New Wall Street Journal Rankings 2019

[Anonymous]

Can someone spot Penn State? (as least I don't see it at the ridiculous #27 that USNWR had it for one minute a few years ago)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone spot Penn State? (as least I don't see it at the ridiculous #27 that USNWR had it for one minute a few years ago)

105

[Anonymous]

91 F&M, 91 Kenyon, 93 NE, 93 Skidmore, 95 Minnesota, 96 Drexel, 96 Oberlin, 96 PITT, 99 Occidental, 100 Dickinson, 101 Gettysburg, 101 Whitman, 103 Connecticut College, 104 NC State, 105 Penn State, 105 Stony Brook, 105 VA Tech. 109 Brandeis, 110 Buffalo

111 Colorado College, 111 Trinity U (TX), 113 Pacific, 113 Seattle, 115 Union College, 116 Depauw, 117 Denison, 117 Howard, 119 WPI, 120 Babson, 121 St Louis, 122 RPI, 123 Indiana, 123 Syracuse, 125 Holy Cross, 126 Utah, 127 Creighton, 127 Simmons, 129 Villanova, 130 Rutgers

[Anonymous]

I appreciate that the LACs are listed with the Universities. Makes it a bit easier to compare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any ranking that does not have Harvard and Stanford as the top two, in whatever order, is suspect.

I get your point and it has some validity, but I respectfully suggest you consider the following:

- Any ranking that values undergraduate experience more than both grad and undergrad will skew those. Harvard has more than twice as many grad students as undergrads, yet Princeton has nearly the reverse. Don't you think that will affect the undergraduate experience (profs teaching instead of TAs) and should thusly affect the ranking?

- Rankings do take prestige and reputation into account, but not solely. Do you think ranking should be based solely on prestige and reputation? if you do, than your point is correct, but if not...

- How much of your position is self-fulfilling? That you believe those should be the rankings because USN has often ranked them that way?

- Lastly, and most importantly, increments of rankings are BS -- to say that #4 is better than #5 is totally arbitrary. Rankings gain more validity when they are grouped. Yet, no one does that with their rankings -- because then we would all agree on them and no one would click and read!

Well, all of the methodology and criteria are fine, if mostly manipulated (how does one evaluate teaching quality or reputation?), but when presented with the choice, where do people actually choose to go? They choose Stanford and Harvard over every other school on the list. And it doesn't appear to be particularly close.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know when the rankings will be up on THE’s website as I think it’s a joint ranking. I think it’s a few days later?

[Anonymous]

To whoever typed the rankings, thanks.

[Anonymous]

USNA at 80. That’s gotta bruise a bunch of ring knickers egos. Lol

[Anonymous]

The only value of these rankings is when they are interactive and you can personalize them based on your own priorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any ranking that does not have Harvard and Stanford as the top two, in whatever order, is suspect.

I get your point and it has some validity, but I respectfully suggest you consider the following:

- Any ranking that values undergraduate experience more than both grad and undergrad will skew those. Harvard has more than twice as many grad students as undergrads, yet Princeton has nearly the reverse. Don't you think that will affect the undergraduate experience (profs teaching instead of TAs) and should thusly affect the ranking?

- Rankings do take prestige and reputation into account, but not solely. Do you think ranking should be based solely on prestige and reputation? if you do, than your point is correct, but if not...

- How much of your position is self-fulfilling? That you believe those should be the rankings because USN has often ranked them that way?

- Lastly, and most importantly, increments of rankings are BS -- to say that #4 is better than #5 is totally arbitrary. Rankings gain more validity when they are grouped. Yet, no one does that with their rankings -- because then we would all agree on them and no one would click and read!

Well, all of the methodology and criteria are fine, if mostly manipulated (how does one evaluate teaching quality or reputation?), but when presented with the choice, where do people actually choose to go? They choose Stanford and Harvard over every other school on the list. And it doesn't appear to be particularly close.

But that's my point exactly -- because of prestige.

