WSJ Rankings 2025

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a midwestern who has never really bought into the prestige of some colleges, I get this list.

Amherst has pretty terrible earnings numbers out of college whereas kids at places like Lehigh (great engineering) or San Jose State (great internship program) jump out of the gate.

Maybe there's some long tail advantage to an Amherst education, but I think that was mostly in the 20th century.

Yep. Most of the usual suspects have been complacently sitting on their rears while other schools overtake them in student outcomes. Welcome to the 21st century.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:gift link?

You're welcome.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/wsj-best-colleges-2025-princeton-babson-stanford-52443de8?st=h14riihjxcgh3mi&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Doesn't work. Still behind a paywall.

DP. Try this:

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/wsj-best-colleges-2025-princeton-babson-stanford-52443de8?st=qkcbrnq9ynln0gu&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WTF is this garbage LOL

oh, and I went to VT lol

Even if this is true, which I highly doubt, there's quite a bit of difference between the VT you attended decades ago and the VT of today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do like the criteria though.. Limited fluff/BS factors, not based on hoity-toity professorial 'reputation' opinions (like we care). It's all about the money.

Exactly. Straightforward and outcomes-based.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Finally, a ranking criteria that makes sense. Kudos to WSJ! As a parent, I'm a lot more interested in financial impact of degree vs how many pell grants students at a particular school obtains. You naysayers are the sheeple.

+1
And I think the tantrum throwing is hysterical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally, a ranking criteria that makes sense. Kudos to WSJ! As a parent, I'm a lot more interested in financial impact of degree vs how many pell grants students at a particular school obtains. You naysayers are the sheeple.

I don't think you are interpreting the WSJ rankings correctly...WSJ looks at net cost of attendance and payback (which heavily favors schools like Princeton and others with generous financial aid and Pell grant recipients). Even the financial impacts are heavily weighted by the background of the kids attending.

Many of the schools with wealthier student bodies fare exceptionally poorly in the WSJ rankings.

DP. Consideration of Pell Grants makes up only 1.7% of this ranking. You don't seem to be interpreting these rankings correctly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As soon as you see Babson at #2, ahead of Stanford, Yale, MIT, etc, you know this list is a joke!

Bingo.

This list is lacking any semblance of student quality ranking. Student peers matter. Parents and families want kids to go to the schools that people know have smart kids. This list has zero assessment for smarts.

OMG.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s so curious to me is how did Emma Tucker, the editor in chief, even get this job. Obviously, a best colleges list for the WSJ is a big roll out. What was the thinking here?

It’s so manifestly stupid and thoughtless. And there was a huge opportunity to claim this space.

And they went with what they did.

Baffling.

Clearly morons in control at WSJ.

What are you talking about, "a big roll out"? The WSJ has been doing college rankings for years. You just don't like this year's outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Journalism is primarily about credibility; the Wall Street Journal has lost it's credibility by publishing garbage like this.

Not at all. You simply either don't understand the methodology, or refuse to understand it. Sounds like a you problem.

[Anonymous]

Good for the WSJ. About time. Oh, and I'm loving the over-the-top wailing from the usual suspects!

[Anonymous]

This ranking makes total sense and is valuable, if you understand the methodology. Read the explanation carefully, then reconsider why your school scored where it did. Maybe you will learn something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As soon as you see Babson at #2, ahead of Stanford, Yale, MIT, etc, you know this list is a joke!

Bingo.

This list is lacking any semblance of student quality ranking. Student peers matter. Parents and families want kids to go to the schools that people know have smart kids. This list has zero assessment for smarts.

OMG.

OMG, the cries of the elite as the masses encroach on their turf! My kid just graduated from one of the lesser known schools that rocketed up the rankings and he is making the same $100k as his colleagues whose parents paid almost twice what we paid for his degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This ranking makes total sense and is valuable, if you understand the methodology. Read the explanation carefully, then reconsider why your school scored where it did. Maybe you will learn something.

Thanks mom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good for the WSJ. About time. Oh, and I'm loving the over-the-top wailing from the usual suspects!

That's sweet. Now find the Wall Street Journal reporters that went to UC-Merced, Cal-State Stanislaus, Dalton State, Martin Luther College, Kettering University, Benedictine College, and - this one's not f#cking around - The Masters University.

Best and brightest no doubt.

I genuinely don't understand why the editors of the WSJ let this silliness go. There is a huge opportunity to take down US News and this is what the Murdochs came up with? Clearly not ready for prime time. Stupid list. Not interesting. And not even worth talking about. Massive fail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for the WSJ. About time. Oh, and I'm loving the over-the-top wailing from the usual suspects!

That's sweet. Now find the Wall Street Journal reporters that went to UC-Merced, Cal-State Stanislaus, Dalton State, Martin Luther College, Kettering University, Benedictine College, and - this one's not f#cking around - The Masters University.

Best and brightest no doubt.

I genuinely don't understand why the editors of the WSJ let this silliness go. There is a huge opportunity to take down US News and this is what the Murdochs came up with? Clearly not ready for prime time. Stupid list. Not interesting. And not even worth talking about. Massive fail.

Mmkay, anonymous internet poster.