Rankings are stories about data that became rulers of institutions. Their categories are not neutral; they shape resource flows, admissions, and policy. I unpack how indexes colonize internal decision-making, then propose a minimal “index hygiene”: publish what you refuse to optimize, and why. Universities need courage to declare metrics they will not chase and mechanisms that make such refusals credible.
Numbers are shy fictions. They do not speak until we ask them a question. Rankings are numbers with a megaphone. They are stories about data that became rulers of institutions—annual monarchs who arrive with trumpets, punishments, and a pecking order. Their categories feel objective because they repeat, and repetition wears a mask called reality. But categories are choices. Choices have politics. When universities forget this, they stop making decisions and start obeying them.
Rulers of Institutions
Consider an ordinary sequence on a modern campus. A new global list appears; a board member notices a slide in position; a strategy meeting convenes; a plan emerges: raise test-score medians, increase the faculty-student ratio as defined by the index, redirect aid from need to “merit.” None of these steps is illegal. Many are defensible. Together they are something else: a translation of the ranking’s categories into the university’s bloodstream.
How does this colonization work? It is mostly administrative hydraulics. Rankings present a finite set of variables. University organizations, tasked with producing decisions on time, adopt these variables as their own. They become key performance indicators, then budget lines, then job descriptions. What once offered an external description becomes an internal program. The map begins to instruct the terrain.
The consequences are not abstract. Resource flows tilt toward what moves the needle, as need-based aid quietly migrates to “merit” aid to boost selectivity optics. Admissions logic reshapes itself into theater, as institutions encourage more applications than they can consider just to make selectivity look severe. Faculty hiring and evaluation drift, as citations travel better than teaching across borders. Time horizons shrink; annual rankings produce annual anxieties, and curricular reforms that function on a five-year cycle lose oxygen to initiatives that produce faster, public movement.
We should name the paradox. The more a university optimizes for a ranking, the less informative that ranking becomes. When everyone chases the same variables, you get isomorphism: institutions looking more alike without becoming more excellent. This is Goodhart’s Law in cap and gown: when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
Index Hygiene
Rankings are not evil. They are instruments, not constitutions. The question is how to prevent them from overriding academic judgment. The answer is not defiance for its own sake; it is design. Call it index hygiene: the minimal set of practices that keep numbers in their place.
A proposed hygiene protocol:
- Publish your refusals. Create a public “non-optimization charter” listing the metrics you will not chase and the reasons. Examples: acceptance rate (avoids manipulative application practices), test-score medians (protects need-based aid). Give it a home on your website.
- Build a compensation firewall. Remove ranking movement from leadership contracts and performance reviews. Prohibit bonuses tied to rank shifts. Add negative covenants: leaders agree not to implement tactics that improve rank at the cost of access or integrity.
- Adopt a mission-weighted scorecard. Design an internal dashboard that speaks your institution’s language: learning, research integrity, public value. Use lagging indicators: performance in subsequent courses, juried capstones, first-generation student progression. Do not mirror external rankings; replace them.
- Practice time discipline. Make strategic decisions on a three-to-five-year cycle, and say so. Ban mid-year policy shifts justified solely by a ranking release. Annual oscillations belong to weather; universities are more like climate.
- Audit the data and the ethics. Institute a third-party audit of ranking submissions. Publish the audit summary. Include an ethics note: what you declined to report or massage.
- Limit rank in public narratives. Permit one sentence on rankings in major communications—contextual, not triumphant. Replace enumeration with explanation: “Here is how we educate, how we know it works, and where we must improve.”
- Create a mission protection fund. Set aside a budget to shield mission-critical choices from ranking penalties—for example, maintaining need-based aid even if it lowers test-score medians, or capping enrollments in core seminars. Use the fund to make the refusal credible.
- Form refusal alliances. Coordinate with peer institutions to declare shared refusals. A small consortium that refuses to optimize, say, acceptance rate can shift norms. This is not price-fixing; it is principle-fixing.
- Inoculate governance. Offer brief “How Rankings Work” sessions for trustees and senior staff. Explain methodologies, incentives, and distortions. Treat this as literacy, not ideology. People obey less blindly when they understand the script.
- Install a kill switch. Pre-commit: if a ranking changes methodology in a way that undermines your mission, suspend its use for decisions for a fixed period. Announce the suspension and the review process.
Of course, applicants and donors will still care about rankings. Index hygiene does not require silence; it requires proportion. Show the ranking; also show the reasons it will not run your senate. Governments may tie funding to indicators. Then say plainly what you will comply with and where you will hedge.
Many rankings smuggle wealth into virtue: spending per student, alumni giving. When you optimize those variables, you reenact advantage. Index hygiene is therefore a justice practice. It prevents the public story of quality from being the private story of resources. It refuses to praise the university merely for its endowment.
This is a challenge of translation. Modern society differentiates functions—politics, law, economy, science. Universities, straddling education and science, must translate pressures from other systems. Rankings are a media-economic hybrid: they sell simplification and attention. Universities buy orientation at the cost of sovereignty. The trick is to remain structurally coupled without becoming structurally captured.
Sacrificing Goats to the Barometer
There is a final irony worth savoring. The moment a university publicly declares what it will not optimize, it becomes more legible to the very audiences that rankings court. Clarity has market value. A refusal can be a signal. It says, “We know what we are for.”
The numbers will continue to arrive on schedule. Let them. Read them, annotate them, even enjoy them. Then return to the harder work: designing courses that change minds, supporting inquiry that risks failure, widening access without diluting standards.
If you need a metaphor less clinical, try this: rankings are weather forecasts. Useful, sometimes accurate, sometimes wildly wrong, always interesting. You consult them before you travel. You do not, if you are wise, rearrange the mountains to lower the chance of rain. The task is to build well for your climate, to carry an umbrella when required, and to stop sacrificing goats to the barometer. Goats, like students, have better things to do than make a number happy.
—
#re_v5 (Article 4 of 10 on global higher education issues: Ranking)