With US News Being Challenged by Top Schools, Does it Make More Sense to Combine Rankings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a certain amount of privilege that comes from being able to spend the equivalent of a new home for each child on college tuition and honestly say that you don’t care about rankings or the perceived status of a school and can solely pick a school based on perfect fit for a child (as you’ve had the resources to personally visit all of these schools). More power to you if you’re at that point.

My sprinkler box broke yesterday. In a quick Google search, I pulled up at least a half-dozen rankings of different sprinkler boxes ranging in cost from $100-$200.

So, it’s sort of wacky to me that the colleges themselves just want to wish away the large demand for college rankings when people are spending *hundreds* of thousands of dollars over the course of 4 years.

I’m not saying that the US News rankings or other ranking systems like them are accurate, infallible or should be taken as gospel. There are a lot of flaws with them. However, this notion that all people should be above these rankings and they’re worthless is, as I’ve noted above, a super-privileged position. This is the single largest financial decision most people will have outside of their house (and maybe even more than their house). When there is demand for multiple rankings for $100-$200 sprinkler boxes, it’s perfectly reasonable that there’s going to be a ton of demand for colleges that cost upwards of $90,000 per year. If the US News rankings aren’t there, then someone else will fill that void.

PP said start with a vetted list (such as the guides published by Princeton Review). From those few hundred schools, do the research to find what is best for your child. Mine, for example, did not want a large school, or a religious school or an urban school. She limited her search to the East Coast. She wanted to study STEM and was not drawn to Greek life or a big party scene.

Not really privileged. It just takes time and knowing your child.

Curious what ended up on your list? When I put those factors in the NYC rankings tool + >25% acceptance rate and 100% weight on academic profile, the top options that come up are: (town/rural) Bucknell, St. Lawrence, Hobart William Smith, Juniata and (suburb) Bryn Mawr, William & Mary, Stevens Inst of Tech, Skidmore. My DD had a similar set of preferences and a few of those were on her list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a certain amount of privilege that comes from being able to spend the equivalent of a new home for each child on college tuition and honestly say that you don’t care about rankings or the perceived status of a school and can solely pick a school based on perfect fit for a child (as you’ve had the resources to personally visit all of these schools). More power to you if you’re at that point.

My sprinkler box broke yesterday. In a quick Google search, I pulled up at least a half-dozen rankings of different sprinkler boxes ranging in cost from $100-$200.

So, it’s sort of wacky to me that the colleges themselves just want to wish away the large demand for college rankings when people are spending *hundreds* of thousands of dollars over the course of 4 years.

I’m not saying that the US News rankings or other ranking systems like them are accurate, infallible or should be taken as gospel. There are a lot of flaws with them. However, this notion that all people should be above these rankings and they’re worthless is, as I’ve noted above, a super-privileged position. This is the single largest financial decision most people will have outside of their house (and maybe even more than their house). When there is demand for multiple rankings for $100-$200 sprinkler boxes, it’s perfectly reasonable that there’s going to be a ton of demand for colleges that cost upwards of $90,000 per year. If the US News rankings aren’t there, then someone else will fill that void.

PP said start with a vetted list (such as the guides published by Princeton Review). From those few hundred schools, do the research to find what is best for your child. Mine, for example, did not want a large school, or a religious school or an urban school. She limited her search to the East Coast. She wanted to study STEM and was not drawn to Greek life or a big party scene.

Not really privileged. It just takes time and knowing your child.

PP here. That’s perfectly fine about researching the atmospheric factors of large vs. small, urban vs. college town, Greek-heavy vs. little Greek life, etc.

However, to deny that people aren’t going to want to know whether a school is perceived to be highly-ranked on academic prestige (however it’s defined) when they’re spending so much money on a college education is putting the proverbial head in the sand.

What I’m seeing is that college administrators want for everyone to focus on the atmospheric factors that you’ve pointed out. And, to be clear, all of that is very important.

However, it’s disingenuous for those same colleges to get bothered when they’re being measured on academic prestige even though (a) these are academic institutions, (b) they’re charging so much tuition money, and (c ) the top schools are essentially lottery systems of exclusivity when it comes to admissions. They’re all perpetuating elite status in their admissions processes, yet then complain when other parties (like the US News) start ranking them on elite status relative to each other. I have little sympathy for that stance.