What good would a ranking list based solely on that be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I appreciate that the LACs are listed with the Universities. Makes it a bit easier to compare.

I find the opposite -- that it makes them useless. Totally different animals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only value of these rankings is when they are interactive and you can personalize them based on your own priorities.

You can these rankings...with a paid subscription

[Anonymous]

I do appreciate the attempt at more of an "output"-based ranking (where students end up after college) by the Wall Street Journal, whereas the US News ranking is more of an "input"-based ranking (how hard it is to get *into* a particular college). Neither approach is necessarily better or worse or even using the proper methodology to measure what they claim to be measuring, but it's interesting to see the contrasts.

It seems like most people quibble over where the Harvard or Standard-type schools are placed, but that's not where I personally see the value in these rankings. Most of us don't need to be told that the Ivy League schools and others on that tier (e.g. Stanford, MIT, UChicago, Duke, Northwestern, et. al) are prestigious and difficult to get into. Instead, the real value in these rankings is getting more information about those schools *outside* of the top 20 or so that the vast, vast, vast majority of the population will attend. For instance, a lot of people just lump all "state schools" together as a big mass of interchangeable institutions, but there are some real differences between them, particularly when you break down specific majors.

The chances that your child is going to be choosing between Harvard and Stanford is about as likely as you winning the lottery. Even in high income and highly educated areas, the more likely scenario is that your child is going to be weighing going to an in-state public school versus an out-of-state public school versus a good (but not necessarily elite) private school that are all similarly ranked and priced versus a lower ranked school that's offering a significant scholarship.

No one should use rankings as the sole basis of a decision, but those rankings can certainly help put some context into evaluating the much more common and realistic situation that I've described above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any ranking that does not have Harvard and Stanford as the top two, in whatever order, is suspect.

I get your point and it has some validity, but I respectfully suggest you consider the following:

- Any ranking that values undergraduate experience more than both grad and undergrad will skew those. Harvard has more than twice as many grad students as undergrads, yet Princeton has nearly the reverse. Don't you think that will affect the undergraduate experience (profs teaching instead of TAs) and should thusly affect the ranking?

- Rankings do take prestige and reputation into account, but not solely. Do you think ranking should be based solely on prestige and reputation? if you do, than your point is correct, but if not...

- How much of your position is self-fulfilling? That you believe those should be the rankings because USN has often ranked them that way?

- Lastly, and most importantly, increments of rankings are BS -- to say that #4 is better than #5 is totally arbitrary. Rankings gain more validity when they are grouped. Yet, no one does that with their rankings -- because then we would all agree on them and no one would click and read!

Well, all of the methodology and criteria are fine, if mostly manipulated (how does one evaluate teaching quality or reputation?), but when presented with the choice, where do people actually choose to go? They choose Stanford and Harvard over every other school on the list. And it doesn't appear to be particularly close.

But that's my point exactly -- because of prestige.

What good would a ranking list based solely on that be?

I wouldn't being to guess why some of the smartest high school students in the country choose a school. I think yours is a fairly simplistic assumption about why people choose a college. Are you really that patronizing and smug about your own superiority?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This ranking is so random except for the top 1-7. US Naval Academy is at #80 behind many public universities. No logic to its ranking.

There is logic and the rankings are not random. Read the methodology.

That’s like reading the methodology for the National Enquirer or People’s ranking of colleges. Whatever their criteria is, you hane to wonder why accept their methodology and not others. You haven’t answered any question by pointing to their methodology. The question is here is, why their (weird) methodology?

Who is requiring that you or anyone accept their methodology? If you don't agree, move on.

This is the whole problem with rankings. Sure it fuels endless threads like this one as ppl argue over the relative merit of Stanford, UVA etc. But its all meaningless. Ratings = Excellent, Very Good, Good, etc. Are much better barometers of a college. Bc one you know a school is "excellent" weather you choose School A or School B is about individual preference (fit, $, etc.)