WSJ Rankings 2025

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

These small lists of universities and colleges seem like a good place to focus one’s energies. Maybe expand it to the overlap of top 50 of both rankings.

[Anonymous]

Who decided top 20 is the cutoff for elite schools? It used to be top 25.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain how Claremont McKenna is so high and Pomona is so low? Are they really that different? I’ve read the whole thread and the methodology - and as a Colgate alum I’m happy with my college’s placement - but I still think this list is weird.

These schools are extremely different. Pomona is modelled as a West Coast Dartmouth. It produces a high percentage that go on to do PhDs. CMC has preparing for the professions in the mission statement. The school frames the experience so the kids are focused on going for MBB/finance. The school does an amazing job of framing the experience around that objective. Many successful entrepreneurs value this, so the student body tends to be well connected, and the school incorporates this into its network as much as alums. Ultimately, the outcomes are amazing & the CMC network appreciates this, in turn setting records for SLAC fundraisings for the entire country (over $1bn raised in last fund raising drive).

So if your methodology is ROI, it goes to CMC. If it’s PhD, you then it goes to Pomona.

Pomona scores very low on salary impact compared to CMC…however, salary impact only looks at kids getting jobs. There are no points detracted for kids that go to grad school.

This implies Pomona grads take very different jobs vs CMC grads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+ 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.

You know exactly where your kids' schools rank on both the USN and WSJ lists. Please.

No, I don't, and I did not look them up. If you had read the thread, my kids both have their undergrad degrees and one is in grad school. No reason to look them up now.

Why is that so important to you that you won't let it go? Why am I in your head? Focus on the facts and the lists and lets leave personal stuff out of it, OK?

NP, but the sense I get is that YOU have a hard time letting it go...and I agree with the PP that based on the multiple comments you have made on this thread, there is no way you did not look up your kids' schools lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain how Claremont McKenna is so high and Pomona is so low? Are they really that different? I’ve read the whole thread and the methodology - and as a Colgate alum I’m happy with my college’s placement - but I still think this list is weird.

These schools are extremely different. Pomona is modelled as a West Coast Dartmouth. It produces a high percentage that go on to do PhDs. CMC has preparing for the professions in the mission statement. The school frames the experience so the kids are focused on going for MBB/finance. The school does an amazing job of framing the experience around that objective. Many successful entrepreneurs value this, so the student body tends to be well connected, and the school incorporates this into its network as much as alums. Ultimately, the outcomes are amazing & the CMC network appreciates this, in turn setting records for SLAC fundraisings for the entire country (over $1bn raised in last fund raising drive).

So if your methodology is ROI, it goes to CMC. If it’s PhD, you then it goes to Pomona.

Pomona scores very low on salary impact compared to CMC…however, salary impact only looks at kids getting jobs. There are no points detracted for kids that go to grad school.

This implies Pomona grads take very different jobs vs CMC grads.

Pomona has very academic kids. CMC has business and finance kids. Dartmouth is like those two schools put together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who decided top 20 is the cutoff for elite schools? It used to be top 25.

It still is. When some publics finally became T20, some people decided to change the criteria.
.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain how Claremont McKenna is so high and Pomona is so low? Are they really that different? I’ve read the whole thread and the methodology - and as a Colgate alum I’m happy with my college’s placement - but I still think this list is weird.

These schools are extremely different. Pomona is modelled as a West Coast Dartmouth. It produces a high percentage that go on to do PhDs. CMC has preparing for the professions in the mission statement. The school frames the experience so the kids are focused on going for MBB/finance. The school does an amazing job of framing the experience around that objective. Many successful entrepreneurs value this, so the student body tends to be well connected, and the school incorporates this into its network as much as alums. Ultimately, the outcomes are amazing & the CMC network appreciates this, in turn setting records for SLAC fundraisings for the entire country (over $1bn raised in last fund raising drive).

So if your methodology is ROI, it goes to CMC. If it’s PhD, you then it goes to Pomona.

Pomona scores very low on salary impact compared to CMC…however, salary impact only looks at kids getting jobs. There are no points detracted for kids that go to grad school.

This implies Pomona grads take very different jobs vs CMC grads.

Pomona has very academic kids. CMC has business and finance kids. Dartmouth is like those two schools put together.

What does that mean from a job perspective? Pomona kids that go into the workforce take jobs at NPOs or where?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:to be fair, Amherst doesn't have great outcomes, pay-wise

But the methodology did not make clear how far out they look at income earnings. Students from Amherst could be going for a PhD or medical school, so high earnings may not start until after 10 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:to be fair, Amherst doesn't have great outcomes, pay-wise

But the methodology did not make clear how far out they look at income earnings. Students from Amherst could be going for a PhD or medical school, so high earnings may not start until after 10 years.

They don’t penalize for grad school. They look at what kids are earning that go into the workforce.

Can’t imagine Swarthmore (35), Colby (60) and others look any different in terms of pursuing a PhD or what not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain how Claremont McKenna is so high and Pomona is so low? Are they really that different? I’ve read the whole thread and the methodology - and as a Colgate alum I’m happy with my college’s placement - but I still think this list is weird.

These schools are extremely different. Pomona is modelled as a West Coast Dartmouth. It produces a high percentage that go on to do PhDs. CMC has preparing for the professions in the mission statement. The school frames the experience so the kids are focused on going for MBB/finance. The school does an amazing job of framing the experience around that objective. Many successful entrepreneurs value this, so the student body tends to be well connected, and the school incorporates this into its network as much as alums. Ultimately, the outcomes are amazing & the CMC network appreciates this, in turn setting records for SLAC fundraisings for the entire country (over $1bn raised in last fund raising drive).

So if your methodology is ROI, it goes to CMC. If it’s PhD, you then it goes to Pomona.

Pomona scores very low on salary impact compared to CMC…however, salary impact only looks at kids getting jobs. There are no points detracted for kids that go to grad school.

This implies Pomona grads take very different jobs vs CMC grads.

Pomona has very academic kids. CMC has business and finance kids. Dartmouth is like those two schools put together.

What does that mean from a job perspective? Pomona kids that go into the workforce take jobs at NPOs or where?

Many Pomona kids go to grad school, medical school, or law school. The Pomona grads that go into the workforce go to different companies, not just NPOs. A CS major can go to a tech company, for example. I have heard that Swarthmore is very similar to Pomona and also like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain how Claremont McKenna is so high and Pomona is so low? Are they really that different? I’ve read the whole thread and the methodology - and as a Colgate alum I’m happy with my college’s placement - but I still think this list is weird.

These schools are extremely different. Pomona is modelled as a West Coast Dartmouth. It produces a high percentage that go on to do PhDs. CMC has preparing for the professions in the mission statement. The school frames the experience so the kids are focused on going for MBB/finance. The school does an amazing job of framing the experience around that objective. Many successful entrepreneurs value this, so the student body tends to be well connected, and the school incorporates this into its network as much as alums. Ultimately, the outcomes are amazing & the CMC network appreciates this, in turn setting records for SLAC fundraisings for the entire country (over $1bn raised in last fund raising drive).

So if your methodology is ROI, it goes to CMC. If it’s PhD, you then it goes to Pomona.

Pomona scores very low on salary impact compared to CMC…however, salary impact only looks at kids getting jobs. There are no points detracted for kids that go to grad school.

This implies Pomona grads take very different jobs vs CMC grads.

Pomona has very academic kids. CMC has business and finance kids. Dartmouth is like those two schools put together.

What does that mean from a job perspective? Pomona kids that go into the workforce take jobs at NPOs or where?

Many Pomona kids go to grad school, medical school, or law school. The Pomona grads that go into the workforce go to different companies, not just NPOs. A CS major can go to a tech company, for example. I have heard that Swarthmore is very similar to Pomona and also like this.

So why does Pomona tank on the salary score? Again, they are comparing apples to apples of kids that get jobs.

Everyone…the WSJ doesn’t care about kids going to grad school…they aren’t saying 2/3 earn X and 1/3 earn $0 (because they go to grad school).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain how Claremont McKenna is so high and Pomona is so low? Are they really that different? I’ve read the whole thread and the methodology - and as a Colgate alum I’m happy with my college’s placement - but I still think this list is weird.

These schools are extremely different. Pomona is modelled as a West Coast Dartmouth. It produces a high percentage that go on to do PhDs. CMC has preparing for the professions in the mission statement. The school frames the experience so the kids are focused on going for MBB/finance. The school does an amazing job of framing the experience around that objective. Many successful entrepreneurs value this, so the student body tends to be well connected, and the school incorporates this into its network as much as alums. Ultimately, the outcomes are amazing & the CMC network appreciates this, in turn setting records for SLAC fundraisings for the entire country (over $1bn raised in last fund raising drive).

So if your methodology is ROI, it goes to CMC. If it’s PhD, you then it goes to Pomona.

Pomona scores very low on salary impact compared to CMC…however, salary impact only looks at kids getting jobs. There are no points detracted for kids that go to grad school.

This implies Pomona grads take very different jobs vs CMC grads.

Pomona has very academic kids. CMC has business and finance kids. Dartmouth is like those two schools put together.

What does that mean from a job perspective? Pomona kids that go into the workforce take jobs at NPOs or where?

Many Pomona kids go to grad school, medical school, or law school. The Pomona grads that go into the workforce go to different companies, not just NPOs. A CS major can go to a tech company, for example. I have heard that Swarthmore is very similar to Pomona and also like this.

So why is Swarthmore ranked 35 and Pomona 170?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain how Claremont McKenna is so high and Pomona is so low? Are they really that different? I’ve read the whole thread and the methodology - and as a Colgate alum I’m happy with my college’s placement - but I still think this list is weird.

These schools are extremely different. Pomona is modelled as a West Coast Dartmouth. It produces a high percentage that go on to do PhDs. CMC has preparing for the professions in the mission statement. The school frames the experience so the kids are focused on going for MBB/finance. The school does an amazing job of framing the experience around that objective. Many successful entrepreneurs value this, so the student body tends to be well connected, and the school incorporates this into its network as much as alums. Ultimately, the outcomes are amazing & the CMC network appreciates this, in turn setting records for SLAC fundraisings for the entire country (over $1bn raised in last fund raising drive).

So if your methodology is ROI, it goes to CMC. If it’s PhD, you then it goes to Pomona.

Pomona scores very low on salary impact compared to CMC…however, salary impact only looks at kids getting jobs. There are no points detracted for kids that go to grad school.

This implies Pomona grads take very different jobs vs CMC grads.

Pomona has very academic kids. CMC has business and finance kids. Dartmouth is like those two schools put together.

What does that mean from a job perspective? Pomona kids that go into the workforce take jobs at NPOs or where?

Many Pomona kids go to grad school, medical school, or law school. The Pomona grads that go into the workforce go to different companies, not just NPOs. A CS major can go to a tech company, for example. I have heard that Swarthmore is very similar to Pomona and also like this.

So why is Swarthmore ranked 35 and Pomona 170?

Sorry…191

[Anonymous]

All great SLACs send lots of kids to PhDs. Swarthmore is probably the king of that, yet they rate significantly higher than Amherst and Williams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All great SLACs send lots of kids to PhDs. Swarthmore is probably the king of that, yet they rate significantly higher than Amherst and Williams.

We have too many useless Ph.Ds in this country.