Two most publicized ratings include Princeton Review Guide to 311 Colleges and their honor roll of 16 schools and Sierra Magazine’s Coolest Schools.  The Association for Advancement of Sustainability and Higher Education, the professional organization for sustainability staff in higher education, has recently released their program – Sustainability Tracking Assessment and Rating System, STARS.

Over the past year, a total 423 institutions were listed on the rankings of each of these organizations.  74% (315 schools) were identified on just one survey, 21% (88) on 2 surveys, and 5% (20) on 3.  The chart below identifies the distribution of schools among the various surveys.    Last year, staff at Williams submitted information to the Princeton Review and AASHE-STARS but chose not to participate in the Sierra Magazine program.

Williams earned a silver rating on STARS (bronze, silver, gold, and platinum). Williams scored in the 80’s on Princeton Review program; the top 16 schools earned the top score of 99.

Note:  Princeton Review numbers don’t include all 703 schools that completed the survey, as the names of the schools weren’t readily available.

It is important to note that each of these programs have slightly different goals.  Princeton Review argues that its Green Guide is not a ranking system. “Rather, (its) aim is to highlight 311 campuses which, based on our survey of their school administrators, demonstrate a strong commitment to sustainability”, in an effort to help students find a school that matches their personal commitment to green living.    Despite their comment that their guide is not a RATING system, they have produced a list of 16 (in 2012) schools “earning the highest Green Rating.”

Sierra Magazine notes that the “Coolest Schools” ranking is an index that provides comparative information about campus sustainability. Sierra purports that the magazine’s ranking acts as a guide for prospective students who seek a way to compare colleges based on commitment to environmentalism and is designed “to spur competition, create aspirational standards, and publicly reward the institutions that work hard to protect the planet.” Sierra notes that “while many universities are making admirable progress, at present, no school has attained complete sustainability” – presumably scoring 100 points would be considered “complete” sustainability. The top-rated universities scored in the low 80s, indicating much work completed, but also room for improvement. Overall, schools’ scores were lower in 2011 than they were in 2010, reportedly due to survey revisions made in regard to questions about schools’ financial investments.

The AASHE STARS program is designed to provide a framework for understanding sustainability in all sectors of higher education, enable meaningful comparisons over time and across institutions using a common set of measurements developed with broad participation from the campus sustainability community, create incentives for continual improvement toward sustainability and facilitate information sharing about higher education sustainability practices and performance.

Williams has chosen to focus its benchmarking efforts on the STARS program.  In fact, Williams was one of the institutions that participated in the pilot program in the development phases of this rating system.  It is much more comprehensive than either Princeton Review or Sierra Magazine.  It improves on the other systems through it transparency, rigorous data requirements and broader scope of sustainability issues (economic, social and environmental).  One other distinguishing factor is that the STARS program was developed by the higher education community and therefore better reflects the goals that we are working toward.  It also, demonstrates a more realistic view of what it means to be “sustainable”.  None of the schools that have completed the assessment to date have reached the top category of platinum.

AASHE Ratings

Many schools have chosen not to participate in all of these ranking systems for various.  They require staff time to complete, taking precious hours away from the actual work of building a more sustainable institution.  They provide dubious value, for the most part, these ranking serve no other purpose than marketing the schools efforts.   While this can be valuable, programs such as STARS are much more effective in helping institutions truly understand their progress and provide a framework for sharing of successes and experiences among the participating schools.

One of the lessons that we have learned at Williams, is that developing comprehensive, robust measurement systems has been a key to our success and a significant part of our work.  As an example, how can we report on recycling rates until we can measure the amount of waste generated.  And we need these internal measurement systems to internal monitor and communicate progress (or not).  Citing our local or organic purchasing rates depend on our ability to measure cost and volumes of those expenditures.    Until we have dependable, automatic measurement systems in place and that consistently provide comparable, quantitative data we can’t accurately report to external agencies.  If all of our institutions aren’t measuring from the same baseline these cross campus comparisons are meaningless and perhaps harmful.

As an example – let’s look at some of the comments of one of the schools, Harvard, in the Princeton Review.

Emissions: One of the challenges in comparing emissions goals is that institutions have chosen different baselines.  Williams goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 10% below 1990 levels by 2020, Harvard commits to 30% below a 2006 baseline by 2016.  Which goal is better?

