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

[Anonymous]

I agree with the posters that a better approach is to use the Princeton Review or something like it as a tool to vet the top few hundred schools and then a data sorter like the NY times tool that allows you to sort data on preferred qualities. Any "rankings" approach combined or otherwise tends to a) make big distinctions out of tiny differences (a school ranked 25 and 45 may be only separated by tenths of points on criteria that don't matter to you or really anyone except for how it impacts rankings), b) tend to reify these tiny differences into fixed opinions about the quality of schools, and c) invite "gaming" of their system by schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This page is exactly what’s wrong with rankings. Quibbling over Duke, Georgetown, Columbia is nonsense. There is no way anyone can credibly say any of these are “better” than the others. They are just different, with different areas of strength and different weakness. Many of the supposed strengths and weaknesses are just value judgments. There is no actual science behind college rankings and we should all just ignore them.

And, to the poster who keeps chiming in that it helped them cull down the 3000+ colleges, you could absolutely do that without any ordinal ranking.

Why is the blame on the consumers seeking information instead of the subterfuge by the schools by trying to block public information about admissions processes and graduate outcomes?

These schools basically are telling us, “Forget about rankings and pick a school that makes you *feel* good.” I’m sorry, but when people are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for each child, that’s crap.

Frankly, the most honest information is probably coming from the Department of Education College Scorecard. It’s incomplete information since it’s only based on those who took out federal student loans, but it’s at least better than the fuzzy platitudes of the schools. It’s funny that, as far as I’ve seen, the schools that have so much zeal in criticizing the US News rankings rarely point to any other alternative like the College Scorecard (lest they find about the amount of student loans people are taking out for how a whole lot of schools and/or majors that have pretty terrible income prospects).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This page is exactly what’s wrong with rankings. Quibbling over Duke, Georgetown, Columbia is nonsense. There is no way anyone can credibly say any of these are “better” than the others. They are just different, with different areas of strength and different weakness. Many of the supposed strengths and weaknesses are just value judgments. There is no actual science behind college rankings and we should all just ignore them.

And, to the poster who keeps chiming in that it helped them cull down the 3000+ colleges, you could absolutely do that without any ordinal ranking.

Why is the blame on the consumers seeking information instead of the subterfuge by the schools by trying to block public information about admissions processes and graduate outcomes?

These schools basically are telling us, “Forget about rankings and pick a school that makes you *feel* good.” I’m sorry, but when people are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for each child, that’s crap.

Frankly, the most honest information is probably coming from the Department of Education College Scorecard. It’s incomplete information since it’s only based on those who took out federal student loans, but it’s at least better than the fuzzy platitudes of the schools. It’s funny that, as far as I’ve seen, the schools that have so much zeal in criticizing the US News rankings rarely point to any other alternative like the College Scorecard (lest they find about the amount of student loans people are taking out for how a whole lot of schools and/or majors that have pretty terrible income prospects).

If the primary interest is ROI and financial outcomes, then Wall Street Journal and Forbes are the best rankings. Wall Street Journal actually has a subranking that ranks undergrad schools by outcomes:

1. Princeton
1. Yale
3. Duke
3. Harvard
3. MIT
3. Stanford
7. Cornell
8. Caltech
8. UChicago
8. Dartmouth
11. JHU
12. Northwestern
13. UPenn
14. Brown
15. Vanderbilt
16. UMich
17. WashU
18. UCLA
19. Amherst
19. Berkeley
21. Williams
22. UNC
23. Columbia
24. USC
25. Emory

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This page is exactly what’s wrong with rankings. Quibbling over Duke, Georgetown, Columbia is nonsense. There is no way anyone can credibly say any of these are “better” than the others. They are just different, with different areas of strength and different weakness. Many of the supposed strengths and weaknesses are just value judgments. There is no actual science behind college rankings and we should all just ignore them.

And, to the poster who keeps chiming in that it helped them cull down the 3000+ colleges, you could absolutely do that without any ordinal ranking.

Why is the blame on the consumers seeking information instead of the subterfuge by the schools by trying to block public information about admissions processes and graduate outcomes?

These schools basically are telling us, “Forget about rankings and pick a school that makes you *feel* good.” I’m sorry, but when people are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for each child, that’s crap.

