(See: Peralta and Freeman)
After writing what could be considered a lengthy term paper in response to Lance Freeman's article (see link above) I decided not to post it due to its length and the fact that it was so convoluted with half arguments and contradictions it made little sense. I do however think this is an important topic so I will give you the reader's digest version of my thoughts on school rankings, their importance and so on.
So are school rankings important? Short answer yes. They are a concise, convenient way to see how various schools stack up to each other. I'll admit there are some limitations which were pointed out by Prof. Freeman. However as I argued in my "just for fun" essay the limitations he pointed out were somewhat off base.
He argued that rankings are misleading because they cannot accurately represent the "nature" or "quality" of the education that would be received. While that may seem true I would argue that the "nature" or "quality" of one's educational experience is so subjective that it cannot be put into something as objective as a list. There is no way to tell the "quality of education" that one will receive from a particular institution without actually going there and that involves you having already made your decision, a decision that I would argue depended on rankings in some way or another. I would also say that that is not even what the rankings are claiming to be. They are merely a comparison of schools based on certain quantifiable criteria. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking they are something they're not. Saying rankings are misleading in itself seems to be misleading as it makes the reader think they have more meaning and weight than they do.
His second critique seems a little more valid but then again it does open itself up to some criticisms. Freeman admits that "perceptions do count." And yet he says schools trying to get a higher ranking by becoming more selective is a bad thing? If perceptions do count, and schools that are ranked higher are perceived better by the planning community (which he also admits) wouldn't it follow that by becoming more selective and improving your ranking you are also improving your school? So I would say that schools becoming more selective to improve their ranking is a good thing. Because after all isn't perception reality in this case? Again Freeman's counter argument would be that a high ranking is not indicative of a school's ability to provide a "quality education", but what I am saying to you is that the idea of a "quality education" is so subjective and so largely up to the individual that it is impossible to determine anyway. Not to mention that someone's notion of a quality education is so socially constructed, that to a large degree it will be determined by rankings regardless.
That was really the meat of what I wanted to say. I also think that a conversation on the debate of "perception vs reality" is appropriate here. What rankings do is promulgate certain perceptions of schools. This can be a bad or a good thing, it depends on which side of the fence you're on I suppose. However I do think that in the case of school rankings perception IS reality. The general public does not know about the individual details of an Urban Planning program or any other program for that matter, all they have to go on are rankings, which are based, to a large extent, on perception.
But does it really matter what the general population thinks? They're not the ones hiring you, people in the field are hiring you and they should know the in's and out's of planning programs right? That would be the perception, but I do not think it is the reality. I mean this is the first year that rankings for any sort of planning programs has been published and look at the controversy it has caused. I guess I can finish this off by proclaiming that I hope one day there can be a way to figure out which school is the best fit for one individual until then all we can do is look at the rankings and go for it. Education is what you make it...but going to M.I.T doesn't hurt either.
So are school rankings important? Short answer yes. They are a concise, convenient way to see how various schools stack up to each other. I'll admit there are some limitations which were pointed out by Prof. Freeman. However as I argued in my "just for fun" essay the limitations he pointed out were somewhat off base.
He argued that rankings are misleading because they cannot accurately represent the "nature" or "quality" of the education that would be received. While that may seem true I would argue that the "nature" or "quality" of one's educational experience is so subjective that it cannot be put into something as objective as a list. There is no way to tell the "quality of education" that one will receive from a particular institution without actually going there and that involves you having already made your decision, a decision that I would argue depended on rankings in some way or another. I would also say that that is not even what the rankings are claiming to be. They are merely a comparison of schools based on certain quantifiable criteria. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking they are something they're not. Saying rankings are misleading in itself seems to be misleading as it makes the reader think they have more meaning and weight than they do.
His second critique seems a little more valid but then again it does open itself up to some criticisms. Freeman admits that "perceptions do count." And yet he says schools trying to get a higher ranking by becoming more selective is a bad thing? If perceptions do count, and schools that are ranked higher are perceived better by the planning community (which he also admits) wouldn't it follow that by becoming more selective and improving your ranking you are also improving your school? So I would say that schools becoming more selective to improve their ranking is a good thing. Because after all isn't perception reality in this case? Again Freeman's counter argument would be that a high ranking is not indicative of a school's ability to provide a "quality education", but what I am saying to you is that the idea of a "quality education" is so subjective and so largely up to the individual that it is impossible to determine anyway. Not to mention that someone's notion of a quality education is so socially constructed, that to a large degree it will be determined by rankings regardless.
That was really the meat of what I wanted to say. I also think that a conversation on the debate of "perception vs reality" is appropriate here. What rankings do is promulgate certain perceptions of schools. This can be a bad or a good thing, it depends on which side of the fence you're on I suppose. However I do think that in the case of school rankings perception IS reality. The general public does not know about the individual details of an Urban Planning program or any other program for that matter, all they have to go on are rankings, which are based, to a large extent, on perception.
But does it really matter what the general population thinks? They're not the ones hiring you, people in the field are hiring you and they should know the in's and out's of planning programs right? That would be the perception, but I do not think it is the reality. I mean this is the first year that rankings for any sort of planning programs has been published and look at the controversy it has caused. I guess I can finish this off by proclaiming that I hope one day there can be a way to figure out which school is the best fit for one individual until then all we can do is look at the rankings and go for it. Education is what you make it...but going to M.I.T doesn't hurt either.
