The CASE International Journal of Educational Advancement. Vol.4 No.2

Academic Reputation: How U.S. News & World Report Survey Respondents Form Perceptions Received (in revised form): April 18, 2003

Phyllis V. Larsen is an assistant professor of advertising at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s College of Journalism and Mass Communications. Prior to her faculty appointment, she was a public relations practitioner for two decades, serving most recently as Director of Public Relations for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Abstract Introduction One of the most widely read college Each year, American institutions of higher rankings is published by U.S. News and education weather the criticisms or World Report. The largest element of the congratulations that follow the publication ranking is a reputation score determined of an array of college rankings. One of the by a survey of higher education leaders. highest visibility rankings is U.S. News and This pilot study explores how university World Report’s (USNWR) ‘‘America’s Best presidents define academic reputation and Colleges.’’ Each September, this best-selling form their perceptions for the USNWR college guide is read by alumni, ranking. Findings suggest that they create administrators, applicants, and nearly a set of factors to determine reputation, everyone interested in higher education. and that personal experience and While many in higher education interpersonal communication play question the validity of college rankings, significant roles. the reality is that rankings do, indeed, have significant impact. In a study of top Keywords: national universities and liberal arts academic reputation, rankings, U.S. News colleges ranked by USNWR, Monks and and World Report, institutional image Ehrenberg conclude that a move to a less favorable ranking leads an institution to accept a larger percentage of its applicants, while a smaller percentage enrolls. As a

Author’s Contact Address: result, the entering class is of lower quality Phyllis V. Larsen as measured by SAT scores. Assistant Professor of Advertising Higher education marketing guru Robert College of Journalism and Mass Communications 147 Andersen Hall Sevier considers reputation and image to be University of Nebraska-Lincoln synonymous. Citing image as the most Lincoln, NE 68588-0449, USA significant asset of an institution of higher Tel: +1 402 472 8521 education, Sevier’s studies show that it is Fax: +1 402 472 4024 Email: [email protected] highly influential to prospective students. In

THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO.2 155–165 155 ª COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT & SUPPORT OF EDUCATION/HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 2003. ISSN 1467-3657. Phyllis V. Larsen

surveys of thousands of high school similar classifications (national students each year, four reasons for college universities, for example). Survey choice emerge: image or reputation, respondents use a five-point scale to rate location, cost, and availability of a specific academic reputation, with one described as major. When asked to prioritize their four ‘‘marginal,’’ two as ‘‘adequate,’’ three as reasons, students place image first. ‘‘good,’’ four as ‘‘strong,’’ and five as Prospective students, parents, alumni, ‘‘distinguished.’’ A ‘‘don’t know’’ rating and higher education leaders focus on does not affect the overall score of an different qualities when determining institution. college reputations because they have It is clear how data from the other six different agendas. In the USNWR ranking, factors of financial resources, faculty reputation is determined by scores resources, selectivity, retention, alumni assigned to each institution based on votes giving, and graduation rate performance from higher education leaders (HELs). As are developed, since each participating a result of the reputation score which institution submits its data to USNWR.It strongly impacts the USNWR rankings is less clear, however, how the with its 25 percent weighting, perceptions determination of academic reputation is of this one public—higher education made by survey respondents. Rapoport leaders—has the potential to exert calls reputational scores a ‘‘dartboard significant influence on other publics. approach’’ that is far from a reliable Because reputation (as derived from measure of quality. HEL votes) is a critical factor in the college selection decision made by so many prospective students who read these Purpose of the Study rankings, it is important to understand Various publics view higher education how education leaders’ opinions are institutions differently depending on their developed. The goal of this exploratory context and perspective, causing study is to develop a hypothesis on how institutions to have multiple images and those who fill out USNWR’s reputation reputations. Since USNWR bases each survey form their perceptions of academic institution’s reputation score solely on reputation—and how those perceptions perceptions of higher education leaders may be influenced. such as university presidents and provosts, USNWR’s first ranking took place in understanding how this particular public 1983 and measured only academic forms their perceptions has increased reputation. Over the years, the survey has significance. Is there a method to their been modified to reduce the weight of ‘‘dartboard approach’’? This study serves as academic reputation to 25 percent. While a pilot exploration of these research six other ranking factors are now questions: evaluated by USNWR, the factor of academic reputation continues to have the 1. How does the public of HELs define largest impact on the overall ranking. The academic reputation? reputation score is determined by results 2. What factors influence HELs in their of a survey sent to presidents, provosts, perception of an institution’s academic and deans of admissions at institutions in reputation?

