have to dig a bit deeper and look at the criteria.
This.
There are lots of ways to rank universities, and a lot of them suck.
For example, one of the larger components for USNWR rankings centers around admissions numbers. If you get a lot of applications, but don't accept a lot students, that apparently means you're a better school. Which, if you think about it, is a pretty perverse incentive to put on a school: they have to market their school to a whole bunch of kids, and encourage them to send them money for an application, and then proceed to reject most of them - because that will push up their rankings.
Then there's the reputational surveys - which generally only entrench the status quo.
I would look at different metrics (and some rankings systems incorporate and/or heavily weight these):
- How many peer reviewed papers are published each year?
- How many "awards" has the faculty earned (Nobels, Field Medals, etc, etc)
- How many patents awarded?
- What percentage of classes are taught by professors vs grad students?
- Average class size
- How many kids graduate in 4 (or 5) years?
- How many are employed 1 year after graduation (excluding those in grad school), and what's the salary data? (obviously by major or school).
- How many students defaulted on their student loans within 5 years of leaving school? (I don't actually know if schools track this, but I think the Dept of Education can, although I'm not sure they do - they should, and they should publish it).
When I was choosing a b-school, I looked at one metric rather closely (and luckily reputable b-schools actually maintain and publish this data):
Pre b-school salary vs 1 and 3 years after b-school salary.