It was just the common denominators to who moved down. Like I think women’s colleges are cool (obviously for the right women), so didn’t love that a bunch got moved down. I think academicky schools are cool, so I didn’t love the hit some of those took. I was braced for this, but I didn’t love what I saw as benefiting colleges where graduates were more likely to go to VHCOL metros at the expense of others with different graduate patterns. That sort of thing.
I realize these are personal preferences, though.
By the way, some of this wasn’t just at the top. Like, I wasn’t thrilled Whitman was dropped from 58 to 78. I have absolutely no affiliation with Whitman, I just have come to know a bit more about it and admire what it offers as an option.
Same deal with, say, the College of Wooster, going from 76 to 91. Again, no affiliation, I just like what I have learned about it.
In fact, I am too lazy to compile this myself, but I am afraid of what on average might have happened to the Colleges That Change Lives (both Whitman and Wooster being examples).
I, too, was surprised by what happened to Whitman, though if they are trailing in those measures and we all agree that the measures have some place in all this, then it is what it is. It was particularly bad news to me in that I think the LAC model now takes another hit up here in God’s country, where the LAC is more of a curiosity for many and something appreciated by an erudite few. Arguably the best of that model in the PNW (arguably only to the extent that one thinks Reed is the best) is now ranked 78. Knowing the horsepower and intellectual curiosity of the kids who go off to Whitman, it feels like 77 schools ahead of it is somehow wrong. So, I get it.
Similar views about the all women colleges. Agreed.
Maybe if you really did carefully control by major (from what I could tell, they didn’t have the data to do it properly) AND carefully controlled by geographic self-selection.
But without those controls, I think this is maybe worse than not doing it at all.
It depends on what you mean by “bias”. The new metric compares earnings by major between different colleges. Women generally average lower earnings than men within a particular major for a variety of reasons, including being not as likely as men to choose higher earning fields, such as finance. The expected result is women’s colleges would tend to have worse overall ranking, with the addition of the new earnings by major metric. This should not come as a big surprise. Prior to the rankings being released, I highlighted Smith as one of the colleges that is likely to drop the most in the other the thread.
I’m with @NiceUnparticularMan on this one. It feels to me like a reaction to other publications doing something and USNWR doing something in response. It also feels like a knee jerk reaction to those questioning the value of higher education. The result is something that has insufficient methodology and data rigor and which somehow made an already challenging process worse. There are so many flaws in the way outcome data is sourced and used at the moment that it is a net negative. Long I ago I commented on the WSJ ranking when it came out that it “wasn’t worth using to wrap fish”. USNWR just went there as well. Anyone in the process who was serious about actual diligence and rigor would have immediately taken a step back and started asking questions when their model started generating some of these swings. The fact that they didn’t shows that ‘clicks’ is the goal.
And I 100% agree on Whitman, it is a truly underappreciated school.
My kid did not even apply and it is the one that got away for me too. We all really liked it on the visit. D26’s counselor also thought she was likely to get in even though it was a reach school (and judging by how her classmates did there, counselor was likely right). But, at the time the app was due, D26 was smitten with Agnes Scott and was already in there and felt she’d choose that over Wellesley. My other one that got away is Haverford, she did apply and get into that one. In the end, I’ve figured out my CA kid wanted no part of Northeast winter. Thus, she is happily in LA.
They really are loaded! In the end, we were not the ones going to the schools. So glad both of our kids got to pick something that worked for them not us.
So, then, for me, the next logical thing to do is consider the implications of the new “major metric.” Just because it’s not a surprise that women make less money than men, and therefore women’s colleges will fall in this new methodology, does not make it right. Perhaps they should have adjusted the salary figures to account for the disparity in pay between men and women. Maybe they did that, I don’t know.
Interesting. There were some positive commonalities between Haverford and Wellesley for our D26 (though obviously significant differences). The honor code is one piece some folks love (my D26) and others don’t. I will say the food at Haverford was absolutely atrocious. Inexplicably bad compared to all of the other LACs we visited and ate at. I think the school is a fantastic living, learning, and development environment though. And the partnership with Bryn Mawr makes it extra special in my opinion. But, my kid decided not to go there, so what do I know.