156 THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO.2 155–165 ª COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT & SUPPORT OF EDUCATION/HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 2003. ISSN 1467-3657. Academic Reputation: How U.S. News & World Report Survey Respondents Form Perceptions

3. How do these factors influence HELs’ or college departments. Garand and responses in the USNWR reputation Graddy explored a controversial National survey? Research Council study using publications 4. How much credibility does the USNWR in scholarly journals as a parameter for ranking have with HELs? ranking quality of university and college 5. What sources and channels of political science departments. They communication do HELs use to gather concluded that while production of many information related to reputation of an low-impact publications appears to do institution? little to enhance a department’s reputation, departments whose faculty Literature Review publish in the highest-impact political The origin of reputation is found in science journals have considerably stronger providing public opportunities and in subjective reputations. These findings meeting public obligations as suggested by suggest that it is the quality, not the de Tocqueville in the nineteenth century. quantity, of publications that impact a Today’s scholars have identified a variety department’s reputation. of factors contributing to reputation of While Keith and Babchuk acknowledge higher education institutions including the body of research demonstrating strong admissions selectivity, accomplishments of ties between departmental prestige and the alumni, quality of faculty, size of levels of its faculty scholarship, their own endowment and operating budget, number study concludes that scholarship is less of library holdings, peer rankings, and important in determining prestige ratings leadership quality. than past reputations of universities. A widely accepted yardstick of This ‘institutional halo effect’ was also educational quality is based on intellectual seen in research showing that categorization productivity of an institution’s faculty, as a Carnegie research university and including published research, citation undergraduate selectivity was a significant counts of research, institutional patents, factor in whether or not the quality of and grants. A review of reputational program faculty was highly rated. ranking studies concluded that While historical legacy, prevailing undergraduate education reputation may opinions, and rankings influence be enhanced by increases in research institutional reputations, Theus’s study of activity. higher education officials showed that Reputational rankings using peer interpersonal communication as well as assessment are another commonly used mass-mediated communication play a more methodology. Subjective opinions of select significant role in forming perceptions of groups of people—those considered to be reputation. Published rankings and in positions to know which are the institutional literature were put at the highest-quality institutions—may have bottom rung of potential influence. limited objectivity since many are asked to rank their alma maters. Methodology Scholarly work in the area of academic This exploratory pilot study was part of a reputations also includes examination of wider study conducted for a public quality measurements in specific university research university (University X). While

THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO.2 155–165 157 ª COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT & SUPPORT OF EDUCATION/HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 2003. ISSN 1467-3657. Phyllis V. Larsen

