New USNWR rankings coming out in one week. Post predictions here!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still vastly overranks public’s especially the underfunded uc system. Until the undo the changes from two years ago, garbage in, garbage out.

All of the publics are 5 spots too high.

Not Virginia or William and Mary though. William and Mary should be about 10 higher. Merced? 40 lower? Any other UC school, 10 lower. Including Berkeley and UCLA.

What gives you the expertise to make this assessment?? Do you know anything about Merced? Or any other school for that matter?

All the UCs are very overrated, but particular schools like Merced, Davis, Irvine, etc . . .

Why do you say that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still vastly overranks public’s especially the underfunded uc system. Until the undo the changes from two years ago, garbage in, garbage out.

All of the publics are 5 spots too high.

Not Virginia or William and Mary though. William and Mary should be about 10 higher. Merced? 40 lower? Any other UC school, 10 lower. Including Berkeley and UCLA.

What gives you the expertise to make this assessment?? Do you know anything about Merced? Or any other school for that matter?

All the UCs are very overrated, but particular schools like Merced, Davis, Irvine, etc . . .

Why do you say that?

Check the data such as graduation rate, retention rate, outcome, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the 2026 ranking factors and their relative weights:

National Universities 2026 Best Colleges Ranking Factor Weights
Indicator

2026 National Universities Weight for Schools With Usable SAT/ACT

Graduation rates

16%

First-year retention rates

5%

Graduation rate performance

10%

Pell graduation rates

5.5%

Pell graduation performance

5.5%

College grads earning more than a high school grad

5%

Borrower debt

5%

Peer assessment

20%

Financial resources per student

8%

Faculty salaries

6%

Full-time faculty

2%

Student-faculty ratio

3%

Standardized tests

5%

Citations per publication

1.25%

Field-Weighted Citation Impact

1.25%

Publication share in the Top 5% of Journals by CiteScore

1%

Publication share in the Top 25% of Journals by CiteScore

0.5%

TOTAL

100

Wow, itreally is alot of garbage in. The citations criteria isn’t adjusted for size, so massively benefits the very large public institutions. Further, they use a six year graduation rate, which is also pretty meaningless. Still have the Pell grant nonsense as well.

Citations per publication is normalized by the number of publications a university produces (for example, 100 citations total from 10 publications would be better than 1000 citations total from 1000 publications.)

But whether these indicators measure what individual families care about when looking for colleges is another story.

[Anonymous]

Peer assessment is BS and it's 20%.

UC schools give one another 100 LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol at all the posters on here losing it over a college ranking service. There are multiple ranking services. This freaking thing is already at 29 pages. Get a life

People angry they overpaid for low ranked ivies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UVA is very prestigious.

[Anonymous]

I absolutely love when these rankings come out. The tantrums on DCUM are hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here are the 2026 ranking factors and their relative weights:

National Universities 2026 Best Colleges Ranking Factor Weights
Indicator

2026 National Universities Weight for Schools With Usable SAT/ACT

Graduation rates

16%

First-year retention rates

5%

Graduation rate performance

10%

Pell graduation rates

5.5%

Pell graduation performance

5.5%

College grads earning more than a high school grad

5%

Borrower debt

5%

Peer assessment

20%

Financial resources per student

8%

Faculty salaries

6%

Full-time faculty

2%

Student-faculty ratio

3%

Standardized tests

5%

Citations per publication

1.25%

Field-Weighted Citation Impact

1.25%

Publication share in the Top 5% of Journals by CiteScore

1%

Publication share in the Top 25% of Journals by CiteScore

0.5%

TOTAL

100

UChicago?

[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:The Chicago thing is crazy because from top private high schools they only matriculate kids who are well out of the top 20%. Maybe this year will be different.

Chicago and Hopkins are T10 oddballs. I’ve never met a kid who dreams of going to either.

you bitter. get over it

Different poster. He's not wrong. They're the only top10 schools that have ED2.
The only reason to have ED2 is to get a second shot at top students who didn't choose you ED1.

Kind of a dumb take. No one EDs to brown, dartmouth, cornell, etc as a dream school. It's because they didn't feel as confident going for HYPSM. I think it's smart to offer ED2. Most people who end up at lower top 10s had bigger dreams but landed at a solid backup.

I am not a big fan of Chicago or Hopkins but their top students are probably smarter than a lot of HYP these days. HYP admissions is not based on academic merit.

I would agree with this, though it is also true at many flagships.

