U.S. News Rankings: Metrics that Build a Dynasty

If you’re like most American families, you began the college search with the U.S. News rankings. That’s where my college search began. However, my opinions of the college ranking industry have changed since reading Jeffrey Selingo’s “Who Gets in and Why: A Year Inside College Admissions.” 

Selingo begins by imagining what made the early U.S. News ranking system credible: “To gain credibility with readers in those early days, it was critical that the magazine generate rankings that were both familiar and surprising.” To digest this idea, consider what would happen if Princeton University was not at the top of the 2025 U.S. News Rankings but instead was ranked 22nd. Because of Princeton’s reputation in popular culture, such a ranking would defy popular belief and lower the credibility of the overall ranking system. Therefore, creating a dynastic college ranking system requires relative conformity to popular culture. Now, as a Columbia University graduate familiar with the privileges offered by top-ranking universities, I am not proposing a conspiracy suggesting that Princeton University should be ranked 22nd. Rather, I am suggesting that the U.S. News ranking system, to build its own credibility, created a metric that systematically favored Ivy League universities. All other universities were simply along for the ride.

Among the factors contributing to the modern U.S. News rankings are the following:

• Peer Assessment (20%)

• Financial Resources (8%)

• Faculty Salaries (8%)

• Borrower Debt (5%)

I was shocked to learn how much these metrics could benefit the existing top universities. For the peer assessment metric, U.S. News sends surveys to top college administrators and requests a ranking of their peer institutions on a five point scale. Personally, it is unclear why a peer assessment should be the most heavily weighted category in the U.S. News National University rankings. College administrators are among the most informed individuals about the state of college institutions. However, they can also fall victim to popular mythologies, institutional group think, and well-placed advertisements. Moreover, this metric benefits universities that generate the most headlines rather than providing the best-value education for its students.

Financial resources is a heavily weighted factor reflecting a university’s per-student academic spending. Importantly, this category only includes spending related to instruction, research, and student services. Universities can abuse this metric by spending needlessly on student services and funding the expenses through tuition hikes. Additionally, universities with large endowments have a clear advantage in the spending battle, allowing them to further solidify their top rankings by outspending their competitors on research, faculty salaries, and student services. Prospective students should consider these dynamics before deciding to attend a university based on its per-student spending.

I found two factors especially jarring: the 5% weight for borrower debt and the complete absence of employment statistics for graduates among the metrics. Borrower debt and employment are often the most important factors for prospective students and their families, but they are practically unrepresented in the U.S. News’ methodology. 

In conclusion, the U.S. News rankings reinforce a status quo favoring universities with the largest endowments. Before embarking on the largest financial expenditure of their young adulthood, students should consider for themselves what metrics are most important to themselves and their families. The rest is noise.