The Fly in the Ointment of Rankings

We often hear requests from board members to tell them how their school ranks against other, similar institutions. Our usual response that any such rankings--were they to exist--would be flawed because comparisons are apples-to-cumquats at best due to differing missions, admission practices, etc., fails to satisfy. At times, I think the underlying issue is one of mission; that is, some board members wish their schools had a different, more selective and narrow mission. But a proxy battle over mission does not explain the many very savvy finance and MBA types (a majority on many international school boards) who insist that their schools become "great" by maximizing all the possible metrics.Kaihan Krippendorf's Outthinker blog post of November 22 may explain the rest in terms of an inaccurate, but eminently logical, concept of what "great" really means. It could be that great means being selective about exactly what one will maximize, even if that isn't the sexiest option. As Krippendorf points out, trying to maximize greatness in everything is, paradoxically, a pathway to mediocrity. By extension, this means willingly ceding some territory to competitors who may choose to be great differently. A board-administration conversation about what mission-congruent areas are appropriate for maximization would be far more fruitful than a fruitless search for flawed (and nonexistent) rankings.