If schools wouldn’t have such opaque admissions processes along with being much more transparent about graduate outcomes, maybe people wouldn’t turn to rankings systems as much. However, nature abhors a vacuum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, the schools dislike all of the rankings. The others just don't get enough eyeballs for them to actually complain about!
Unfortunately for those outlets, they are hardly part of the conversation.

At the very least, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and Niche definitely get lots of eyeballs. Anytime you google rankings Niche is always one of the first to pop up.

I'm I doing something wrong? When I Google college rankings I see USNWR, then Google inserts its "People also ask" and "Top Stories" results, and only after that do Niche, Forbes, and Money even appear. The algorithm is pretty clear on this one

You realize Google always does that after the first result? LOL

No it doesn't. Google best cities

It literally does when you Google best cities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a certain amount of privilege that comes from being able to spend the equivalent of a new home for each child on college tuition and honestly say that you don’t care about rankings or the perceived status of a school and can solely pick a school based on perfect fit for a child (as you’ve had the resources to personally visit all of these schools). More power to you if you’re at that point.

My sprinkler box broke yesterday. In a quick Google search, I pulled up at least a half-dozen rankings of different sprinkler boxes ranging in cost from $100-$200.

So, it’s sort of wacky to me that the colleges themselves just want to wish away the large demand for college rankings when people are spending *hundreds* of thousands of dollars over the course of 4 years.

I’m not saying that the US News rankings or other ranking systems like them are accurate, infallible or should be taken as gospel. There are a lot of flaws with them. However, this notion that all people should be above these rankings and they’re worthless is, as I’ve noted above, a super-privileged position. This is the single largest financial decision most people will have outside of their house (and maybe even more than their house). When there is demand for multiple rankings for $100-$200 sprinkler boxes, it’s perfectly reasonable that there’s going to be a ton of demand for colleges that cost upwards of $90,000 per year. If the US News rankings aren’t there, then someone else will fill that void.

PP said start with a vetted list (such as the guides published by Princeton Review). From those few hundred schools, do the research to find what is best for your child. Mine, for example, did not want a large school, or a religious school or an urban school. She limited her search to the East Coast. She wanted to study STEM and was not drawn to Greek life or a big party scene.

Not really privileged. It just takes time and knowing your child.

PP here. That’s perfectly fine about researching the atmospheric factors of large vs. small, urban vs. college town, Greek-heavy vs. little Greek life, etc.

However, to deny that people aren’t going to want to know whether a school is perceived to be highly-ranked on academic prestige (however it’s defined) when they’re spending so much money on a college education is putting the proverbial head in the sand.

What I’m seeing is that college administrators want for everyone to focus on the atmospheric factors that you’ve pointed out. And, to be clear, all of that is very important.

However, it’s disingenuous for those same colleges to get bothered when they’re being measured on academic prestige even though (a) these are academic institutions, (b) they’re charging so much tuition money, and (c ) the top schools are essentially lottery systems of exclusivity when it comes to admissions. They’re all perpetuating elite status in their admissions processes, yet then complain when other parties (like the US News) start ranking them on elite status relative to each other. I have little sympathy for that stance.

If schools wouldn’t have such opaque admissions processes along with being much more transparent about graduate outcomes, maybe people wouldn’t turn to rankings systems as much. However, nature abhors a vacuum.

This. Beautifully said.

FWIW, the schools who complain about USNWR are the ones trying to sell themselves as more prestigious than they are. USNWR cuts through the colleges' sales bs ("An Ivy is an Ivy!") and gives consumers the real scoop on prestige.

No one is saying people shouldn't look at campus size, location, and other factors as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a certain amount of privilege that comes from being able to spend the equivalent of a new home for each child on college tuition and honestly say that you don’t care about rankings or the perceived status of a school and can solely pick a school based on perfect fit for a child (as you’ve had the resources to personally visit all of these schools). More power to you if you’re at that point.

My sprinkler box broke yesterday. In a quick Google search, I pulled up at least a half-dozen rankings of different sprinkler boxes ranging in cost from $100-$200.