Yes. In fact, due simply to its sheer size, a top public school like Michigan has more 1500+ SAT students in its incoming class than Harvard. The math is simple: In Fall 2024, Michigan has 8858 freshmen and a 75th percentile SAT of 1530, meaning it has 2214 freshmen scoring above 1530. In comparison, Harvard has 1647 freshmen and a 25th percentile SAT of 1500, meaning it has 1235 freshmen scoring above 1500. Of course, both schools were test optional in Fall 2024 which skewed these numbers, but the errors were unlikely to drop Michigan's 2214 below Harvard's 1235, especially when Michigan's threshold was 1530 while Harvard's was 1500. (And of course Harvard is significantly better on a per capita basis, just not the headcount.)

michigan is 51% test submitted. If test required, i suspect 75th percentile is under 1500 easy

PP. Even if Michigan's 75th percentile is 1500, it still has 2214 above 1500 whereas Harvard only has 1235 above 1500 assuming 100% submitted SAT at Harvard. Almost double. Again this is not to say that Michigan is better on a per capita basis. It has more 1500+ scorers than Harvard simply because it is gigantic.

Take a look at national merit scholars. https://www.nationalmerit.org/s/1758/images/gid2/editor_documents/annual_report.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&gid=2&pgid=61&sessionid=95e8c223-1c14-43e9-96d6-3fcd0d0626cc&cc=1

Harvard has 147. Michigan has 89.

Well, if you want to use the number of National Merit Scholars as a measure of the raw number of smart kids at a school, then according to the document you linked Purdue has 253, Texas A&M has 258, Alabama has 301, Florida has 394, and UT Dallas has 188. All significantly outperforming Harvard. This supports my (and the earlier poster's) point that big public schools have more smart kids than Harvard, simply because they are huge. (They have a boatload more of not-so-smart kids, of course.)

incorrect analysis. the numbers you cite are sponsored by the school. The real number is in parenthesis since harvard does not sponsor national merit scholars.

meant to say the real number is the total minus what is in parenthesis. In which case alabama and ut dallas have around 40-50 total.

Alabama claims to have 362 NMSs in its freshman class (https://news.ua.edu/2025/09/uas-record-enrollment-growth-reinforces-in-state-investment-academic-excellence/). UT Dallas claims to have a total of 850 NMSs which averages out to roughly 212 per class (https://honors.utdallas.edu/facts-figures/). Both schools have more NMSs than Harvard's 147.

I know it's hard to fathom that average big publics can have lots of smart kids, and a handful of these big publics that offer NMFs full-ride actually have more NMFs than Harvard.

(Disclaimer: I don't think being an NMS is necessarily a good measure for smart, but that's the measure a PP used so I just followed. I also understand whether an NMF becomes an NMS depends on sponsorship and institution.)

You are dense. The 362s are sponsored by Alabama (aka a merit scholarship for national merit finalists) not by NMSC foundation. The actual amount in Alabama sponsored by NMSC is ~41 compared to Harvard's 147. Harvard does not sponsor National Merit Scholars. Same for UT Dallas.

Learn the basic math. If harvard sponsored all national merit finalists, it might have well over 600 per freshman class.

[Anonymous]

Could someone please post the list of top national universities? Every time I try to log in on the site it freezes up. TIA.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:The Chicago thing is crazy because from top private high schools they only matriculate kids who are well out of the top 20%. Maybe this year will be different.

Chicago and Hopkins are T10 oddballs. I’ve never met a kid who dreams of going to either.

you bitter. get over it

Different poster. He's not wrong. They're the only top10 schools that have ED2.
The only reason to have ED2 is to get a second shot at top students who didn't choose you ED1.

Kind of a dumb take. No one EDs to brown, dartmouth, cornell, etc as a dream school. It's because they didn't feel as confident going for HYPSM. I think it's smart to offer ED2. Most people who end up at lower top 10s had bigger dreams but landed at a solid backup.

I am not a big fan of Chicago or Hopkins but their top students are probably smarter than a lot of HYP these days. HYP admissions is not based on academic merit.

I would agree with this, though it is also true at many flagships.

Yes. In fact, due simply to its sheer size, a top public school like Michigan has more 1500+ SAT students in its incoming class than Harvard. The math is simple: In Fall 2024, Michigan has 8858 freshmen and a 75th percentile SAT of 1530, meaning it has 2214 freshmen scoring above 1530. In comparison, Harvard has 1647 freshmen and a 25th percentile SAT of 1500, meaning it has 1235 freshmen scoring above 1500. Of course, both schools were test optional in Fall 2024 which skewed these numbers, but the errors were unlikely to drop Michigan's 2214 below Harvard's 1235, especially when Michigan's threshold was 1530 while Harvard's was 1500. (And of course Harvard is significantly better on a per capita basis, just not the headcount.)

michigan is 51% test submitted. If test required, i suspect 75th percentile is under 1500 easy

PP. Even if Michigan's 75th percentile is 1500, it still has 2214 above 1500 whereas Harvard only has 1235 above 1500 assuming 100% submitted SAT at Harvard. Almost double. Again this is not to say that Michigan is better on a per capita basis. It has more 1500+ scorers than Harvard simply because it is gigantic.

