Becoming test optional helps rankings since test scores are not counted. Talk about gaming he rankings.
LACs are free to bring in more of the mediocre students (academics) so they can keep their teams in tip top shape (looking at you Bowdoin).
I went online early to see the news. Brown was 14, and Cornell and Rice were tied for 15. Vanderbilt followed.
A couple hours later, I went online to send it to a friend–but by then, Brown, Cornell, Rice, and Vanderbilt were tied for 14.
This proves my theory that the U.S News rankings are ridiculous and arbitrary if you’re judging schools with similar rankings… Better schools are better than lesser schools. We don’t need U.S. News to tell us that. They’re just trying (successfully, it seems) to sell magazines.
For test optional schools, the rankings do include test scores for those who submit, and in Bowdoin’s case 90% of applicants do submit scores. Mean scores for SAT are 730-740 per section. ACT mean is 33. So doubt there are a lot of slackers at that school!
U of Michigan seems to have dropped a few spots.
Texas isn’t going to be happy. Georgia is now ranked above them.
@Greymeer "The laughable list is the “best value schools” list.
To evaluate public schools they used only the OOS tuition rate.
I guess they didn’t want a list where schools like Texas AM and UAH were near the top."
The best value is probably the countries least expensive community college. lol
@whatisyourquest - you asked how certain schools (like Stanford) can be higher in niche rankings (like engineering, best value, most innovative, etc.), and ranked lower overall than other schools (like Harvard).
This is because the overall ranking is essentially a prestige ranking - it doesn’t care about who teaches undergrads the best, or what school is innovative, or what school is the best value.
(Similarly, since prestige is the coin of the realm at the top - schools care little about their niche rankings, but care quite a bit about their overall ranking.)
From the National LAC rankings I was surprised to see Hamilton and Haverford drop to 18th position from 12 in last years rankings. These are outstanding and super selective schools. Why the significant drop for these schools? I also noticed that the University of Richmond is continuing its ascent by jumping another 4 slots this year to 23rd position (up from 30 in the 2015 rankings). At this rate they are likely to break the top 20 next year.
For the first time US News began publishing average pay by major (in partnership with Payscale) but I don’t think they used it as a criteria for their rankings.
@whatisyourquest @Cue7 the overall USNWR measures and puts a heavy emphasis on SAT, retention and grad rates. As far as prestige… look to rankings that do not measure grad rates, SAT and retention rates and the 3 schools that consistently rank high are Stanford, MIT and Harvard. (World rankings such as QS world rankings, Higher Times, Shanghi etc).
Stanford’s SAT scores, retention rates and grad rates will always be lower than non D1 Power 5 conference schools peers. Stanford’s athletic program (the best in the country with the most NCAA national championships, 27 medals at Rio Olympics including 14 golds - more than Australia) will always lower these metrics.
U of Chicago and Caltech which place the least emphasis on sports have the highest SAT scores in the country.
Basically USNWR games the numbers for the result they want. U of Chicago has the academic chops and a very innovative admissions office that has been able to successfully game the rankings to crack into the top 3.
will USNWR allow U of Chicago to pass Yale? they will probably change the criteria at that point imo:)
@Cue7 Ok, but does anyone really believe that Yale, Chicago, and Columbia are more prestigious than MIT and Stanford? Yale, Chicago, and Columbia > MIT and Stanford, according to USNWR.
Here’s a prestige (reputation) ranking that makes sense, to me at least:
It has Harvard, MIT, and Stanford as 1, 2, 3.
Edit: This is a cross post with @sbballer , who made the same point as me about prestige. Beat me to it.
“U of Chicago and Caltech which place the least emphasis on sports have the highest SAT scores in the country.”
Yes, Caltech has the highest stats out there, a very low student:faculty ratio, lots of spending per degree, and a low acceptance rate (albeit not in Stanford and Harvard territory). I wonder where Caltech gets dinged in the USNWR methodology, such that it comes in at “just” 10.
Vandy moved up 1!
Last year, I thought MIT was worse than Stanford and Columbia. After all, they were rated #7. Today, I am convinced MIT is the same as Stanford and Columbia. After all they are rated #5. And clearly Princeton is way better than those three losers. Thank you USnews, for raising my consciousness every year. Without your help, I could never have ferreted out the changes MIT made to its undergraduate program to make itself a better institution this past year. Someone has to do this commendable but thankless job.
And woe on Duke and JHU. What’s going on there? Something awful I am sure. Probably shouldn’t apply there, till they fix the problems.
Looking forward to the inevitable “rankings are flawed, random and meaningless” remarks from students, alumni and administration officials of schools whose rankings slipped, and the “happy to see that our progress has been recognized” by those whose rankings increased.
@whatisyourquest Caltech probably is dinged most on graduation rate. For the most recently reported cohort (entering in 2010) the 4-year grad rate was 81.4% and the 6-year grad rate was 94%.
They have made some changes since 2010 that may improve that, but honestly, Caltech is still very rigorous. And, it is quirky is ways that don’t match all students, though they try to be honest about those quirks to find students who fit. In addition, students may take quarters off when they like to work at JPL, Google, etc.
Probably because of the effort to filter out students who don’t fit, their yield is about 42.5%, which also is a likely source of USNWR “dinging”. (Maybe 44.5% given the stats reports to the incoming Class of 2021.)
(And Caltech moved up 2! Was #12 last year.)
@whatisyourquest - well, of course, US News wants as many eyeballs on their rankings as possible - so they modulate the rankings to create little talking points (like Chicago being a notch above Stanford).
At the same time, the rankings aren’t that far-fetched to lose credibility amongst the general public. That’s the macabre genius behind US News. So, one year they might have Duke tied with Yale or Stanford behind Chicago - enough to create talk, but not enough for people to just abandon the rankings.
@pantha33m Or how about those who chose for instance Midd over Bowdoin last year,(or any other such combination) because Midd was ‘ranked’ higher, so it must be a ‘better’ school, only to find out that now that they are actually enrolled there, that the ranking has flipped and the school they turned down is now ‘ahead’
This is what keeps me awake at night. What if the school I get into and choose falls in the rankings? How humiliating would that be? All the virtual taunts my friends will direct at me. IT would be traumatic. And what if if one of my student rivals goes to a school that overtakes the school I go to in the rankings. Oh the way that would burn me up!! All that bragging I was looking forward to, just evaporating!! Life can be so cruel at times 
USNWR should just make the 1-10 a tie for #1, 11-20 a tie for #2…and so on. They seem to like ties.
@Cue7 I agree that subtle changes year-to-year create talk. If USNWR really wants to shake things up and get attention, they should knock Princeton out of the #1 slot. Seven years in a row – getting really boring.