So, it’s sort of wacky to me that the colleges themselves just want to wish away the large demand for college rankings when people are spending *hundreds* of thousands of dollars over the course of 4 years.

I’m not saying that the US News rankings or other ranking systems like them are accurate, infallible or should be taken as gospel. There are a lot of flaws with them. However, this notion that all people should be above these rankings and they’re worthless is, as I’ve noted above, a super-privileged position. This is the single largest financial decision most people will have outside of their house (and maybe even more than their house). When there is demand for multiple rankings for $100-$200 sprinkler boxes, it’s perfectly reasonable that there’s going to be a ton of demand for colleges that cost upwards of $90,000 per year. If the US News rankings aren’t there, then someone else will fill that void.

PP said start with a vetted list (such as the guides published by Princeton Review). From those few hundred schools, do the research to find what is best for your child. Mine, for example, did not want a large school, or a religious school or an urban school. She limited her search to the East Coast. She wanted to study STEM and was not drawn to Greek life or a big party scene.

Not really privileged. It just takes time and knowing your child.

PP here. That’s perfectly fine about researching the atmospheric factors of large vs. small, urban vs. college town, Greek-heavy vs. little Greek life, etc.

However, to deny that people aren’t going to want to know whether a school is perceived to be highly-ranked on academic prestige (however it’s defined) when they’re spending so much money on a college education is putting the proverbial head in the sand.

What I’m seeing is that college administrators want for everyone to focus on the atmospheric factors that you’ve pointed out. And, to be clear, all of that is very important.

However, it’s disingenuous for those same colleges to get bothered when they’re being measured on academic prestige even though (a) these are academic institutions, (b) they’re charging so much tuition money, and (c ) the top schools are essentially lottery systems of exclusivity when it comes to admissions. They’re all perpetuating elite status in their admissions processes, yet then complain when other parties (like the US News) start ranking them on elite status relative to each other. I have little sympathy for that stance.

If schools wouldn’t have such opaque admissions processes along with being much more transparent about graduate outcomes, maybe people wouldn’t turn to rankings systems as much. However, nature abhors a vacuum.

This. Beautifully said.

FWIW, the schools who complain about USNWR are the ones trying to sell themselves as more prestigious than they are. USNWR cuts through the colleges' sales bs ("An Ivy is an Ivy!") and gives consumers the real scoop on prestige.

No one is saying people shouldn't look at campus size, location, and other factors as well.

US News isn't a measure of prestige though. It measures whatever it's supposed to measure. If it was a measure of prestige, Harvard would be #1 every year. Remember before the scandal, Columbia was #2 and Stanford was #6, neither of which are believable.

[Anonymous]

The problem I have with Duke is that its overall departmental rankings are not nearly as high as its so called peers. A top ten school should be loaded with top ten, even top 20 departments. Duke is severely lacking in that regard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem I have with Duke is that its overall departmental rankings are not nearly as high as its so called peers. A top ten school should be loaded with top ten, even top 20 departments. Duke is severely lacking in that regard.

Duke will be sad to hear you don't believe the ranking it has by 8 different publications, hopefully they can recover

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem I have with Duke is that its overall departmental rankings are not nearly as high as its so called peers. A top ten school should be loaded with top ten, even top 20 departments. Duke is severely lacking in that regard.

Duke will be sad to hear you don't believe the ranking it has by 8 different publications, hopefully they can recover

Ok, so tell me the academic programs where Duke is stellar? I bet you can’t name more than a a dozen. Compare that to HYPSM as well as other top privates and publics. Duke is rated highly more because of the caliber of its students than its academic prowess. It’s a very good school, but #4?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem I have with Duke is that its overall departmental rankings are not nearly as high as its so called peers. A top ten school should be loaded with top ten, even top 20 departments. Duke is severely lacking in that regard.

Duke will be sad to hear you don't believe the ranking it has by 8 different publications, hopefully they can recover

+1 interestingly US News is Duke’s worst undergrad ranking, so if anything US News is selling them short. Great school, would send my kid if admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a certain amount of privilege that comes from being able to spend the equivalent of a new home for each child on college tuition and honestly say that you don’t care about rankings or the perceived status of a school and can solely pick a school based on perfect fit for a child (as you’ve had the resources to personally visit all of these schools). More power to you if you’re at that point.

