Middlebury has dropped to 19th in the U.S. News & World Report’s ranking of the Best National Liberal Arts Colleges. This week, the Editorial Board discussed what this number means for our community and the role rankings play in shaping how we understand Middlebury and its value.
U.S. News changes its ranking methodology from year to year, something that is not always obvious unless one closely reads the methodology. As a result, the ranking system is often not consistent, since different factors and weightings can shape the final calculation each year. It is important to note that Middlebury’s ranking includes students enrolled in the Language Schools and Bread Loaf, which lowers the college’s expenditure per student. As nontraditional college programs, we also wondered whether this inclusion could affect Middlebury’s broader ranking, since these programs operate with missions and structures distinct from the traditional undergraduate college. Another structural change worth considering is the inclusion of military institutions in this year’s liberal arts rankings, with three now occupying spots above Middlebury.
An important discrepancy with the ranking is how little they can separate one school from another. Schools often tie because the margins between them are so small, and a slight difference in one particular metric can result in one institution being ranked above another. In this way, the rankings can begin to feel like a game in which small numerical differences produce seemingly meaningful changes in position. Last year, Middlebury tied with six other schools, reflecting just how narrow these differences can be. Due to this competition, many institutions have learned how to strategically respond to the criteria used in ranking systems. We wonder whether other schools occupying the top positions have learned how to optimize their institutions around the metrics that ranking systems prioritize. If one category measures how many books the library has, are some institutions purposefully buying more books to inflate their rankings?
While rankings can be superficial, they also have real repercussions. If we think of Middlebury as a business in addition to an educational institution, a decline in rankings can translate into a decline in its perceived competitiveness and prestige. Prospective students who see Middlebury ranked lower may begin to reconsider whether they want to apply, particularly when comparing it to peer institutions. International students, who may have less familiarity with individual American colleges, may rely even more heavily on rankings when making these decisions. In this way, rankings matter not only for attracting prospective students but also for shaping the school’s broader reputation and legacy. Even if it is difficult to determine whether Middlebury’s drop will actually discourage students from applying, the decline is undoubtedly a challenge from a public relations standpoint.
That reputational challenge helps explain why the administration has sought to contextualize Middlebury’s decline rather than simply accept the 19th ranking at face value. While Middlebury may rank 19th on one list, other rankings place the college higher, and administrators have pointed to those measures. Similarly, although Middlebury fell overall in the U.S. News rankings, President Baucom emphasized that the college improved in nine of 11 individual categories.
President Baucom states that he wants Middlebury to be the best liberal arts institution in the world. His tenure has already involved significant efforts to address the college’s finances, reconsider tuition and eliminate the Monterey program. From an administrative perspective, rankings might become especially important when trying to attract applicants, recruit professors and encourage alumni donations. The administration has an obligation to protect the forward-facing image of the college and demonstrate that Middlebury is continuing to progress. Therefore, even if the rankings themselves are imperfect, a drop can disrupt the momentum the administration is trying to build and create a short-term challenge to public perception.
Despite these more superficial metrics, the more important question for those of us at Middlebury is not how the college appears from the outside but what is actually happening within it. Is the institution actually under more strain? Residential Assistants are living in converted common rooms in Gifford and Hepburn, enrollment has increased and students are finding it harder to get into classes. Senior seminars that might ideally have 15 students can now have closer to 25. Taken together, these changes raise a broader question: Are we beginning to drift away from the liberal arts experience that Middlebury so often prides itself on?
Even beyond this year’s rankings, Middlebury has lost important faculty over the past several years. Faculty are critical to the liberal arts experience, shaping what is taught, how it is taught and the intellectual communities within departments. When professors leave and positions are not replaced, those gaps can affect the quality and breadth of students’ education. The same is true for staff. Custodial workers, dining employees, admissions staff, librarians and many other hardworking individuals sustain the institution every day. When positions are consolidated, workloads increase or employees struggle to earn a living wage, those conditions inevitably shape campus life. If the people sustaining Middlebury are overworked or undervalued, what does that say about the health of the institution itself?
If we want to understand Middlebury’s trajectory, these internal changes may tell us far more than a national ranking ever could. That means looking at our classes, talking to professors, speaking with friends and understanding the changes students and employees are experiencing firsthand, rather than relying solely on the calculations of a random person in the U.S. News comparing what can feel like arbitrary metrics.
Ultimately, we concluded that the ranking matters, but perhaps not as much for the students who are already here. Zooming out, the conversation can begin to feel somewhat pretentious: Middlebury remains one of the most selective and highly regarded colleges in the country, and students will continue to want to come here regardless of whether we sit a few spots higher or lower on one particular list. Maybe the cure to this ranking-induced identity crisis is simply having more confidence in who we are as a school.
More importantly, we have to ask whether rankings are really where our energy should be directed. There are far more tangible issues affecting students, faculty and staff every day. Rankings are ultimately an imperfect measure, shaped by external factors and changing variables that make them difficult to use as a consistent historical benchmark. For those of us on the ground, the human experience of the institution matters far more than participating in the broader game of rankings. A college experience is deeply subjective, personal and difficult to reduce to a single number. We do not need U.S. News to tell us whether Middlebury is a good school. When there are real and tangible issues affecting the people who are already here, those are the questions that deserve our attention.
