Every year, U.S. News & World Report publishes rankings that often change very little, though they draw attention and frustration from universities and applicants.
After months of tumult on American college campuses, relative stability in one realm returned on Tuesday, when U.S. News & World Report published its oft-disparaged but nevertheless closely watched rankings.
Many top schools held the same, or similar, spots they had a year ago.
Among national universities, Princeton was ranked No. 1 again, followed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard. Stanford, which tied for third last year, fell to No. 4. U.S. News again judged Williams College the best among national liberal arts colleges. Spelman College was declared the country’s top historically Black institution.
Few franchises in American higher education are as contentious as the U.S. News rankings. Over the decades, their publisher has faced trouble with manipulated data, complaints about murky methodologies, accusations of revenge and the foundational question of whether it is appropriate to rank colleges.
To U.S. News, which retired its print newsmagazine in 2010, the rankings are a bastion of its largely bygone influence. They are also a source of millions of dollars each year, as universities pay licensing fees to promote how they fared. U.S. News, which insists that its business relationships with schools do not affect rankings, contends that it is performing a public service by distilling a chaotic collegiate marketplace for weary consumers.
Indeed, to students and their parents, the rankings can be tools for narrowing college searches, and status symbols surrounding admissions to certain schools. To university leaders, the rankings are often publicly heralded but privately detested. To regulators, including Education Secretary Miguel A. Cardona, the rankings are responsible for “an unhealthy obsession with selectivity” and the development of “the false altar of U.S. News and World Report.”
And to almost everyone outside U.S. News, they are opaque and, ultimately, almost uniformly misunderstood.
Share
Print