My sprinkler box broke yesterday. In a quick Google search, I pulled up at least a half-dozen rankings of different sprinkler boxes ranging in cost from $100-$200.

So, it’s sort of wacky to me that the colleges themselves just want to wish away the large demand for college rankings when people are spending *hundreds* of thousands of dollars over the course of 4 years.

I’m not saying that the US News rankings or other ranking systems like them are accurate, infallible or should be taken as gospel. There are a lot of flaws with them. However, this notion that all people should be above these rankings and they’re worthless is, as I’ve noted above, a super-privileged position. This is the single largest financial decision most people will have outside of their house (and maybe even more than their house). When there is demand for multiple rankings for $100-$200 sprinkler boxes, it’s perfectly reasonable that there’s going to be a ton of demand for colleges that cost upwards of $90,000 per year. If the US News rankings aren’t there, then someone else will fill that void.

PP said start with a vetted list (such as the guides published by Princeton Review). From those few hundred schools, do the research to find what is best for your child. Mine, for example, did not want a large school, or a religious school or an urban school. She limited her search to the East Coast. She wanted to study STEM and was not drawn to Greek life or a big party scene.

Not really privileged. It just takes time and knowing your child.

PP here. That’s perfectly fine about researching the atmospheric factors of large vs. small, urban vs. college town, Greek-heavy vs. little Greek life, etc.

However, to deny that people aren’t going to want to know whether a school is perceived to be highly-ranked on academic prestige (however it’s defined) when they’re spending so much money on a college education is putting the proverbial head in the sand.

What I’m seeing is that college administrators want for everyone to focus on the atmospheric factors that you’ve pointed out. And, to be clear, all of that is very important.

However, it’s disingenuous for those same colleges to get bothered when they’re being measured on academic prestige even though (a) these are academic institutions, (b) they’re charging so much tuition money, and (c ) the top schools are essentially lottery systems of exclusivity when it comes to admissions. They’re all perpetuating elite status in their admissions processes, yet then complain when other parties (like the US News) start ranking them on elite status relative to each other. I have little sympathy for that stance.

If schools wouldn’t have such opaque admissions processes along with being much more transparent about graduate outcomes, maybe people wouldn’t turn to rankings systems as much. However, nature abhors a vacuum.

This. Beautifully said.

FWIW, the schools who complain about USNWR are the ones trying to sell themselves as more prestigious than they are. USNWR cuts through the colleges' sales bs ("An Ivy is an Ivy!") and gives consumers the real scoop on prestige.

No one is saying people shouldn't look at campus size, location, and other factors as well.

US News isn't a measure of prestige though. It measures whatever it's supposed to measure. If it was a measure of prestige, Harvard would be #1 every year. Remember before the scandal, Columbia was #2 and Stanford was #6, neither of which are believable.

HYPSM are top 5, as it should be. Stanford is number 3.

Columbia poured a ton of resources into committing fraud and was caught. They were caught using publicly available resources. Now they’re number 18, where they belong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a certain amount of privilege that comes from being able to spend the equivalent of a new home for each child on college tuition and honestly say that you don’t care about rankings or the perceived status of a school and can solely pick a school based on perfect fit for a child (as you’ve had the resources to personally visit all of these schools). More power to you if you’re at that point.

My sprinkler box broke yesterday. In a quick Google search, I pulled up at least a half-dozen rankings of different sprinkler boxes ranging in cost from $100-$200.

So, it’s sort of wacky to me that the colleges themselves just want to wish away the large demand for college rankings when people are spending *hundreds* of thousands of dollars over the course of 4 years.

I’m not saying that the US News rankings or other ranking systems like them are accurate, infallible or should be taken as gospel. There are a lot of flaws with them. However, this notion that all people should be above these rankings and they’re worthless is, as I’ve noted above, a super-privileged position. This is the single largest financial decision most people will have outside of their house (and maybe even more than their house). When there is demand for multiple rankings for $100-$200 sprinkler boxes, it’s perfectly reasonable that there’s going to be a ton of demand for colleges that cost upwards of $90,000 per year. If the US News rankings aren’t there, then someone else will fill that void.