Frankly, the most honest information is probably coming from the Department of Education College Scorecard. It’s incomplete information since it’s only based on those who took out federal student loans, but it’s at least better than the fuzzy platitudes of the schools. It’s funny that, as far as I’ve seen, the schools that have so much zeal in criticizing the US News rankings rarely point to any other alternative like the College Scorecard (lest they find about the amount of student loans people are taking out for how a whole lot of schools and/or majors that have pretty terrible income prospects).

If the primary interest is ROI and financial outcomes, then Wall Street Journal and Forbes are the best rankings. Wall Street Journal actually has a subranking that ranks undergrad schools by outcomes:

1. Princeton
1. Yale
3. Duke
3. Harvard
3. MIT
3. Stanford
7. Cornell
8. Caltech
8. UChicago
8. Dartmouth
11. JHU
12. Northwestern
13. UPenn
14. Brown
15. Vanderbilt
16. UMich
17. WashU
18. UCLA
19. Amherst
19. Berkeley
21. Williams
22. UNC
23. Columbia
24. USC
25. Emory

+1 outcomes are a much better way to measure the usefulness of a school since that’s the main reason most people send their kids to college

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This page is exactly what’s wrong with rankings. Quibbling over Duke, Georgetown, Columbia is nonsense. There is no way anyone can credibly say any of these are “better” than the others. They are just different, with different areas of strength and different weakness. Many of the supposed strengths and weaknesses are just value judgments. There is no actual science behind college rankings and we should all just ignore them.

And, to the poster who keeps chiming in that it helped them cull down the 3000+ colleges, you could absolutely do that without any ordinal ranking.

Why is the blame on the consumers seeking information instead of the subterfuge by the schools by trying to block public information about admissions processes and graduate outcomes?

These schools basically are telling us, “Forget about rankings and pick a school that makes you *feel* good.” I’m sorry, but when people are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for each child, that’s crap.

Frankly, the most honest information is probably coming from the Department of Education College Scorecard. It’s incomplete information since it’s only based on those who took out federal student loans, but it’s at least better than the fuzzy platitudes of the schools. It’s funny that, as far as I’ve seen, the schools that have so much zeal in criticizing the US News rankings rarely point to any other alternative like the College Scorecard (lest they find about the amount of student loans people are taking out for how a whole lot of schools and/or majors that have pretty terrible income prospects).

If the primary interest is ROI and financial outcomes, then Wall Street Journal and Forbes are the best rankings. Wall Street Journal actually has a subranking that ranks undergrad schools by outcomes:

1. Princeton
1. Yale
3. Duke
3. Harvard
3. MIT
3. Stanford
7. Cornell
8. Caltech
8. UChicago
8. Dartmouth
11. JHU
12. Northwestern
13. UPenn
14. Brown
15. Vanderbilt
16. UMich
17. WashU
18. UCLA
19. Amherst
19. Berkeley
21. Williams
22. UNC
23. Columbia
24. USC
25. Emory

+1 outcomes are a much better way to measure the usefulness of a school since that’s the main reason most people send their kids to college

Three public schools in the top 20. That’s very impressive considering that each of those schools have at least 3 times the undergraduate enrollment as any private on the list, save Cornell. Cornell really stands out among the privates with its much higher undergraduate population.

[Anonymous]

** Cornell really stands out among the privates with its much higher undergraduate population in the top 20.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since US News is potentially being undermined by unhappy universities that dislike US News' system, is shifting to a more balanced approach a better representation of where colleges stand? For example, using something like this which was previously shared to avoid over-reliance on one source:

Wow look at UMich. It’s an incredible school so no qualms there!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This page is exactly what’s wrong with rankings. Quibbling over Duke, Georgetown, Columbia is nonsense. There is no way anyone can credibly say any of these are “better” than the others. They are just different, with different areas of strength and different weakness. Many of the supposed strengths and weaknesses are just value judgments. There is no actual science behind college rankings and we should all just ignore them.

And, to the poster who keeps chiming in that it helped them cull down the 3000+ colleges, you could absolutely do that without any ordinal ranking.

Why is the blame on the consumers seeking information instead of the subterfuge by the schools by trying to block public information about admissions processes and graduate outcomes?

These schools basically are telling us, “Forget about rankings and pick a school that makes you *feel* good.” I’m sorry, but when people are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for each child, that’s crap.

