I am not a subscriber to Playboy magazine, but the October issue’s Top Party School ranking has sparked some conversation around Grounds. The University beat 100 other schools across the nation for the “honor” of being declared the top party school.
Some students have embraced the honor, posting the article online for their friends to gawk at on social media websites. University officials have taken an alternative outlook. The University’s statement read, “It is far more important for the University to be known for our academic achievements in teaching and research, the extraordinarily high graduation rate of our students, and our commitment to providing financial support to all students who have demonstrated need.” Spokeswoman Marian Anderfuren even said, “we are demanding a recount” to NBC news.
It seems to me that students are generally apathetic or pleased, while officials are not. Perhaps students take this as an honor because they chose a school that is both academically distinguished and also now recognized socially. Or perhaps it is simply the attention by a worldwide magazine to our community that is exciting. Either way, I completely agree with the University officials – this kind of recognition is not beneficial to fulfilling Thomas Jefferson’s vision of the Academical Village.
My primary concern is the stigma associated with being a “party school.” “Party school” is a term that conjures up images of lackluster state schools and Animal House. Assuming others, such as distinguished professors, have similar associations, it will be incredibly challenging to attract teaching talent to the University. I know that rational professionals will not put much trust in an article by Playboy Magazine over the tons of other legitimate rankings of the University as an academic institution; however, given competing offers from the University, Princeton, and Yale, why would any professor choose to teach students here when she could teach students elsewhere who she assumes to be more dedicated to her lectures?
Decisions like these do not always depend on substantial fact analysis, but rather an intuition. Intuitions can be influenced by public opinion such as this Playboy ranking.
Another reason why this mysterious ranking should not be embraced is that no valid methodology was provided. The article claimed to rank one hundred US schools by “900 data points in three categories: sex, sports, and nightlife.” I would love to see the metrics used to rank an entire University in the category of “sex.” Blindly accepting this rating does not make sense because it violates fundamental principles of sound research.
If your parents are similar to mine, they may have told you, “you are going to school for academics, not to party.” This is not completely true. Students at the University do more than academics and partying. We are innovators, we are debaters, we are self-governors, and we are entrepreneurs. When classified as a party school, the myriad of other student activities are closeted.
As a student, the ranking is also a set back for the school because it attracts the wrong type of student. “It attracts a lot of people coming to college and I know some people don’t like going to colleges because they think you know they’re too much work,” said University student Andrew Morton to WCAV reporters. Morton was mistaken to embrace the rating as a positive selling point for the school. When I’m in class, I want to be surrounded by students who will challenge me intellectually, not by peers who will shun me for hunkering down in Clemons on a Saturday Night. Sure, students can be both academics and socialites, but the inverse correlation between time spent partying and the time spent in other facets of the University should not be ignored.
If I were a benefactor torn between making the decision to endow a scholarship here at the University or at another college, I may be swayed to invest my money elsewhere, where I am certain that every penny will go towards academics and research. Although it is not completely rational, one could infer from simply having a reputation as a “party school” that the University is less committed to academia.
The association of Mr. Jefferson’s University with a magazine that arguably objectifies women is also less than ideal. Would I be wrong to assume that women that spend their college careers dedicated to furthering their education would not want this institution belittled by a cheap magazine feature? I am actually surprised that there have not been any groups publicly protesting this simply out of respect for our female students.
I ask that students be mindful of the representation they want their alma mater to have after graduation, and apply the required philosophies now.
Andrew Kouri’s column appears bi-weekly Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at a.kouri@cavalierdaily.com
Read More
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | 14 hours agoPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 4 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 6 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