Without more information it is nearly impossible to know.  Williams peak year for ghg emissions was 2006.  Williams had increased ghg emissions by about 60% between 1990 and 2006.  If Harvard had a similar growth in emissions over this time period, the Williams cited goal would be much more challenging.  On the other hand, if Harvard hadn’t increased energy use over 1990-2006 period, the Harvard goal would be more challenging.

Buildings: Harvard has 62 buildings that are LEED certified.  This is certainly an outstanding achievement.  But a more appropriate measure would be related to building area per student or service, or increase or decrease in the size of the campus.   What is the rate of new building at Harvard compared to other institutions?

Transportation:  Harvard reports a drive alone rate of 16.5% – is this good or bad?  How has it changed over time?  How do you compare a residential college like Williams where almost all of the students walk to classes and a number of faculty and staff live close enough to walk or bike to work to an urban environment in terms of transportation related emissions.

While these rating/ranking/assessing systems require improvement to be truly meaningful.  What we can be excited about is that students, faculty, staff and alums are beginning to take notice.  As a result, we hope that all schools will make improvements in the environmental footprint at an even faster pace in the future.

Interns during the academic year work anywhere from a few hours a month to several hours weekly. They may work on research projects, on supporting programs and initiatives of the Center, or on initiatives of their own design.

Summer interns typically work on a focused research project. View other student research papers for an idea of the type of projects done in the past.

If you are interested in working for the Zilkha Center, send an email to zilkhacenter@williams.edu.

We are currently accepting applications for our summer interns. Fill out an application by March 4th at 9am at https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dG5xaFNYY0d5M2wtMG16S3YtLTQzbGc6MQ. We are interested in students of all class years and academic interests. At this time, we can only consider Williams College students, and preference will be given to financial aid recipients.

Interns will be paid $380 per week for at maximum a ten week period. We are seeking two interns for the Sustainable Food and Agriculture Program – see these job descriptions for more information. We are also seeking two interns with an interest in energy and conservation, and are welcoming student project ideas for a fifth internship.

The College’s greatest contribution is through educating our students, who will go on to become environmental stewards through their many roles as scientists, lawyers, investors, politicians, manufacturers, writers, advocates, artists, teachers, parents, consumers, and citizens. We do this through our teaching, research, and co-curricular offerings, and by demonstrating and embracing sustainable practices in the development and operations of our campus.

As faculty, staff, and students, we educate ourselves about important issues related to sustainability and pass on our learning to the larger communities of which we are all part. We eagerly share ideas with and learn from our neighbors and colleagues and seek consortial arrangements that can develop and broaden such practices. We work to contribute to the development of environmental standards. We report regularly on our progress.

In addition to adhering to all environmental laws and regulations, Williams focuses on the following sustainability issues.

Energy and Emissions:
We reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by increasing energy efficiency and selecting cleaner and renewable energy sources. We reduce energy use by constructing only the facilities we need and by building, renovating, maintaining, and operating them to use energy efficiently throughout their life. As campus community members, we seek to reduce energy use in our daily lives, in our work, and in our travel and to be mindful of the impacts of our choices.

Natural Resources:
We reduce our effects on water systems by minimizing use and by managing storm-water runoff. When materials are required, we select sustainably harvested sources to preserve natural resources. We protect the local habitat by limiting the physical growth of the college. We work to develop built landscapes in ways that support natural ecological functions by protecting existing ecosystems and regenerating ecological capacity where it has been lost. We provide opportunities for members of the community to interact with and appreciate the environment.

Procurement, Consumption, and Waste:
We reduce, reuse, and recycle materials. We work to understand and decrease the environmental impacts of the use, production, transportation and disposal of items we purchase. We select vendors committed to sustainable practices throughout the life cycle of their products, and we prefer to buy locally.

Quality of the Built Environment:
We build and maintain buildings that provide safe, comfortable and healthy environments for students, faculty and staff through effective use of day-lighting, ventilation, and connections with the natural environment. We work to improve our understanding of toxic materials used on campus and to reduce their presence in labs, art studios, and building and maintenance materials as well as in cleaning, landscaping, and pest-control.