Is Villanova Evil or Just Efficient?
This story has been bouncing around for months but, as so often happens, I am the last to know. As I understand it, Villanova, to put it bluntly, lied.
I am wondering just how bad that is. Compare an alternative. A School adopts new and expensive programs because it will help in the rankings game. But for the rankings these programs would not be adopted. It hires its own grads, introduces bar prep courses, admits fewer first year students, increases transfers, and calls everyone a professor. Now it accurately reports its new and more impressive numbers. Putting aside the possibility that the rankings may have induced the school to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, is the second school less corrupt than a false reporting school?
Maybe Villanova just got the result it wanted at a lower cost and with less waste.
I am wondering just how bad that is. Compare an alternative. A School adopts new and expensive programs because it will help in the rankings game. But for the rankings these programs would not be adopted. It hires its own grads, introduces bar prep courses, admits fewer first year students, increases transfers, and calls everyone a professor. Now it accurately reports its new and more impressive numbers. Putting aside the possibility that the rankings may have induced the school to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, is the second school less corrupt than a false reporting school?
Maybe Villanova just got the result it wanted at a lower cost and with less waste.
posted by Jeffrey Harrison at 9:45 AM
4 Comments:
What is wrong with admitting fewer first year students? That seems like a positive for society.
Admitting fewer first years is off set by adding more transfer.
"It hires its own grads, introduces bar prep courses, admits fewer first year students, increases transfers, and calls everyone a professor."
Grads should not be hired if that is portrayed as external employment. Professors should not be labeled as such if they are not performing as such. And changing admissions, increasing transfers, holding bar prep courses? Good or bad, they are not at all misleading. Honestly, if you genuinely see no distinction b/w these practices and lying, you shouldn't be put given the responsibility of educating lawyers.
Ani: You are still so hard to please. My post is not about misleading anyone. It is about spending money on things that would not be done but for the rankings. And then it asks the question of whether that is more corrupt than actually misleading people. I probably should not be in charge of educating lawyers but not for the reason you give. Love. J
Post a Comment
<< Home