PIRS is well-intentioned, but ill-advised.

Most people are unlikely to argue that students should not be given information to evaluate their school choice. This is why many schools already publish measures of graduation rates, financial aid, debt, employment after college, etc. Institutions of higher education should be encouraged not only to publish these kinds of data but also to improve the quality of the measures they use. For example, it is utterly absurd that transfers, re-enrollments, part-time enrollment, and long-term graduation rates are ignored by most measures of graduate rates. Universities ought to know where their students come from (transfers, re-entries, etc.). Requiring them to have such data is for their own benefit, as well as the student-consumer’s, and would assist policy makers in better understanding the reality of today’s higher education landscape.

However, requiring universities to collect more institutional data is quite different from having a central rating system (such as Obama’s proposed PIRS system) by which these universities can be compared. Centrally-available data may be easier for students to access, but we already know that low-income students who might benefit most from having a broader perspective on college choice are unlikely to use such a tool. They are much more likely to receive their school information from more personal sources, such as people within their social network. What purpose could PIRS serve, then, other than providing another rating that will motivate universities to increase their selectivity and cut more low-income and underrepresented students out of higher ed?

Unfortunately, we know there IS another purpose PIRS is meant to serve, and it raises greater concerns than the negatively-motivating influence on institutional practices. PIRS is meant to have accountability attached to these ratings. The implication of this is exponentially concerning. Tying dollars to universities’ motivation to raise their ratings is likely to cut even more students out of our education system.

Should students have more data to inform their college choice? Yes. Might the government play a role in encouraging institutions to publish these data? Yes. But we don’t need yet another rating system. What we need is improved systems for tracking student data and outcomes. We would all be better off if the money going into establishing PIRS was instead used establish standards for tracking student data and to provide grants to assist institutions of higher education in creating the necessary systems for collecting and reporting it.