Absolutely. Like all the different rankings, it simply demonstrate how easily the choice of criteria can lead to huge moves up and down the hitparades, when in reality nothing dramatic ever changes at each “ranked” university - or the relationship to their peers in these short terms.
Nor will these “forced jumps” affect where people with the stats and means will apply.
While college reviews are helpful for people to select a list of schools by various criteria, the “big news” each year how the top-10 was re-shuffled amongst themselves, serves nobody but the publisher.
Actually - that is the ONE piece I’m truly curious about: I’m not sure that the location of Columbia (an urban campus in a large city in the Northeast, in a Democrat-run state) is sufficiently unique to explain any huge differences?
And if the 3-year-average retention rate truly was such a big factor, how can Princeton get a high ranking with the stated much-lower 83%, but Harvard drop off despite a much higher 90% retention?
They also cite the effect of Pell Grants - but state that it’s only weighted 5%:
Harvard doesn’t enroll many Pell Grant recipients, …, only 11% of undergraduate students at the university