These are the ones who have gained and lost spaces... Link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/college-rankings-2025-five-schools-that-gained-places-and-five-that-plummeted/ar-AA1r7WqT
It is incredible that Howard had not been in to top 100, let alone top 20. They have some of the most successful alumni including a supreme court justice and vice president and presidential candidate.
Wow! My Georgetown University and Southern Methodist University lost their ranking to #24 and #91. I like Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) ranking better. Where is Imperial College London, my Alma Mater #2? 1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 2. Imperial College London (ICL) 3. University of Oxford 4. Harvard University 5. University of Cambridge 6. Stanford University 7. ETH Zurich 8. National University of Singapore (NUS) 9. University College London (UCL) 10. California Institute of Technology (CalTech) https://www.topuniversities.com/world-university-rankings
Cooley Law School used to publish its own law school rankings in which, generously, the #1 law school in the US was Harvard. The #2 law school in the US was Cooley Law School.
Howard has been in the top 100 before, and I'm not surprised they are again. All the Howard grads I know speak well of their experience there. That said, "politically successful alumni" isn't a criterion for academic excellence. If it were, then the University of Phoenix might be on this list, since they have a grad who was a Cabinet secretary. (Anyway, rankings are BS, so none of this really matters anyway.)
U.S. News has changed their methodology at least twice in the past decade putting more emphasis on job outcomes and debt and less on test scores. What hurt a lot of schools, in the past, was the average SAT/ACT score among admitted students. University of Texas was the perfect example of this. They are always ranked very high for many individual programs, but the top 10% rule brought their average test score down. Texas had a law that required all state colleges and universities to automatically admit those who graduated in the top 10% of their high school class. Eventually, the legislature realized this was hurting University of Texas' reputation and that, just because someone graduated in the top 10%, doesn't mean that they're academically prepared for the top public university in the state. Some schools are so low-performing, that the top 10% could be worse than the top 50% at high-performing schools, and this prevented high-achieving students from being accepted at UT and Texas A&M. Now, UT is down to only auto-admittong the top 5%, and their U.S. News ranking has improved.
This was the way it was when both my kids went to UT. They both graduated HS in the upper 10% so were automatically admitted. And (fortunately) they both graduated within a 4 year time period, while many of their contemporaries took 5 years (or longer). I always wondered about the upper 10% rule, so this post clarified what was happening to perhaps more deserving students. Thanks for the post sanantone.
Yeah, I heard that over 90% of UT's students were auto-admits before the rule change. If you were at a competitive high school and graduated just outside of the top 10%, too bad. UT didn't have space for you. Under the new law, only 75% of the admits have to be based on class rank. It's still astonishing that top 5% can fill up 75% of the seats.
The goal was laudable: to provide a way for students of color in schools that were still segregated (de facto if not de jure) to have a way to advance without running afoul of prohibitions on affirmative action.
Edward Blum ended up suing University of Texas for this policy because he saw it as Affirmative Action. His mistake was that his plaintiff was a White woman who wouldn't have been admitted without Affirmative Action, so he lost. That's when he recruited Asian students to sue Harvard.
(4) schools tied at #6. USN needs to come up with differentiators to actually get rankings that are not tied.
Even five percent of any large group in a big state like Texas is still a lot of people. I wonder what would happen if they were to drop it from 5% to 3% (or even 2%).
When they do that, everyone else gets dropped down multiple spaces anyway. The next school is ranked #10. Might as well break the tie.
Properly looking at this way. Princeton University Massachusetts Institute of Technology Harvard University Stanford University Yale University California Institute of Technology Duke University Johns Hopkins University Northwestern University University of Pennsylvania
This would imply a meaningful difference in "quality" between these schools, which is not there. On the other hand, it's not like the "difference" between #1 and #10 means anything in real life, either.