As stated there ARE shortcomings in the data used by USNews (and their interpretation) but I am not sure how one could compare the absolute junk compiled by Ratemyprofessor, payscale, and the Princeton Review surveys to the numbers reported by the schools to the CDS organization and the US government.
We all know that schools were caught fibbing about the numbers (most often to internal audits followed by actions by the school) and that MANY continue to report data that has been massaged to produce the necessary impact, and sometimes with the tacit approval of USnews as they maintain nebulous instructions.
However, the massaging of the data that produces the selectivity index is an effort that is mostly futile and sometimes counterproductive as it impacts the expected graduation rate. In a case that garnered much attention in the press (and the expulsion by Forbes) Claremont McKenna offered such an example. Inasmuch as the more favorable numbers “meant” to impress the insiders at the school, they had ZERO impact on the … USNews report as the unaltered numbers would NOT have changed the ranking as the next ranked school was beyond reach. In so many words, the cheating was neither warranted nor effective. Fwiw, it takes a modicum of understanding of the USNews methodology to appreciate such details. Something well beyond the press and the occasional observer or the agenda-laden fanboys of a competing school.
In the end, those rankings are what they are. The ranking is hardly helpful, but the same cannot be said about the underlying data (when disclosed) and represents a good value for anyone who is prepared to scratch the surface and recognizes what might be important to their own case. Some might like to focus on the “prestigious” elements. Others might pay attention to the sketchy “People magazine” popularity surveys (passed as the PA survey) and others might simply look at the big picture to fuel the cocktail hour bragging scene.