WSJ Rankings 2025

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I was searching for the best analogy to understand these rankings...and this is it.

It's not objectively saying University of Delaware kids on average have absolute better outcomes than kids from Brown. It's saying they punch above their weight for what the school is. So, they award Delaware all kinds of additional points to reflect its particular circumstances compared to Brown, and now apply some multiplier to their average salaries to make up for these deficiencies.

It's definitely an interesting take on college rankings, but they still don't make their methodology that clear to understand. Perhaps they could show their rankings with the raw data, indicate the multiplier they determined, and then show these rankings.

Agree. It's a list that shows which university (as you say) punches above their status. It doesn't mean that Towson is actually better than Duke, but that Towson grads do fairly well for graduating from a regional university like Towson, and Duke grads do as expected from graduating from Duke considering that most are from UMC to begin with. There's not as much room for SES movement for Duke grads as there are for Towson grads.

It's a good list for those who don't have the means or stats to go to your standard T50.

BINGO!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus, the navel gazing on this thread is so gross.

Newsflash: you can do anything from any school. No one cares once you're in college, so long as you do well and work hard. Hardly anyone has heard of my big, no-name midwestern U and it's certainly not any list in any meaningful rank. You know what? I've succeeded by every measure you people would use. And there are many people in my circle like me who didn't go to JHU, Duke, etc.

The only measure DCUM people use is the name of your college. If you can't figure even that out, your no-name school did not educate you properly.

I'm not sure the point of your post, actually. Just to be a bi---ch, clearly was intent number 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus, the navel gazing on this thread is so gross.

Newsflash: you can do anything from any school. No one cares once you're in college, so long as you do well and work hard. Hardly anyone has heard of my big, no-name midwestern U and it's certainly not any list in any meaningful rank. You know what? I've succeeded by every measure you people would use. And there are many people in my circle like me who didn't go to JHU, Duke, etc.

I went to no name state u that's on the list, and I think I'm fairly successful (making six figures for the past 20 years), but going to a top school gives you the edge that going to a no name doesn't. The number of grads from a T20 making six figures is far far higher than those graduating from a T75 to T100.

Big companies that pay well don't recruit at the T75 to T100. I got to where I am at with a combination of hard work, smarts and luck, being at the right place at the right time.

That's not to say that I push my kids to go to T20. My one kid is at the state flagship with merit, and the other will probably go to a T75. They will do fine as long as they work hard, but the road to get to their destination may take longer than for those who get their start at a T20.

Going to T20 is basically like being born with a silver spoon in your mouth (which many who go to elite expensive colleges are) vs being born to a middle class family. Both can reach millionaire status but it will take the middle class grad longer to get there.

I'm the PP you're responding to and, honestly, I just don't think this is the case anymore. It is certainly not the case among the people I went to school with, my peers, etc. We joke about how the Radford grad (as one example of a friend) supervises and far outpaces his ivy subordinates in terms of salary. OFC that is only one example. The point is, if you do well enough, those alleged ivy/top 20 intangibles really don't mean as much. And the rich kids with connections would have had them regardless of what school they went to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Initially I was puzzled with some of the ratings in the various categories, until I realized that they are based on actual data vs expectations, where if the data outperforms the expectations, they receive a higher rating. I was looking specifically at graduation rate and was initially surprised to see higher grad ratings on some of the schools where I knew they were lower.

I actually like this balanced approach. I think looking at both this ranking and USNWR would be a good way to evaluate a school. I also like the New York Times tool, where you can set your own parameters. You can learn a lot from these three platforms.

No, it's like measuring your schwantz from the floor up. Does not give an accurate measurement of what it claims to. It's data, not information.

Sorry you are not happy with the results of your school that sunk in the rankings. Signed, mom of kid whose kid's school is in top 20 for both USNWR and WSJ.

+ a million
The PP is no different than a spoiled kid throwing a tantrum. Absolutely insufferable.

