Only nine of the top 20 USNWR made top 20 on this list.

Princeton
Stanford
Yale
MIT
Harvard
Berkeley
Penn
Columbia
Notre Dame

This is another data point where Wake and Tulane are not ranked well

Honestly, their USNews rankings are way higher than any other rankings.

WSJ has Wake at 137 and Tulane at 451.

Anonymous wrote:gift link?

You're welcome.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/wsj-best-colleges-2025-princeton-babson-stanford-52443de8?st=h14riihjxcgh3mi&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never heard of 2 schools in the Top 10 (Babson, Claremont McKenna).

Guessing I can't afford those anyway.

Claremont is a pricey LAC in SoCal. Very well known out there.

I'd disown my kids before I let them go to a school in California.

why do I listen to commenters here at all? for anything?

Anonymous wrote:I want my kids to experience small, diverse classes taught by tenured or tenure track professors, graduate in 4 years, get a job or admission to grad school right away, and earn a good living through out their lives without unpayable college debt. So, my list would be based on:

Student Outcomes (% employed or attending grad school only)
Average earnings (first job + mid career = average real cost to attend)
average class size
diversity
% classes taught by tenured or tenure track professors
% graduating in 4 years

you have 2/3 your classes taught by tenure track professors, that means you have 1/3 taught by people getting paid 6k a year

you have all your classes taught by tenure track professors, you're paying 120k a year.

the profession's pay structure is broken.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never heard of 2 schools in the Top 10 (Babson, Claremont McKenna).

Guessing I can't afford those anyway.

Claremont is a pricey LAC in SoCal. Very well known out there.

And Babson is a private business school, well known in New England, and obviously beloved by the WSJ, since is is all business all the time. Originally it was all male.

Anonymous wrote:I want my kids to experience small, diverse classes taught by tenured or tenure track professors, graduate in 4 years, get a job or admission to grad school right away, and earn a good living through out their lives without unpayable college debt. So, my list would be based on:

Student Outcomes (% employed or attending grad school only)
Average earnings (first job + mid career = average real cost to attend)
average class size
diversity
% classes taught by tenured or tenure track professors
% graduating in 4 years

^^ = should be a minus sign

I want my kids to experience small, diverse classes taught by tenured or tenure track professors, graduate in 4 years, get a job or admission to grad school right away, and earn a good living through out their lives without unpayable college debt. So, my list would be based on:

Student Outcomes (% employed or attending grad school only)
Average earnings (first job + mid career = average real cost to attend)
average class size
diversity
% classes taught by tenured or tenure track professors
% graduating in 4 years

Last year’s rankings had some quirks, but they at least had some basis in reality and it did seem to be more of an “output”-based ranking of student outcomes as opposed to “input”-based on student GPAs/test scores. They changed their methodology so much this year that it has insane swings in the year-over-year rankings and simply nonsensical if the idea is to rank the “best” colleges. It’s sad - I thought the WSJ had been a fair alternative to the US News rankings for the past few years, but they seemed to want shock value this year with outcomes like ranking 6 Cal State schools above UCLA. For whatever reason, the WSJ methodology this year loves the Cal State schools even more than the US News loves the UC schools. That’s all well and good, but a ranking isn’t trustworthy with such insane swings from year-to-year.

What weird (to me) is that Claremont is so high and Pomona is so low (191). I get Harvey Mudd since all engineering and business schools always do well.

Are the schools really that dramatically different considering they are all the same consortium?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never heard of 2 schools in the Top 10 (Babson, Claremont McKenna).

Guessing I can't afford those anyway.

Claremont is a pricey LAC in SoCal. Very well known out there.

I'd disown my kids before I let them go to a school in California.

Who’s crazy now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never heard of 2 schools in the Top 10 (Babson, Claremont McKenna).

Guessing I can't afford those anyway.

Claremont is a pricey LAC in SoCal. Very well known out there.

I'd disown my kids before I let them go to a school in California.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top 20 for those interested without subscriptions:
1: Princeton
2: Babson
3: Stanford
4: Yale
5: Claremont McKenna
6: MIT
7: Harvard
8: Berkeley
9: Georgia Tech
10: Davidson
11: Bentley
12: UC Davis
13: Penn
14: Columbia
15: Lehigh
16: San Jose State
17: Notre Dame
18: UC Merced
19: Virginia Tech
20: Harvey Mudd

I kind of like the list - very pre-professional focused and makes sense for the type who read WSJ. Methodology is 70% Student Outcomes, 20% Learning Environment, and 10% Diversity, with each of those broken up with different metrics.

How much is Claremont McKenna paying to be at the top of all these rankings?

I noticed that too. Best investment ever for a school to get on literally any list to boost applications. People are sheeple.

Anonymous wrote:I've never heard of 2 schools in the Top 10 (Babson, Claremont McKenna).

Guessing I can't afford those anyway.

Claremont is a pricey LAC in SoCal. Very well known out there.

Anonymous wrote:WTF is this garbage LOL

oh, and I went to VT lol