College of Arts and Sciences Dean Richard Beeman attacked the U.S. News and World Report college rankings in an opinion piece that appeared in yesterday's New York Times.
Beeman wrote that "the rankings are flawed in their conception and pernicious in their effect on prospective students and their parents."
But surprisingly, the piece did not come following a University drop in the rankings, but was prompted instead by Penn's high fourth-place ranking in the magazine, which was published this week.
"When I learned of Penn's rankings, which were quite excellent, I felt that I could write a piece that I believe without it appearing like sour grapes," Beeman said of his column.
Beeman wrote that the basis on which U.S. News ranks colleges is faulty -- the categories do not represent the actual merit of a university.
"There is little in the U.S. News ranking categories... that bears on these questions of educational opportunity," he wrote.
Beeman sent his article to the Times via e-mail and after discussions with an editor, his article was printed yesterday.
He did not, however, consult other Penn administrators before he submitted his piece.
"I made the decision that I was going to write the piece... I didn't ask anyone's opinion," he said.
After the Times agreed to print the story, Beeman sent a copy to School of Arts and Sciences Dean Samuel Preston. Beeman said he believes that Preston also sent a copy to University President Judith Rodin.
University officials did not comment on the piece last night, and it was uncertain whether Rodin had read the column.
Beeman noted, though, that he wanted the article to be his own statement rather than a representation of Penn's position.
In his column, Beeman maintained that categories such as "peer assessment" and "faculty resources" were incomplete and unreliable factors in evaluating a university.
Beeman criticized both prospective and current students, as well as their parents, for focusing on rankings.
He wrote that a motivated student considering enrollment in a university should not look at rankings, but rather the opportunities a university affords to its students.
"The rankings," wrote Beeman, "encourage an attitude that admission to one of the 'top 10 schools' is somehow a guarantee of a 'top 10 education.'"
He admitted in the piece, though, that he "breathed a sigh of relief" when he saw that Penn had continued its rise in the charts.
According to Beeman's column, dwelling on the rankings does "more harm than good to serving the needs of prospective students."
"A good education doesn't depend on a good ranking," he added.
He emphasized that a "first rate education" is not something a student automatically receives upon admission, but something an "intellectually curious student" earns.