You are the one whining, and you are agreeing the the PP who went to ad hominem attacks with no salient point.

You also didn't read the response to the post which showed the PP's accusation was incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Initially I was puzzled with some of the ratings in the various categories, until I realized that they are based on actual data vs expectations, where if the data outperforms the expectations, they receive a higher rating. I was looking specifically at graduation rate and was initially surprised to see higher grad ratings on some of the schools where I knew they were lower.

I actually like this balanced approach. I think looking at both this ranking and USNWR would be a good way to evaluate a school. I also like the New York Times tool, where you can set your own parameters. You can learn a lot from these three platforms.

No, it's like measuring your schwantz from the floor up. Does not give an accurate measurement of what it claims to. It's data, not information.

Sorry you are not happy with the results of your school that sunk in the rankings. Signed, mom of kid whose kid's school is in top 20 for both USNWR and WSJ.

USN rankings mean nothing, and these WSJ rankings mean less than nothing. Not one human being on the planet will make a college selection based on them. Insults and adhoms indicate you know you have weak tea.

Signed parent of one Ivy kid w undergrad degree currently getting grad degree at different Ivy and second kid w NESCAC degree but bragging is for aholes.

DP. Speaking of aholes… it’s funny that you say something as patently false as “rankings mean nothing.” If they truly mean nothing, you wouldn’t be here writing screed after hysterical screed. Meanwhile, millions of families will continue to use rankings as part of their college selection process.

Do continue seething!

OK anyone with a brain knew I meant "rankings mean nothing SUBSTANTIVE" and not "no one cares about rankings", so nice strawman there.

I know USN ranking are used by people. Other than for discovery, they should not be. This is a common opinion. Not one person will use this WSJ list for anything except confirmation bias. If they do, and choose Babson over Harvard... would you say that's a good objective decision?

Answer please. Specifically, with a YES or NO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Initially I was puzzled with some of the ratings in the various categories, until I realized that they are based on actual data vs expectations, where if the data outperforms the expectations, they receive a higher rating. I was looking specifically at graduation rate and was initially surprised to see higher grad ratings on some of the schools where I knew they were lower.

I actually like this balanced approach. I think looking at both this ranking and USNWR would be a good way to evaluate a school. I also like the New York Times tool, where you can set your own parameters. You can learn a lot from these three platforms.

No, it's like measuring your schwantz from the floor up. Does not give an accurate measurement of what it claims to. It's data, not information.

Sorry you are not happy with the results of your school that sunk in the rankings. Signed, mom of kid whose kid's school is in top 20 for both USNWR and WSJ.

USN rankings mean nothing, and these WSJ rankings mean less than nothing. Not one human being on the planet will make a college selection based on them. Insults and adhoms indicate you know you have weak tea.

Signed parent of one Ivy kid w undergrad degree currently getting grad degree at different Ivy and second kid w NESCAC degree but bragging is for aholes.

DP. Speaking of aholes… it’s funny that you say something as patently false as “rankings mean nothing.” If they truly mean nothing, you wouldn’t be here writing screed after hysterical screed. Meanwhile, millions of families will continue to use rankings as part of their college selection process.

Do continue seething!

OK anyone with a brain knew I meant "rankings mean nothing SUBSTANTIVE" and not "no one cares about rankings", so nice strawman there.

I know USN ranking are used by people. Other than for discovery, they should not be. This is a common opinion. Not one person will use this WSJ list for anything except confirmation bias. If they do, and choose Babson over Harvard... would you say that's a good objective decision?

Answer please. Specifically, with a YES or NO.

DP... it depends.

[Anonymous]

Serious question, even does anyone believe- even for one second-that there are 270 schools better than NYU?

If not, then these rankings are bile and trash, assembled merely to get a Barnum-like reaction from the masses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Initially I was puzzled with some of the ratings in the various categories, until I realized that they are based on actual data vs expectations, where if the data outperforms the expectations, they receive a higher rating. I was looking specifically at graduation rate and was initially surprised to see higher grad ratings on some of the schools where I knew they were lower.