the goals of the institutional study Association of State Universities and Land included assessment of perceptions of Grant Colleges to help define the future University X’s academic reputation, this direction of public universities) and from paper will focus on formation of academic leaders of University X’s athletic peer reputation as it relates to all institutions group. These populations were targeted being considered by USNWR survey voters because (a) they were seen as leaders with in the study’s sample. significant influence in and understanding This qualitative study used depth of higher education, and (b) they interviews of 15 leaders of 12 different represented institutions with some public research universities in 12 states. characteristics similar to University X. With the exception of two provosts, the The letter of invitation to participate in respondents were all presidents or this study read, in part: chancellors primarily at the campus level of administration, although one system University X’s marketing team is president was included. Six were leaders of studying the formation of institutional land-grant institutions with Association of academic reputations among higher American University membership. The education opinion leaders, particularly other nine were from institutions not those who rate institutions in the having land-grant or AAU status. annual survey for U.S. News and World Purposive convenience sampling was Report . . . While we are interested in used. Participants agreed to be part of the individuals’ perceptions of the academic study after receiving a letter inviting their reputation of University X, our primary involvement. The invitation was signed by focus is much broader, i.e., how they the chancellor of University X with the define academic reputation, how they hopes of getting through gatekeepers who form their opinions about academic protect administrator’s schedules. This reputation, their sources of information chancellor had a strong interest in the about academic reputation, etc. formation of academic reputation, as did the 15 who responded to the incentive of Most of the interviews were conducted receiving a summary of findings at the via telephone with the exception of two completion of the study. interviews which were conducted face-to- Thirty-four letters were sent to face and one which was done in writing. presidents or chancellors of institutions Telephone interviews allowed access to with similarities to University X. Because participants in a wide geographic area. USNWR reputation survey respondents Interviews ranged from 60 to 90 minutes vote only in their own institution’s in length. Because some participants category (national universities, for preferred not to have interviews tape- example), the researcher wanted opinions recorded, telephone interviews were of those actually voting in the same conducted using a speakerphone so that category as University X in order to assess both the interviewer and a transcriber its current reputation. Respondents were could hear responses. recruited from the membership of the Interviews were structured, with each Kellogg Commission (an organization participant being asked the same created in 1996 by the National questions. Screening questions were asked

158 THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO.2 155–165 ª COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT & SUPPORT OF EDUCATION/HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 2003. ISSN 1467-3657. Academic Reputation: How U.S. News & World Report Survey Respondents Form Perceptions

to assure that the appropriate person was factor categories were developed by being interviewed—a president or provost matching frequently used word groups who had personally filled out the USNWR from interview transcripts with key areas survey in the past. In addition to the from other studies. Quotes from structured research questions, the respondents follow each factor description. interviewer probed for additional information. Interview questions included: Factors used to define academic reputation 1. How do you define academic reputation? Faculty quality (members in National 2. What factors do you consider in Academy of Sciences; Guggenheim, assessing other institutions reputations? Fulbright, Nobel Prize winners; publishing Which are the most important factors? success; national reputation as a star in 3. How would you describe the their discipline) importance of USNWR’s college rankings? (Probe for opinion on validity I have a preference in ranking toward if not mentioned). institutions that have a quality faculty— 4. This year, the USNWR survey asked those that demonstrate innovation and about academic reputation in terms of have strong academic programs. each institution’s scholarship record, curriculum, and quality of faculty and I use a data set of achievements and graduates. Did you use any other faculty recognition such as Fulbrights, information in your ratings? Please Guggenheims, National Academy explain. memberships, number of grad programs 5. How do you learn about (the in the top 20 NRC rankings, NSF information they mention) at different fellowships over the last five years, and institutions? What are your sources of library quality. information? (Probe the following areas) a. What role does personal interaction Credible rankings (Association of American or experience with other institutions Universities, National Research Council play? rankings) b. What role does mass media play? (ask for specifics on publications Reputation also depends on the degree mentioned, advertising, etc.) to which an institution shows up in a c. What role does information sent to loose constellation of markers such as you from the other institutions play? AAU, National Academy of Sciences, major grants received, and so on. Findings Resources (federal and state funding, grants, Academic reputation definition research and development expenditures, Academic reputation was generally defined private support) by these higher education leaders as the overall impression of excellence or quality Resources help determine reputation. created by a number of factors. Eight Schools that are better supported or

THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO.2 155–165 159 ª COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT & SUPPORT OF EDUCATION/HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 2003. ISSN 1467-3657. Phyllis V. Larsen

endowed and get more research funding Historic reputation or general perceptions are usually those with strong (tradition, word of mouth) reputations. I have a nonscientific, qualitative My opinion of University X has method of ranking. It’s somewhat changed in the last five to eight years anecdotal and fuzzy. because the financial funding data has shown significant progress. I think many people have an overreliance on historical impressions. Research strength (National Science Those founded long ago, like Ivy Foundation fellowships, overall research leagues, have great luster. We’re slow in reputation, quality of graduate programs) according newcomers the reputation they deserve. We also hold institutions Many perceive research achievement in high esteem that have faded. and major discoveries that get connected to an institution as a Program quality (halo effect from component of academic reputation. individual program strengths) No institution is strong in every single I consider research productivity (in area, but public perception transfers determining reputations)—NSF programs, program strength into institution-wide increased efforts in math and science. reputation.

