Rain, snow, and sleet are just different types of precipitation.

Deskripsi

DeNisi, a business school dean, acknowledges the flaws in ranking systems but frames them through the lens of the criterion problem—a concept from industrial psychology introduced by Robert Thorndike. He explains that rankings aim to measure an unquantifiable ultimate criterion (e.g., academic quality) but instead rely on imperfect actual criteria, which suffer from criterion deficiency (missing key aspects of quality) and criterion contamination (including irrelevant metrics). DeNisi critiques Zemsky’s preference for BusinessWeek’s customer-satisfaction-focused rankings, noting that even these are flawed, as they may prioritize short-term student opinions over long-term educational value. He highlights inconsistencies across major rankings (e.g., Financial Times, U.S. News, AméricaEconomia), showing how schools selectively promote favorable rankings while downplaying others. For instance, research-heavy institutions might emphasize rankings valuing faculty publications, while others highlight student satisfaction metrics. The article concludes that rankings, though imperfect, offer partial insights into program quality. DeNisi advocates for educating prospective students to critically evaluate ranking methodologies and align them with personal goals, rather than relying on any single system. By comparing rankings to different forms of precipitation—each imperfect but informative—he underscores the need for transparency and consumer awareness in navigating the rankings landscape.