If the media really wanted to know about the kind of education offered by America’s colleges, they could visit any of hundreds of fine colleges hundreds of days each year. It’s a rare day, however, when any corporate media outlet takes interest in education of any sort. Unless, of course, the media itself concocts a fake competition among colleges. That’s what U.S. News & World Report has done. And now that we know who’s number 1, and number 2, we can roll up our sleeves and really start pretending like we care about education. Consider this description of the US News and World Reports college ranking issue found in MSNBC:
Harvard University is the country’s oldest, wealthiest and most selective university. Now it’s back on top of the U.S. News & World Report college rankings, claiming sole possession of the No. 1 spot for the first time in 12 years.
Princeton slips to No. 2, ending eight straight years of at least sharing the top ranking.
Really? Princeton “slips” to number 2? That suggests that Princeton is not nearly as good as Harvard. I’d bet all those people who have degrees from Princeton are upset that they could have learned a whole lot more had they attended Harvard.
These rankings are silly, of course. To numerically rank colleges implies that there is a significant difference between college 1 and college 2, or even between college number 5 and college number 10. I’m not just saying that there is no difference between college number one and college number 1,200. At some point, there is a difference, of course. There is no thoughtful educator, however, who would suggest that looking at the U.S. News & World Report rankings can help one decide which of the top 50 colleges one should attend. That decision depends upon what one is interested in studying, as well as numerous other factors relating to geography, finances and world view.
We love rankings here in the United States, even if we really have no understanding or interest in the underlying thing that’s being ranked. We and our media really don’t care at all about education, as you can see from the lack of in-depth news regarding education, a lack of news occurring about 364 days each year. We can also see the American disinterest in high-level learning by the way we pick politicians. We would rather have a politician with whom we feel comfortable drinking beer than one who has command of the facts and who processes information efficiently and logically (the sorts of abilities one would presumably pick up while attending a good college). And to expand on this point, America’s media is enthralled with another form of conflict, horserace politics, while it constantly ignores reporting on critical issues affecting our country, issues which should be driving campaign coverage.
If they really cared about education, they would start writing about it, but not in terms of rankings. Or if they want to talk about what colleges were “good” colleges, they would write a story about “50 Very Good Colleges” without ranking them.
There’s nothing like a ranking, because rankings bring conflict, and conflict brings readers, and readers sell advertising, and advertising makes money for the media to concoct those rankings.
The rankings generally have more to do with the number of published papers that professors and grad students churn out than with the actual caliber of education those same people provide. Sure, the publication rate is worth knowing when applying to a graduate program, but many students and their families look to the rankings when deciding upon an undergraduate school. It's a shame and a waste for them to do so.
But admit it: would you read a news story that simply described Harvard and Princeton's ways of education? HO-HUM, I know I wouldn't! Such bland info is reserved for potential applicants to those universities. The media feed us falsely competitive, sensationalistic drivel, but we also swallow it down in huge gulps.
Which one of us will take the initiative to change this silly cycle? The media definitely won't, as they have a fairly stable way of things. So it's up to us to demand more substantive coverage of the world. I just haven't figured out how to do that, yet…
Erika: I agree with everything you've written. You're right, that information devoid of a narrative is inevitably as interesting as a phone book.
My favorite example of this need for a narrative is a show (maybe it's still on) called Trading Spaces. Two familes trade homes for a week and redecorate each other's homes. It was compelling viewing. Compare to what that show MIGHT have been: lots of tips on interior decorating. That would have been immensely boring, I believe.
The thing about the conflict narrative is that it works every time, everywhere. Consider the Olympics. Consider a show on watching some guy ride a bike fast. Compare that to a show where fast bike riders compete, and where the winner, who might be from YOUR county, is declared a "hero."
The conflict narrative simply works too well. If our country engages in military conflict with another country, it's important that we fight hard and kill a lot of the other country's soliders and civilians. We don't even need a good reason for fighting. That can be manufactured and no one will care. http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/06/11/war-m…
Conflict is the perfect narrative. It's the crack cocaine of human story telling. It doesn't matter if it's fighting colleges or fighting sushi cooks, conflict makes it a compelling story and it needs no further justification.
Face it, we love sound bites. Little pieces of information that are all we need to know. It's a great tool for people who don't think critically to sound well-informed. What do you want to bet that some schlub somewhere is trying to impress someone with the knowledge that Princeton just isn't as good a school as it used to be?