WSJ misinterprets study on Rice image

---

by Felisa Yang

---

Maguire Associates is a research group based in Concord, Mass., that specializes in academia. Rice commissioned them to conduct the survey in order to understand why a prospective student might or might not apply to Rice. The study was conducted on high school students drawn from Rice's database of inquirers. Surveys were mailed to 3,000 of the prospectives, and nearly 500 were interviewed by telephone. The results were published in two volumes, the first issued in January and the second in March.

Allday's June 12 story, entitled "Rice May Be a `Best Buy,' but Study Says Students Aren't Sold on the School," focused on the supposed difficulties Rice is facing in getting accepted students to matriculate. "Although the school has been touted by several national rankings as a bargain, top students aren't being lured by the low tuition," Allday wrote.

Allday goes on to cite what she calls "four major sore points" identified by the Maguire report: "Rice doesn't have the cachet of an Ivy League school; it focuses too much on the hard sciences; Houston has a reputation as a bad place to live among prospective students; and many of them say the school is simply too far from home."

According to Allday, the effects of these concerns is a drop in percentage of accepted students who matriculated: 38 percent in 1995, down from 50 percent in 1991. She compared the figures to both the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University, who matriculate 56 percent and 61 percent of accepted applicants, respectively.

Allday also noted that Rice's relatively young age has precluded it from establishing either a reputation or programs beyond the hard sciences.

In the July 3 edition of the Wall Street Journal , three letters to the editor were published under the title "Rice Stands Among the Best." The letters, from Vice President for University Advancement Kathryn Costello, John Maguire of Maguire Associates and Douglas Coleman, all lambasted Allday's article for misinterpreting the report.

Costello called Allday's headline "both misleading and extremely unfair." She also stated that the reporter used "partial data, out of context to draw a conclusion that was incorrect and not even supported by her own article."

She cited discrepancies in the story's conclusions, namely that the students interviewed in the original article effectively negate Allday's claims. One student, whom Allday called "exactly the kind of student [Rice] is looking for" passed over Rice to attend Stanford.

Yet two other students, Jones College sophomore Danielle Segall and Hanszen College junior Ryan Plumly, turned down Yale University, Harvard University, Duke University and Johns Hopkins University to attend Rice.

Costello's final criticism was that Allday missed the point of the study altogether, which was to examine why a high school senior might apply to Rice, not whether an accepted applicant will matriculate.

Maguire echoed Costello's sentiments. He wrote that Allday "inaccurately represents research conducted by our firm for the university, and draws conclusions not supported by our work." In particular, Maguire contends that the purpose of the study was misrepresented.

He pointed out that the story's focus on yield rates was misguided because the study focused on potential applicants, not accepted students.

Maguire also stated that the study did not show that students felt that Rice "focuses too much on the hard sciences."

Coleman wrote in defense of the university, "Rice University is an extremely challenging school, providing great educational and social opportunities. Maybe you should elaborate on the fact that students who do visit the campus are more likely to stay, and that positive press on the East and West coasts may bring Rice University the acclaim and reputation that it deserves."

As for the report itself, the students surveyed were told that they were part of a nation-wide educational study and were not informed that Rice was the client institution.

The prospective applicants were broken down into key subgroups, with the student data scrutinized using six market segmentations: likelihood of applying to Rice, residency, academic ability, family income, ethnicity and gender.

This item appeared in the News section of the November 1, 1996 issue.

Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights Reserved.
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of:
The Rice Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX 77005-1892, USA.