Frankly, the most honest information is probably coming from the Department of Education College Scorecard. It’s incomplete information since it’s only based on those who took out federal student loans, but it’s at least better than the fuzzy platitudes of the schools. It’s funny that, as far as I’ve seen, the schools that have so much zeal in criticizing the US News rankings rarely point to any other alternative like the College Scorecard (lest they find about the amount of student loans people are taking out for how a whole lot of schools and/or majors that have pretty terrible income prospects).

If the primary interest is ROI and financial outcomes, then Wall Street Journal and Forbes are the best rankings. Wall Street Journal actually has a subranking that ranks undergrad schools by outcomes:

1. Princeton
1. Yale
3. Duke
3. Harvard
3. MIT
3. Stanford
7. Cornell
8. Caltech
8. UChicago
8. Dartmouth
11. JHU
12. Northwestern
13. UPenn
14. Brown
15. Vanderbilt
16. UMich
17. WashU
18. UCLA
19. Amherst
19. Berkeley
21. Williams
22. UNC
23. Columbia
24. USC
25. Emory

Excellent list that tracks with what we've seen anecdotally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This page is exactly what’s wrong with rankings. Quibbling over Duke, Georgetown, Columbia is nonsense. There is no way anyone can credibly say any of these are “better” than the others. They are just different, with different areas of strength and different weakness. Many of the supposed strengths and weaknesses are just value judgments. There is no actual science behind college rankings and we should all just ignore them.

And, to the poster who keeps chiming in that it helped them cull down the 3000+ colleges, you could absolutely do that without any ordinal ranking.

Why is the blame on the consumers seeking information instead of the subterfuge by the schools by trying to block public information about admissions processes and graduate outcomes?

These schools basically are telling us, “Forget about rankings and pick a school that makes you *feel* good.” I’m sorry, but when people are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for each child, that’s crap.

Frankly, the most honest information is probably coming from the Department of Education College Scorecard. It’s incomplete information since it’s only based on those who took out federal student loans, but it’s at least better than the fuzzy platitudes of the schools. It’s funny that, as far as I’ve seen, the schools that have so much zeal in criticizing the US News rankings rarely point to any other alternative like the College Scorecard (lest they find about the amount of student loans people are taking out for how a whole lot of schools and/or majors that have pretty terrible income prospects).

If the primary interest is ROI and financial outcomes, then Wall Street Journal and Forbes are the best rankings. Wall Street Journal actually has a subranking that ranks undergrad schools by outcomes:

1. Princeton
1. Yale
3. Duke
3. Harvard
3. MIT
3. Stanford
7. Cornell
8. Caltech
8. UChicago
8. Dartmouth
11. JHU
12. Northwestern
13. UPenn
14. Brown
15. Vanderbilt
16. UMich
17. WashU
18. UCLA
19. Amherst
19. Berkeley
21. Williams
22. UNC
23. Columbia
24. USC
25. Emory

Excellent list that tracks with what we've seen anecdotally.

I agree with it except I believe UPenn and Columbia should be higher. UPenn has Wharton which feeds almost exclusively into high earning careers, and Columbia being in Manhattan tends to do the same. In my experience it makes sense to swap Cornell and UPenn, and swap WashU and Columbia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This page is exactly what’s wrong with rankings. Quibbling over Duke, Georgetown, Columbia is nonsense. There is no way anyone can credibly say any of these are “better” than the others. They are just different, with different areas of strength and different weakness. Many of the supposed strengths and weaknesses are just value judgments. There is no actual science behind college rankings and we should all just ignore them.

And, to the poster who keeps chiming in that it helped them cull down the 3000+ colleges, you could absolutely do that without any ordinal ranking.

Why is the blame on the consumers seeking information instead of the subterfuge by the schools by trying to block public information about admissions processes and graduate outcomes?

These schools basically are telling us, “Forget about rankings and pick a school that makes you *feel* good.” I’m sorry, but when people are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for each child, that’s crap.

Frankly, the most honest information is probably coming from the Department of Education College Scorecard. It’s incomplete information since it’s only based on those who took out federal student loans, but it’s at least better than the fuzzy platitudes of the schools. It’s funny that, as far as I’ve seen, the schools that have so much zeal in criticizing the US News rankings rarely point to any other alternative like the College Scorecard (lest they find about the amount of student loans people are taking out for how a whole lot of schools and/or majors that have pretty terrible income prospects).

