![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Abstract
This article examines the impact of institutional and program‐area rankings on student access to, and choice in, U.S. higher education. It also discusses the impact of rankings on student opportunities after graduation in terms of placement success and earnings. The discussion is informed by the broader research literature in these areas, and includes comparisons to findings for other higher education systems. The author concludes with comments on the likely effects of the newest addition to the rankings scene – so‐called ‘world’ rankings – on access, choice, and opportunity outcomes globally.
Notes
1. Two main types of data were collected: published research and media reporting. The search was limited to English‐language sources and to work published within the last twenty years.
2. These incentives are also related – albeit indirectly – to the student retention and graduation indicators used in the rankings, since low‐income and minority students tend to ‘perform’ less well in these areas than other students.
3. In September 2006, Harvard and Princeton announced that they would end their early‐admission programs (Farrell, Citation2006). Harvard uses a version of early admission known as ‘early action’ (the offer of admission is non‐binding on the student), while Princeton employs the early‐decision model described above. Although early action is less restrictive than early decision, low‐income students are still less likely to use it than wealthier students. Many doubt that Harvard and Princeton’s actions will start a trend since these universities compete in a different league to most other schools and will likely attract the highest‐achieving students no matter what their approach to admissions.
4. Since most of the available data focus on commercially produced rankings in Western countries, it would useful to collect data on the impact of other types of rankings, e.g., those used by governments as quality assurance or funding mechanisms (see Bunnag, Citation2006; Salmi and Saroyan, Citation2006).
5. See the Berlin Principles on Ranking of Higher Education Institutions. Available at: <www.ihep.com/Organization/Press/Berlin_Principles_Release.pdf>.
6. Montgomery and Canaan (Citation2004) also point out that a growing linkage seems to be developing between each institution’s position within this hierarchy of institutions and the kinds of jobs for which they are preparing students.