PP said start with a vetted list (such as the guides published by Princeton Review). From those few hundred schools, do the research to find what is best for your child. Mine, for example, did not want a large school, or a religious school or an urban school. She limited her search to the East Coast. She wanted to study STEM and was not drawn to Greek life or a big party scene.

Not really privileged. It just takes time and knowing your child.

PP here. That’s perfectly fine about researching the atmospheric factors of large vs. small, urban vs. college town, Greek-heavy vs. little Greek life, etc.

However, to deny that people aren’t going to want to know whether a school is perceived to be highly-ranked on academic prestige (however it’s defined) when they’re spending so much money on a college education is putting the proverbial head in the sand.

What I’m seeing is that college administrators want for everyone to focus on the atmospheric factors that you’ve pointed out. And, to be clear, all of that is very important.

However, it’s disingenuous for those same colleges to get bothered when they’re being measured on academic prestige even though (a) these are academic institutions, (b) they’re charging so much tuition money, and (c ) the top schools are essentially lottery systems of exclusivity when it comes to admissions. They’re all perpetuating elite status in their admissions processes, yet then complain when other parties (like the US News) start ranking them on elite status relative to each other. I have little sympathy for that stance.

If schools wouldn’t have such opaque admissions processes along with being much more transparent about graduate outcomes, maybe people wouldn’t turn to rankings systems as much. However, nature abhors a vacuum.

This. Beautifully said.

FWIW, the schools who complain about USNWR are the ones trying to sell themselves as more prestigious than they are. USNWR cuts through the colleges' sales bs ("An Ivy is an Ivy!") and gives consumers the real scoop on prestige.

No one is saying people shouldn't look at campus size, location, and other factors as well.

US News isn't a measure of prestige though. It measures whatever it's supposed to measure. If it was a measure of prestige, Harvard would be #1 every year. Remember before the scandal, Columbia was #2 and Stanford was #6, neither of which are believable.

HYPSM are top 5, as it should be. Stanford is number 3.

Columbia poured a ton of resources into committing fraud and was caught. They were caught using publicly available resources. Now they’re number 18, where they belong.

Ok but for the past decade US News was underranking Stanford heavily. Also Columbia is better than 18. I think this combined ranking putting it at 11 is reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be frank, people really only care about $$ and prestige here (and a lot of places). Couldn't a ranking system do a good job combining these? Unfortunately, none of those rankings really does it. If you could pull it off in a semi-credible way, you'd have amazing clickbait!

I think all you'd have to do for this is rank by acceptance rate. That shows how hard a school is to get into which generally maps to how well known and desirable it is considered. Doesn't mean anything about whether or not the education at any of those is better than any place else.

Except there's the weird artifact that schools that accept high academic students (e.g., top 5% GPA, top 5% SAT) have a numerically smaller applicant pool than schools that accept a wider range of which there are more students. So it doesn't really tell you how "hard" the school is to get into. One school could have an acceptance rate of 35% and have a 50% SAT range of 1200-1400 with 50% of students submitting TO, while another could accept 36% but have a SAT range of 1300-1500 with 20% of students submitting TO. Does that mean the former is "harder" to get into or did a narrower range of the group of potential applicants think they had a chance at the former rather than the latter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ranking college makes no sense at all. What is the point?

+100 a “very good” university, per any ranking, doesn’t mean it’s good for all students.

Of course no one should literally pick by going in order of a ranking, but it's a general proxy for which schools have very strong academics, attract quality students, and open lots of doors. That is certainly useful information to have for many ambitious kids.

If you don’t know that Harvard has stronger academics, more accomplished students, and a better career network than University of Tennessee at Martin without the use of rankings, then I feel for you. But it makes 0 difference, and isn’t even qualifiable, whether Rice is “better” than Chicago or Hopkins or or Georgia Tech. None.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ranking college makes no sense at all. What is the point?

+100 a “very good” university, per any ranking, doesn’t mean it’s good for all students.

Of course no one should literally pick by going in order of a ranking, but it's a general proxy for which schools have very strong academics, attract quality students, and open lots of doors. That is certainly useful information to have for many ambitious kids.