Student quality (ACT scores, admission In addition to defining academic selectivity, graduation rates) reputation, many respondents mentioned that reputation is established slowly and is Selectivity is important. Privates will difficult to change. Public perception may always have a leg up on reputational often lag behind reality. One respondent rankings because of it. You can’t unseat said, ‘‘Reputation is based on long-term Harvard and Princeton from the top 25. history. It’s hard to change. Marketing can’t change most of the things that really Leadership strength (visibility of chancellor influence academic reputation. For or president on significant national issues) example, it takes serious resources to get top faculty to come and stay.’’ When very solid people are leading the institution, you think highly of the Perceived importance of USNWR institution. rankings Most respondents expressed skepticism The president’s visibility and about the validity of USNWR rankings. participation nationally is key. ‘‘When you’re ranked well, you tend to brag about it. When it’s not so good, you I’ve changed opinions of other discount it. Everyone does that and institutions, especially after interacting a everyone has doubts about the validity of lot with the president. Leadership does the U.S. News and World Report rankings,’’ make a difference. a respondent said.

160 THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO.2 155–165 ª COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT & SUPPORT OF EDUCATION/HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 2003. ISSN 1467-3657. Academic Reputation: How U.S. News & World Report Survey Respondents Form Perceptions

Although rankings lack credibility with was general perceptions and specific higher education leaders, many recognize knowledge gained through personal that prospective students and other experience with the institution and publics do give rankings consideration personal contact with other presidents, and therefore, cannot be completely including participation on program review ignored. ‘‘I don’t give (USNWR) much teams or in national leadership credibility, but I recognize that lay people organizations. One respondent said, ‘‘My do, so I believe we must pay attention to impressions are largely based on what I the ranking,’’ a respondent said. know or learn from individuals at the While most of those interviewed institution—more often than not the downplayed the significance of the administration, not the faculty.’’ Another ranking, most respondents filled out the said, ‘‘I use personal experience to reputation survey instrument themselves, determine academic reputation—35 years year after year. They completed the survey of contact with other institutions and only for institutions with which they had their leaders through meetings with AAU, a high or moderate level of familiarity, NIH, NASA, campus visits, and my own estimating completion rates of 40-90 research discipline specific activities.’’ percent. While respondents acknowledged some value in personal interaction with their Information used in responding to peers, one said, ‘‘My perceptions are the USNWR reputation survey somewhat dependent upon those I have Although USNWR specifies its definition interaction with. However, I don’t put too of academic reputation in the reputation much stock in what presidents and study instrument, respondents agreed that provosts say. (laughs) Sometimes they lie.’’ they applied their own personal definition, A strong secondary theme of as described in the factors above, when information used to respond to the completing the USNWR survey. The USNWR survey was perceived strength of survey asks voters to rate the ‘‘academic institutional leadership through visibility quality of undergraduate programs’’ at of the president on significant national each institution while considering issues; quantitative data such as National ‘‘scholarship record, curriculum, and Research Council rankings, research quality of faculty and undergraduates.’’ funding, AAU membership, and number Respondents agreed that they used of National Academy of Sciences faculty additional information when assigning members; anecdotal data and ‘‘personal reputation scores to other institutions and judgment’’; and evidence of innovation, that gauging quality and curriculum of diversity, and best practices. undergraduate programs was difficult. ‘‘I A less prevalent theme was raiding of can’t consider matters of curriculum as faculty from other institutions, creating a asked by the survey. I can’t access that perception of the hiring institution being information nationwide. I have no idea of ‘‘on the move.’’ ‘‘Knowledge that two or curriculum even in nearby institutions,’’ a three top people in a field have been hired respondent said. by the same institution—that gets noticed,’’ The primary theme of this additional a respondent said. Success of graduates, information used to respond to the survey size of the endowment, graduate program

THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO.2 155–165 161 ª COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT & SUPPORT OF EDUCATION/HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 2003. ISSN 1467-3657. Phyllis V. Larsen

quality, and value-added components such a respondent said. Another said, as community service were also tertiary ‘‘(Institutional publications) only influence themes. those who don’t know the guts of the institution. They don’t influence their Sources of information on academic rating of different universities in U.S. reputation News.’’ In considering sources and channels of The third point made consistently was information used to form perceptions of that mass-mediated communication may academic reputation, respondents in this provide information and influence if it is study reinforced several of the findings of perceived to be from unbiased sources Theus’s 1993 study. HELs view such as national news or industry specific institutional reputations as being strongly publications. All HELs mentioned reading influenced by communications, the Chronicle of Higher Education and particularly the consistency and several mentioned reading Science and pervasiveness of interpersonal messages, Change magazines, or other more and by high credibility mass-mediated specialized periodicals in the academic messages. discipline of the reader. ‘‘I pay more Three points were reinforced by each attention to articles in higher education respondent in this study. First, personal publications than the popular press,’’ a contact is highly influential. HELs formed respondent said. Another said, ‘‘I read the opinions of an institution based on their Chronicle of Higher Education for news own experience with a university. Personal content, but I choose a limited number of interaction with a university’s leadership is articles to read on higher education issues. also highly influential. These interpersonal I do much of it on-line.’’ communications may take place in the Unless articles are closely read or context of mutual membership in national include data especially related to funding, organizations or academic review teams. mass media publications were not For some respondents, interpersonal perceived to have a large impact. News communication had more influence than articles are perceived as being more other qualitative data. ‘‘Academic leaders credible than paid advertising. While are a more credible source of information much of the research in the field of than glossy magazines,’’ a respondent said. advertising supports its ability to The second point mentioned by all influence, respondents of this study respondents was that institutional literature disagreed. Many of those interviewed may raise awareness in other publics, but is believe advertising in almost any form had not highly influential with the HELs. no effect or a negative effect, except if it Respondents said they don’t read annual announced an innovative program. reports or promotional brochures that cross Advertising with a pure image message their desk. Publications that focus on the had no effect or a negative effect, president’s specific field of interest are according to respondents. ‘‘I don’t occasionally read by this audience. typically read advertising. I’m not ‘‘University-produced publications are not influenced by image ads. I do, however, very meaningful to me. I pass those sorts of like information on new programs (in publications to my public relations people,’’ ads),’’ one respondent said.

162 THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO.2 155–165 ª COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT & SUPPORT OF EDUCATION/HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 2003. ISSN 1467-3657. Academic Reputation: How U.S. News & World Report Survey Respondents Form Perceptions

Discussion questions of specific interest to the higher Consider the relationships explored in this education public relations practitioner study: high school students rate reputation may also be helpful. Did any of these as one of the most important factors in HELs consciously work to influence their their college choice decision; reputation peers’ perception of their institution’s scores carry the heaviest weighting in the academic reputation? If so, what methods widely read USNWR rankings; those were used? How successful were their reputation scores are determined by efforts? college presidents, provosts, and deans of Building a significant sample for this admissions. For those admissions and study was challenging due to the difficulty public relations professionals considering of securing 90 minutes in the schedule of how to influence prospective students, the presidents and chancellors for someone impact of higher education leader’s unknown to them. Many respondents opinions cannot be ignored. expressed interest in the incentive of HEL respondents in this study showed receiving summary data, indicating they that when completing the USNWR would make time in their schedules for reputation survey, they do not consider that reason alone. However, it is possible the same factors as specified on the survey that some who responded may have done instructions. Rather, they employ an so due to an existing relationship with the individualized set of factors when researcher’s chancellor, introducing the developing perceptions about academic opportunity for bias. reputation. Themes that emerged showed Using consistent methods for collecting that they value and learn from personal information would have been preferred. experience and interaction, especially with However, rather than have a smaller their HEL peers. They also place a low sample, the decision was made to value on institutional literature’s ability to complete the three interviews where the influence and confer credibility to a face-to-face and written methods were narrow range of mass media. requested by the participants.

