleges based on postgraduate earnings reported by users of its web services， produces numbers that in many cases are substantially different from Scorecards. PayScales “midcareer”17 earnings for graduates of Harvard （ranked third at $126，000） and M.I.T.， （No. 6， at $124，000） are much higher than Scorecards figures.

U.S. News does not even include earnings data in its ranking formula18， although it said it might do so. “The federal data is a large and new data set， and were studying it，” said Brian Kelly， editor and chief content officer for U.S. News. “It represents a subset19 of students， and were looking closely to determine if it in fact tells us what it claims to.”

Last year， the Brookings Institution20 published its own ambitious college rankings that try to improve upon what it sees as flaws in the other lists. It calculates the “value added” of each college by comparing what graduates would be expected to earn given their entering characteristics to what they do earn after graduating.21 Because of their high test scores and other factors， students entering Harvard would be expected to do well in postgraduate earnings （a projected22 $85，950， according to Brookings）. That they actually earned $118，200 is a measure of what a Harvard education added to their potential earnings.

The Brookings rankings factor in the nature of a colleges curriculum， the career choices of its graduates and the percentage of graduates prepared for so-called STEM occupations （science， technology， engineering and math）， so like Scorecard and PayScale results， its rankings are dominated by schools with narrow focuses on those high-paying areas.23

Jonathan Rothwell， a fellow at Brookings and an author of the study， said that many educators applauded this approach but it had drawn criticism from the liberal arts community， which says it unduly weights a narrow focus on high-paying STEM fields.24 Mr. Rothwell defended that approach， noting that a colleges curriculum and what field a student studies were “hugely relevant to graduate success.” But he acknowledged that liberal arts programs and programs that train students for lower-paying fields were valuable to both individuals and society. “If your only goal is to make as much money as possible， you should study engineering， computer science， biology or business，” he said. “But most people are interested in more than just making money.”

The bottom line25 is that no ranking system or formula can really answer the question of what college a student should attend. Getting into a highly selective， top-ranked college may confer bragging rights， status and connections， but it doesnt necessarily contribute to a good education or lifelong success， financial or otherwise.26

The obsession with college rankings and graduates earnings “is just the most recent example of a larger phenomenon， which is that the gathering of numerical27 information acts as a kind of wish fulfillment，” Professor Muller said. “If you have enough metrics and benchmarks28， somehow people believe thats going to solve a major problem. It rarely does.”

1. be obsessed with： 癡迷于；College Scorecard： 美國(guó)高校記分卡。

2. database： 數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)；median earning： 平均收入。

3. 雖然高校記分卡在原本那一大堆令人頭暈的排名上增加了有潛在價(jià)值的信息，它仍存在其他學(xué)校排名都存在的缺陷：無(wú)法得知某所大學(xué)對(duì)該校畢業(yè)生薪資和今后生活有多大影響。dizzying： 使人糊涂的，使人頭暈的；array：（數(shù)字、符號(hào)的）排列，數(shù)組；flaw： 缺陷；afflict： 折磨，使苦惱；for that matter： 就此而言，在這方面。

4. causation： 原因，起因；correlation： 相互關(guān)聯(lián)；admission：（大學(xué)的）入學(xué)許可；op-ed： opposite editorial page，（與社論版對(duì)頁(yè)的）專欄版的；columnist： 專欄作家。

5. Massachusetts Institute of Technology： 麻省理工學(xué)院（簡(jiǎn)稱M.I.T.），被譽(yù)為“世界理工大學(xué)之最”；postgraduate： 大學(xué)畢業(yè)后的。

6. grade point average： 簡(jiǎn)稱GPA，平均成績(jī)點(diǎn)數(shù)；ethic： 道德規(guī)范，道德準(zhǔn)則。

7. regardless of： 不顧，不管；reputable： 有聲望的。

8. absurd： 荒唐的，愚蠢的；Catholic University of America： 美國(guó)天主教大學(xué)，是美國(guó)羅馬天主教會(huì)官方大學(xué)；accountability： 有責(zé)任，下文accountable for意為“對(duì)……負(fù)有責(zé)任的”； metric： 度量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。

9. selective： 精挑細(xì)選的。

10. privileged：（因非常富有或社會(huì)地位高而）享有特權(quán)的，優(yōu)越的；correlate with： 與……相關(guān)聯(lián)。

11. MCPHS University： 麻省藥科與健康科學(xué)大學(xué)。

12. Oberlin： 歐柏林學(xué)院，美國(guó)一所有著頂尖文理學(xué)院和音樂(lè)學(xué)院的教育機(jī)構(gòu)。

13. radically： 根本地，徹底地。

14. monetary： 貨幣的，能用金錢衡量的。

15. first and foremost： 首先；maximize： 使……最大化；net worth： 凈值。

16. 高校記分卡主要依據(jù)龐大的納稅申報(bào)數(shù)據(jù)，但卻只衡量接受聯(lián)邦政府貸款或助學(xué)金的畢業(yè)生收入，排除了大多數(shù)來(lái)自高收入家庭的學(xué)生。substantial： 數(shù)目大的，大量的； tax return： 納稅申報(bào)單；grant： 資助，撥款；exclude：（故意）把……排除在外，不包括。

17. midcareer： 職業(yè)中期。

18. formula： 方案，方法。

19. subset： 子集，這里指“小部分”。

20. Brookings Institution： 布魯金斯學(xué)會(huì)，美國(guó)著名智庫(kù)之一，被稱為美國(guó)“最有影響力的思想庫(kù)”。

21. 這個(gè)排名通過(guò)比較畢業(yè)生的預(yù)期收入（依據(jù)他們?nèi)雽W(xué)時(shí)的品質(zhì)）和他們畢業(yè)后的實(shí)際收入，從而計(jì)算出每所大學(xué)的“附加值”。

22. projected： 預(yù)期的。

23. 布魯金斯學(xué)會(huì)排名把大學(xué)課程、畢業(yè)生就業(yè)選擇和準(zhǔn)備進(jìn)入STEM（科學(xué)、技術(shù)、工程和數(shù)學(xué)）行業(yè)的畢業(yè)生比例納入?yún)⒖紭?biāo)準(zhǔn)，所以就像高校記分卡和薪酬調(diào)查報(bào)告的結(jié)果一樣，布魯金斯學(xué)會(huì)排名也被那些只關(guān)注高薪行業(yè)的學(xué)校所占據(jù)。factor in： 把……計(jì)入；curriculum：（某個(gè)學(xué)校的）課程。

24. applaud： 稱贊，贊許；liberal arts： 文科；unduly： 過(guò)度地。

25. bottom line： 結(jié)果，不得不接受的事實(shí)。

26. 進(jìn)入高淘汰率的頂級(jí)大學(xué)也許能讓你擁有吹噓的資本、社會(huì)地位和人際關(guān)系，但是它并不能保證你能獲得良好的教育，也不能確保你今后一定會(huì)成功，不論是在收入還是其他方面。confer： 授予（權(quán)力、權(quán)利或榮譽(yù)等）；brag： 吹牛，自夸。

27. numerical： 用數(shù)字表示的，數(shù)字的。

28. benchmark： 基準(zhǔn)。