If you don’t know that Harvard has stronger academics, more accomplished students, and a better career network than University of Tennessee at Martin without the use of rankings, then I feel for you. But it makes 0 difference, and isn’t even qualifiable, whether Rice is “better” than Chicago or Hopkins or or Georgia Tech. None.

The problem is, most people won't know about those schools until it comes time to apply for college, which is when they might look at rankings and see "oh, Rice is a great school in Texas. Georgia Tech is a great school in Georgia." The vast majority of people would only have heard of a handful of elite schools like Harvard or MIT, and if you're west coast Stanford, if you're a basketball fan Duke, and if you're a football fan Notre Dame. The rest are honestly region-based for most until they start looking at things like rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a certain amount of privilege that comes from being able to spend the equivalent of a new home for each child on college tuition and honestly say that you don’t care about rankings or the perceived status of a school and can solely pick a school based on perfect fit for a child (as you’ve had the resources to personally visit all of these schools). More power to you if you’re at that point.

My sprinkler box broke yesterday. In a quick Google search, I pulled up at least a half-dozen rankings of different sprinkler boxes ranging in cost from $100-$200.

So, it’s sort of wacky to me that the colleges themselves just want to wish away the large demand for college rankings when people are spending *hundreds* of thousands of dollars over the course of 4 years.

I’m not saying that the US News rankings or other ranking systems like them are accurate, infallible or should be taken as gospel. There are a lot of flaws with them. However, this notion that all people should be above these rankings and they’re worthless is, as I’ve noted above, a super-privileged position. This is the single largest financial decision most people will have outside of their house (and maybe even more than their house). When there is demand for multiple rankings for $100-$200 sprinkler boxes, it’s perfectly reasonable that there’s going to be a ton of demand for colleges that cost upwards of $90,000 per year. If the US News rankings aren’t there, then someone else will fill that void.

PP said start with a vetted list (such as the guides published by Princeton Review). From those few hundred schools, do the research to find what is best for your child. Mine, for example, did not want a large school, or a religious school or an urban school. She limited her search to the East Coast. She wanted to study STEM and was not drawn to Greek life or a big party scene.

Not really privileged. It just takes time and knowing your child.

PP here. That’s perfectly fine about researching the atmospheric factors of large vs. small, urban vs. college town, Greek-heavy vs. little Greek life, etc.

However, to deny that people aren’t going to want to know whether a school is perceived to be highly-ranked on academic prestige (however it’s defined) when they’re spending so much money on a college education is putting the proverbial head in the sand.

What I’m seeing is that college administrators want for everyone to focus on the atmospheric factors that you’ve pointed out. And, to be clear, all of that is very important.

However, it’s disingenuous for those same colleges to get bothered when they’re being measured on academic prestige even though (a) these are academic institutions, (b) they’re charging so much tuition money, and (c ) the top schools are essentially lottery systems of exclusivity when it comes to admissions. They’re all perpetuating elite status in their admissions processes, yet then complain when other parties (like the US News) start ranking them on elite status relative to each other. I have little sympathy for that stance.

If schools wouldn’t have such opaque admissions processes along with being much more transparent about graduate outcomes, maybe people wouldn’t turn to rankings systems as much. However, nature abhors a vacuum.

This. Beautifully said.

FWIW, the schools who complain about USNWR are the ones trying to sell themselves as more prestigious than they are. USNWR cuts through the colleges' sales bs ("An Ivy is an Ivy!") and gives consumers the real scoop on prestige.

No one is saying people shouldn't look at campus size, location, and other factors as well.

US News isn't a measure of prestige though. It measures whatever it's supposed to measure. If it was a measure of prestige, Harvard would be #1 every year. Remember before the scandal, Columbia was #2 and Stanford was #6, neither of which are believable.

HYPSM are top 5, as it should be. Stanford is number 3.

Columbia poured a ton of resources into committing fraud and was caught. They were caught using publicly available resources. Now they’re number 18, where they belong.

Ok but for the past decade US News was underranking Stanford heavily. Also Columbia is better than 18. I think this combined ranking putting it at 11 is reasonable.

Stanford is typically ranked number 5. Columbia’s massive fraud pushed other institutions down by one.

Columbia’s current USNWR ranking is fair. It’s a bottom tier T20.