Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Yet another update on rating system timing

Libby Nelson
Libby Nelson was Vox’s editorial director, politics and policy, leading coverage of how government action and inaction shape American life. Libby has more than a decade of policy journalism experience, including at Inside Higher Ed and Politico. She joined Vox in 2014.

Too bad I’ve already submitted my prediction to Seton Hall Assistant Prof. Robert Kelchen’s guessing game — the Education Department is now saying it won’t have a draft of its college rating system ready until fall.

From Deputy Under Secretary Jamie Studley’s blog post today:

The scope of responses, complexity of the task, and importance of doing this thoughtfully and usefully led us to decide that it is worth taking more time before publishing a proposal for comment, interchange and improvement. In the meantime we are continuing conversations with educators, families, leaders and researchers. We are on track to come out with a proposal by this fall and a final version of the new ratings system before the 2015-16 school year.

The original plan was a draft this spring with final ratings by January.

Several ratings experts have said, assuming the Education Department works with data it already has, the actual work of rating colleges doesn’t take long. It’s determining the formula for the ratings (and Studley indicates they’re considering a variety of factors that will make this formula quite complicated) and making sure that the results look right that’s the most labor-intensive.

For an example of how the latter step can go horribly wrong, a look back at the Indiana school grading fiasco last summer is instructive.

There, state schools chief Tony Bennett allegedly changed the grading system so that a donor’s charter school would perform better. Some people argued that this decision was entirely reasonable — the charter school had a great reputation, and the fact that it earned a C indicated that there was something off about the grading system. For the public to buy into the state’s grades, they had to reflect reality as most people understand it. But the optics of the change cost Bennett his job.

In the same way, any system where, say, Harvard University or the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, don’t rate well (an A grade, or platinum, or five stars, or however the Education Department chooses to dole out indicators of quality) is going to face some raised eyebrows among the public.

See More:

More in archives

archives
Ethics and Guidelines at Vox.comEthics and Guidelines at Vox.com
archives
By Vox Staff
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court will decide if the government can ban transgender health careThe Supreme Court will decide if the government can ban transgender health care
Supreme Court

Given the Court’s Republican supermajority, this case is unlikely to end well for trans people.

By Ian Millhiser
archives
On the MoneyOn the Money
archives

Learn about saving, spending, investing, and more in a monthly personal finance advice column written by Nicole Dieker.

By Vox Staff
archives
Total solar eclipse passes over USTotal solar eclipse passes over US
archives
By Vox Staff
archives
The 2024 Iowa caucusesThe 2024 Iowa caucuses
archives

The latest news, analysis, and explainers coming out of the GOP Iowa caucuses.

By Vox Staff
archives
The Big SqueezeThe Big Squeeze
archives

The economy’s stacked against us.

By Vox Staff