This afternoon I ended up reading [this Vox story](http://www.vox.com/2014/8/6/5973653/the-federal-government-tried-to-rank-colleges-in-1911) about an effort to rank US Universities and Colleges carried out in 1911 by a man named Kendric Charles Babcock. On Twitter, [Robert Kelchen remarks](https://twitter.com/rkelchen/status/496746198112686082) that the report was “squashed by Taft” (an unpleasant fate), and he [links to the report itself](https://ia700504.us.archive.org/0/items/classificationof01unit/classificationof01unit.pdf), which is terrific. Babcock divided schools into four Classes, beginning with Class I:
And descending all the way to Class IV:
Babcock’s discussion of his methods is admirably brief (the snippet above hints at the one sampling problem that possibly troubled him), so I recommend you [read the report yourself](https://ia700504.us.archive.org/0/items/classificationof01unit/classificationof01unit.pdf).
University reputations are extremely sticky, the conventional wisdom goes. I was interested to see whether Babcock’s report bore that out. I grabbed the US News and World Report [National University Rankings](http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities) and [National Liberal Arts College Rankings](http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges/) and made a quick pass through them, coding their 1911 Babcock Class. The question is whether Mr Babcock, should he return to us from the grave, would be satisfied with how his rankings had held up—more than a century of massive educational expansion and alleged disruption notwithstanding.
It turns out that he would be quite pleased with himself.