If the primary interest is ROI and financial outcomes, then Wall Street Journal and Forbes are the best rankings. Wall Street Journal actually has a subranking that ranks undergrad schools by outcomes:

1. Princeton
1. Yale
3. Duke
3. Harvard
3. MIT
3. Stanford
7. Cornell
8. Caltech
8. UChicago
8. Dartmouth
11. JHU
12. Northwestern
13. UPenn
14. Brown
15. Vanderbilt
16. UMich
17. WashU
18. UCLA
19. Amherst
19. Berkeley
21. Williams
22. UNC
23. Columbia
24. USC
25. Emory

+1 outcomes are a much better way to measure the usefulness of a school since that’s the main reason most people send their kids to college

But the devil is in the details--how much are outcomes tied to the status of the students' families? Are they controlling for all the factors? And how much of a difference is there in outcomes between 1 and 25 and between 25 and 50 etc.? Are these distinctions without a difference or are these meaningful?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This page is exactly what’s wrong with rankings. Quibbling over Duke, Georgetown, Columbia is nonsense. There is no way anyone can credibly say any of these are “better” than the others. They are just different, with different areas of strength and different weakness. Many of the supposed strengths and weaknesses are just value judgments. There is no actual science behind college rankings and we should all just ignore them.

And, to the poster who keeps chiming in that it helped them cull down the 3000+ colleges, you could absolutely do that without any ordinal ranking.

Why is the blame on the consumers seeking information instead of the subterfuge by the schools by trying to block public information about admissions processes and graduate outcomes?

These schools basically are telling us, “Forget about rankings and pick a school that makes you *feel* good.” I’m sorry, but when people are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for each child, that’s crap.

Frankly, the most honest information is probably coming from the Department of Education College Scorecard. It’s incomplete information since it’s only based on those who took out federal student loans, but it’s at least better than the fuzzy platitudes of the schools. It’s funny that, as far as I’ve seen, the schools that have so much zeal in criticizing the US News rankings rarely point to any other alternative like the College Scorecard (lest they find about the amount of student loans people are taking out for how a whole lot of schools and/or majors that have pretty terrible income prospects).

If the primary interest is ROI and financial outcomes, then Wall Street Journal and Forbes are the best rankings. Wall Street Journal actually has a subranking that ranks undergrad schools by outcomes:

1. Princeton
1. Yale
3. Duke
3. Harvard
3. MIT
3. Stanford
7. Cornell
8. Caltech
8. UChicago
8. Dartmouth
11. JHU
12. Northwestern
13. UPenn
14. Brown
15. Vanderbilt
16. UMich
17. WashU
18. UCLA
19. Amherst
19. Berkeley
21. Williams
22. UNC
23. Columbia
24. USC
25. Emory

No this the best source,

https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This page is exactly what’s wrong with rankings. Quibbling over Duke, Georgetown, Columbia is nonsense. There is no way anyone can credibly say any of these are “better” than the others. They are just different, with different areas of strength and different weakness. Many of the supposed strengths and weaknesses are just value judgments. There is no actual science behind college rankings and we should all just ignore them.

And, to the poster who keeps chiming in that it helped them cull down the 3000+ colleges, you could absolutely do that without any ordinal ranking.

Why is the blame on the consumers seeking information instead of the subterfuge by the schools by trying to block public information about admissions processes and graduate outcomes?

These schools basically are telling us, “Forget about rankings and pick a school that makes you *feel* good.” I’m sorry, but when people are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for each child, that’s crap.

Frankly, the most honest information is probably coming from the Department of Education College Scorecard. It’s incomplete information since it’s only based on those who took out federal student loans, but it’s at least better than the fuzzy platitudes of the schools. It’s funny that, as far as I’ve seen, the schools that have so much zeal in criticizing the US News rankings rarely point to any other alternative like the College Scorecard (lest they find about the amount of student loans people are taking out for how a whole lot of schools and/or majors that have pretty terrible income prospects).

If the primary interest is ROI and financial outcomes, then Wall Street Journal and Forbes are the best rankings. Wall Street Journal actually has a subranking that ranks undergrad schools by outcomes:

1. Princeton
1. Yale
3. Duke
3. Harvard
3. MIT
3. Stanford
7. Cornell
8. Caltech
8. UChicago
8. Dartmouth
11. JHU
12. Northwestern
13. UPenn
14. Brown
15. Vanderbilt
16. UMich
17. WashU
18. UCLA
19. Amherst
19. Berkeley
21. Williams
22. UNC
23. Columbia
24. USC
25. Emory

+1 outcomes are a much better way to measure the usefulness of a school since that’s the main reason most people send their kids to college

But the devil is in the details--how much are outcomes tied to the status of the students' families? Are they controlling for all the factors? And how much of a difference is there in outcomes between 1 and 25 and between 25 and 50 etc.? Are these distinctions without a difference or are these meaningful?

