Original Discussion Post:

My approach to this exercise revolves around modifying the weight currently

placed on specific measures that constitute an overall score in popular
rankings rather than starting over and completely revamping the measures
used. According to the note-taking guide for this week, the following is a
weighted breakdown of measures used to rank the quality of education
provided.

Grad & Retention 25%

Reputation 25%
Financial Resources 10%
Alumni Giving Rate 5%
Faculty Resources 20%
Selectivity 15%

The most significant change I would make is decreasing the weight of the
reputation category and replace it with metrics surrounding student
indebtedness upon separation from an institution. Given the issues of
affordability and rising student debt, a significant measure of quality is an
institutions ability to provide students with an experience that prepares
them for further success at a reasonable cost.
Obviously well-endowed institutions can offer need based aid so they might
score high on this measure but at least 25% of their score wont be based on
a reputation that is unlikely to change over time. The increase in the number
of students who are Pell eligible signifies the shift in familys ability to pay for
higher education. Since student loan debt has surpassed credit card debt in
the US, rankings should incorporate more measures of supporting students
and expanding access.
A marker of quality is providing students with a diverse educational
experience at a reasonable cost that leads to positive outcomes. Why are we
still relying on reputation which is based in large part on the past when the
future of higher education is completely different from what we've seen to
date?
Revised Rankings:
After reading the original and creative responses of my peers, I have chosen
to remain focused on removing the reputation component of rankings that is
much too subjective to comprise of an institutions quality score. I suggest
replacing the reputation category in the current rankings system to include
additional student measures beyond graduation and retention. Therefore,
Ive listed several elements below that conform to my new rankings plan to
include student indebtedness instead of reputation. (Those that also appear

in Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out are indicated
with an asterisk.)

Amount of need-based aid awarded per enrolled student

Percentage of student population receiving Pell
Percentage of EOP students (or other state funding programs)
Percentage of students eligible for federal work study
Student cost per degree earned*
Previous 5-year average of annual tuition increase
Average debt load of graduates*
Graduate school admission rate*
Job placement rate*
Exit survey satisfaction rates*

My rationale for including the elements above in future ranking of quality

across higher education instead of reputation revolves around an institutions
ability to provide students with an experience that prepares them for further
success at a reasonable cost. To perpetuate perceived quality on reputation
only exacerbates the issue of access and the academys ability to meet the
needs of our knowledge economy.
A secondary area for consideration could be the degree of opportunities
available to students for applied/experiential learning. In other words,
metrics on the number of students who study abroad, engage in service
learning, conduct undergraduate research, perform creative activities,
pursue internships, etc. These elements also lead into engagement
indicators measured by NSSE (p.2), which several of my peers posted to the
original discussion question.
Theme

Engagement Indicators

Academic Challenge

Higher-Order Learning
Reflective & Integrative Learning
Learning Strategies
Quantitative Reasoning

Learning with Peers

Collaborative Learning
Discussions with Diverse Others

Experiences with Faculty

Student-Faculty Interaction

Effective Teaching Practices

Campus Environment

Quality of Interactions
Supportive Environment

Incorporating engagement indicators into rankings of quality could be

accounted for by taking percentage points away from faculty resources and
selectivity in the current ranking system.