I still have to look at the methodology and results more carefully, but the word I heard was that the new methodology putting a greater emphasis on social mobility seems to be killing us.
Overall: 133 (Administration and BoT are likely freaking out over this number)
Undergraduate teaching: 11 (3rd among public)
Top Performers on Social Mobility: 415
It seems to me that although we keep dropping in the rankings, our graduates still get high paying jobs and are leaders in their fields and communities. When I read the Cincinnati Business Courier, for example, it seems like a lot of the top entrepreneurs, CEO’s, etc. are Miami alums. So the degree still means something, at least to employers.
“Social mobility” is just a way to measure outcomes, which I understand to be a big deal in the broader culture’s evaluation of higher education. It rings kind of hollow to knock people for majoring in creative writing (or whatever non-immediate-path-to-a-good-job degree) but simultaneously complain that rankings take into account things like “getting a post-graduate job that pays enough to make your life materially better than it was before.”
Shouldn’t the role of any public university be to foster socio-economic mobility? Miami has long turned its back on that role (51% out of state students, demographics that look like those of Middlebury), and now that’s come back to bite it in the ass. And that role is not incompatible with academic excellence. From looking at the list, it seems that many public universities that are far more selective than Miami increased their rankings under the new metrics. A high quality public university can do both.
If anything, maybe this will be the catalyst for the powers that be at Miami to finally abandon the tired “J Crew U” and “Public Ivy” persona because if they don’t there’s a good chance that they’ll be having to explain why UC (#142) has passed them by next year.
When you read the list of universities now ranked ahead of Miami, it is laughable. Everything centers on social justice/equity these days for liberals, and unfortunately they own the academic landscape and drive the narrative that we all are expected to accept. So, 36 different University of California campuses (exaggerated number, but you get the point) rank ahead of Miami. Branch campuses of some major public universities also rank ahead. University of Cincinnati is ranked right on our heels.
Well Middlebury is the #11 ranked National Liberal Arts College. In fact, eight of the elite and wealthy NESCAC colleges rank in the top 25, including #1 and #2.
Disagree. Last I checked Miami accepts like 90% of applicants. I don’t feel we need to self-flagellate. There are ways to finance an education. And, far from everyone at Miami fits into one basic stereotype.
Which proves that private colleges as well as publics like Berkeley or Michigan, can do both. Miami has made a conscious decision not to and thought that constantly talking about a 40 year old “Public Ivy” book mattered. Honestly, I don’t know what the path forward is. People are mocking the fact that UC is right on our heels, yet the average ACT is 28 for Miami and 26 for UC, so why shouldn’t they be even if you don’t look at the social mobility factors.
The company discarded five factors that often favored wealthy colleges and together made up 18 percent of a school’s score, including undergraduate class sizes, alumni giving rates and high school class standing.
Disregarding alumni giving rates makes sense. But I think class size and high school standing are pretty significant indicators.
The reworked formula assigned greater emphasis to graduation rates for students who received need-based Pell grants and retention. It also introduced metrics tied to first-generation college students and to whether recent graduates were earning more than people who had completed only high school.
I think helping students who need financial aid or are first generation college students is a good goal for universities. Including it in what is supposed to be an overall ranking for any student seems a little odd to me.
Fair point. I’m curious whether increasing Miami’s research designation would give the school a bump. Seems SUNY Buffalo benefited from the new rating system, and they have a higher-level research designation.
My understanding is that faculty research amounts to 4% of the final score received by any university. The 6-year graduation rate of students who received a Pell Grant amounts to 3%.
Although noble, adding social mobility factors to rankings can be dangerous. If graduation rates are all that matter, as it seems to be now, what happens when universities start rejecting Pell Grants (3% of the total US News score) or first-generation students (2.5% of the total US News score) because they predict these folks will not graduate on time and, thus, will affect the university rankings?
There is a risk that universities might exploit ranking metrics to their advantage, possibly compromising support for vulnerable student populations.
I see and thanks. That definitely proves your point that schools could concievably try to limit the number of Pell Grant students.
In any event, the social mobility factors don’t seem to be dominant and public schools in general seem to have risen under the new format. Miami simply needs to do better in a variety of areas.
