Research in Higher Education

, Volume 50, Issue 5, pp 415–436

Getting on the Front Page: Organizational Reputation, Status Signals, and the Impact of U.S. News and World Report on Student Decisions

Article

Abstract

Recent studies have suggested that a causal link exists between college rankings and subsequent admissions indicators. However, it is unclear how these effects vary across institutional type (i.e., national universities vs. liberal arts colleges) or whether these effects persist when controlling for other factors that affect admissions outcomes. Using admissions data for top-tier institutions from fall 1998 to fall 2005, we found that moving onto the front page of the U.S. News rankings provides a substantial boost in the following year’s admissions indicators for all institutions. In addition, the effect of moving up or down within the top tier has a strong impact on institutions ranked in the top 25, especially among national universities. In contrast, the admissions outcomes of liberal arts colleges—particularly those in the lower half of the top tier—were more strongly influenced by institutional prices.

Keywords

Rankings Reputation Status Signaling Organization theory College admissions 

References

  1. Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the toolbox: Academic intensity, and Bachelor’s degree attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Management and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allison, P. (2005). Fixed effects regression methods for longitudinal data using SAS. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Bastedo, M. N., & Bowman, N. A. (in press). The U.S. News and World Report college rankings: Modeling institutional effects on organizational reputation. American Journal of Education.Google Scholar
  6. Bastedo, M. N., & Gumport, P. J. (2003). Access to what? Mission differentiation and academic stratification in U.S. public higher education. Higher Education, 46, 341–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brewer, D. J., Gates, S. M., & Goldman, C. A. (2001). In pursuit of prestige: Strategy and competition in U.S. higher education. Somerset, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. College Board. (2002). SAT-ACT score comparisons. Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/act-sat-concordance-tables.pdf.
  10. Desjardins, S. L., Ahlburg, D. A., & McCall, B. P. (2006). An integrated model of application, admission, enrollment, and financial aid. Journal of Higher Education, 77, 381–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Members’ responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the Business Week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 442–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Finder, A. (2007, August 17). College ratings race roars on despite concerns. New York Times. Retrieved October 6, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/17/education/17rankings.html.
  14. Frank, R. H., & Cook, P. J. (1996). The winner-take-all society. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  15. Garland, J. (2003). Miami University tuition plan: A solution for higher education funding? Excerpted from the 2003 State of the University Address. Oxford, OH: Miami University.Google Scholar
  16. Griffith, A., & Rask, K. (2007). The influence of the U.S. News and World Report collegiate rankings on the matriculation decision of high-ability students: 1995–2004. Economics of Education Review, 26, 244–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gumport, P. J., & Bastedo, M. N. (2001). Academic stratification and endemic conflict: Remedial education policy at the City University of New York. Review of Higher Education, 24, 333–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Higher Education Research Institute. (2007). College rankings and college choice: How important are college rankings in students’ college choice process? Los Angeles, CA: Author.Google Scholar
  19. Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (1998). The black-white test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  21. Karabel, J. (2005). The chosen. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  22. Machung, A. (1998). Playing the rankings game. Change, 30(4), 12–16.Google Scholar
  23. Marklein, M. B. (2007, April 9). Race, wealth affect significance given to college rankings. USA Today. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-04-09-college-rankings_N.htm.
  24. Martins, L. L. (2005). A model of the effects of reputational rankings on organizational change. Organization Science, 16, 701–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McDonough, P. M., Antonio, A. L., Walpole, M., & Perez, L. X. (1998). College rankings: Democratized college knowledge for whom? Research in Higher Education, 39, 513–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meredith, M. (2004). Why do universities compete in the rankings game? An empirical analysis of the effects of the US News and World Report college rankings. Research in Higher Education, 45, 443–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miami University. (2008). Miami’s Ohio Scholarship program: Program specifics. Retrieved February 4, 2008, from http://www.miami.muohio.edu/ohioscholarships/specifics.cfm.
  29. Monks, J., & Ehrenberg, R. G. (1999). The impact of U.S. News & World Report college rankings on admissions outcomes and pricing policies at selective private institutions (Working Paper #7227). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  30. Nettles, M. T., & Perna, L. W. (1997). The African American education data book: Volume III: The transition from school to college school to work. Washington, DC: Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute of the College Fund/UNCF.Google Scholar
  31. Olson, J. C. (1977). Price as an information cue: Effects on product evaluations. In A. G. Woodside, J. N. Sneth, & P. D. Bennett (Eds.), Consumer and industrial buying behavior (pp. 267–286). New York: North Holland.Google Scholar
  32. Pike, G. R. (2004). Measuring quality: A comparison of US News Rankings and NSSE benchmarks. Research in Higher Education, 45, 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Podolny, J. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 829–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Podolny, J. M. (2005). Status signals: A sociological study of market competition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. (2003). Institutional change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle cuisine as an identity movement in French gastronomy. American Journal of Sociology, 108, 795–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M. (2005). Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1033–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Riper, T. V. (2007, January 19). America’s most expensive colleges. Forbes. Retrieved December 10, 2007, from http://www.forbes.com/2007/01/19/most-expensive-colleges-biz-cx_tvr_0119college.html.
  38. Rossi, L. (2007, January 23). Grinnell stuns students with unusual tuition jump. Des Moines Register. Retrieved December 13, 2007, from http://www.topcolleges.com/news32.html.
  39. Sauder, M. (2006). Third parties and status position: How the characteristics of status systems matter. Theory and Society, 35, 299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sauder, M., & Lancaster, R. (2006). Do rankings matter? The effects of U.S. News & World Report rankings on the admissions process of law schools. Law and Society Review, 40, 105–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sauer, S. J., Thomas-Hunt, M. C., & Morris, P. A. (2008). Too good to be true? The unintended signaling effects of educational prestige on external expectations of team performance. Unpublished paper, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  42. Spence, A. M. (1974). Market signaling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Steinberg, J. (2002). The gatekeepers: Inside the admissions process of a premier college. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  44. Stevens, M. L. (2007). Choosing a class: College admissions and the education of elites. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Thacker, L. (2005). College unranked: Ending the college admissions frenzy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  46. University of Richmond. (2005). University of Richmond strategic plan: A five-year status report. 2000–2005. Richmond, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  47. Volkwein, J. F., & Sweitzer, K. V. (2006). Institutional prestige and reputation among research universities and liberal arts colleges. Research in Higher Education, 47, 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Washington, M., & Zajac, E. J. (2005). Status evolution and competition: Theory and evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 282–296.Google Scholar
  49. Zuckerman, E. W. (1999). The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104, 1398–1438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Social ConcernsUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA
  2. 2.Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary EducationUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations