WSJ Rankings 2025

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"What’s eye opening is that HPYSM have probably the highest expectations hurdle, and yet, they jumped it - big time!"

Schools that have their pick of the best students in the world, have huge prestige, enormous endowments, and powerful alumni networks "exceed expectations". Yay! (polite golf clap)

Mock if you want, but many schools who claim to have the same standards and resources fared less well. Explain that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top 20 for those interested without subscriptions:
1: Princeton
2: Babson
3: Stanford
4: Yale
5: Claremont McKenna
6: MIT
7: Harvard
8: Berkeley
9: Georgia Tech
10: Davidson
11: Bentley
12: UC Davis
13: Penn
14: Columbia
15: Lehigh
16: San Jose State
17: Notre Dame
18: UC Merced
19: Virginia Tech
20: Harvey Mudd

I kind of like the list - very pre-professional focused and makes sense for the type who read WSJ. Methodology is 70% Student Outcomes, 20% Learning Environment, and 10% Diversity, with each of those broken up with different metrics.

How much is Claremont McKenna paying to be at the top of all these rankings?

Haha - I went to an Ivy and my kid goes to CMC. If I could do it over again - I would go to CMC.

Also Ivy grad - my kid is at Pitzer...amazing group of schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Towson Universty at number 40 in the U.S.– wow!

WSJ's ranking process has more of a paid placement. Nobody takes this seriously. It's not really worth looking at even.

[Anonymous]

WSJ is owned by the same super villain that own Fox News. Not exactly a credible source these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the whiners cannot explain away is why HPYSM did so well while so many other high brow schools did not. If the methodology is a complete sham or just random, HPYSM would not constitute half of the top 10. Further, other top universities and LACs make the top 10, top 20, and top 50. Again, this is not random. The head scratching and consternation is really around a set of “treasured” schools that didn’t perform well. Perhaps, it would be better to understand why those didn’t perform well instead of assailing the methodology.

As for the methodology, it is not primarily a survey. That’s just a weak way of dismissing the results. What people seem to struggle with most is the comparison of student outcomes to expectations. Expectations account for two things: the quality of the student body and the regional cost of living. So, a Williams or Amherst faces more headwinds than Kenyon. Yet, there is no guarantee that Kenyon will punch above its weight. What’s eye opening is that HPYSM have probably the highest expectations hurdle, and yet, they jumped it - big time! Claremont McKenna and Davidson also standout here. Take note.

Are you serious? All they needed to do was build this Frankenstein of a “study” from the bottom up, engineering the assumptions to ensure that none of the HYPSM institutions fell outside the Top 10 (knowing how hyper-fixated many are on this small group) to lend empty validity to their work for consumers like you.

[Anonymous]

Anyone thought maybe WAJ is doing this on purpose. They wild changes in methodology may have a different goal in mind to purposefully sow mistrust in rankings, with not only the general public but with other ranking agencies. Look how this thread is longer than the thread with for the more appropriate college simply ranking...

[Anonymous]

Whatever else may be true, from LAC standpoint, CMC is on an amazing streak this new ranking season: #1 in WSJ, #2 in Forbes, #3 in Niche. Will be interesting to see where it lands in USNWR later this month. Disclaimer: I have no connection to the school.

[Anonymous]

I appreciate the outcomes-adjusted-for-test-scores-and-suchlike-factors approach, I think it's valuable, but it could have benefited from something like a tier system. If ABC College does a great job graduating students with say a 1350 SAT and finding them good jobs, that's nice, but it doesn't provide much guidance to my 1550 kid. US News, you basically aim for the highest ranked schools you can get into. Here, there's good information not in US News, but using it is more complicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whatever else may be true, from LAC standpoint, CMC is on an amazing streak this new ranking season: #1 in WSJ, #2 in Forbes, #3 in Niche. Will be interesting to see where it lands in USNWR later this month. Disclaimer: I have no connection to the school.

I hope it ends up low on US News because I'd sure like Larla to get in!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the whiners cannot explain away is why HPYSM did so well while so many other high brow schools did not. If the methodology is a complete sham or just random, HPYSM would not constitute half of the top 10. Further, other top universities and LACs make the top 10, top 20, and top 50. Again, this is not random. The head scratching and consternation is really around a set of “treasured” schools that didn’t perform well. Perhaps, it would be better to understand why those didn’t perform well instead of assailing the methodology.

As for the methodology, it is not primarily a survey. That’s just a weak way of dismissing the results. What people seem to struggle with most is the comparison of student outcomes to expectations. Expectations account for two things: the quality of the student body and the regional cost of living. So, a Williams or Amherst faces more headwinds than Kenyon. Yet, there is no guarantee that Kenyon will punch above its weight. What’s eye opening is that HPYSM have probably the highest expectations hurdle, and yet, they jumped it - big time! Claremont McKenna and Davidson also standout here. Take note.

Are you serious? All they needed to do was build this Frankenstein of a “study” from the bottom up, engineering the assumptions to ensure that none of the HYPSM institutions fell outside the Top 10 (knowing how hyper-fixated many are on this small group) to lend empty validity to their work for consumers like you.

Ok, so now we have a conspiracy theory, but what’s the motivation? Sounds nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the whiners cannot explain away is why HPYSM did so well while so many other high brow schools did not. If the methodology is a complete sham or just random, HPYSM would not constitute half of the top 10. Further, other top universities and LACs make the top 10, top 20, and top 50. Again, this is not random. The head scratching and consternation is really around a set of “treasured” schools that didn’t perform well. Perhaps, it would be better to understand why those didn’t perform well instead of assailing the methodology.

As for the methodology, it is not primarily a survey. That’s just a weak way of dismissing the results. What people seem to struggle with most is the comparison of student outcomes to expectations. Expectations account for two things: the quality of the student body and the regional cost of living. So, a Williams or Amherst faces more headwinds than Kenyon. Yet, there is no guarantee that Kenyon will punch above its weight. What’s eye opening is that HPYSM have probably the highest expectations hurdle, and yet, they jumped it - big time! Claremont McKenna and Davidson also standout here. Take note.

Are you serious? All they needed to do was build this Frankenstein of a “study” from the bottom up, engineering the assumptions to ensure that none of the HYPSM institutions fell outside the Top 10 (knowing how hyper-fixated many are on this small group) to lend empty validity to their work for consumers like you.

Ok, so now we have a conspiracy theory, but what’s the motivation? Sounds nuts.

The motivation as the pp explained is to lend some "credibility" to gullible parents by at least keeping HYP on the top ten list. I work in the statistical sphere--assumptions can be manipulated in any which way and form to get the results you want. Consumers have to pay careful attention to the methodology and assumptions used, otherwise you will be taken for a ride. Parents currently are so obsessed with rankings it's a profitable business. They can't all produce the same rankings so they manipulate the assumptions. They keep HYP there to keep you happy that it is a "legitimate" ranking because they know you will not read the fine print.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the whiners cannot explain away is why HPYSM did so well while so many other high brow schools did not. If the methodology is a complete sham or just random, HPYSM would not constitute half of the top 10. Further, other top universities and LACs make the top 10, top 20, and top 50. Again, this is not random. The head scratching and consternation is really around a set of “treasured” schools that didn’t perform well. Perhaps, it would be better to understand why those didn’t perform well instead of assailing the methodology.

As for the methodology, it is not primarily a survey. That’s just a weak way of dismissing the results. What people seem to struggle with most is the comparison of student outcomes to expectations. Expectations account for two things: the quality of the student body and the regional cost of living. So, a Williams or Amherst faces more headwinds than Kenyon. Yet, there is no guarantee that Kenyon will punch above its weight. What’s eye opening is that HPYSM have probably the highest expectations hurdle, and yet, they jumped it - big time! Claremont McKenna and Davidson also standout here. Take note.

Are you serious? All they needed to do was build this Frankenstein of a “study” from the bottom up, engineering the assumptions to ensure that none of the HYPSM institutions fell outside the Top 10 (knowing how hyper-fixated many are on this small group) to lend empty validity to their work for consumers like you.

Ok, so now we have a conspiracy theory, but what’s the motivation? Sounds nuts.

The motivation as the pp explained is to lend some "credibility" to gullible parents by at least keeping HYP on the top ten list. I work in the statistical sphere--assumptions can be manipulated in any which way and form to get the results you want. Consumers have to pay careful attention to the methodology and assumptions used, otherwise you will be taken for a ride. Parents currently are so obsessed with rankings it's a profitable business. They can't all produce the same rankings so they manipulate the assumptions. They keep HYP there to keep you happy that it is a "legitimate" ranking because they know you will not read the fine print.

This doesn’t make sense. The WSJ and its readers are serious people. Yes, they respect a ranking that acknowledges the strengths of HPYSM, but do you really think that the WSJ wants to offer its audience clickbait? Also, many other prestigious schools are listed high in the rankings. Maybe not as high as some would like, but considering the total number of schools out there, their placement is fine. Just because someone could engineer a thoughtless, stupid ranking, doesn’t mean that a publication like the WSJ would. Finally, this is not the WSJ’s first go at college rankings. What motivation would they have to suddenly dupe people?

A better use of your statistical knowledge might be to better understand why particular schools scored how they did instead of arguing that the WSJ has committed professional suicide without explaining how or why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"What’s eye opening is that HPYSM have probably the highest expectations hurdle, and yet, they jumped it - big time!"

Schools that have their pick of the best students in the world, have huge prestige, enormous endowments, and powerful alumni networks "exceed expectations". Yay! (polite golf clap)

Mock if you want, but many schools who claim to have the same standards and resources fared less well. Explain that.

I don't know what schools you're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the whiners cannot explain away is why HPYSM did so well while so many other high brow schools did not. If the methodology is a complete sham or just random, HPYSM would not constitute half of the top 10. Further, other top universities and LACs make the top 10, top 20, and top 50. Again, this is not random. The head scratching and consternation is really around a set of “treasured” schools that didn’t perform well. Perhaps, it would be better to understand why those didn’t perform well instead of assailing the methodology.

As for the methodology, it is not primarily a survey. That’s just a weak way of dismissing the results. What people seem to struggle with most is the comparison of student outcomes to expectations. Expectations account for two things: the quality of the student body and the regional cost of living. So, a Williams or Amherst faces more headwinds than Kenyon. Yet, there is no guarantee that Kenyon will punch above its weight. What’s eye opening is that HPYSM have probably the highest expectations hurdle, and yet, they jumped it - big time! Claremont McKenna and Davidson also standout here. Take note.

Are you serious? All they needed to do was build this Frankenstein of a “study” from the bottom up, engineering the assumptions to ensure that none of the HYPSM institutions fell outside the Top 10 (knowing how hyper-fixated many are on this small group) to lend empty validity to their work for consumers like you.

Ok, so now we have a conspiracy theory, but what’s the motivation? Sounds nuts.

The motivation as the pp explained is to lend some "credibility" to gullible parents by at least keeping HYP on the top ten list. I work in the statistical sphere--assumptions can be manipulated in any which way and form to get the results you want. Consumers have to pay careful attention to the methodology and assumptions used, otherwise you will be taken for a ride. Parents currently are so obsessed with rankings it's a profitable business. They can't all produce the same rankings so they manipulate the assumptions. They keep HYP there to keep you happy that it is a "legitimate" ranking because they know you will not read the fine print.

This doesn’t make sense. The WSJ and its readers are serious people. Yes, they respect a ranking that acknowledges the strengths of HPYSM, but do you really think that the WSJ wants to offer its audience clickbait? Also, many other prestigious schools are listed high in the rankings. Maybe not as high as some would like, but considering the total number of schools out there, their placement is fine. Just because someone could engineer a thoughtless, stupid ranking, doesn’t mean that a publication like the WSJ would. Finally, this is not the WSJ’s first go at college rankings. What motivation would they have to suddenly dupe people?

A better use of your statistical knowledge might be to better understand why particular schools scored how they did instead of arguing that the WSJ has committed professional suicide without explaining how or why.

Do you really think it’s reasonable to ask others to consider the why of how NYU ended up ranked 275+ places lower in a published ranking than Babson College?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the whiners cannot explain away is why HPYSM did so well while so many other high brow schools did not. If the methodology is a complete sham or just random, HPYSM would not constitute half of the top 10. Further, other top universities and LACs make the top 10, top 20, and top 50. Again, this is not random. The head scratching and consternation is really around a set of “treasured” schools that didn’t perform well. Perhaps, it would be better to understand why those didn’t perform well instead of assailing the methodology.

As for the methodology, it is not primarily a survey. That’s just a weak way of dismissing the results. What people seem to struggle with most is the comparison of student outcomes to expectations. Expectations account for two things: the quality of the student body and the regional cost of living. So, a Williams or Amherst faces more headwinds than Kenyon. Yet, there is no guarantee that Kenyon will punch above its weight. What’s eye opening is that HPYSM have probably the highest expectations hurdle, and yet, they jumped it - big time! Claremont McKenna and Davidson also standout here. Take note.

Are you serious? All they needed to do was build this Frankenstein of a “study” from the bottom up, engineering the assumptions to ensure that none of the HYPSM institutions fell outside the Top 10 (knowing how hyper-fixated many are on this small group) to lend empty validity to their work for consumers like you.

Ok, so now we have a conspiracy theory, but what’s the motivation? Sounds nuts.

The motivation as the pp explained is to lend some "credibility" to gullible parents by at least keeping HYP on the top ten list. I work in the statistical sphere--assumptions can be manipulated in any which way and form to get the results you want. Consumers have to pay careful attention to the methodology and assumptions used, otherwise you will be taken for a ride. Parents currently are so obsessed with rankings it's a profitable business. They can't all produce the same rankings so they manipulate the assumptions. They keep HYP there to keep you happy that it is a "legitimate" ranking because they know you will not read the fine print.

This doesn’t make sense. The WSJ and its readers are serious people. Yes, they respect a ranking that acknowledges the strengths of HPYSM, but do you really think that the WSJ wants to offer its audience clickbait? Also, many other prestigious schools are listed high in the rankings. Maybe not as high as some would like, but considering the total number of schools out there, their placement is fine. Just because someone could engineer a thoughtless, stupid ranking, doesn’t mean that a publication like the WSJ would. Finally, this is not the WSJ’s first go at college rankings. What motivation would they have to suddenly dupe people?

A better use of your statistical knowledge might be to better understand why particular schools scored how they did instead of arguing that the WSJ has committed professional suicide without explaining how or why.

Do you really think it’s reasonable to ask others to consider the why of how NYU ended up ranked 275+ places lower in a published ranking than Babson College?

NYU’s poor ranking may be fairly straightforward. First, the college resides in NYC - a HCOL area - so the expected salary outcome is high. That is, NYU student outcomes are judged by the standard of the college’s location, so a bunch of kids getting Wall Street jobs, per se, doesn’t represent a good outcome; it’s expected. Second, NYU’s cost of attendance is atrocious. The school is very expensive and relative to other similar schools, their financial aid is poor. Third, NYU kids (at least those who report them) have great test scores. So, the students are expected to have great outcomes. Fourth, while NYU students get jobs in NYC, it’s my perception that, on average, they don’t get the highest paying and most prestigious jobs. Sum it all up and NYU outcomes are average for NYC metro and really smart kids, yet families pay a ton for their kids to attend there.

Compare that summation to NYU’s intracity rival, Columbia, which ranked highly. Columbia faces the same expectation hurdles of HCOL NYC and smart students, but their kids get the BEST jobs in NYC and the average cost of attendance is decreased by better FA. The result? Columbia gives a better bang for the buck and gets a high rating