<p>I believe Chicago moved from 15 to 9, so I think JHS meant it moved from double digits to single digits, rather than a “double-diget jump.” A jump of six places because one school paid more attention to how they provided some of their data underscores the meaninglessness of the individual schools rank. I recall that the USNWR editor commented that there is so little difference in “scores” between the top schools that the schools one through ten are essentially the same, but if the public wants to think there is a difference, so be it. And that pretty much sums it up.</p>
<p>It is also interesting in what people include when asked what makes a top school, or why Princeton or Harvard are ranked one and two year after year (with the exception of the year when CalTech was #1), even in peer review. Academic or curricular quality is not necessarily at the top of the list. Being around future leaders, extracurricular activities, and being near well known faculty (even if speaking to them is rare), name recognition among student-peers, often is as, or more, important. </p>
<p>Chicago’s prestige has always come from its curriculum and dedication to undergraduate teaching, while at the same time maintaining its status as a great research university. Its pursuit of knowledge through inquiry is legendary and often envied by so-called peer institutions. I doubt this will ever show up in any rating system.</p>