With the new US News rankings out and this thread active again, I decided to look at the original message again. I’m realizing, that a list of “top contenders” in alphabetical order with a short description as OP did, is far more valuable than a ranking that ends up feeling somewhat arbitrary in who gets above who depending on the methodology and little tweaks to it.
This reminds me why I found the Fiske guide so valuable. It gave real insights into schools, then recommended schools often cross shopped with the one you just read about.
My S24 was accepted to Haverford, did not short list it for final consideration among his offers, and now claims I basically made him apply.
I didn’t feel at the time like I was doing that, but I think it is true I liked it a lot more than he did, saw it as a better fit for him than he did, and probably made it seem like I thought my feelings mattered more than I really intended.
Middlebury has dropped 15 spots, from a high of #4 at one time to its current spot at 19th. It’s been even worse for Haverford – once 7th, now 26th. Really?
This is due far more to USNews’ metrics tweaks than any diminishment of quality of these two great schools.
I am not knocking either school–both are excellent.
However, both schools have had some financial difficulties over the last 20 years or so. Middlebury just closed some of its famous language programs/facilities after years of saying that it would not do this. Haverford’s endowment apparently suffered worse than most during 2008 and it has never fully recovered. Both schools now have a lower level of endowment per student vis-a-vis their peer competitors.
I toured Middlebury and felt like I could see some “chinks in the armor” while I was there.
As mentioned, my D26 toured Haverford and came away unimpressed (she never really gave me specifics). She turned their offer down.
I am not sure to what extent the USNWR methodology picks up on relative financial weakness–either directly or indirectly.
If I counted correctly, it appears Haverford was #23 among traditional LACs in endowment per capita in the latest reporting cycle, with Bryn Mawr #14 and Swat #5. So the “poorest” TriCo by that specific measure. But still, that’s objectively quite high, and it also feels to me like some efficiencies it gets through the BiCo, and to a less extent TriCo, do matter.
That said, Haverford’s campus is not likely to appear high on many Most Beautiful lists. I actually think the Quaker Simplicity theme is interesting, but I can understand why a lot of kids might be a little meh. Particularly if they had in fact recently seen Swat and/or Bryn Mawr, two campuses that ARE very competitive aesthetically.
I have always found rankings lists to be interesting, though I don’t appreciate their outsized meaning for students making college lists. But this latest turn from US News has nailed the coffin shut. I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but my hopes and dreams for my children’s education doesn’t rest on what renumeration they receive from an employer when they graduate or 10 years after they graduate. I care about whether the experience helps them grow as humans, find their interests, meet people who inspire and challenge them and develop a sense of what they’d like to contribute to their community and the world. Finding employment is a requirement of adulting and I’m certain I have raised young people who know that. Who cares where their schools fall on a list when I can see those benefits with my own eyes? Adios, USNews. It’s been grand.
Yes, Middlebury had a nagging budget deficit for years, due mostly to the money-losing grad school in Monterey. This fiscal year is the first in 15 years that Midd has a balanced budget. On the heels of a successful $600M campaign, they just announced that tuition will be free for all families making under $175K. Getting rid of MIIS was the right thing to do, and it took a new president to sever the cord.
What really impacted Middlebury’s ranking was the new way of calculating endowment per student. Before 2024, USNews used undergrad enrollment during the academic year. Now they include all students in programs over the summer. Midd enrolls 1,400-1,500 students in the language schools, so that seriously dilutes the EPS. No other NESCAC school has a similar summer program with as many non-degree students.
Over the past 4 years, Middlebury’s ranking has been as follows. While the 19th place ranking is the same as 2025, the 86/100 is likely Middlebury’s lowest overall score ever. I don’t care about this enough to pay $60 to see what changed this year, but in previous Middlebury newspaper stories, they mentioned a decline in the financial resources category was pulling down the overall ranking, dropping from a top ranked school in financial resources to 45th ranked in 2025.
