Sociologists Find Fault with NRC’s Doctoral Rankings

According to an article on today’s Inside Higher Ed, sociologists are not happy with the National Research Council’s (NRC) doctoral rankings. Six months ago, the NRC released it’s much-anticipated and much delayed doctoral rankings report (see an earlier post here), but critique quickly followed suit. Much of the criticism pertained to the methodology and/or the data. Now the American Sociological Association (ASA) has released an analysis of the assessment. Among a number of concerns that were raised, fault was found with issues such as the exclusion of books and book citations as methods for evaluating faculty productivity in the social sciences, disregard for the quality of journal article publications, the lack of distinction between single-authored and co-authored papers, and the judging of admissions quality by GRE scores alone, ignoring verbal scores, which are a significant measure for American sociology departments. There is a concern that these rankings could have a negative influence on people’s perceptions of departments ranked lower than their actual quality and may lead to pressure to change programs to improve their rankings. The ASA’s report can be found here.

The Effect of Prestige at American Universities on Graduate Education

The most recent edition of the Journal of Higher Education features an article I have been eagerly anticipating: Keeping up with the Joneses: Socialization and Culture in Doctoral Education at One Striving University, by Susan K. Gardner. In the article, Gardner discusses the role of institutional prestige and rankings at American universities, and the effect this has on students, faculty, and the quality of graduate education programs. Gardner’s research at one third-tier university indicates that in their effort to increase their ranking to keep up with the most prestigious institutions of higher learning, lower-ranking universities may in fact be unintentionally undermining the quality of education. Such middle- to -lower ranking universities try to attract the ‘best’ scholars and students, but doing so requires funding and resources for research, areas in which many of these institutions are ultimately lacking. The reality is that such “superstar” faculty who get hired on devote little time to teaching and mentoring graduate students, and/or become disillusioned, many of them leaving, resulting in high turnover rates and setting a pattern in play of poorer quality programs and thus affecting the reputation of the university.

One’s institutional affiliation is an important factor to consider when enrolling in graduate study, particularly in the U.S., where prestige and ranking are considered important (though maybe not the most ideal) methods for measuring the success of a university. In Canada, this is not so much the case, but I think it definitely plays a role. Certain campuses are certainly less well known than others, and access to funding and resources is distributed less than equally across the country, as is the case around the world. How much do Canadian graduate students pay attention to how well their chosen institution is renowned (or not)? Do prestige and rankings matter all that much- to us, to faculty, or the institution? How much of a role does where one completed graduate work play in the job market or in seeking a career in academia? Should it play a role at all?

University Rankings: Do Grad Students Not Count?

Today’s blog post is a bit of an opinion piece, so I apologize in advance for those not fond of blog naval lint. I was excited to have finally gotten my hands on a hard copy of Maclean’s 2010 University Rankings. My excitement was diminished, however, when I discovered that once again, a significant portion of Canada’s student population was virtually ignored- graduate students. The focus of the rankings, has, and continues to be, high school students and graduates seeking advice on choosing ‘the right university’. I feel very strongly that this focus should now shift to include those students considering the option of continuing on or returning to school to enroll in graduate programs. Indeed, as the number of students choosing to do so continues to increase, the needs of this burgeoning population beg to be addressed. Information that I myself would be interested in knowing include university rankings and student opinions with regards to such matters as access to and quality of various student services, including professional development initiatives, resource availability, funding for research, and opportunities for teaching. The only segment of the graduate student population that is singled out, is, interestingly enough, international students. Other than this mention, the views of graduate students are lumped together with the voices of undergraduates attending primarily Medical/Doctoral and Comprehensive Universities. In the meantime, I was quite pleased to see issues of gender over- and under-representation being addressed, as well as other concerns of great relevance to both current and potential students.