<p>I know this is an old thread, but in case anyone reads this I thought I’d point out that when the USN&WR report rankings were first issued they were based solely on peer rankings. Under this methodology Stanford was consistently ranked #1 (sometimes tied with Harvard). And Stanford is still at the top if you look strictly at peer rankings.</p>
<p>Over the years USN&WR has repeatedly tweaked the rankings methodology by adding and adjusting purportedly objective factors like retention rates, alumni giving, admission rates, SAT scores, etc. However, all that did is substitute the editor’s view of what factors might be important in measuring prestige for that of the peer institutions. That’s why you get anomalies where schools seem to be ranking higher (or lower) than their historical prestige might indicate. It’s like the difference between the AP poll and BCS poll in college football. Adding all those computer rankings doesn’t make the ranking any more accurate because each of those computer rankings reflects a particular person’s view of what factors should be taken into account in measuring the quality of a football program. In the end, it’s really just the equivalent of one more vote.</p>
<p>That said, being informed of the objective figures could be helpful to some consumers. For example, average SAT scores may be really important to some. To others it may be job or graduate school placement success. In the end, all these schools are very prestigious as well as very difficult to get into. The decision of which one to attend will ultimately be personal to the student and his or her family.</p>