Limitations of the study Observations for Practitioners Limitations of this study must be While university relations work involves considered. Because this exploratory pilot many publics, communication with leaders study had a small homogenous sample, of higher education must be carefully findings cannot be generalized to the considered. Overlooking the significance entire population, nor can findings be of this audience means overlooking the applied to other types of educational profound effects they may have on how institutions. This study does, however, students select a college. Failing to plan suggest hypotheses and research questions communication strategies for HELs leaves for further research. A broader study it to chance that they will develop an including leaders from public liberal arts accurate perception of the universities they institutions or four-year state colleges, for rate in USNWR’s reputation survey. example, would determine whether HEL Public relations professionals who do, opinions are consistent among diverse indeed, plan their communication with institution types. An additional set of HELs should evaluate their strategy to

THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO.2 155–165 163 ª COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT & SUPPORT OF EDUCATION/HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 2003. ISSN 1467-3657. Phyllis V. Larsen

determine if traditional methods are of prospective students who are, indeed, effective. For example, spending significant influenced by rankings. resources distributing annual reports or purchasing advertising aimed at References influencing HEL voters prior to receiving 1. N. Thompson (2000), ‘‘Playing with numbers,’’ Washington Monthly, 32, September, p.16. USNWR’s survey each spring may not be 2. J. Monks and R. G. Ehrenberg (1999), ‘‘U.S. News & have the intended results. Many World Report’s college rankings: Why do they participants in this study remarked that matter?’’ Change, November/December, pp. 43–51. the slick publications sent to them by 3. R. A. Sevier (1994), ‘‘Image is everything,’’ College other institutions do not influence them and University, 69, Winter, pp. 60–75. 4. P. Cary and R. J. Morse (2000), ‘‘College rankings: positively, and can cause perceptions of a Do alumni matter?’’ Presentation at the Council for university ‘‘trying too hard’’ to boost Advancement and Support of Education District VI reputation. Conference, St. Louis, MO, January. 5. N. B. Rapoport (1999), ‘‘Ratings, not rankings: Why It appears that relationship building, U.S. News & World Report shouldn’t want to be creating opportunities for first-hand compared to Time and Newsweek—or the New experience, and interpersonal interaction Yorker,’’ Ohio State Law Journal, 60, 3, pp. 1097–1101. with presidential colleagues, promises 6. Sevier (1994), ‘‘Image is everything,’’ op. cit. 7. K. T. Theus (1993), ‘‘Academic reputations: The significant impact in influencing higher process of formation and decay,’’ Public Relations education leaders’ perceptions of Review, 19, Fall, pp. 277–91. institutional reputation. This approach is 8. L. C. Hattendorf (1996), ‘‘Educational rankings of more consistent with a two-way, higher education: Fact or fiction?’’ Paper presented at the International Conference on Assessing Quality in symmetrical communication model Higher Education, Queensland, Australia, July. recommended as the normative model for 9. S. Grunig (1997), ‘‘Research, reputation, and public relations and may prove to be resources: The effect of research activity on perceptions of undergraduate education and more effective in communicating the true institutional resource acquisition,’’ Journal of Higher academic reputation of higher education Education, 68, 1, pp. 17–52. institutions. Using the list of factors 10. Hattendorf (1996), ‘‘Educational rankings of higher defining academic reputation as talking education,’’ op. cit. 11. J. C. Garand and K. L. Graddy (1999), ‘‘Ranking points for institutional leaders interacting political science departments: Do publications with their peers may enhance their ability matter?’’ Political Science & Politics, 32, 1, pp. 113–17. to inform others of areas relevant to 12. B. Keith and N. Babchuck (1998), ‘‘The quest for institutional recognition: A longitudinal analysis of academic reputation. scholarly productivity and academic prestige among Faculty quality, credible rankings, sociology departments,’’ Social Forces, 76, 4, pp.1495– resources, research strength, student 1534. quality, leadership strength, historic 13. J. S. Fairweather (1988), ‘‘Reputational quality of academic programs: The institutional halo,’’ Research reputation, and program quality are all in Higher Education, 28, 4, pp. 345–55. considered by those voting on USNWR’s 14. Theus (1993), ‘‘Academic reputations,’’ op. cit. reputation survey. Strengthening these 15. Ibid. areas as well as effective communication 16. J. E. Grunig and L. A. Grunig (1992), ‘‘Models of with HEL peers is key. Not only do public relations and communication,’’ in J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and higher education leaders influence each Communication Management, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, other, their opinions reach mass audiences pp. 285–325.

