Backup site - DavidsonCats.com

[Splinter Faction]

Today's WSJ has the College Rankings listed. The semi-good news is that Davidson is ranked 57 out of 1000. That's one below Tulane and one above West Point. It is noteworthy that the methodology places 40% weight on "Outcomes," meaning basically graduate salaries v. debt, and 30% weight on "Resources," meaning spending on instruction and student services. Good thing "Engagement", which means student views of teaching and interaction with faculty and other students, and, note this, is drawn from student surveys, is weighted at 20%, because Davidson is ranked 499. That's right, folks, 499 out of 1000, essentially the definition of mediocre. Apparently the WSJ folks have not been reading all those wonderful articles I get in the Davidson Journal. But, seriously, I turn to you to see if anyone has any thoughts on this. (I make the presumption of using the basketball forum because the kind of "student-athlete" we recruit will often be a student who, along with parents, would pay attention to this sort of thing.) It's particularly disturbing that this number is derived from student surveys. Why are our students so disgruntled?

You can go to a full discussion of their methodology at their website, but here is the basic description they provide for "Engagement":

Does the college effectively engage with its students? Most of the data in this area is gathered through the THE (Times Higher Education) US Student Survey. The Engagement area represents 20 per cent of the overall ranking. Within this we look at:

Student engagement (7%)
Student recommendation (6%)
Interaction with teachers and students (4%)
Number of accredited programmes (3%)

There's more bad news, in that Davidson is ranked 476/1000 on "Diversity." That seems counter-intuitive, but here's the short description of what it means:

Is the college providing a learning environment for all students? Does it make efforts to attract a diverse student body and faculty? The Environment area represents 10 per cent of the overall ranking. Within this we look at:

Proportion of international students (2%)
Student diversity (3%)
Student inclusion (2%)
Staff diversity (3%)

There is a much longer explanation of all the metrics at the website, but particularly with "Engagement," the more you read, the worse it gets. There is either something badly wrong with this survey, or there is something wrong at Davidson. All the things they call Engagement are the things we say Davidson does so well, and there we are at Number 499. It just doesn't make sense.

I know, lies, damn lies, and statistics, and I have never paid much attention to this stuff and view it skeptically. I'm not trying to stir a pot, but really would like to be enlightened. But if I'm Coach McKillop and I'm talking to a student or his mom, I'm not going to pull this section of the paper out of my pocket.

Your thoughts? What am I missing?
_________________
"I try to represent the un-sloppy way as much as I can." (Coach)

"Whatever is preserved grows enigmatic; time, and the pressures of interpretation . . . will see to that." (Frank Kermode)

"as allways, immage is everything" (graveline)

[MLC67]

Survey's accuracy seems worth an in-depth examination to verify its statistical validity. Were responses obtained by 10 students, 20, 200 or a greater percentage of the entire student body? Our shared understanding of the DC experience leads to credible doubt here.
_________________
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for men of good will to do nothing. Eddie Burke

Esse Quam Videri

[DCA06]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvard-stays-on-top-of-wsj-the-college-rankings-1536188935?mod=hp_lead_pos7

You can see the sample size is small with respect to Davidson. Further, as noted earlier the weightings are somewhat different relative to other College News, etc rankings.

Further Davidson being a liberal arts school does to a degree lack a research element in comparison to larger Universities, that being said - I think rankings from WSJ are very much "commercial" with respect to valuing a graduates post college earnings ability - and in comparison to some of our northern school peers - Amherst, Williams etc, we may potentially lack. That being said Princeton is the Davidson of the North, I wouldn't trade my education for anyone elses at ANY school - and our basketball team is pretty good, and getting really good.

Articles like this just motivate me to GIVE more, and CHEER more.

[Dr. Bliss]

Forgive me, Splinter. Meh.
_________________
"There ain't no sanity clause!" Chico Marx

[cat44]

I have a diffferent take than SF. I couldn't access the article, but based on SF's description I'm quite happy with the rank. The two rankings whch SF describes as medicre are actually average. Being average in those two is very acceptable, indeed expected. I am always amazed when current students speak so highly of Davidson while in school. We (my friends) referred to DU as the armpit of the world while there. Obviously all of our opinions have changed. Much of that opinion was based on our perception of the rigors of academics, some because we were all male until my senior year. I suspect that if the academics were less rigorous the reponse of the students would have been more favorable (if you are inclined to believe that high student ratings are favorable). Also, as a liberal arts college we will not have the spectrum of programs that a Harvard or Stanford does. So being average is more than ok. That is where I would want us to be. The two meaningful weights, outcome and resources, must be very high to have a ranking of 57 for all four aspects of the survey. So I would respectfully state that the title of the thread is not accurate. I would submit that WSJ really likes our school.

[Splinter Faction]

In reply to the replies, I'd say, no, the sky is not falling, but I would imagine some administrators and faculty members will be having some meetings. Back when Davidson was seventh, or whatever, in the U.S News ranking, everybody waved the flag. You can't love one outcome and ignore the other.
_________________
"I try to represent the un-sloppy way as much as I can." (Coach)

"Whatever is preserved grows enigmatic; time, and the pressures of interpretation . . . will see to that." (Frank Kermode)

"as allways, immage is everything" (graveline)

[catborn'bred]

Count me as a suspect of WSJ survey methodology. Overall, I am relatively pleased with our ranking for the following reasons:

1. In regards to resources, average salaries tend to be higher in the northeast and west coast due to cost of living. I don't think cost of living is factored into WSJ's outcomes calculation. I think that we do reasonably well here given the no need-based loan commitment made by DC so the salary versus indebtedness ratio should be strong.

2. We have a strong endowment in relation to many colleges but not in relation to research universities or 20-30 other strong national liberal arts colleges. This likely impacts our "resources" quotient. It, however, seems that we fare, again, reasonably well here due to a combination of institutional wherewithal and priorities.

3. "Number of accredited programs" is clearly biased toward comprehensive universities.

4. I agree that Davidson's workload and lack of grade inflation contribute, as identified by another poster, to delayed gratification.

5. In regards to inclusion (and a supportive environment) Davidson has a strong commitment, but percentage-wise lags behind institutions located in more diverse states or regions or in larger metro areas.

6. The student sample is poor. Furthermore, I know that some colleges are "gaming" the system by trying to get their own biased sample of students to reply to these types of surveys.

The WSJ rankings are not as widely disseminated as some other rankings. Regardless, there is a reason why colleges like DC do not promote college rankings, even when a ranking might be particularly distinguished.

[Dr. Bliss]

Here, Splinter, this will make you feel better:

https://www.niche.com/colleges/davidson-college/academics/
_________________
"There ain't no sanity clause!" Chico Marx

[stevelee]

This is probably bad news for the college's Young Republican Club. High school students who read the WSJ (or whose parents do) would skew toward the Republicans, so discouraging that demographic from applying could hurt club membership. Not much of anybody else will pay attention.

As I recall, Pink (or Red) Ernie used to require students in some of his classes to take the WSJ.

There was somebody's ratings that used to give Davidson low marks. It based a lot on how much money graduates were making a few years out, when Davidson alums were still in med school, etc.
_________________
Μεγάλη ἡμέρα εἶναι Λύγξ

[BDL]

[BDF]

Rankings behind paywalls probably have little impact.
_________________
This is a post by BDF, not BDL.

[Dr. Bliss]

I'm afraid I have skewed the post-graduation salary number down quite a bit. Oh well.
_________________
"There ain't no sanity clause!" Chico Marx

[BDF]

[wildforthecats]

Go Green Wave.

[MikeMaloy15]

I am indifferent to the favor/scorn of the WSJ.