<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe. But keep in mind that class size (and faculty salary, too) are among 6 sub-sub-factors under the “faculty resources” sub-factor, and that these 6 together only add up to 20% of the total ranking.</p>
<p>One can quibble with just about any of the USNWR metrics, their weighting, how they are gathered, whether the financials adequately account for variations in cost of living, etc. However, in many cases the individual sub-sub metrics in isolation would generate a set of schools very similar to the overall ranking. For example Princeton is near the top whether you look at average SATs alone, faculty salaries alone, S:F rate alone, endowment per student alone, or admit rate alone. The metrics tend to be mutually corroborating. So when you put many of them together, I think the result is fairly plausible as long as you don’t take differences of a few ranking positions too seriously. </p>
<p>But yes, the relative ranking of public universities is one of the most important points of contention. The top flagships generally have huge libraries, produce lots of research, and offer a very wide range of majors including some of the best available programs in certain fields such as engineering. All while charging about half (or less) of the private school sticker prices. The USNWR rankings don’t capture these advantages too well. Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn’t. Any ranking needs to make assumptions and apply constraints to what it is measuring. The Washington Monthly ranking takes a different approach that is much more favorable to schools like UC Berkeley.</p>