概要信息：



Should the government rate schools? What 
should be done to hold institutions accountable 
in the face of lower graduation rates, rising 
student debt and lack of access for the poor and 
minorities?
Should the Government 
Grade Colleges?
INTRODUCTION:
The Obama administration is considering a rating system for colleges and 
universities that receive billions a year in federal loans and grants.

(48)
accountable
provost
California
update
rethink
online
rating
taxpayer
quartile
trillion
unintended
relish
Michael
center
Michigan
ranking
manipulation
disparage
eligibility
unethical
unqualified
insider
worrisome
benchmark
Nancy
chancellor
York
crucial
usefulness
prospective
transparency
participation
differentiation
underway
tackle
distraction
Joseph
Moore
Massachusetts
stratify
specificity
creativity
capitalize
offset
productivity
centralize
Ohio
educational
******************************
(25)
mobility
implement
elusive
undermine
sector
skyrocket
plight
imperative
sanction
effectiveness
aggregate
frustration
integrate
assort
institutional
diversity
robust
backbone
squash
deficit
meaningful
enable
economics
ironic
outweigh
******************************
CET6(16)
reckless
completion
datum
manipulate
availability
priority
input
flaw
massive
endeavor
conceive
consumer
distract
enhance
proposition
orientation
******************************
CET4(41)
loan
invest
tame
bold
confidence
spur
resort
timid
exceed
propose
gap
community
opportunity
enormous
eliminate
essential
identify
metric
utilize
unnecessary
confusion
recognition
substantial
publication
further
current
ensure
comprehensive
establish
financial
objective
investment
response
formula
economic
restore
weaken
volume
emphasis
proclaim
individual
College Rating System Might Lead to Needed Reforms
José L. Cruz is provost and vice president for academic affairs at California State 
University, Fullerton. Previously, he served as vice president of higher education 
policy and practice at The Education Trust in Washington.
UPDATED MAY 28, 2014, 11:49 AM 
The federal government should rate colleges and universities on measures of access, 
success and affordability. I also believe that it should rethink the way it invests at least part 
of the more than $150 billion it distributes each year in student aid and loan program 
dollars.
Ideally, the rating and performance-based funding system would drive states, institutions 
and students toward the transformative change needed to tame student loan debt and 
jump-start social mobility. Developing such a system is hard, but models do exist. The 
Education Trust’s free College Results Online database shows what a ratings system 
might look like.
But implementing an outcomes-based 
funding system would require the type of 
bold policy decisions that have become 
increasingly elusive. The fact that the 
government has been unable to protect 
students and taxpayers from the 
reckless actions of some for-profit 
institutions for so long undermines my 
confidence that it can spur change 
across all sectors of higher education.
And resorting to timid reforms will not get the job done. Today, young people in the lowest 
income quartile are seven times less likely than those in the upper quartile to obtain a 
bachelor’s degree by the age of 24. And student loan debt has skyrocketed beyond $1 
trillion, exceeding auto and credit card debt.
Our best immediate hope is for colleges and universities to spend less time worrying about 
the potential unintended consequences of the proposed rating system and more time 
addressing the real plight of students, particularly those that have traditionally been 
underserved.
Those of us in public higher education know there’s more we can do to expand access, 
improve learning, increase degree completion rates, narrow achievement gaps, push the 
frontiers of knowledge, and better serve our communities. And we shouldn’t need carrots 
and sticks to take action.
We have long relished our role as engines of opportunity; it is now imperative that we 
deliver.
Ideally, the rating and 
performance-based funding system 
would drive states, institutions and 
students toward the transformative 
change needed to tame rising debt 
and jump-start social mobility.
Great Value in Ranking Tool
Nancy L. Zimpher is the chancellor of the State University of New York.
MAY 27, 2014 
As development of a government ratings system continues, input from across all sectors of 
higher education is crucial. There is great value in such a system for students, colleges 
and the federal government alike, but only if it is designed and implemented in a way that 
serves the distinct needs of each of these groups.
Of course, the system’s primary consideration should be its usefulness for students, as is 
the case with any college-related tool worth developing. So, as arguments for and against 
the concept are considered, it’s essential that we view the rating tool not as a means to 
rank our institutions for their effectiveness over one another, but to provide prospective 
students with information that helps them identify their academic needs and 
comprehensively measure our ability to satisfy those needs at a price they can afford.
Transparency is key. All of the aggregate metrics ultimately utilized in the ratings system 
should be made readily available to the public in an easy-to-access and straightforward 
manner. There can be no unnecessary confusion or frustration as students and parents 
use this tool.
When possible, the metrics should also 
be already available, in recognition of 
the substantial reporting requirements of 
colleges and universities to federal 
agencies, state departments and 
publications. Further, the new rankings 
present an opportunity to refresh current 
data systems like Integrated 
Postsecondary Education Data System 
(IPEDS), which has some known flaws. 
These measures will ensure accuracy and ease participation by allowing institutions to 
build reporting into existing procedures.
Finally, an ability to translate assorted campus missions must be considered. At SUNY, we 
have 64 campuses representative of every sector. Such differentiation provides a 
comprehensive program of higher education across our system, precisely like that of the 
nation’s. This balance of institutional diversity will need to be struck as methods for 
weighting and scoring are established.
To put it much too broadly, the development of a ratings system is a complex and massive 
– but not impossible – undertaking, one that is underway whether we like it or not. I 
commend President Obama and his administration for tackling this difficult endeavor and 
encourage my colleagues across the country to seek out an active role in the process.
Developing a government ratings 
system will require input from all 
sectors of higher education, but its 
primary consideration should be 
its usefulness for students.
