Why do U.S. News rankings punish test-optional colleges?

Each year at this time, U.S. News & World Report publishes its classified list of "best" US universities. UU. And every year, inevitably follows a hand of writing, among academics, about what the rankings mean and its usefulness. Ask this question to most higher education professionals, and you are likely to receive a resounding "no". Flat digital scores, which get the most attention, say little about what makes a college or university
Good or bad. Classifications say even less about alchemy that makes a school the right person for a particular student. On the other hand, many high school seniors (and their parents) take the rankings seriously, which in turn means that admissions officers and college marketers must also take them seriously. It is a sure bet that Princeton's current No. 1 status will find its place in postgraduate college advertising material.

So it goes every year. This time, however, the questions on the US news lists. UU. Suddenly they seemed more urgent and personal, because Trinity College, where I teach, was downgraded from 38th to 44th among small universities. When something like this happens, it makes sense to understand what went wrong. In this case, the "what went wrong" question is surprisingly tense and speaks of deep divisions in American education.

To take a step back: US News UU. Evaluates schools according to various criteria, such as class size, graduation rate, student delivery, etc. A school gets a grade in each of these areas, and then these grades are added up to produce a final grade. When one of my colleagues crunched the numbers this year, he found that Trinidad had improved last year in several areas, but the fall in number 44 was limited to only two criteria: decreases in "faculty resources" (i.e., d.
mainly) and the "selectivity" of the students. Although I am certainly interested in the first, it is this that deserves careful consideration. Our decline in "selectivity" was the direct result of our decision two years ago to "pass an optional test." Unfortunately, if a university reports less than 75 percent of its new students, US News eliminates subset scores by 15 percent. This decision led in large measure to the fall of Trinity's "selectivity" from place 43 to 73.

No matter what is said about the SAT, there is one thing that perfectly measures: a student's ability to take the SAT. Beyond that, there is considerable debate about what exactly indicates a score on the SAT (or its cousin, the ACT). It is by no means clear that standardized tests accurately measure a student's abilities, let alone his college aptitude. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that SAT discriminates between different types of students

Obviously, this would include children from underserved populations who may not be able to afford intensive examination preparation. But there are also many high school students who, while smart and creative, are simply not good candidates: the SAT has no way of seeing these students as they are. Given these concerns, and hoping we could both diversify and fuel our student body, Trinity decided to follow Smith's examples, Bryn.
Mawr and Bowdoin, and waive the SAT / ACT requirement.

The results continue to arrive, but most indications suggest that the strategy has worked. My test for this statement is personal and anecdotal. Namely, the freshman seminar I taught this fall is probably the most impressive student student I taught for 15 years at Trinity. And when I talk to my colleagues all over the campus, I hear the same story over and over: that their first and second years are intellectually engaged, creative, open,
motivated and respectful of their peers in numbers that these colleagues have not seen in years, if ever they have. Trinity feels like a place where campus culture is changing rapidly and emotionally, making the experience perspective more abrupt and painful.

That is, the pressure to "improve" in the United States is immense. The only problem is that making Trinity "better" according to US News would actually make it worse. However, if one wants to be blamed or dismissed, Trinity experiences a concrete example of the report's ability to inflict serious damage.

When the Trinity chairman and admissions director made the decision to take the elective exam, it was an ethical choice based on principles and a calculated run of the dice. Knowing very well that the United States would punish the university for its transfer, they thought that a more diverse student body would lead to improvements in other criteria, such as the quality of student life and national reputation (and perhaps even the commitment of students ). There are good reasons to think that
Experimentation, if continued, would achieve these goals. In the same sense, however, the fall of Trinity in the national rankings, especially if it fell below 50 °, would have disastrous consequences.

Where Bowdoin and Smith, eternally in the "top dozen", can safely ignore the news of the United States, Trinity does not have that luxury, and therefore, there are
reasons to return to the tests. It is a trap, and those who are in charge of the administration of the institution, the president and the trustees, have to make an almost impossible decision. In the meantime, the broader question must be asked: why does US News punish optional schools? The barrage of US News statistics (all these figures!) Gives it a patina of scientific objectivity.