• Home
  • About
    • About this Blog
    • About Andrew Taylor
    • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Other AJBlogs
  • ArtsJournal

The Artful Manager

Andrew Taylor on the business of arts & culture

A ruckus on rankings

December 6, 2007 by Andrew Taylor

When faced with a complex and important decision in our lives, how do we choose? How do we filter the available options, weigh their various merits and costs, and navigate the series of decisions and actions required to move on?

It’s a question at the core of cultural management, even though our community’s choice to attend or donate or volunteer may not be life-changing on its own. And it’s certainly a question at the core of complex, resource-intensive, and time-consuming service providers — like colleges or universities, or major gift campaigns.

Increasingly, third-party ranking or evaluation agents are stepping in to help frame and filter the decision process. Charity Navigator runs the numbers on nonprofits for prospective donors, measuring their financial and organizational health through a complex point system. GuideStar offers a similar evaluation service, now linked with a direct opportunity to contribute. In the college marketplace, magazines (like U.S. News) and other information providers rank and cluster colleges and universities through their own algorithms.

These efforts to rank and filter are certainly necessary, as choice and reach expand ever faster for those with a decision to make. And yet, the underlying assumptions that drive these rankings pose a fundamental challenge to the systems they seek to inform.

Nowhere is this challenge more evident than in higher education. Rankings have been around for a long time, but the reach of the Internet and the exploding competition for resources have brought them to a new plateau in influence. Rising in national rankings has become a core promise in alumni giving campaigns, and a key indicator of institutional success. Many curriculum and admissions decisions are now driven, in larger part, by their impact on the rankings, and measured against the algorithms of these third-party assessors.

It is, perhaps, the inevitable result of an increasingly complex and connected system, when true value is impossible to define. But it is a challenge that will likely continue its reach into more markets (like arts and culture).

Many universities and colleges are beginning to push back, and question their increasing emphasis on external rankings over internally defined measures of success. One cluster is working through the Education Conservancy, which circulated an open letter to presidents of higher education last May. That letter claimed the system was flawed and dangerous because such rankings:

  • imply a false precision and authority that is not warranted by the data they use;
  • obscure important differences in educational mission in aligning institutions on a single scale;
  • say nothing or very little about whether students are actually learning at particular colleges or universities;
  • encourage wasteful spending and gamesmanship in institutions’ pursuing improved rankings;
  • overlook the importance of a student in making education happen and overweight the importance of a university’s prestige in that process; and
  • degrade for students the educational value of the college search process.

These rankings and algorithms can’t be ignored or stopped, but they most definitely should be understood by the leaders they might influence. To the extent that their evaluations align with your mission and reflect your larger purpose, all the better for you. But when the indicators downplay or fail to capture your organization’s unique value or impact, you’ll need to decide where to draw the line in the sand.

Filed Under: main

About Andrew Taylor

Andrew Taylor is a faculty member in American University's Arts Management Program in Washington, DC. [Read More …]

ArtsManaged Field Notes

#ArtsManaged logoAndrew Taylor also publishes a weekly email newsletter, ArtsManaged Field Notes, on Arts Management practice. The most recent notes are listed below.

RSS ArtsManaged Field Notes

  • The bother of bylaws July 8, 2025
    Does your arts nonprofit's map for action match the terrain?
  • Minimum viable everything July 1, 2025
    Getting better as an arts organization doesn't always (or even often) mean getting bigger.
  • The rise and stall of the nonprofit arts June 24, 2025
    The modern arts nonprofit evolved in an ecology of growth. It's time to evolve again.
  • Connection, concern, and capacity June 17, 2025
    The three-legged stool of fundraising strategy.
  • Is your workplace a pyramid or a wheel? June 10, 2025
    Johan Galtung defined two structures for collective action: thin-and-big (the pyramid) or thick-and-small (the wheel). Which describes your workplace?

Artful Manager: The Book!

The Artful Manager BookFifty provocations, inquiries, and insights on the business of arts and culture, available in
paperback, Kindle, or Apple Books formats.

Recent Comments

  • Barry Hessenius on Business in service of beauty: “An enormous loss. Diane changed the discourse on culture – its aspirations, its modus operandi, its assumptions. A brilliant thought…” Jan 19, 18:58
  • Sunil Iyengar on Business in service of beauty: “Thank you, Andrew. The loss is immense. Back when Diane was teaching a course called “Approaching Beauty,” to business majors…” Jan 16, 18:36
  • Michael J Rushton on Business in service of beauty: “A wonderful person and a creative thinker, this is a terrible loss. – thank you for posting this.” Jan 16, 13:18
  • Andrew Taylor on Two goals to rule them all: “Absolutely, borrow and build to your heart’s content! The idea that cultural practice BOTH reduces and samples surprise is really…” Jun 2, 18:01
  • Heather Good on Two goals to rule them all: “To “actively sample novel experiences (in safe ways) to build more resilient perception and prediction” is about as useful a…” Jun 2, 15:05

Archives

Creative Commons License
The written content of this blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Images are not covered under this license, but are linked (whenever possible) to their original author.

an ArtsJournal blog

Copyright © 2025 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in