Government College Ratings Could Have Unintended Consequences
Michael Bastedo, an associate professor of education, is the director of the Center for 
the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education at the University of Michigan.
UPDATED MAY 28, 2014, 12:00 PM 
Any government ratings system for universities will have serious consequences, 
many of which are unintended. Even with the rankings published by U.S. News & 
World Report, there are widespread examples of gaming and manipulation by 
colleges in the data they provide. Presidents have submitted ridiculous reputation 
surveys that disparage their competitors, and admissions offices have manipulated 
their statistics to improve their college’s standing. And this is just to get a better 
ranking in a magazine.
What can we expect if the Education 
Department connects student aid 
eligibility to the ratings? The pressure 
on institutions will be enormous, and 
undoubtedly some of them will 
choose unethical paths. Institutions 
will feel pressure to lower academic 
quality, graduate unqualified 
students, or reduce services to the 
low-income students who need a quality college education most. How will these 
issues be monitored and managed?
Data availability is also a real problem. Higher education insiders are well aware 
that the data needed to hold institutions accountable are of varying quality. We have 
the worst data on exactly the kinds of higher education institutions that would be 
most likely to receive the lowest ratings. So improving data quality for these 
colleges has to be an immediate priority. This issue is particularly worrisome if the 
Obama administration insists on rushing out these ratings in the coming year.
Finally, what exactly will happen to colleges that fail to meet some ratings 
benchmark? Eliminating student loan eligibility is essentially a death sentence for 
any college, and eliminating Pell Grant eligibility will be the same for any school 
with a significant low-income student population. Reducing eligibility makes little 
sense – some students at a school can get loans or Pell Grants, and other students 
cannot?
The Obama administration has to develop sanctions that do not damage the very 
students they are seeking to help. And rushing any plan out the door without 
thinking through these issues would be an enormous mistake.
The Obama administration has to 
gather relevant data first before 
developing sanctions that could 
damage the very students they are 
seeking to help.
Government College Ratings System Is a Distraction
Joseph B. Moore is the president of Lesley University in Massachusetts.
UPDATED MAY 28, 2014, 10:50 AM 
A federal college rating system will further stratify American higher education 
and create new barriers for low-income students. More than ever, wealthy 
students are attending institutions that spend more per student, have high 
graduation rates and subsequently graduates who earn robust incomes. 
Lower-income students attend institutions that spend less per student, have 
lower graduation rates and graduates who earn modest incomes. Money 
matters.
Whether rating or ranking, these lists reflect the marriage of wealthy students 
to wealthy institutions. If the Obama administration links federal financial aid 
to its rating system, there will be less aid for low-income students because 
they and their institutions don’t score well on measures of wealth.
The rating plan’s lack of specificity 
when the stakes are so high is 
alarming. This ill-conceived plan 
will not meet its declared 
objectives: It will not protect higher 
education consumers, will not 
stimulate states to spend more on 
higher education, and will not 
protect taxpayers’ investment in federal student aid.
Instead, this plan distracts us from urgently needed change in American 
higher education. It is a pedestrian response when we need vision, creativity 
and backbone to develop the new American workforce. Consider the Morrill 
Act that allowed grants, the G.I. Bill, the growth of community colleges, and 
the potential of digital technology. Rather than make history and explore bold 
ideas that capitalize on the strengths of our diverse system of higher 
education, it seems our federal government is choosing to squash diversity, 
subject colleges and universities to a set ratings formula, and manage a loan 
program with high interest rates that counts on student debt to offset the 
federal deficit. The real shame is the absence of a meaningful national 
agenda that enables more citizens to earn a college degree, enhances 
economic productivity, and restores a middle class.
If the Obama administration links 
federal financial aid to its rating 
system, there will be less aid for 
low-income students.
No Need to Centralize Education
Richard Vedder is the director of the Center for College Affordability and 
Productivity and a professor of economics at Ohio University.
MAY 27, 2014 
Universities grade their students in every course. It is thus ironic that they so 
strenuously oppose the federal government wanting to grade them. That said, 
I do have some sympathy for universities: Would you want to be evaluated by 
an organization (the federal government) that cannot efficiently even run 
Obamacare or deliver the mail?
The rating system is a good news/bad news proposition. The good news is 
that colleges need to be held more accountable and face financial 
consequences for poor outcomes – students failing to learn or graduate. Vast 
numbers of students run up huge debts, only to find low-paying jobs upon 
graduating. It is time to evaluate and grade colleges more seriously, making 
them have more “skin in the game” financially when bad outcomes occur. My 
organization, the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, ranks 
colleges for Forbes, and the volume of Internet traffic suggests rankings like 
these are useful to students planning their future. Theoretically, a federal 
rating system could spread good consumer information.
Yet I am afraid the “bad news” 
outweighs the “good news.” I fear 
a one-size-fits-all set of 
bureaucratic criteria established 
by the federal government will 
weaken the greatest strength of 
American higher education: its 
diversity. We have thousands of 
competing schools varying vastly 
in size, curriculum, political 
orientation, research emphasis, etc. I worry that the Feds might proclaim for 
all schools criteria such as “X percent of students must come from low-
income groups if you want a high rating.” Why? Why can't individual 
institutions make that determination? What if the federal rule significantly 
lowers educational quality? We are overcentralizing higher education when 
we should let the states and private university boards determine its direction. 
On balance, then, I am opposed to the rating system.
A one-size-fits-all set of 
bureaucratic criteria established 
by the federal government will 
weaken the greatest strength of 
American higher education: its 
diversity.