I actually like this balanced approach. I think looking at both this ranking and USNWR would be a good way to evaluate a school. I also like the New York Times tool, where you can set your own parameters. You can learn a lot from these three platforms.

No, it's like measuring your schwantz from the floor up. Does not give an accurate measurement of what it claims to. It's data, not information.

Sorry you are not happy with the results of your school that sunk in the rankings. Signed, mom of kid whose kid's school is in top 20 for both USNWR and WSJ.

USN rankings mean nothing, and these WSJ rankings mean less than nothing. Not one human being on the planet will make a college selection based on them. Insults and adhoms indicate you know you have weak tea.

Signed parent of one Ivy kid w undergrad degree currently getting grad degree at different Ivy and second kid w NESCAC degree but bragging is for aholes.

DP. Speaking of aholes… it’s funny that you say something as patently false as “rankings mean nothing.” If they truly mean nothing, you wouldn’t be here writing screed after hysterical screed. Meanwhile, millions of families will continue to use rankings as part of their college selection process.

Do continue seething!

OK anyone with a brain knew I meant "rankings mean nothing SUBSTANTIVE" and not "no one cares about rankings", so nice strawman there.

I know USN ranking are used by people. Other than for discovery, they should not be. This is a common opinion. Not one person will use this WSJ list for anything except confirmation bias. If they do, and choose Babson over Harvard... would you say that's a good objective decision?

Answer please. Specifically, with a YES or NO.

DP... it depends.

You're accepted to both. Same cost. Name me the scenario where the rankings would have you choose Babson over Harvard. Please.

Or, you could stop wasting time with BS and admit the fact that these are particulaly useless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Serious question, even does anyone believe- even for one second-that there are 270 schools better than NYU?

If not, then these rankings are bile and trash, assembled merely to get a Barnum-like reaction from the masses.

It's not that they are trash...it's that their ranking methodology is drastically different than other rankings and they really don't give a good explanation how they are different.

As an example, University of Delaware (#24) gets a graduation rate ranking of 96/100 while Duke (#45) gets a graduation rate ranking of 77/100.

On the surface, it implies that Delaware kids graduate in 4 years at a much higher rate than Duke kids...which most people think sounds crazy. Well, it is crazy. Duke's 4-year graduation rate is 95% while Delaware's is 73%. So, how does Delaware score a 96 while Duke scores a 77? In theory, it's because Duke should have the same graduation rate of Princeton (at 99%) because the kids have similar test scores and demographics. Yet, it doesn't...it's 4 percentage points lower.

On the flip side, Delaware should have a graduation rate that their statisticians believe should be much lower than 73% based on the test scores and other demographics of their students. In fact, it is much higher so they get rewarded for this fact.

Again, these are useful rankings...but the methodology is quite confusing and not well explained.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question, even does anyone believe- even for one second-that there are 270 schools better than NYU?

If not, then these rankings are bile and trash, assembled merely to get a Barnum-like reaction from the masses.

It's not that they are trash...it's that their ranking methodology is drastically different than other rankings and they really don't give a good explanation how they are different.

As an example, University of Delaware (#24) gets a graduation rate ranking of 96/100 while Duke (#45) gets a graduation rate ranking of 77/100.

On the surface, it implies that Delaware kids graduate in 4 years at a much higher rate than Duke kids...which most people think sounds crazy. Well, it is crazy. Duke's 4-year graduation rate is 95% while Delaware's is 73%. So, how does Delaware score a 96 while Duke scores a 77? In theory, it's because Duke should have the same graduation rate of Princeton (at 99%) because the kids have similar test scores and demographics. Yet, it doesn't...it's 4 percentage points lower.

On the flip side, Delaware should have a graduation rate that their statisticians believe should be much lower than 73% based on the test scores and other demographics of their students. In fact, it is much higher so they get rewarded for this fact.

