Clemson: Accusations of Gaming Rankings Are “Outrageous”

Image Courtesy of U.S. News and World Report

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Yesterday, we reported on Clemson University’s basically admitting that it manipulates U.S. News and World Report‘s college rankings. Now, the university has done an about face and denied any pandering, calling the accusations “outrageous” and “untrue.” From a statement issued by Clemson today:


To some extent the “evidence” of manipulation shared at the Association for Institutional Research meeting falls into the category of the same old “urban legends” that Clemson has been dealing since adopting the vision of becoming one of the nation’s top-ranked public universities. Every year or two, one of these myths starts making the rounds again. But the insinuation of unethical behavior crosses the line.

Okay, but it’s not like Clemson was the victim of some smear campaign launched by a rival university. In fact, its own director of institutional research did the insinuating, saying Clemson “walked the fine line between illegal, unethical, and really interesting.” Once you’ve already admitted something like that, it’s awfully hard to take it back.

Which is not to say Clemson isn’t trying its darnedest to clear its name. The main line of defense seems to be that not everything the university has done in the past five years has affected its USNWR ranking. “You could take 5 facts and build a case that all we’re interested in are the rankings,” writes Cathy Sams, Clemson’s chief public affairs officer. You could take another 5 facts and build a case that we’re completely ignoring them” To wit:

…during that same time we invested in other major projects, such as launching three off-campus economic development centers, doubling PhD enrollment, and building a nationally ranked cyber-infrastructure…

See? See how much they don’t care about national rankings? Oy.

This disingenuity wouldn’t be much more than annoying and embarrassing if it weren’t yet another sign of the depressing trend of turning education into one big numbers game. Which would be all well and good if it actually made schools better, but there’s more and more evidence that designing learning to measure up with external yardsticks—be they rankings or high stakes tests—doesn’t work. Yesterday, Inside Higher Ed pointed out two ways in which Clemson’s pandering has already hurt students:

But many of the administrators and data analysts in the audience were clearly troubled by Watt’s description of Clemson’s approach, especially as she pointed out that the university has grown more exclusive (fewer than 10 percent of its undergraduates are first-generation college students) and has “favored merit over access in a poor state,” sending tuitions rising.”To me it’s a little unsettling what you’re doing,” said one audience member. “You had a perfectly good institution” before.

Sacrificing students for the sake of the rankings rat race? That’s the real outrage.

Update: USNWR says it’s one step ahead of Clemson.

Update: On USNWR’s peer assessment survey, which accounts for a quarter of a school’s overall ranking, college administrators gave their own schools rave reviews while playing down competitor institutions.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend