WSJ Rankings 2025

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only nine of the top 20 USNWR made top 20 on this list.

Princeton
Stanford
Yale
MIT
Harvard
Berkeley
Penn
Columbia
Notre Dame

OK had a bit of time to cross reference the top 50 USNWR.

Those USNWR top 50 that made WSJ top 50:

Princeton
MIT
Harvard
Stanford
Yale
Penn
Cal Tech
Duke
Brown
Cornell
Columbia
Berkeley
Rice
Vanderbilt
Notre Dame
Michigan
Georgetown
Wash U
UVA
USC
UC San Diego
UC Davis
UT Austin
UC Irvine
Gtech

Those USNWR top 50 that didn't make top 50 WSJ and along with their WSJ rank:

Hopkins 92
Northwestern 62
Chicago 75
UCLA 79
Dartmouth 57
UNC 59
Emory 103
CMU 56
U Florida 83
NYU 273
UC Santa Barbara 179
Wisconsin 73
U Illinois 53
Boston College 100
Wake Forest 137
U Rochester 316
William and Mary 178
Brandeis 335
Case Western 224
Tulane 451
Northeastern 168
U Georgia 151
Ohio State 329

You omitted Lehigh -- #47 in USNWR, #15 in WSJ.

PP also omitted Virginia Tech - #47 and #19, respectively. I think PP has an agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like the idea of looking at alumni salaries. These are understandably important metrics for most people. However, I noticed that when you sort the list by salary, it jumps all over the place. There isn't a good correlation between the ranking and the salary metric. Which is interesting because from the desperate way some parents talk about college admissions, you'd think their kids will end up destitute unless they get into a t25/t50 school. These metrics should reassure everyone that the school brand doesn't have that much of an effect on financial attainment.

Bingo. This is exactly the point of this list and I for one am happy to see it. It’s something my spouse and I have discussed a lot and it’s quite interesting to see it in print.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of my favorite parts is that Chicago ranks only 0.1 points higher than…. George Mason!

GMU, the undiscovered gem in our backyard…

I get the sarcasm, but it's probably not as true as the snark here implies. It's become quite a good school over the past three decades or so, and many more of our kids would be looking at it as a great option if it wasn't in their backyard/too close to home. Probably true of all the DC area schools for long-term residents of the area. We take them for granted more than we should.

And no, none of my kids gave any of the DC area schools any consideration whatsoever either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1. As stated, you are likely confusing multiple posters
2. As stated, no I did not look them up, and don’t care to. Unusual that you are applying that to me as a pejorative when you are the one who has done so.
3. I am talking about the virtues (or lack thereof) of this ranking, and you are talking ABOUT ME. That is weird, creepy, and honestly a bit disturbing. I don’t get it. I am respectfully asking yet again for you to leave personal attacks out of it.

DP. Do you know what “NP” (and DP) mean? It is you who is confusing posters. And anyone participating on this thread has obviously looked up their own kids’ schools.

WTF are you talking about? Your post explicitly refers to me - it has "YOU" in caps, right after the NP I did in fact see: "NP, but the sense I get is that YOU have a hard time letting it go". And the thread you replied to has the things you didn't read.

You are weird and creepy. Both of you, if that makes you happier. Leave me alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of my favorite parts is that Chicago ranks only 0.1 points higher than…. George Mason!

GMU, the undiscovered gem in our backyard…

I get the sarcasm, but it's probably not as true as the snark here implies. It's become quite a good school over the past three decades or so, and many more of our kids would be looking at it as a great option if it wasn't in their backyard/too close to home. Probably true of all the DC area schools for long-term residents of the area. We take them for granted more than we should.

And no, none of my kids gave any of the DC area schools any consideration whatsoever either.

+100
No doubt kids who live near other schools also take them for granted and don’t want to attend. I know my niece had no desire whatsoever to go to UMD because they live ten minutes away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the idea of looking at alumni salaries. These are understandably important metrics for most people. However, I noticed that when you sort the list by salary, it jumps all over the place. There isn't a good correlation between the ranking and the salary metric. Which is interesting because from the desperate way some parents talk about college admissions, you'd think their kids will end up destitute unless they get into a t25/t50 school. These metrics should reassure everyone that the school brand doesn't have that much of an effect on financial attainment.

Bingo. This is exactly the point of this list and I for one am happy to see it. It’s something my spouse and I have discussed a lot and it’s quite interesting to see it in print.

Best wishes at Babson! I’m sure the total estimated annual cost of $82,126 will be worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1. As stated, you are likely confusing multiple posters
2. As stated, no I did not look them up, and don’t care to. Unusual that you are applying that to me as a pejorative when you are the one who has done so.
3. I am talking about the virtues (or lack thereof) of this ranking, and you are talking ABOUT ME. That is weird, creepy, and honestly a bit disturbing. I don’t get it. I am respectfully asking yet again for you to leave personal attacks out of it.

DP. Do you know what “NP” (and DP) mean? It is you who is confusing posters. And anyone participating on this thread has obviously looked up their own kids’ schools.

WTF are you talking about? Your post explicitly refers to me - it has "YOU" in caps, right after the NP I did in fact see: "NP, but the sense I get is that YOU have a hard time letting it go". And the thread you replied to has the things you didn't read.

You are weird and creepy. Both of you, if that makes you happier. Leave me alone.

My god, you are dense. The person who wrote “YOU” is a “new poster.” I’ll just leave it at that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the idea of looking at alumni salaries. These are understandably important metrics for most people. However, I noticed that when you sort the list by salary, it jumps all over the place. There isn't a good correlation between the ranking and the salary metric. Which is interesting because from the desperate way some parents talk about college admissions, you'd think their kids will end up destitute unless they get into a t25/t50 school. These metrics should reassure everyone that the school brand doesn't have that much of an effect on financial attainment.

Bingo. This is exactly the point of this list and I for one am happy to see it. It’s something my spouse and I have discussed a lot and it’s quite interesting to see it in print.

Best wishes at Babson! I’m sure the total estimated annual cost of $82,126 will be worth it.

Or there’s always Claremont McKenna for $91,510 if you have another $10k to spare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the idea of looking at alumni salaries. These are understandably important metrics for most people. However, I noticed that when you sort the list by salary, it jumps all over the place. There isn't a good correlation between the ranking and the salary metric. Which is interesting because from the desperate way some parents talk about college admissions, you'd think their kids will end up destitute unless they get into a t25/t50 school. These metrics should reassure everyone that the school brand doesn't have that much of an effect on financial attainment.

Bingo. This is exactly the point of this list and I for one am happy to see it. It’s something my spouse and I have discussed a lot and it’s quite interesting to see it in print.

Best wishes at Babson! I’m sure the total estimated annual cost of $82,126 will be worth it.

Not sure why Babson, a school with a 22% acceptance rate angers you so much, but you do you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of my favorite parts is that Chicago ranks only 0.1 points higher than…. George Mason!

GMU, the undiscovered gem in our backyard…

I get the sarcasm, but it's probably not as true as the snark here implies. It's become quite a good school over the past three decades or so, and many more of our kids would be looking at it as a great option if it wasn't in their backyard/too close to home. Probably true of all the DC area schools for long-term residents of the area. We take them for granted more than we should.

And no, none of my kids gave any of the DC area schools any consideration whatsoever either.

What’s more interesting is if you just see how Mason ranks on salary it is #38 vs #112 for Chicago.

An even larger differential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only nine of the top 20 USNWR made top 20 on this list.

Princeton
Stanford
Yale
MIT
Harvard
Berkeley
Penn
Columbia
Notre Dame

OK had a bit of time to cross reference the top 50 USNWR.

Those USNWR top 50 that made WSJ top 50:

Princeton
MIT
Harvard
Stanford
Yale
Penn
Cal Tech
Duke
Brown
Cornell
Columbia
Berkeley
Rice
Vanderbilt
Notre Dame
Lehigh
Virginia Tech
Michigan
Georgetown
Wash U
UVA
USC
UC San Diego
UC Davis
UT Austin
UC Irvine
Gtech

Those USNWR top 50 that didn't make top 50 WSJ and along with their WSJ rank:

Hopkins 92
Northwestern 62
Chicago 75
UCLA 79
Dartmouth 57
UNC 59
Emory 103
CMU 56
U Florida 83
NYU 273
UC Santa Barbara 179
Wisconsin 73
U Illinois 53
Boston College 100
Wake Forest 137
U Rochester 316
William and Mary 178
Brandeis 335
Case Western 224
Tulane 451
Northeastern 168
U Georgia 151
Ohio State 329

FIFY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1. As stated, you are likely confusing multiple posters
2. As stated, no I did not look them up, and don’t care to. Unusual that you are applying that to me as a pejorative when you are the one who has done so.
3. I am talking about the virtues (or lack thereof) of this ranking, and you are talking ABOUT ME. That is weird, creepy, and honestly a bit disturbing. I don’t get it. I am respectfully asking yet again for you to leave personal attacks out of it.

DP. Do you know what “NP” (and DP) mean? It is you who is confusing posters. And anyone participating on this thread has obviously looked up their own kids’ schools.

WTF are you talking about? Your post explicitly refers to me - it has "YOU" in caps, right after the NP I did in fact see: "NP, but the sense I get is that YOU have a hard time letting it go". And the thread you replied to has the things you didn't read.

You are weird and creepy. Both of you, if that makes you happier. Leave me alone.

My god, you are dense. The person who wrote “YOU” is a “new poster.” I’ll just leave it at that.

You are weird and creepy and obsessed with me for some reason. I find you distasteful. Please leave me alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the idea of looking at alumni salaries. These are understandably important metrics for most people. However, I noticed that when you sort the list by salary, it jumps all over the place. There isn't a good correlation between the ranking and the salary metric. Which is interesting because from the desperate way some parents talk about college admissions, you'd think their kids will end up destitute unless they get into a t25/t50 school. These metrics should reassure everyone that the school brand doesn't have that much of an effect on financial attainment.

Bingo. This is exactly the point of this list and I for one am happy to see it. It’s something my spouse and I have discussed a lot and it’s quite interesting to see it in print.

There have been a number of studies on this. Once you account for other individual factors like test scores, the school brand doesn't predict income. There are still many hard core parents who refuse to believe this, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1. As stated, you are likely confusing multiple posters
2. As stated, no I did not look them up, and don’t care to. Unusual that you are applying that to me as a pejorative when you are the one who has done so.
3. I am talking about the virtues (or lack thereof) of this ranking, and you are talking ABOUT ME. That is weird, creepy, and honestly a bit disturbing. I don’t get it. I am respectfully asking yet again for you to leave personal attacks out of it.

DP. Do you know what “NP” (and DP) mean? It is you who is confusing posters. And anyone participating on this thread has obviously looked up their own kids’ schools.

WTF are you talking about? Your post explicitly refers to me - it has "YOU" in caps, right after the NP I did in fact see: "NP, but the sense I get is that YOU have a hard time letting it go". And the thread you replied to has the things you didn't read.

You are weird and creepy. Both of you, if that makes you happier. Leave me alone.

My god, you are dense. The person who wrote “YOU” is a “new poster.” I’ll just leave it at that.

You are weird and creepy and obsessed with me for some reason. I find you distasteful. Please leave me alone.

Likewise, on all counts.

[Anonymous]

Never heard of a top 50. Top 25 yes.