Washington Monthly - September/October 2014 - 19

INTRODUCTION:

A DIFFERENT KIND
OF COLLEGE RANKING
By the Editors

ast August, President Barack Obama traveled to
the State University of New York at Buffalo to give
a speech about higher education. It began with the
usual tributes to college as a pillar of American opportunity and economic renewal. "A higher education is the
single best investment you can make in your future," the
president said, repeating a message that most students
have heard, ad nauseam, for their entire lives.
But then Obama's tone changed. He reflected on his
own experience as a college debtor, how he and his wife
had been making loan payments into their forties, when
they should have been saving for retirement and their
own children's education. How previous generations had
made a compact with the future by financing affordable
colleges, a commitment that budget-cutting states were
in the process of tearing down. How students were being
forced to choose between a life without a college diploma
and college debt they can't afford to repay.
The solution, the president said, was something unprecedented in the history of national higher education
policy: a new federal rating system.
"We're going to start rating colleges," said Obama,
"not just by which college is the most selective, not just
by which college is the most expensive, not just by which
college has the nicest facilities-you can get all of that
on the existing rating systems. What we want to do is
rate them on who's offering the best value so students
and taxpayers get a bigger bang for their buck."
This was welcome news at the Washington Monthly, since we've been publishing just such a ranking since
2005. In 2012, we even added in a special "bang for the
buck" measure.
Our rankings have always rejected the idea that expense, luxury, and exclusivity should be held up as the
highest values for colleges and students to aspire to. Instead, we ask a different question: What are colleges do-

ing for the country? Higher education, after all, doesn't
just affect students. We all benefit when colleges produce groundbreaking research that drives economic
growth, when they put students from lower-income families on the path to a better life, and when they shape the
character of future leaders. And we all pay for it, through
hundreds of billions of dollars in government-financed
financial aid, tax breaks, and other spending.
To identify the most public-minded institutions, we
rank every four-year college and university in America
based on three criteria: social mobility, research, and
public service. Instead of crediting colleges that reject
the most applicants, we recognize those that do the best
job of enrolling and graduating low-income students.

For more on our rankings and the latest in
higher education reform news, go to the
College Guide section of our Website, at
www.washingtonmonthly.com/college-rankings

Our rankings measure both pure research spending and
success in preparing undergraduates to earn PhDs. And
by giving equal weight to public service, we identify colleges that build a sense of obligation to their communities and the nation at large.
The complete list of our national university rankings begins on page 70, liberal arts colleges on 84, and
master's universities and baccalaureate colleges on 96.
It turns out that ranking colleges by social mobility, research, and service produces some surprising results.
Well-known colleges that are routinely lauded by the
U.S. News & World Report fare much worse when ranked
according to what they do for the country. On the other
Washington Monthly

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college-rankings

Washington Monthly - September/October 2014

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Washington Monthly - September/October 2014