Wall Street Journal 2024 college rankings: Lakhani Coaching Inside Analysis

In the ever-evolving landscape of higher education, finding the right college or university can be a daunting task. It's a decision that will shape not only your academic journey but also your future career prospects. With an abundance of options available, it's crucial to have reliable sources of information to guide you. Enter the Wall Street Journal's College Rankings, a resource students and parents have used for years, with a special focus on student outcomes, including graduation rates and post-graduate salaries. In this blog post, we'll delve into the WSJ's approach to college rankings and our personal opinion on their methodology. Whether you're a high school senior on the cusp of making your college choice or a curious observer of higher education trends, this exploration of the WSJ's College Rankings is sure to provide valuable insights.

Here are the WSJ’s listed top 50 colleges:

  1. Princeton University

  2. MIT

  3. Yale University

  4. Stanford University

  5. Columbia University

  6. Harvard University

  7. University of Pennsylvania

  8. Amherst College

  9. Claremont McKenna College

  10. Babson College

  11. Swarthmore College

  12. Georgetown University

  13. Vanderbilt University

  14. Lehigh University

  15. University of Florida

  16. Duke University

  17. Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology

  18. California Institute of Technology

  19. New Jersey Institute of Technology

  20. Brigham Young University

  21. Dartmouth College

  22. University of Southern California

  23. Illinois Institute of Technology

  24. Cornell University

  25. Northwestern University

  26. Washington University in St. Louis

  27. Lake Forest College

  28. University of Michigan - Ann Arbor

  29. Florida International University

  30. Davidson College

  31. Williams College

  32. University of Notre Dame

  33. University of La Verne

  34. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

  35. University of Illinois Urbana - Champaign

  36. Stevens Institute of Technology

  37. The University of Chicago

  38. Texas A&M University - College Station

  39. Georgia Institute of Technology-Main Campus

  40. Colgate University

  41. Haverford College

  42. Emory University

  43. The University of Utah

  44. Washington & Lee University

  45. Boston College

  46. University of Connecticut

  47. Baruch College

  48. Thomas Jefferson University

  49. Pomona College

  50. Colby College

Source: The Wall Street Journal

A thing to note is that the WSJ changed its methodology this year, striving to look beyond the big-name reputation of the Ivies and the Ivy Pluses and allowing room for smaller schools to rise through and be measured on the impact they have on student success. Additionally, they no longer assign higher rankings based on the amount of financial resources a school allocates to instruction.

Instead, the emphasis has shifted towards prioritizing student outcomes, including graduation rates and post-graduate salaries, all while measuring a school's tangible impact on students' success. This transformation aims to assist students in identifying colleges that are most likely to facilitate their graduation and boost their earning potential.

As a result, the rankings have been categorized into four distinct sections: the comprehensive college rankings, the Student Experience category, the Salary Impact category, and the Social Mobility category.

Thus, the WSJ ended up ranking each school based on student outcomes (70% weight), learning environment (20%), and diversity (10%).

Lakhani Coaching’s Thoughts

Here are some pros and cons of the newly updated ranking methodology:

Pros:

  • Focus on Student Outcomes: The emphasis on graduation rates and post-graduate salaries reflects a commitment to measuring the real-world impact of higher education on students, which can be valuable for prospective students and their families.

  • Diversity and Inclusion: By including a diversity factor in their rankings, the WSJ acknowledges the importance of creating inclusive learning environments and highlights institutions that excel in this area.

  • Recognition of Smaller Schools: The methodology allows smaller colleges and universities to compete more effectively with larger, well-known institutions, potentially providing students with a wider range of choices.

  • Alignment with Student Goals: The rankings aim to help students identify colleges that are more likely to help them graduate and improve their earning potential, aligning with many students' primary goals for pursuing higher education.

Cons:

  • Limited Scope: While emphasizing graduation rates and post-graduate salaries is valuable, it may not capture the full range of experiences and outcomes that students seek from their education, such as personal growth, research opportunities, or community engagement. For instance - Does the dollar amount of earnings appropriately capture the breadth of students going to graduate programs in important but less earning-driven fields, such as PhDs in English Literature?

  • Potential for Narrow Focus: An exclusive focus on student outcomes might incentivize schools to prioritize metrics that boost their rankings (e.g., admitting only high-earning students), potentially at the expense of other aspects of a well-rounded education.

  • Exclusion of Certain Factors: By no longer considering the financial resources allocated to instruction, the rankings may overlook the importance of investment in academic quality and faculty support, which are significant factors for some students.

  • Weighting: The methodology's specific weighting of factors (70% student outcomes, 20% learning environment, 10% diversity) may not align with the priorities of all students, as individual preferences and goals can vary.

Overall, the WSJ's methodology appears to address some important aspects of higher education while potentially overlooking others. Prospective students and their families should consider these factors along with their own priorities and goals when using these rankings as a resource in their college search process.

Hafeez Lakhani