WSJ Rankings 2025
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
That list is hysterically funny.
-CSU grad |
Anonymous
I think most stem students would reject Harvey Mudd. It’s a pretty crabby place to go for 4 years, and if you aren’t interested in working late into the night on all the sciences AND humanities coursework, you’ll be miserable |
Anonymous
| A very crazy list. What is their methodology? |
Anonymous
| Sure this ranking has a lot of head scratchers, but many of the expected top 10 are in the top 10, so the methodology can’t be without some merit. If you aren’t considering the no-name/non-prestigious schools, just skip over them. However, the order of the remaining schools can tell you something. |
Anonymous
|
UC Merced is definitely a top 20 school. NYU at 250+ is a borderline community college.
The Wall Street Journal did a fine rankings job. |
Anonymous
| Hampden-Sydney ranked higher than Amherst? Makes sense. |
Anonymous
| to be fair, Amherst doesn't have great outcomes, pay-wise |
Anonymous
| And Towson over Hopkins - by a lot. Good for Towson though. Amy Schumer must be so proud. |
Anonymous
Bingo. This list is lacking any semblance of student quality ranking. Student peers matter. Parents and families want kids to go to the schools that people know have smart kids. This list has zero assessment for smarts. |
Anonymous
|
What’s so curious to me is how did Emma Tucker, the editor in chief, even get this job. Obviously, a best colleges list for the WSJ is a big roll out. What was the thinking here?
It’s so manifestly stupid and thoughtless. And there was a huge opportunity to claim this space. And they went with what they did. Baffling. Clearly morons in control at WSJ. |
Anonymous
| People might be misinterpreting these results. As I understand it, the ranking shows which schools produce the biggest bang (outcomes) for the buck (cost minus aid), essentially a ROI, with a few other measures too (30%). So, if the average cost to attend is high, even good outcomes are significantly offset. On the other hand, if the average cost to attend is low, just a better-than-average outcome would rank the school highly. So, it’s the balance of the two that gets a school highly ranked. |
Anonymous
Colgate and Delaware ahead of Rice and Georgetown? I mean, the absurdity is unfathomable. This ranking has got to be a joke. Like some intern was doing some kind of filtering with the data and they accidentally published the wrong filtered list or something. Seriously, this is senseless. |
Anonymous
Not just questionable methodology, why would they rank differently for the same scores? This WSJ list is just out of control... |
Anonymous
This is the way I read it as well. I have kids at two of the schools, and the normally much higher-ranked one is ranked well below the other school. But the WSJ lower-ranked school is much more expensive. At least initially, the kid going there will make much less money than the one at the better-ranked (by WSJ) university, at least initially. |
Anonymous
| The list is schools with the most kids (often men) who major in engineering and comp sci and finance and make a lot of money. |