WSJ Rankings 2025

[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.

+1
They don't want to. It's too painful for them.

[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.

You know, this year’s list is larger by 100 than the ‘23 WSJ rankings. They added many new schools that were previously unlisted because they are considered “regional” schools, not national ones. Looks like these little no name schools kick butt!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
The screed about "smart kids" was classic - I'll have to bookmark that one. It couldn't possibly be that smart kids go to all kinds of schools and do just as well as the cliched HYPS+blah blah blah crowd. This list is a breath of fresh air.

[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.

And yet, here you are! Clearly very interesting and very much worth talking about. Cheers to the WSJ.

[Anonymous]

I may have misread but I thought the WSJ surveyed current students and recent alums - and based rankings on the self-reported data. I can check tomorrow.

[Anonymous]

Both the gift links go to the article but it doesn't seem like you can get from there to the actual list.

[Anonymous]

if my kid was choosing btw Santa Clara and Amherst, I would secretly hope for Santa Clara.


college just costs too much money to come out and .. hopefully .. get hired to be a 55k Program Coordinator at some CBO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And yet, here you are! Clearly very interesting and very much worth talking about. Cheers to the WSJ.

Because I would like to see some genuine competition to US News, And I was hopeful for WSJ because they have the brand and the reach. Unfortunately, this is a very lame list that won't be taken seriously. There's this massive, very lucrative space for a major publication, and yet none are reaching for it. Mystifying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And yet, here you are! Clearly very interesting and very much worth talking about. Cheers to the WSJ.

Because I would like to see some genuine competition to US News, And I was hopeful for WSJ because they have the brand and the reach. Unfortunately, this is a very lame list that won't be taken seriously. There's this massive, very lucrative space for a major publication, and yet none are reaching for it. Mystifying.

There old partnership with Times was great. They went super woke and denounced prestige.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And yet, here you are! Clearly very interesting and very much worth talking about. Cheers to the WSJ.

Because I would like to see some genuine competition to US News, And I was hopeful for WSJ because they have the brand and the reach. Unfortunately, this is a very lame list that won't be taken seriously. There's this massive, very lucrative space for a major publication, and yet none are reaching for it. Mystifying.

There old partnership with Times was great. They went super woke and denounced prestige.

“Denouncing prestige” isn’t “woke” - it’s just common sense that of course there are far more excellent schools than the same 10-20 that are always reshuffled in most lists. I think it’s fantastic that this list is based largely on outcomes. As a parent, that’s what I’m interested in. And the WSJ is a great, well-respected publication.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I may have misread but I thought the WSJ surveyed current students and recent alums - and based rankings on the self-reported data. I can check tomorrow.

I don’t think so:

The WSJ/College Pulse 2025 Best Colleges in the U.S. ranking was developed and executed in collaboration with our research partners College Pulse and Statista. The ranking scores colleges based on the following components. The weight each component is given in the ranking is indicated as a percentage. Throughout, we use the latest data available for analysis.

[Anonymous]

Here is what people should know related to the methodology. It is not a best college ranking or even an ROI ranking. It is a subjective return on expected earnings ranking. In the background, WSJ creates a score that effectively is subjective as it compares colleges to “peers” that have somewhat similar student intakes. So whatever objective raw score is factual, it is then turned subjective by this segmentation. Then all of the newly formed scores are compared against each other. I confirmed last year that this is what WSJ actually is doing. This is a flawed statistical method, and would not pass a first year college stats class if it was submitted for a grade.

Another poster likened it to competing in a major golf tournament where someone can apply their handicap whereas a full pro could not. Or, for baseball fans, think of it as WSJ saying the best Texas League baseball team should rank higher than a middling Major League team because the former is first in its class. No one would accept this. And yet, that is what WSJ is doing here.

Last year when it introduced the new methodology, I actually had a series of back and forth conversation with the two authors. They explained their methodology twice to me. I asked questions to make sure I understood it (I work in applied mathematics) and then challenged this objective to subjective to scoring to ranking approach. I then asked them to show me where my conclusions about their methodology was wrong. I was willing to learn something. I never heard back from them. In other words, I truly believe they realized that an actual statistician could easily show the massive flaws in their methodology. For a so-called college ranking methodology to not even be good enough to past muster in an intro college stats class is rather absurd.