WSJ actually breaks down how it's calculated, the main factor in outcomes is value added to graduate salary (i.e. how much more a graduate goes on to earn compared to if they didn't graduate from that school). Here's the list with the overall outcome scores (out of 40):

1. Princeton - 39.7
1. Yale - 39.7
3. Duke - 39.6
3. Harvard - 39.6
3. MIT - 39.6
3. Stanford - 39.6
7. Cornell - 39.3
8. Caltech - 39.0
8. UChicago - 39.0
8. Dartmouth - 39.0
11. JHU - 38.9
12. Northwestern - 38.8
13. UPenn - 38.7
14. Brown - 38.2
15. Vanderbilt - 38.1
16. UMich - 38.0
17. WashU - 37.8
18. UCLA - 37.7
19. Amherst - 37.4
19. Berkeley - 37.4
21. Williams - 37.3
22. UNC - 37.1
23. Columbia - 36.9
24. USC - 36.6
25. Emory - 36.5

It looks like HPSM, Duke, and Yale pretty much cluster near the top with high 39s. Then several schools at the low 39s-high 38s. The only slightly meaningful drop is between UPenn and Brown. As for meaningful differences, in the grand scheme all in the top 25 are more or less similar for outcomes, but if you're looking to maximize and nitpick, probably a difference of ~1 out of the 40 point scale starts to become meaningful.

[Anonymous]

Money went a star system scales of 1-5
So like 40 schools are tied at 1 and like 100 schols are tied at 4.5

[Anonymous]

The outcomes based rankings are still just plain bad methodology wise. Here is a taste for the WSJ:
Outcomes
Graduation rate (11%)
Value added to graduate salary (12%)
Debt after graduation (7%)
Academic reputation (10%)

The valued added to graduate salary is especially scary based on how they describe it...
"The THE data team uses statistical modelling to create an expected graduate salary for each college based on a wide range of factors, such as the demographic make-up of its student body and the characteristics of the institution. The ranking looks at how far the college either exceeds expectations in getting students higher average salaries than one would predict based on its students and its characteristics, or falls below what is expected."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This page is exactly what’s wrong with rankings. Quibbling over Duke, Georgetown, Columbia is nonsense. There is no way anyone can credibly say any of these are “better” than the others. They are just different, with different areas of strength and different weakness. Many of the supposed strengths and weaknesses are just value judgments. There is no actual science behind college rankings and we should all just ignore them.

And, to the poster who keeps chiming in that it helped them cull down the 3000+ colleges, you could absolutely do that without any ordinal ranking.

Why is the blame on the consumers seeking information instead of the subterfuge by the schools by trying to block public information about admissions processes and graduate outcomes?

These schools basically are telling us, “Forget about rankings and pick a school that makes you *feel* good.” I’m sorry, but when people are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for each child, that’s crap.

Frankly, the most honest information is probably coming from the Department of Education College Scorecard. It’s incomplete information since it’s only based on those who took out federal student loans, but it’s at least better than the fuzzy platitudes of the schools. It’s funny that, as far as I’ve seen, the schools that have so much zeal in criticizing the US News rankings rarely point to any other alternative like the College Scorecard (lest they find about the amount of student loans people are taking out for how a whole lot of schools and/or majors that have pretty terrible income prospects).

If the primary interest is ROI and financial outcomes, then Wall Street Journal and Forbes are the best rankings. Wall Street Journal actually has a subranking that ranks undergrad schools by outcomes:

1. Princeton
1. Yale
3. Duke
3. Harvard
3. MIT
3. Stanford
7. Cornell
8. Caltech
8. UChicago
8. Dartmouth
11. JHU
12. Northwestern
13. UPenn
14. Brown
15. Vanderbilt
16. UMich
17. WashU
18. UCLA
19. Amherst
19. Berkeley
21. Williams
22. UNC
23. Columbia
24. USC
25. Emory

No this the best source,

https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/

Most of the outcome based rankings use this but don't really tell you until you explore their methodologies in more depth.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/wall-street-journal-times-higher-education-college-rankings-2022