<p>Although U S News will release their full 2015 assessment tomorrow, the publication today posted its UNORDERED list of their top 25 National Universities (in alphabetical order, the "usual suspects" include):
Brown University (RI)
California Institute of Technology
Carnegie Mellon University (PA)
Columbia University (NY)
Cornell University (NY)
Dartmouth College (NH)
Duke University (NC)
Emory University (GA)
Georgetown University (DC)
Harvard University (MA)
Johns Hopkins University (MD)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Northwestern University (IL)
Princeton University (NJ)
Rice University (TX)
Stanford University (CA)
University of California—Berkeley
University of California—Los Angeles
University of Chicago
University of Notre Dame (IN)
University of Pennsylvania
University of Southern California
University of Virginia
Vanderbilt University (TN)
Washington University in St. Louis
Yale University (CT)</p>
<p>Poor Wake Forest. Ugh.</p>
<p>My estimate: </p>
<h1>1-3 Harvard, Stanford, Princeton</h1>
<h1>4 Yale</h1>
<h1>5 Columbia, University of Chicago, MIT</h1>
<h1>8 Duke,</h1>
<h1>9 Upenn</h1>
<h1>10 Caltech, Dartmouth</h1>
<p><a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities?int=9ff208”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities?int=9ff208</a>
It comes out:
Duke is #8</p>
<p>Essentially, no U S News ranking changes of significance from 2104 to 2105 for Duke (tie alignment, I believe, is the #7 to #8 driver). </p>
<p>One minor, but possibly interesting, data quirk follows: U S News’ just-released 2015 rankings include Duke’s 2013 12.4 percent aggregate undergraduate acceptance rate, rather than 2014’s 10.8 percent rate. I do not suggest this has much significance, but it is a 1.6 percent improvement.</p>
<p>Making some predictions for a century from now?</p>
<p>^ ^ ^ ^
At the rate U S New’s rankings change, with any significance, I might was well 
. . . but, thanks for the catch. </p>
<p>Nothing special about these rankings. Dartmouth out of the top 10, which was bound to happen with the recent scandals. Duke and Penn always moving in sync. HYP at fixed rankings (if not Princeton and Harvard changing places) and Columbia’s stuck on 4th (suggesting a possible plateau – if theres a such thing). </p>
<p>Jw22: As usual, we fully agree. However, one thing that caught my attention is the continuing bifurcation of the Ivy’s: PHYC - P - D - CB. Without doubt, they are all superior institutions; however, some peer non-Ivy’s (consider Hopkins, Northwestern and Washington U, currently) may gradually fill openings between the two Ivy echelons. It will take years, but institutions such as Notre Dame and Vanderbilt just might move comparatively upward. </p>
<p>Agree with TopTier about the Ivy’s. The rankings are like moving the furniture in the dinning room but they are fun to see and debate. The top 20’s could disappear into sink holes and their rank would remain the same. My editorial:
*Stanford needs to move up
*Cal Tech is a one-on-one research tutoring facility not a 'national university" and should be moved into another category.
*Long in the tooth: UPENN, JHU, Emory, Georgetown and should drop a spot or two.
*Up and coming: Vanderbilt, NDU, Rice, Duke, Northwestern, WashSTL should move up
*Coattail U’s: Brown and Cornell would not be in the top 20 without Ivy affiliation to HPYC and Dartmouth would be a nationally ranked LAC.
Under-ranked: The methodology hurts large public U’s: Cal-B, UCLA, and UVA should move up.</p>
<p>“Brown and Cornell would not be in the top 20 without Ivy affiliation to HPYC and Dartmouth would be a nationally ranked LAC.”</p>
<p>I’m not sure about Brown academically but Cornell is a very strong school–particularly in engineering. It’s graduates are high-achieving and takes in high quality students. The only thing that I understood to hurt Cornell in the rankings is it’s larger undergrad student body, which means financial resources must be stretched in addition to admission standards being on the lower end for an ivy. However, I won’t deny that the Ivy brand possibly helped the schools establish themselves.</p>
<p>Unrelated side note: The debates about USNWR seriously dwindled over the past years (especially with the new cc layout). I’ve been following CC for a long time and have seen pages of rankings threads, speculatives threads etc. of USNWR. Now either very few people care or everyone is just turned off by cc’s culture. </p>
<p>It boggles my mind the crazy jump Northeastern (and to an extent BU) has made:</p>
<p><a href=“http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/local/us-news-college-ranking-trends/1292/”>http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/local/us-news-college-ranking-trends/1292/</a></p>
<p>Come on, MIT #7 and Chicago #4??? </p>
<p>What part of Chicago is so strong? The bombarded promotions to students for applying may help them tremendously on growing applications. High school counselors are not so excited about the university. </p>
<p>Stanford with lowest acceptance rate, highest endowment, higher test/gpa stats is #4 and Princeton is #1???</p>
<p>Apparently the USNWR ranking is just trying to make money while even faculty salary is a part of ranking criteria. </p>
<p>I say in the past years that I observed the rankings; they are always about the 20 schools shuffling around. USNWR changed the mythology since 2014 so that the sequence changed. But it looks like the top 20 schools are almost staying the same. </p>
<p>Rankings can certainly be reference only.</p>
<p>^ ^ ^ ^
@Findmoreinfo: I generally agree with your post, but to clarify, Stanford does not have the highest endowment, Harvard does. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.bc.edu/offices/endowment/top50endowments.html”>http://www.bc.edu/offices/endowment/top50endowments.html</a></p>
<p>^ O.K. Thanks. I probably made a mistake by saying endowment but Stanford raised the most among colleges in the nation.
<a href=“Riding Technology Wave, Stanford Rises to Top of Some Measures - The New York Times”>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/education/americas-it-school-look-west-harvard.html</a> </p>
<p>Stanford 931 millions
Harvard 792 millions</p>
<p>Also, your link is from 2013. I am interested in knowing the new numbers when they are out. Harvard is much older and better established with previous funds so I anticipate they’ll have more endowment than Stanford for some more years.</p>
<p>^ ^ ^ ^</p>
<p>As you’re probably aware, annual charitable donation numbers to universities differ considerably from endowment values. Many leading universities have endowments in the $3.5B “neighborhood,” with annual gifts of perhaps $300M (obviously, a few universities, like Harvard and Stanford, are MUCH larger).</p>
<p>Moreover, the uses and the management of these two fundamental types of higher educational philanthropic giving are also quite different. As you noted, endowments endure and grown for centuries and are created for a specific purpose. In addition, their use is generally constrained by the contractual terms of the endowment, whereas annual donations (other than to endowments) are usually far less restricted.</p>
<p>The “new numbers” for all the top national universities and LACs are not yet universally available. However, since this is the Duke thread, the following may be of interest:
a) 1 July 2013 through 30 June 2014 Duke Annual Giving (from all sources, to all university entities/uses): $442M (a Duke record)
b) 1 July 2013 through 30 June 2014 Duke Endowment growth: $1B, from $6B to $7B (also a Duke record, including both new endowment donations plus net increases in asset valuation) </p>
<p>A final comment may be worthwhile. All donations to higher education are wonderful. However, the size of the university’s programs, student body, and so forth is quite relevant non-monetary value of the endowment (or the annual giving numbers) to a given institution. To illustrate, a LAC with only 2,500 students (and all other resources/needs sized to that metric) may actually be better off with a $1B endowment than a mega-university, with 25,000 students, would be with a $2B endowment. </p>