From the Kitchen Table

Einstein admonished us that we tend to measure only what we can count easily and thus fail to measure what really counts.

We see Einstein’s challenge in a number of efforts to evaluate institutions in higher education: from the input-heavy methodology of the U.S. News & World Report rankings to the survey methodology of the Princeton Review, to the newer output-focused economic models of Payscale and others.

Each metric implies a theory of value: schools with stronger inputs (student selectivity, alumni contributions, faculty ratios) are better; schools with superior survey results (best campus, most accessible faculty, happiest students) are better; schools with stronger outputs (high graduation rates, post-graduate salaries, and low debt) are better. The use and reliance on any one ranking is a choice that depends on which theory of value is deemed most important at a particular school. It is also a methodological choice based on whose empirics seem most transparent, accurate, or aligned with the proposed value.

In a phrase, metrics are in the eye of the beholder.

Beyond this observation, we can see a series of traps for leaders in higher education. We tend to champion the favorable rankings and criticize the unfavorable ones. The rankings and the metrics we consume are inherently and at times profoundly imperfect and yet they are modestly useful as proxies of value. But the championship and criticisms of rankings lean to the extreme. Rankings have become a type of sport in which we dance in the virtual end zone after the touchdown or else we complain about the refs when we are on the losing end of the results.

So then, how should we navigate the rankings and think about our own forensics of value here at Claremont McKenna? Here are four thoughts for your consideration.

First, we need to stay focused on our own theory of value regardless of what external rankings seek to impose, so that we can consider competing theories in comparison.

Second, we need to be principled in our approach to the power and limits of quantitative comparison, by focusing on the accuracy and merits of the underlying methodologies.

Third, we need to recognize what is easily forgotten: the use of rankings is an imperfect proxy for value, especially in the absence of better metrics for applicants and their families to use as they sort through complex data in preparation for making a large financial investment and long-term commitment.

Finally, if we are critical of measurements used by others, we have the responsibility to develop our own, and that is where we have hard work to do. For example, at CMC, can we develop a working measure for the cultivation of responsible leadership? Through the new president’s Mellon Foundation grant program to be announced by Dean Warner, can we develop ways to measure creativity, empathy, and courage in pursuit of central learning objectives? If, as Professor Kind suggested in her convocation lecture Beyond Happiness, discomfort is a vital condition for intellectual and emotional growth and fulfillment, can we develop a discomfort index that demonstrates how dedicated we are to get outside our comfort zone?

As we enter the new academic year, please join me in reflection on Einstein’s challenge: how should we choose among alternative metrics, illuminate the underlying choice of value they reflect, and weigh methodological strengths and weaknesses in the measurements applied?

Please feel free to share your questions as well as your ideas about developing new ways of measuring our special value.

How should we think about the role of higher education in addressing the tremendous challenges facing the world today? How should Claremont McKenna College in particular respond? What are we doing today at CMC to equip our students to make their own special contributions?

Each generation, each institution may have different answers to these questions.

It is important to refresh this conversation in order to think about the why—the purpose of our mutual investments—in order to evaluate both what and how we are doing.

Our choice of purpose does not have to be singular; indeed, monolithic views are likely to be too rigid or time-bound to be effective. The scope and depth of what we mean by such terms as liberal arts or leadership can range widely, and such constructive ambiguities can allow us to find powerful, albeit different, personal connections to shared concepts. That’s healthy. Yet, we should endeavor at the same time to be expressive about our values and their proposition. Without an articulation of value, we have no working compass, no measure of achievement to reflect upon, no North Star by which to navigate our shared course.

From its origins, our College has applied an exterior perspective to internal priorities, framing our mission in terms of the qualities of responsible leadership that we wish to produce through our students. The underlying goal of CMC to lift the society around us is, I believe, one of the key drivers behind both its success to date and its promise for the future.

To elaborate and intensify the connections between our internal programs and our external mission, I would like to engage the community in a series of discussions about three vitally important capabilities. The working hypothesis for us to explore is this:

Creativity, empathy, and courage are of critical, sustained importance, both powerful in generating value and central to other virtues we seek to cultivate through the entirety of our program.

Why these specific capacities? We draw upon creativity to solve the most intractable problems, drive innovation, and open the imagination to new possibilities. We deploy empathy for a deeper understanding of those around us, for collaboration and cooperation in a world of conflict, where understanding difference is critical to the sustainability of a world that is ever smaller, flatter, hotter, and more crowded. And we need courage for integrity in public life, to sustain entrepreneurship in the economy and leadership in our communities. We need courage for ethical decision-making and the nerve to speak truth to power.

How do we reinforce these values here at CMC—through both our curriculum and related student experiences (from athletic competition to debate, from simulations of decision-making to new forms of research and artistic expression)?

And how can we all make a reflexive commitment to these values: to be creative in our approach, empathic in understanding diverse perspectives and views, and courageous in taking the necessary steps to meet the demands of our time?

To engage these questions, I have dedicated and matched a new president’s Mellon Foundation grant to enable faculty and students to explore these values and the ways that we can best capture, grow, and even measure them. As a first step, please keep an eye out for the announcement of a special faculty grant program, building on the Presidential Scholars Roundtables of last year. We are also developing a special program for students to grapple with these questions, and we will be in touch soon on that as well.