Again, these are useful rankings...but the methodology is quite confusing and not well explained.

Delaware is a much much easier school than Duke. This should be considered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duke at 45, should be enough to show how dumb this ranking is. This thread shouldn't be this long.

Duke in the top ten shows how dumb USNWR rankings are. The student body is more impressive than the departmental rankings.

Exactly! The top schools are typically old money schools where the offspring of the top 5% trade connections and schools flatter their egos. The WSJ rankings are great for families who can’t pay $400k for an undergrad degree.

All I can tell you is that for HPY offered a much more generous financial aid package than UMaryland

[Anonymous]

HPYSM are all in the top 10. Apparently, even though their students are really smart and expected outcomes are high, the schools still punch above their weight.

Now, the whiners need to explain why their pet private isn’t doing the same. In fact, some privates are but no one wants to talk about them because they’re not the “coveted” NE SLAC or Ivy. Sorry, but you have some explaining/reconsideration to do.

[Anonymous]

Adding more insult to injury, if you’re full pay at some of these privates, your payback period is far longer than calculated in these rankings. That means your school is even lower in your “personal” rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People might be misinterpreting these results. As I understand it, the ranking shows which schools produce the biggest bang (outcomes) for the buck (cost minus aid), essentially a ROI, with a few other measures too (30%). So, if the average cost to attend is high, even good outcomes are significantly offset. On the other hand, if the average cost to attend is low, just a better-than-average outcome would rank the school highly. So, it’s the balance of the two that gets a school highly ranked.

This is the way I read it as well. I have kids at two of the schools, and the normally much higher-ranked one is ranked well below the other school. But the WSJ lower-ranked school is much more expensive. At least initially, the kid going there will make much less money than the one at the better-ranked (by WSJ) university, at least initially.

I am confused…are you saying your kid at the expensive school is going to make less money than the kid at the cheaper school?

I read this to say that a kid from NYU may make a ton more than a kid from University of Delaware, but NYU costs a fortune and gives little aid so the payback period is longer (and hence the lower ranking).

Your situation seems to justify the WSJ ranking.

Yes, that is what I am saying. More expensive school is ranked lower here. The kid at the higher ranked, less expensive school is in a pre-professional major and walk out the door making really good money with the option of continuing their education with an advanced degree. The other kid at the WSJ lower ranked school will get a job that they already certified to do now but cannot enter their career field until they finish graduate school which requires significant clinical hours. The lower-ranked school does not have the same pre-professional orientation as the higher (WSJ)-ranked one, which is fine because they are going into two different career tracks in the same general field
Assuming they both complete grad school, they will eventually make comparable salaries but the (again one attending the higher WSJ-ranked college) will have several years in the field working making nearly double what their sibling will be making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Initially I was puzzled with some of the ratings in the various categories, until I realized that they are based on actual data vs expectations, where if the data outperforms the expectations, they receive a higher rating. I was looking specifically at graduation rate and was initially surprised to see higher grad ratings on some of the schools where I knew they were lower.

I actually like this balanced approach. I think looking at both this ranking and USNWR would be a good way to evaluate a school. I also like the New York Times tool, where you can set your own parameters. You can learn a lot from these three platforms.

No, it's like measuring your schwantz from the floor up. Does not give an accurate measurement of what it claims to. It's data, not information.

Sorry you are not happy with the results of your school that sunk in the rankings. Signed, mom of kid whose kid's school is in top 20 for both USNWR and WSJ.

+ a million
The PP is no different than a spoiled kid throwing a tantrum. Absolutely insufferable.

You are the one whining, and you are agreeing the the PP who went to ad hominem attacks with no salient point.

You also didn't read the response to the post which showed the PP's accusation was incorrect.

There was no ad hominem attack. You're just incredibly angry because your school (or your kid's school) is low, low, low on this list and you feel entitled to a high ranking. *Shrug*