Over the weekend, I was looking at college rankings. I pretty much hate most college ranking systems, because they include variables that I think aren’t useful. I’m looking at the U.S. News and World Report ranking methodology right now.

The US News ranking relies heavily on the academic reputation based on peer evaluations. How college faculty and administrations view other colleges is a weird thing. A professor at Harvard really doesn’t know anything about the classroom instruction at Columbia. They may know that some guys in the sociology department publish a lot in top tier journals and that it is hard to find a position at that school, but they don’t know if those guys show up to class on time, if they hold regular office hours, or if they farm out most of the instruction to adjuncts.

A small college may do a great job in job placement in certain fields. Faculty on the opposite side of the country would have no way of knowing that.

The U.S. World and News Report places 20 percent of their overall score on “faculty resources.” Higher scores go to schools with small class size and with well paid faculty. Of that 20 percent, 5 percent of that number goes to schools that have more full time faculty. The ratio of adjuncts to full time faculty is a really important number that should have a greater weight.

Five percent of the overall score goes towards alumni giving. Five percent isn’t a lot, but I’m not sure why it is relevant at all. Alumni who give are rich and/or care too much about sports. That’s a negative for me.

I would like a ranking system that includes some weight to peer evaluations. I think a good undergraduate professor publishes from time to time. However, it is equally important to me that the professor puts a lot of effort into classroom instruction. I would like some variable on a ranking system that gets to the issue of quality teaching.

Also, reputation of a school has to include more than feedback from college administrators. I would love to see a ranking that included surveys from local businesses and even from students.

I would deduct points from schools that had heavy Greek systems or major sports programs, but that’s just me.

I would deduct points from schools that relied heavily on low paid adjuncts. Because employing slave labor is just wrong.

I would deduct points from schools that had trouble getting students out in four years.

I would deduct points from schools that had no employment advisement.

I would deduct points from schools with too many rich kids. Because diversity is important.  Because we won’t be able to afford those schools. And because I’m in a commie mood.

College selectivity is super important. Weirdly, the US News ranking system only gives that variable a weight of 12.5 percent. It’s less important in their ranking system than faculty salaries. I miss the old Baron’s ranking system that relied heavily on the selectivity variable.

No matter what college ranking system that you employ, the top 25 colleges will probably remain on that list. The schools are super hard to get into. They have vast amounts of financial resources. Administrators are vigilant that their reputation is well earned. But after that top 25, there is a lot more room for movement.

My eldest kid is a good student, but not the best student. He will have his running trophies to demonstrate leadership and commitment. He will need a super generous private school or an excellent public college, since we don’t have a cent saved for his education. I want him within a five hour drive of my house. He needs a college in the 25-50 range. I’ve got about three colleges on my mental list, but we need more options.