Some observers said a ratings system would indeed help the public sort value at a time of rising college costs and mounting piles of glossy marketing pitches about which school or career is best.
Skeptics and doubters argued “value” is in the eyes of the beholder, that it cannot be measured in dollars and cents alone. Critics asserted the proposed ways of measuring “value”—drawing data from several federal education surveys—were especially unfair to institutions that focus on careers in liberal arts that don’t pay salaries comparable to those in engineering and the sciences.
Also of concern was the proposed use of graduation rates, with critics asserting institutions that historically enroll a large percentage of first-generation students would not fare well since a number of those students don’t start and complete college within the historical time frame—four to six years—used to measure graduation rates.
This fall, the final Obama plan was quietly issued one September Saturday morning. The ratings approach to “value” had been replaced. The president announced a College Navigator scorecard offering a boatload of information about college programs, costs, degrees offered and what certain jobs pay. It offers no fixed opinions about values of one college over another.
In the weeks since being unveiled, the College Navigator scorecard has been rarely touted by federal education officials. It is not being widely used as a reference by college enrollment and recruitment officers and representatives. It has been panned by critics as much as praised.
“People who need it most aren’t using it,” said Arlene Cash, vice president for enrollment management at Guilford College in North Carolina. Her thoughts were widely shared by officials at four-year colleges and universities.
