Ranking the Rankings, ?academically challenged??

Just as high GDP rankings don’t guarantee citizens happiness, health or balance in a nation; institutional rankings don’t necessarily measure ethos in an institute. Scales and calibrations measure specific markings at a specific time/place. Scoring high/low on a scale indicates something positive/negative depending on the eyes of the beholder and of course what’s being measured. Too often institutes and their members celebrate high rankings and levels without knowing what’s being measured and what that implies.

Measurements are very useful in that they can reveal growth and potential. It is essential for us, as engaged citizens, to be aware of our progress. But just as essential, if not more essential, is knowing what we are growing towards. What is it that we should be proud of?
Rankings score comparatively. They place people/institutes on a scale, with there being a first and a last. Our natural instinct is to be first; remember the Zebedee brothers? We all want the highest place of honor in the kingdom. What does this mean as an institute? What does this mean in the professional market place? What does this mean to the spirit?

Moving up in the scale is good news! The higher the ranking the better the quality! As earnest learners we know that this only partly true. Scales and their criteria only measure what they want to measure. A dying man can rank high on a healthy scale if it is only measuring things other than vital signs. What are the vital signs of an institute? What is being measured? What should we be proud of? What type of growth are we learning or admitting? What things aren’t being scaled and ranked? How do we balance these rankings in relation to other qualities and attributes? What is the chief end of man/woman?