A student climbing a staircase made of books towards a college diploma.

Ranking Higher Ed: Is There a Better Way to Grade Colleges Than Acceptance Rates?

Avery Sinclair in Mind & Education August 2025 • 4 min read.

"A new study suggests a 'desirability' factor could shake up college rankings and help students find the right fit."

Choosing a college is one of the most significant decisions in a young person's life. The stakes are high, and the options seem endless. To make sense of it all, students and their families often turn to college rankings, those ubiquitous lists that promise to sort institutions by quality and prestige. But what if these rankings are deeply flawed, driven by metrics that incentivize the wrong behaviors, and ultimately fail to reflect what truly makes a college great?

For years, the U.S. News & World Report rankings have reigned supreme, their influence shaping the decisions of countless applicants. Yet, these rankings heavily rely on factors like acceptance rates, which can incentivize universities to reject qualified students simply to appear more selective. Other metrics, such as citation counts for faculty research, may overlook the quality of teaching and the overall student experience. As a result, colleges find themselves chasing numbers instead of focusing on their core mission: educating and empowering students.

Now, a new study is proposing a radical shift in how we evaluate colleges. Instead of relying on traditional metrics, this method focuses on 'desirability' – a measure of how much a college is actually wanted by students, relative to their other options. This fresh perspective could not only lead to more accurate rankings but also encourage colleges to prioritize student satisfaction and genuine quality over superficial metrics.

What's Wrong with Traditional College Rankings?

A student climbing a staircase made of books towards a college diploma.

The problem with current ranking systems isn't just that they might be inaccurate; it’s that they actively encourage colleges to prioritize the wrong things. Here’s a closer look at the issues:

Traditional ranking systems are often based on indicators of quality. While seemingly objective, these measures can be easily manipulated or may not truly reflect the quality of the institution. For example:

Acceptance Rates: Colleges may purposefully solicit applications from students they know will be rejected to lower their admissions rates, creating an illusion of exclusivity.
Citation Counts: Journals interested in improving their journal impact factor (JIF) have a strong incentive to manipulate its acceptance rate and citation count, and there are well-known strategies for doing so.

These issues lead to what’s known as Goodhart's Law: when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. In the context of college rankings, this means that the metrics used to assess quality become distorted as institutions strive to improve their position on the lists.

A More Desirable Future for College Rankings

The 'desirability' ranking system offers a promising alternative to the flawed metrics that have long dominated higher education assessments. By shifting the focus from superficial statistics to genuine student preferences, this approach has the potential to create a more accurate and equitable way of evaluating colleges. This, in turn, could encourage institutions to prioritize student satisfaction and invest in the qualities that truly matter: excellent teaching, supportive learning environments, and opportunities for personal and intellectual growth.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.11684,

Title: Desirable Rankings: A New Method For Ranking Outcomes Of A Competitive Process

Subject: econ.th

Authors: Thayer Morrill, Peter Troyan

Published: 23-05-2022

Everything You Need To Know

Why are traditional college rankings often considered flawed?

Traditional college rankings, such as those from U.S. News & World Report, are often criticized for their reliance on metrics that can be easily manipulated. These rankings frequently use indicators like 'Acceptance Rates,' which can incentivize colleges to reject qualified students to appear more selective. Also, metrics like 'Citation Counts' can sometimes overshadow the quality of teaching and the overall student experience. These practices lead to what is known as Goodhart's Law, where the metrics lose their validity as colleges strive to improve their rank.

How does the 'desirability' factor proposed in the new study differ from existing college ranking metrics?

The 'desirability' factor represents a radical shift from traditional metrics. Instead of focusing on factors like 'Acceptance Rates' and 'Citation Counts,' it measures how much a college is actually wanted by students compared to their other options. This method aims to prioritize student preferences and satisfaction, potentially leading to more accurate and equitable evaluations. It shifts the emphasis from superficial statistics to genuine student desires, encouraging colleges to prioritize aspects such as excellent teaching and supportive learning environments.

What is Goodhart's Law, and how does it relate to college rankings?

Goodhart's Law states that when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. In the context of college rankings, this means that when colleges focus on improving specific metrics to climb the rankings, those metrics become distorted. For example, colleges may manipulate their 'Acceptance Rates' by soliciting applications from students they know will be rejected, creating an illusion of exclusivity. This ultimately undermines the original intent of these metrics to assess college quality accurately.

How could a 'desirability' ranking system benefit students?

A 'desirability' ranking system could benefit students by encouraging colleges to prioritize student satisfaction and genuine quality. By focusing on what students truly want and value in a college experience, institutions would be incentivized to invest in excellent teaching, supportive learning environments, and opportunities for personal and intellectual growth. This shift could help students find the right fit, leading to more fulfilling and successful educational experiences, rather than being misled by superficial rankings based on manipulated metrics like 'Acceptance Rates'.

What are the potential implications of using 'Acceptance Rates' and 'Citation Counts' in college rankings?

Using metrics such as 'Acceptance Rates' and 'Citation Counts' in college rankings can have several negative implications. 'Acceptance Rates' can lead to colleges gaming the system by artificially lowering their acceptance rate to appear more selective, even if it means rejecting qualified students. This doesn't reflect the true quality of the educational experience. Similarly, the emphasis on 'Citation Counts' can sometimes overshadow the importance of teaching quality and the overall student experience. Both of these examples encourage colleges to prioritize behaviors that boost their rankings rather than focusing on their core mission of educating and empowering students. This often results in rankings that do not accurately represent the true value and quality of an institution.