It is a shame. Sticking the previously honorable WSJ brand to this untidy piece of work is a disservice to the reader and especially parents of students aiming to learn about colleges. The one thing the ranking is good for is how not to attempt statistical models and inference, and then try to cover your tracks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is what people should know related to the methodology. It is not a best college ranking or even an ROI ranking. It is a subjective return on expected earnings ranking. In the background, WSJ creates a score that effectively is subjective as it compares colleges to “peers” that have somewhat similar student intakes. So whatever objective raw score is factual, it is then turned subjective by this segmentation. Then all of the newly formed scores are compared against each other. I confirmed last year that this is what WSJ actually is doing. This is a flawed statistical method, and would not pass a first year college stats class if it was submitted for a grade.

Another poster likened it to competing in a major golf tournament where someone can apply their handicap whereas a full pro could not. Or, for baseball fans, think of it as WSJ saying the best Texas League baseball team should rank higher than a middling Major League team because the former is first in its class. No one would accept this. And yet, that is what WSJ is doing here.

Last year when it introduced the new methodology, I actually had a series of back and forth conversation with the two authors. They explained their methodology twice to me. I asked questions to make sure I understood it (I work in applied mathematics) and then challenged this objective to subjective to scoring to ranking approach. I then asked them to show me where my conclusions about their methodology was wrong. I was willing to learn something. I never heard back from them. In other words, I truly believe they realized that an actual statistician could easily show the massive flaws in their methodology. For a so-called college ranking methodology to not even be good enough to past muster in an intro college stats class is rather absurd.

It is a shame. Sticking the previously honorable WSJ brand to this untidy piece of work is a disservice to the reader and especially parents of students aiming to learn about colleges. The one thing the ranking is good for is how not to attempt statistical models and inference, and then try to cover your tracks.

After reading that, thousands of parents who had felt euphoric in seeing what they wanted to see in that piss-poor “ranking” are now on suicide watch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is what people should know related to the methodology. It is not a best college ranking or even an ROI ranking. It is a subjective return on expected earnings ranking. In the background, WSJ creates a score that effectively is subjective as it compares colleges to “peers” that have somewhat similar student intakes. So whatever objective raw score is factual, it is then turned subjective by this segmentation. Then all of the newly formed scores are compared against each other. I confirmed last year that this is what WSJ actually is doing. This is a flawed statistical method, and would not pass a first year college stats class if it was submitted for a grade.

Another poster likened it to competing in a major golf tournament where someone can apply their handicap whereas a full pro could not. Or, for baseball fans, think of it as WSJ saying the best Texas League baseball team should rank higher than a middling Major League team because the former is first in its class. No one would accept this. And yet, that is what WSJ is doing here.

Last year when it introduced the new methodology, I actually had a series of back and forth conversation with the two authors. They explained their methodology twice to me. I asked questions to make sure I understood it (I work in applied mathematics) and then challenged this objective to subjective to scoring to ranking approach. I then asked them to show me where my conclusions about their methodology was wrong. I was willing to learn something. I never heard back from them. In other words, I truly believe they realized that an actual statistician could easily show the massive flaws in their methodology. For a so-called college ranking methodology to not even be good enough to past muster in an intro college stats class is rather absurd.

It is a shame. Sticking the previously honorable WSJ brand to this untidy piece of work is a disservice to the reader and especially parents of students aiming to learn about colleges. The one thing the ranking is good for is how not to attempt statistical models and inference, and then try to cover your tracks.

So, you’re saying that you proved that they were wrong, but they doubled down and used the same methodology this year? I don’t believe you.

[Anonymous]

You do not have to believe me. They may have made some minor tweaks. I have not spoken to them this year. But the grand majority of the methodology clearly is the same, and I reckon I am not the only person to have had conversations with them about it.

People double-down on poorly thought out and executed processes all the time. CEOs do it, coaches do it, professors do it. It is a flaw with many humans. And if you were defending your job once you received lots of criticism with a “no, but we are right” defensive approach, that would not make you unique.