Learning from the rankings

University rankings can be a touchy subject for some people. I often hear students arguing about how they are either very important or deeply flawed, but these two opinions are not mutually exclusive. No rankings list is truly exact in terms of accurately “ranking” the “best” universities in the country or the world, because you cannot objectively measure academic perfection. Most rankings are based substantially on academic reputation, which is hardly a foolproof mechanism for determining how a school has improved or declined over the past year. These surveys are subject to personal bias and tend to be a dead-end in self-fulfilling prophesies in which the top schools remain at the top simply because the survey participants have become locked into that mindset. Nevertheless, prospective students and parents look at these rankings and take them into consideration, which makes them undeniably important in some sense.

So, when Duke drops from number 14 to number 19 in the US News & World Report’s Rankings of the “World’s Best Universities” (based on the “QS World University Rankings”), some members of the Duke Community may have been concerned. Nevertheless, year after year, the administration continues to deny that it is worried about these statistics or that it actively pursues projects only to better the school’s ranking. Despite their skepticism, the data that underlies these scores may be of use to President Brodhead and the Board of Trustees in evaluating the University’s success in certain recent endeavors.

To determine a school’s overall score, US News uses a combination of six subcategory scores, with 100 being the highest and zero the lowest. Despite top honors for our faculty-to-student ratio (99.8) and high marks in academic reputation (95.4) and citations per faculty (96.3), Duke’s scores for employer reputation (65.0) and percentage of international students (55.5) lagged significantly. The sixth category, percentage of international faculty, was not scored for Duke.

Each of these categories is designed to indirectly measure the strength of a particular facet of a university. For example, the research citations per faculty score is intended to gauge the research activity of a school, as well as the academic influence of the faculty. Although dropping five spots in the world rankings may not be particularly significant to the administration, the lackluster individual scores for employer reputation and percentage of international students should at least be taken into consideration. The employer reputation score is included to assess a school’s ability to attract and keep exceptional faculty and professors. It is not difficult to see how, over time, a school’s poor reputation as an employer could lead to dips in faculty research citations and ultimately academic reputation. As important as it is for a university to keep its students happy, it is equally if not more important to give the professors a good reason to stick around. Ultimately, this is an issue that is completely within the administration’s control, and it is one that needs to be taken more seriously.

When it comes to increasing the school’s number of international students, the dilemma is substantially trickier. The percentage of international students at a given university allegedly correlates to that school’s reputation abroad. The real issue at hand is that students around the world simply do not know Duke. Since the size of our endowment does not allow us to offer need-blind admissions to international students, we are at an inherent disadvantage compared to schools with monstrous endowments and name recognition like Harvard. Thus, the quality and distinctiveness of our academic program needs to be such that it will convince more students around the globe to apply to, and ultimately attend, Duke. In this area, it actually seems as though the administration is keenly aware of this problem and taking active steps to increase our global competitiveness.

Despite the obvious misstep with Duke Kunshan University, other recent initiatives have demonstrated an understanding of the problem and a commitment to developing innovative solutions. Former President Nan Keohane found success by increasing the scope of Duke’s study abroad opportunities and partnering with prestigious universities overseas. Arguably, President Brodhead’s greatest success came with DukeEngage, allowing students to participate in meaningful service projects while acting as global ambassadors on behalf of the University. Hopefully, the recently announced DukeImmerse Program, which will allow students to spend a semester working with various faculty on an interdisciplinary research topic, will also prove to be a positive step for the University (despite the unfortunate naming scheme that has apparently become a hallmark of recent academic initiatives). In spite of obvious faults, the administration should be commended for proactively seeking out solutions to the problem of international obscurity.

Here’s how I see it: The first step in fixing a problem is acceptance.

Scott Briggs is a Trinity sophomore. His column runs every other Wednesday.