WSJ Rankings 2025

[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.

I've bolded your actual words. As for Babson vs. Harvard, that's entirely up to the individual - why would it bother you if someone chose Babson over Harvard? How does that affect you in any way? Perhaps that's the best decision FOR THEM. So my answer is a YES.

Look, your posts are all over this thread. You are extremely upset about these rankings because they don't show your favored school in a good light. Get over it.

[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.

What, exactly, is special about NYU? Other than its price tag?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

+100
As another poster said, you can tell which schools are really the best because they appear in the T-50 on USNWR *and* on this list - which measures outcomes. Frankly, I'm most interested in outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly. I'm interested in schools which offer the most bang for my buck, and are also highly ranked in other areas. So if you compare the top 50-100 (or so) schools on BOTH lists, that should give you a very good idea of which are truly excellent.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

+100
As another poster said, you can tell which schools are really the best because they appear in the T-50 on USNWR *and* on this list - which measures outcomes. Frankly, I'm most interested in outcomes.

If all you care about is outcomes then look at how the WSJ ranks by outcomes only…the other metrics on diversity and student life are irrelevant to that.

The list is actually quite different if you just look at rankings by salary. As an example, Caltech is 6th vs 39th overall. Yale is 18 vs 4th overall. Carnegie Mellon is 10 vs 56th overall.

[Anonymous]

College rankings have gone downhill in general, but the WSJ college ranking are particularly bad. They use all sorts of variables unrelated to the quality of the student body and quality of the actual university. Social mobility, low income students, etc, are completely unrelated to the actual quality of the educational institution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:College rankings have gone downhill in general, but the WSJ college ranking are particularly bad. They use all sorts of variables unrelated to the quality of the student body and quality of the actual university. Social mobility, low income students, etc, are completely unrelated to the actual quality of the educational institution.

The bolded makes up only 1.7% of these rankings. Student outcomes and Learning environment - both of which incorrectly claim are unrelated to these rankings - make up 90%.

[Anonymous]

*you incorrectly claim

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly. I'm interested in schools which offer the most bang for my buck, and are also highly ranked in other areas. So if you compare the top 50-100 (or so) schools on BOTH lists, that should give you a very good idea of which are truly excellent.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities

Exactly...I pointed out earlier, as well, that there are 9 schools that are top 20 on both WSJ and USNWR. These schools clearly have something going for them to be ranked high on both lists. Agree that finding top 50 schools that overlap is probably a good thing to look at...but I don't have the energy to go through that exercise.

Princeton
Stanford
Yale
MIT
Harvard
Berkeley
Penn
Columbia
Notre Dame

[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.

+ 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*

Wow you can't read.

There certainly was an ad hominem attack - an accusation that I was angry about my kids schools ranking as the reason for the post. That is the definition of ad hominem, attacking the messenger and not the message.

And you didn't read the second part either where I mentioned where my kids went to school, and I have no idea where they rank on the WSJ list and only a vague idea on USN.

Nobody's angry.

These ranking are useless.

[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.

I've bolded your actual words. As for Babson vs. Harvard, that's entirely up to the individual - why would it bother you if someone chose Babson over Harvard? How does that affect you in any way? Perhaps that's the best decision FOR THEM. So my answer is a YES.

You are the person who supports choosing Babson over Harvard. Not Hamilton over Harvard, or Amherst, but Babson. And you couldn't even think of one reason to mention how Babson would be better for them.

I rest my case.

Look, your posts are all over this thread. You are extremely upset about these rankings because they don't show your favored school in a good light. Get over it.

No, completely wrong, I could not care less where my kids schools are ranked on this or any other list. This list is useless.

BTW, I have fewer posts in this thread than you think. You are confusing multiple posters who think your position is preposterous.

Also what does it mean that you "bolded my words"? Do you have a point there? Maybe you should, I don't know, make it?

This list is preposterous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's the point of the list.

Wealthy connected students will do well no matter where they go, so universities like Duke aren't that high on the list. They don't punch above their weight.

But, being born on 3rd base is like going to a T20. For those who aren't born on 3rd base, going to a T20 can be life altering because of the connections they will make and the recruiters that they are exposed to at those colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly. I'm interested in schools which offer the most bang for my buck, and are also highly ranked in other areas. So if you compare the top 50-100 (or so) schools on BOTH lists, that should give you a very good idea of which are truly excellent.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities

Exactly...I pointed out earlier, as well, that there are 9 schools that are top 20 on both WSJ and USNWR. These schools clearly have something going for them to be ranked high on both lists. Agree that finding top 50 schools that overlap is probably a good thing to look at...but I don't have the energy to go through that exercise.

Princeton
Stanford
Yale
MIT
Harvard
Berkeley
Penn
Columbia
Notre Dame

Might as well add the schools that are top 20 on WSJ and USNWR’s Liberal Arts Colleges:

Claremont McKenna
Davidson
Harvey Mudd

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Because they can afford to, while most of the other students pay $80K+ per year, while most students at UMD pay like $30K per year.

[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.

What, exactly, is special about NYU? Other than its price tag?

Curious why a school with an acceptance rate below 10%, and is so hugely popular, suddenly became an overpriced community college? Are all those students applying to it not counted in how good a school is? You would think according to free market principles that how good a school is can be judged by the demand for the school. But I guess the WSJ doesn't believe in supply and demand and basic economic theory.