Nine names appear on both top 10 lists. While these lists are highly subjective and have little worth in terms of fine tuning amongst proximate peers, they do suggest consistency in tiering. The next 10 are virtually identical as well.
WSJ
1 Harvard
2 MIT
3 Yale
4 Columbia
5 Caltech
6 Stanford
7 Brown
7 Duke
9 Princeton
10 Penn
Forbes
1 Harvard
2) Yale
3) Stanford
4) MIT
5) Princeton
6) Caltech
7) Penn
8) Brown
9) Dartmouth
10) Duke
I was waiting to see who would be first to post the WSJ rankings, which came out today. I love a good rankings discussion. :))
^Like raw meat and puppy dogs in a shark tank
Hmm… So are the THE & WSJ+THE rankings the same thing?
If you go to the WSJ you need a subscription. If you go to THE you can see their rankings.
However here is a quote on THE site:
"This ranking is focussed - like the World University Rankings - on research and academic reputation, and is different from the teaching-focussed, consumer-driven rankings of business school programmes being developed by THE with the Wall Street Journal. "
and…
“The entirely student-focused nature of the WSJ/THE College Rankings means that the results differ significantly from the THE World University Rankings, which have a heavier emphasis on research excellence on a global scale.”
So what I think is that the WSJ+THE is different from THE…
All I know for sure based on the top ten schools listed in the original post in this thread is that someone’s kid at Forbes got rejected by Columbia. And that someone’s kid at the WSJ didn’t make it off the waitlist at Dartmouth. And that Northwestern rejected both kids.
I haven’t compared the WSJ list to last year’s, but the USC defenders should be very happy with UCLA at #25 and Cal at #33. And ND supporters may be a little upset sitting at #26. Poor Michigan can’t get a break sitting at #28, which is the same ranking as the USNWR. :))
^Punlisher- So if Northwestern were included as top 10 in both would you be accepting of the lists as accurate?
Kind of supports the idea that people look for the lists to reinforce preconceived notions and discard them as inaccurate when they contradict long held views. Your attempt to personalize the placement criteria around Dartmouth and Columbia is consistent with that tendency.
Northwestern is a great school but the frequency with which it is placed within that 10-20 group suggests a consistent methodology and result amongst multiple rankings undertaken by independent sources.
These lists aren’t factual but representative when taken in concert with one another of of pier standards, quality and exclusivity. 1-5 always the same names (HYPSM), 6-12 (CCCDBD), 13-20 etc…
WSJ list continued:
Cornell
Dartmouth College
Northwestern
University of Chicago
Rice
Carnegie Mellon University
USC
WashUStL
Vanderbilt
Emory
Seems obvious to me which admissions office canceled their subscription to the WSJ = Univ. of Chicago.
@Nocreativity1: A sense of humor is a terrible thing to waste.
Also, just read the rest of your comments in post #6 above. Are you serious ??? :))
^Thats funny.
@Nocreativity: I have found that there is only one truly acceptable way to rank schools—always leave the first spot blank in order for the reader to fill in his or her favorite school.
A type of ranking I find interesting are those based on total endowment & endowment per student. Not sure, but I suspect that the ranking based on total endowment would fall in line with the typical rankings based on selectivity & prestige.
So a penguin and a publisher walk into a bar…
I am not talking about the nuance of ranking within a sub group within the top 20. I am however suggesting that their is some continuity of sub groups within the top 20.
I have never nor will I suggest a particular school is better than another when they are arguably tiered similarly.
It is taken as given that HYPSM are interchangeable within a top tier. I would hardly endeavor to distinguish any one as superior to the others. I would however suggest that popular perception extends tiering beyond the first 5 as described in post 6.
Columbia, Penn, Duke, Brown, Chicago, Dartmouth and Caltech consistently fill the next 7 spots. Rice, Northwestern, ND, JHU, CM, Vany and Gtown consistently then round out as a group the next 20.
Within these sub groups I agree the schools are indistinguishable In terms of quality and reputation but in the minds of many the subgroups do exist and represent peer groups within the top 20. .
best comment I saw is that the US news wr ranking is like judging a meal based on how expensive the ingredients are to make the dish but not judging the dish outcome itself. USNWR would rank a caviar and truffle smoothie ahead of steak and lobster.
Literally no interest in discussing the rankings (such a worn out convo) but god bless you for posting the rankings cuz I’m always curious to see them and am not a WSJ subscriber.
That dish/outcome analogy doesn’t really work because people attend colleges with a wide variety of outcomes in mind.
Odd…
I was browsing the WSJ schools’ student survey results and they don’t match their “engagment” rankings …
“Engagement, drawn mostly from a student survey and with a 20% weight, examines views on things like teaching and interactions with faculty and other students”
Brown has a ranking of #6 for “engagement”.
Stanford is #52.
However, Stanford student survey results avg 9 out of 10
Brown 8 out of 10
Garbage in, garbage out.
Here is the ranking the way it should be if ROI is a major factor
and if your in-state vs. full pay then re-rank
Can’t get much easier then that and I didn’t have to do a lot of surveys/research (albeit it doesn’t look like Forbes/WJS did either). Top engineering schools easily win this ranking…
@Nocreativity1
I don’t agree Dartmouth/Brown are “better” than JHU/Northwestern in quality/reputation. Brown has been consistently ranked lower than NU and lately, JHU too by USN. NU/JHU also blow both of them out of the water in all world rankings as far as I know. I don’t see the “consistency”. Don’t mean to start another X vs Y here and I honestly believe they are all peers.