Take a look at national merit scholars. https://www.nationalmerit.org/s/1758/images/gid2/editor_documents/annual_report.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&gid=2&pgid=61&sessionid=95e8c223-1c14-43e9-96d6-3fcd0d0626cc&cc=1

Harvard has 147. Michigan has 89.

Well, if you want to use the number of National Merit Scholars as a measure of the raw number of smart kids at a school, then according to the document you linked Purdue has 253, Texas A&M has 258, Alabama has 301, Florida has 394, and UT Dallas has 188. All significantly outperforming Harvard. This supports my (and the earlier poster's) point that big public schools have more smart kids than Harvard, simply because they are huge. (They have a boatload more of not-so-smart kids, of course.)

incorrect analysis. the numbers you cite are sponsored by the school. The real number is in parenthesis since harvard does not sponsor national merit scholars.

meant to say the real number is the total minus what is in parenthesis. In which case alabama and ut dallas have around 40-50 total.

Alabama claims to have 362 NMSs in its freshman class (https://news.ua.edu/2025/09/uas-record-enrollment-growth-reinforces-in-state-investment-academic-excellence/). UT Dallas claims to have a total of 850 NMSs which averages out to roughly 212 per class (https://honors.utdallas.edu/facts-figures/). Both schools have more NMSs than Harvard's 147.

I know it's hard to fathom that average big publics can have lots of smart kids, and a handful of these big publics that offer NMFs full-ride actually have more NMFs than Harvard.

(Disclaimer: I don't think being an NMS is necessarily a good measure for smart, but that's the measure a PP used so I just followed. I also understand whether an NMF becomes an NMS depends on sponsorship and institution.)

You are dense. The 362s are sponsored by Alabama (aka a merit scholarship for national merit finalists) not by NMSC foundation. The actual amount in Alabama sponsored by NMSC is ~41 compared to Harvard's 147. Harvard does not sponsor National Merit Scholars. Same for UT Dallas.

Learn the basic math. If harvard sponsored all national merit finalists, it might have well over 600 per freshman class.

Same for UT Dallas and Alabama*

Page: 42

Harvard - 147 merit scholars sponsored by NMSC
UT Dallas - 23 merit scholars sponsored by NMSC. Rest were just finalists sponsored via scholarships by UT Dallas.
UAlabama - 45 merit scholars sponsored by NMSC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could someone please post the list of top national universities? Every time I try to log in on the site it freezes up. TIA.

1. Princeton
2. MIT
3. Harvard
4. Stanford, Yale
6. Chicago
7. Duke, Hopkins, NW, Penn
11. Cal Tech
12. Cornell
13. Brown, Dartmouth
15. Columbia, Cal
17. Rice, UCLA, Vanderbilt
20. CMU, Michigan, ND, Wash U
24. Emory, GTown
26. UNC, UVA
28. USC
29. UCSD
30. Florida, TX
32. Ga Tech, NYU, UC Davis, Irvine
36. BC, Tufts, Illinois, Wisc
40. UCSB
41. Ohio St
42. BU, Rutgers, UMD, UWash
46. Lehigh, NEU, Purdue, UGA, Rochester

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Peer assessment is BS and it's 20%.

UC schools give one another 100 LOL

Who cares. Whether 7 UCs give UC Merced 100 does not matter if the hundreds of other schools give a 0.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could someone please post the list of top national universities? Every time I try to log in on the site it freezes up. TIA.

1 - Princeton
2 - MIT
3 - Harvard
4 - Stanford, Yale
6 - UChicago
7 - Duke, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, UPenn
11 - Caltech
12 - Cornell
13 - Brown, Dartmouth
15 - Columbia, Berkeley
17 - Rice, UCLA, Vanderbilt
20 - Carnegie Mellon, UMichigan, Notre Dame, WUSTL

It wouldn’t be my list for undergrad. But that’s what people are rolling with this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could someone please post the list of top national universities? Every time I try to log in on the site it freezes up. TIA.

1. Princeton
2. MIT
3. Harvard
4. Stanford, Yale
6. Chicago
7. Duke, Hopkins, NW, Penn
11. Cal Tech
12. Cornell
13. Brown, Dartmouth
15. Columbia, Cal
17. Rice, UCLA, Vanderbilt
20. CMU, Michigan, ND, Wash U
24. Emory, GTown
26. UNC, UVA
28. USC
29. UCSD
30. Florida, TX
32. Ga Tech, NYU, UC Davis, Irvine
36. BC, Tufts, Illinois, Wisc
40. UCSB
41. Ohio St
42. BU, Rutgers, UMD, UWash
46. Lehigh, NEU, Purdue, UGA, Rochester

Many thanks. What are the 50-75?