Dangerous Metrics for Universities

This editorial in the New York Times by Brent Staples highlights a problem with the misuse of student test scores. It seems that student scores on the SAT and ACT are used with regularity by two influential constituencies: the college-rating guides and bond-rating agencies. Both of these groups use test scores as a way of measuring the academic quality and financial health of a university. Both help influence two important flows into the university: students and funding.

It all sounds healthy enough but this trend has dangerous consequences. The tests were not designed to be the primary metric for the quality of an institution’s student body. Schools and educators are sincere when they say they want to use a balance of measures: grades, community involvement, activities and, yes, test scores. But the editorial does a good job of describing the dilemma faced by many schools. Getting their average test scores up is good for these two kinds of ratings. But it may influence a decision away from the well-rounded student with high achievement in many ways except the test scores. This is a fairness issue but it needs to be a part of the even greater conversation about how to strengthen our national education levels I discussed earlier this week in a post entitled “The Current Crises and Our Schools.”

This is also great example of the dangers of improper metrics. We are all guilty at one time or another of using the metrics that are available. We measure what can be measured easily and end up not measuring things that are more  important. Measuring intangibles like well-rounded students (and citizens and employees) is not easy. But it is very important.  Speak out against lazy metrics. Think about what is important first and then find a way to measure it. For a few ideas on how to think differently about this subject, see my post about Setsuko Morishita’s presentation about understanding and measuring intellectual capital of unviersities.