Well, you’ll get no argument from me. I actually find the great (and arbitrary, depending on “This Year’s Model” of input / output metrics) mobility of universities on the ranking scale offensive, as well as absurd. When I’m asked on the forum about how academics might rank a department, I lead them to a robust ranking like the NRC, unless a specific discipline has their own, reputable ranking.
I didn’t choose my schools based on the highest ranking per se; but I did choose in major part based upon the strengths of academic departments. Coming in at #11 for undergrad on this list, and doing well with graduate schools here is pleasing, but more than that, it is sensible. Frankly, it does lend a bit of durability and credibility to decisions made a long time ago, because those decisions were made based upon a thorough assessment of academic strengths. Departments and their production just don’t change so quickly either up or down, and an aggregate of disciplines should actually prove extremely durable over time, minus egregious exceptions. When I see schools that have jumped in the range of ~40 spots over the last couple decades (per U.S. News undergrad, and similar) displacing universities in roughly the top 20 here, I feel like some people have been sold a bridge.
Edited to add: I kind of liked Gourman’s undergrad report, and though I can’t remember now, Gourman may have influenced my decisions a little bit. Gourman wasn’t exactly a mirror to the more robust rankings, nor was it exactly thorough. But somehow, its special sauce of undergrad ranking seemed to reflect departmental strengths that translated into fairly balanced assessments. I know it ceased publication in the late '90s, but somehow I also attribute its drop-off to a refusal to compete with the gamed, volatile ranking fever that seemed to overwhelm everything in its wake.