164 THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO.2 155–165 ª COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT & SUPPORT OF EDUCATION/HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 2003. ISSN 1467-3657. Academic Reputation: How U.S. News & World Report Survey Respondents Form Perceptions

Practitioner’s Perspective The freshness and clarity of Professor Larsen’s research is the result not only of its simplicity and overall focus but also of her very own lucid self-restraint. What erudite social scientist, provocative journalist, or hard-driving ‘‘higher education leader’’ can utter the letters USNWR without an almost apoplectic urge to persuade his or her audience of the intellectual quirks of these, our most well publicized, universally read, and often overemphasized college rankings? Professor Larsen accepts U. S. News and World Report rankings as a fact of academic and journalistic life, helping ‘‘higher education leaders’’ (HELs) and their deputies to more fully understand the pitfalls and process of the all-too-weighty ‘‘reputation’’ score, roundly criticized for 20 years now by policy makers and practitioners alike. Larsen’s interviews of 15 HELs at 12 public institutions remind her readers of the ‘‘dartboard approach’’ taken by many survey respondents, who may at times forget just how dramatic a 25 percent weighting can be when the remaining 15 ranking criteria range in ‘‘weight’’ from 1 to 16 percent. Larsen’s focus on the reputation score is appropriate and only suggests the need for further investigation. The goal of this self-described ‘‘exploratory’’ study is to ‘‘develop a hypothesis on how those who fill out USNWR’s reputation survey form their perceptions and how those perceptions may be influenced.’’ In her interviews, Larsen finds that HELs consider eight factor categories: (1) faculty quality, (2) (so called) credible rankings, (3) resources, (4) research strength, (5) student quality, (6) leadership strength, (7) historic reputation, (8) program quality. Although USNWR provides a specific definition of ‘‘reputation,’’ many HELs admit that they apply their own personal definitions. All respondents point out that personal contact with colleague HELs is ‘‘highly influential’’; mass-mediated communication may be influential if perceived as coming from an objective source, and institutional literature is seen as having little effect. Though Professor Larsen’s small sample is an obvious limitation of the study, public relations professionals, enrollment managers, and advancement officers would do well to note her suggestions to rely less on annual reports and more on interpersonal communication, shaping ‘‘talking points’’ for their presidents around the eight factors mentioned above. In the final analysis, those of us who fill out U. S. News’s annual surveys would do well to study Professor Larsen’s findings and consider for ourselves more objective personal standards for measuring ‘‘reputation,’’ while advocating for more meaningful measures of an institution’s quality, such as student satisfaction, financial strength as determined by external agencies, and the richness of campus technology. Until such time as the weight of this most subjective measure—reputation—is reduced or more objective criteria for its determination are embraced, I will continue to elicit wonderfully positive responses to the always challenging question, ‘‘How good is the Princeton Law School?’’ Frederic A. Siegel Associate Vice President and Dean of Freshmen at The George Washington University, Associate Provost for Enrollment Services, University of Delaware, USA, when he wrote this Perspective

THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO.2 155–165 165 ª COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT & SUPPORT OF EDUCATION/HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 2003. ISSN 1467-3657.