Contends that the resources/reputation approach, which uses proxy variables to measure university quality, and the alumni outcomes approach, which may simply reflect institutional recruitment practices, are fundamentally flawed. Maintains that the effective educational practices approach is a major step forward; suggests that a combination of the…

Reflects on fundamental questions concerning accountability in higher education: "Toward what end?"; "What data and criteria are relevant?"; "Who is responsible for what and to whom?"; and "Through what means?"; Discusses the characteristics of an effective accountability system. (EV)

As well-intentioned reformers turn up the volume on their calls for assessment-based accountability in higher education, warns policymakers and academicians that going forward without clearly defining what they want to measure may result in assessing the wrong things. Describes a framework to guide policy on assessing student learning. (EV)

Discusses, in the context of the National Research Council's next study of research-doctorate programs, arguments over continuing use of reputational surveys as the primary measure of program quality, as opposed to more objective measures of research performance. Eleven tables rank institutions for specific fields by reputation, citation density,…

The reasons college and university administrators dislike institutional rankings and ratings of academic quality published in the popular press are examined, and college attributes commonly used in the ratings are discussed. Virtues and flaws of the assessments are noted, and variations in the evaluations over time are illustrated in charts. (MSE)