5 ms·

I was at first quite happy when I heard top schools were pulling out of rankings - we go way too far with what are often vanity metrics that miss the big pictur

I was at first quite happy when I heard top schools were pulling out of rankings - we go way too far with what are often vanity metrics that miss the big picture. But, I was told (unconfirmed) that this is cover to make it easier to pursue backdoor affirmative action as allowing diversity candidates in with lower LSAT scores was hurting their standings in the rankings, and this is a cynical tactic to get around that. Is this a case where we are ending one wrong and replacing it with another?

nonethewiser 4y ago
I'm not sure how US News is wrong. They have a methodology. People can put whatever stock they want into it. Sounds like something is working if schools can't lower their test scores and avoid falling in the ranks
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  > They have a methodology. People can put whatever stock they want into it. The problem is that there isn’t really another ranking and their methodology isn’t something most people can reason able (even if it’s public). Also the universities do lie and make up stats apparently (Columbia had this issue this year).
  - nonethewiser 4y ago
    Sounds like a clear signal to take it with a grain of salt.
- lo_zamoyski 4y ago
  > I'm not sure how US News is wrong. They have a methodology. People can put whatever stock they want into it. The point would be that ranking produced by the methodology is rarely interpreted in light of the methodology. Method follows aim and purpose, and so aim and purpose are that by which we measure the quality of a methodology. If the methodology doesn't produce a ranking of the expected value, then that's a problem, especially when it is passed off as having that value.
codefreeordie 4y ago
This decision occurs at the same time as they stop requiring LSAT because it "hurts diversity", so ... yes, it's an attempt to mask the institutional decline caused by using diversity score instead of merit for admissions.
onetimeusename 4y ago
Assuming that is true, why would affirmative action be viewed as so important that schools abandon participation in the premier ranking system in order to pursue it through a backdoor? I am genuinely curious why affirmative action is considered so sacred that elite schools suddenly reject the ranking system they have spent decades trying to climb. Rankings are really a pretty critical part of US education. Without rankings you don't attract the prestige seeking students willing to pay. In turn you don't earn the money you need to pay your professors and administrators. You probably don't attract the star professors you wanted with higher salaries. These things are all linked. Maybe their solution is to have a giant endowment or maybe they just establish a different ranking system that suits them better. But I still think it seems like a surprising outcome if affirmative action is more important than rankings.
- WaxProlix 4y ago
  A good reason to think it might not be true.
- causi 4y ago
  Assuming that is true, why would affirmative action be viewed as so important that schools abandon participation in the premier ranking system in order to pursue it through a backdoor? Advocating for diversity admittance makes the individual advocates look good and it quiets the rabble. Stanford has a 36 billion dollar endowment so money is basically irrelevant to them. What they care about is prestige. Having a high rank gives you more prestige. Seeming to not care about social justice gives you less prestige. They're trying to ladder-jump from a reality where prestige is based on accomplishment to one where prestige is based on PR. It might work or it might not.
- gnicholas 4y ago
  > why would affirmative action be viewed as so important that schools abandon participation in the premier ranking system in order to pursue it through a backdoor? I am genuinely curious why affirmative action is considered so sacred that elite schools suddenly reject the ranking system they have spent decades trying to climb. Yale, Harvard, and Stanford have established their place at the top of the law school rankings. They have been at the top for decades (I applied to law school in 2004 and they were well-established as the top-3 even back then), so it is unlikely that they will be considered to have fallen in anyone's esteem anytime soon. My guess is that this move, and the move by the ABA to no longer require law schools to have applicants take the LSAT, [1] are both moves being taken in advance of the affirmative action cases currently at the Supreme Court. The schools know that if SCOTUS gets rid of affirmative action, it will be very difficult for them to maintain diversity if they continue asking students for LSAT scores, and have to report them to US News. These moves make their admissions processes more opaque. I thought it was interesting that in the WSJ's piece about the ABA decision on the LSAT, the only school quoted on how the move might not actually help diversity was UC Berkeley. They are already not allowed to consider race outright (due to CA law), so they would have to fall back on metrics like GPA — which they indicate may have even more correlations with race. 1: https://www.wsj.com/articles/law-school-accrediting-panel-to-consider-making-lsat-optional-11668778730 https://www.wsj.com/articles/law-school-accrediting-panel-to...
testfoobar 4y ago
I've observed this same tactic discussed at the High School level: some are proposing removing all AP classes because not enough diversity students take those classes. The classes and tests are deemed racist. Would the same logic apply to FAA pilot testing?
- cjbgkagh 4y ago
  Already applied to air traffic controllers… I’ve been told that industry is a mess now.

nonethewiser 4y ago

I'm not sure how US News is wrong. They have a methodology. People can put whatever stock they want into it. Sounds like something is working if schools can't lower their test scores and avoid falling in the ranks

vineyardmike 4y ago
> They have a methodology. People can put whatever stock they want into it. The problem is that there isn’t really another ranking and their methodology isn’t something most people can reason able (even if it’s public). Also the universities do lie and make up stats apparently (Columbia had this issue this year).
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  Sounds like a clear signal to take it with a grain of salt.
lo_zamoyski 4y ago
> I'm not sure how US News is wrong. They have a methodology. People can put whatever stock they want into it. The point would be that ranking produced by the methodology is rarely interpreted in light of the methodology. Method follows aim and purpose, and so aim and purpose are that by which we measure the quality of a methodology. If the methodology doesn't produce a ranking of the expected value, then that's a problem, especially when it is passed off as having that value.

codefreeordie 4y ago

This decision occurs at the same time as they stop requiring LSAT because it "hurts diversity", so ... yes, it's an attempt to mask the institutional decline caused by using diversity score instead of merit for admissions.

onetimeusename 4y ago

Assuming that is true, why would affirmative action be viewed as so important that schools abandon participation in the premier ranking system in order to pursue it through a backdoor? I am genuinely curious why affirmative action is considered so sacred that elite schools suddenly reject the ranking system they have spent decades trying to climb. Rankings are really a pretty critical part of US education. Without rankings you don't attract the prestige seeking students willing to pay. In turn you don't earn the money you need to pay your professors and administrators. You probably don't attract the star professors you wanted with higher salaries. These things are all linked. Maybe their solution is to have a giant endowment or maybe they just establish a different ranking system that suits them better. But I still think it seems like a surprising outcome if affirmative action is more important than rankings.

WaxProlix 4y ago
A good reason to think it might not be true.
causi 4y ago
Assuming that is true, why would affirmative action be viewed as so important that schools abandon participation in the premier ranking system in order to pursue it through a backdoor? Advocating for diversity admittance makes the individual advocates look good and it quiets the rabble. Stanford has a 36 billion dollar endowment so money is basically irrelevant to them. What they care about is prestige. Having a high rank gives you more prestige. Seeming to not care about social justice gives you less prestige. They're trying to ladder-jump from a reality where prestige is based on accomplishment to one where prestige is based on PR. It might work or it might not.
gnicholas 4y ago
> why would affirmative action be viewed as so important that schools abandon participation in the premier ranking system in order to pursue it through a backdoor? I am genuinely curious why affirmative action is considered so sacred that elite schools suddenly reject the ranking system they have spent decades trying to climb. Yale, Harvard, and Stanford have established their place at the top of the law school rankings. They have been at the top for decades (I applied to law school in 2004 and they were well-established as the top-3 even back then), so it is unlikely that they will be considered to have fallen in anyone's esteem anytime soon. My guess is that this move, and the move by the ABA to no longer require law schools to have applicants take the LSAT, [1] are both moves being taken in advance of the affirmative action cases currently at the Supreme Court. The schools know that if SCOTUS gets rid of affirmative action, it will be very difficult for them to maintain diversity if they continue asking students for LSAT scores, and have to report them to US News. These moves make their admissions processes more opaque. I thought it was interesting that in the WSJ's piece about the ABA decision on the LSAT, the only school quoted on how the move might not actually help diversity was UC Berkeley. They are already not allowed to consider race outright (due to CA law), so they would have to fall back on metrics like GPA — which they indicate may have even more correlations with race. 1: https://www.wsj.com/articles/law-school-accrediting-panel-to-consider-making-lsat-optional-11668778730 https://www.wsj.com/articles/law-school-accrediting-panel-to...

testfoobar 4y ago

I've observed this same tactic discussed at the High School level: some are proposing removing all AP classes because not enough diversity students take those classes. The classes and tests are deemed racist. Would the same logic apply to FAA pilot testing?

cjbgkagh 4y ago
Already applied to air traffic controllers… I’ve been told that industry is a mess now.