The CardBoard
WSJ rankings - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WSJ rankings (/thread-25783.html)

Pages: 1 2

WSJ rankings - BostonCard - 09-29-2025

Stanford is #1 in the Wall Street Journal rankings:

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/best-colleges-america-2026-f64d590e?st=uWW5iD&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Quote:Stanford returns to the top of this list for the first time since the 2017 rankings. Ivy League schools also figure prominently, with Yale University, Princeton University and Harvard University finishing third, fourth and fifth, respectively. Two other Ivy League schools—Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania—come in at eighth and ninth, respectively.

Cal is the top public school (#7).  With Georgia Tech (#16), that makes three ACC schools in the top 20.  Notre Dame is #20 and other than that there are no other power conference schools in the top 20.

BC

RE: WSJ rankings - 82lsju - 09-29-2025

(09-29-2025, 04:06 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Stanford is #1 in the Wall Street Journal rankings:

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/best-colleges-america-2026-f64d590e?st=uWW5iD&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Quote:Stanford returns to the top of this list for the first time since the 2017 rankings. Ivy League schools also figure prominently, with Yale University, Princeton University and Harvard University finishing third, fourth and fifth, respectively. Two other Ivy League schools—Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania—come in at eighth and ninth, respectively.

Cal is the top public school (#7).  With Georgia Tech (#16), that makes three ACC schools in the top 20.  Notre Dame is #20 and other than that there are no other power conference schools in the top 20.

BC

I'm not to keen on their single measurement criteria for ranking universities, but given it is the WSJ it sort of makes snese for them, I'd also be interested in the size of the error bars around each schools score (the details are behind a paywall) 

Quote:Stanford University tops the list of the best U.S. colleges in the latest WSJ/College Pulse rankings.

Unlike other school rankings, this list emphasizes one point: How well did the college prepare students for financial success? More than any other factor, it rewards the boost an institution provides to its graduates’ salaries, beyond an estimate of what they could have expected from attending any college.


RE: WSJ rankings - BostonCard - 09-30-2025

I mean, I just noted it; I don’t think it means much.  There are some weird things in the rankings.

BC

RE: WSJ rankings - OCcardinal - 09-30-2025

How does the WSJ, or anyone else, know about the financial success of Stanford's graduates.  I can't recall ever giving anyone my income.

RE: WSJ rankings - martyup - 09-30-2025

(09-30-2025, 09:21 AM)OCcardinal Wrote:  How does the WSJ, or anyone else, know about the financial success of Stanford's graduates.  I can't recall ever giving anyone my income.

Yeah, if they looked at mine we would drop out of the top 10.

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tenor.com%2FZUUbZ...9dbc5b93c3]

RE: WSJ rankings - paloalto - 09-30-2025

When I owned a company if an applicant said he was from Babson College my response would be "Where's that at?".  I'm not buying this list.  I'm not going to bother looking at the metrics.

RE: WSJ rankings - thunder_chik - 09-30-2025

Well, I didn't go to Stanford because I thought I'd end up making a lot of money.  I just hoped for once I'd "fit in" because I'd be with other students who were interested in excellence and scholarship. (In high school, I was valedictorian in a class of 710 and, believe me, I was not a part of the in crowd. The only date I had with someone in my class was for the junior prom, and he ended up becoming a billionaire dot.com guy.  Whoops.)
My other option for college was CalTech where I would have been one of the first 30 incoming female freshmen in a student body of 600 (we're talking fall of 1972, yeah, I'm old).  Fortunately, I briefly dated a guy at CalTech and quickly discovered I would not have "fit in" there.
Not sure what the parameters were that WSJ used to rate us #1.  Our priest's homily on Sunday was about humility, so I guess I needn't boast about it.
Glad I picked Stanford, mainly because they won the Rose Bowl that year and the campus was so beautiful.

RE: WSJ rankings - ADPinWDC - 09-30-2025

First of all, it's a WSJ ranking -- no surprise about interest in "financial success" vs, say, "artistic expression" 

What I think a LOT of the comments on the WSJ article miss is that the environment at Stanford places MUCH emphasis on INNOVATE, break the mold, think daringly and differently -- rather than grinding out more cogs to take your place in the system for a "job". 
And we are in an Economy and Investment cycle that is dramatically rewarding INNOVATION.  $BILLIONS.
At all time highs.
So, Stanford is #1.

RE: WSJ rankings - TonyLima - 10-01-2025

IMHO, these rankings are fun, but not to be taken seriously. Example: Stanford has an excellent School of Engineering. But MIT’s is probably better. On the other hand, Stanford’s humanities program wipes out MIT’s small (but excellent) offerings. Pick the college you’re comfortable with. Personally, I always went to the best program that admitted me. Your criteria were probably different. YMMV^100.

RE: WSJ rankings - Spiny_Norman - 10-01-2025

I don't think that Stanford's new president had any impact on this ranking. But it does seem like Stanford is building momentum under President Levin. The university seems to be headed in the right direction.

RE: WSJ rankings - martyup - 10-01-2025

(10-01-2025, 06:21 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:  I don't think that Stanford's new president had any impact on this ranking. But it does seem like Stanford is building momentum under President Levin. The university seems to be headed in the right direction.

But are the kids having fun?

RE: WSJ rankings - Mick - 10-02-2025

(10-01-2025, 08:58 PM)martyup Wrote:  
(10-01-2025, 06:21 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:  I don't think that Stanford's new president had any impact on this ranking. But it does seem like Stanford is building momentum under President Levin. The university seems to be headed in the right direction.

But are the kids having fun?

Not if they're going to football games...

RE: WSJ rankings - Papa John - 10-02-2025

For the first time since 2018, Stanford is 2-0 at home. Sounds pretty fun to me (so far).

RE: WSJ rankings - OCcardinal - 10-02-2025

(09-30-2025, 08:54 PM)ADPinWDC Wrote:  First of all, it's a WSJ ranking -- no surprise about interest in "financial success" vs, say, "artistic expression"
Stanford wouldn't do too badly on Artistic Expression rankings these days either.  The Studio, which just won 13 Emmys, was co-created and written by two Stanford grads (Alex Gregory, '92, and Pete Huyck, '93). And the stage musical adaptation of 13 GOING ON 30, co-written by former Gaieties writer Cathy Yuspa (Class of '92), just premiered to rave reviews in the UK.

RE: WSJ rankings - Goose - 10-02-2025

(10-02-2025, 06:26 AM)Mick Wrote:  
(10-01-2025, 08:58 PM)martyup Wrote:  
(10-01-2025, 06:21 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:  I don't think that Stanford's new president had any impact on this ranking. But it does seem like Stanford is building momentum under President Levin. The university seems to be headed in the right direction.

But are the kids having fun?

Not if they're going to football games...
No problem. They almost entirely left at the half. Plenty of time to have fun.

RE: WSJ rankings - jacket3ree - 10-02-2025

(10-02-2025, 03:27 PM)OCcardinal Wrote:  
(09-30-2025, 08:54 PM)ADPinWDC Wrote:  First of all, it's a WSJ ranking -- no surprise about interest in "financial success" vs, say, "artistic expression"
Stanford wouldn't do too badly on Artistic Expression rankings these days either.  The Studio, which just won 13 Emmys, was co-created and written by two Stanford grads (Alex Gregory, '92, and Pete Huyck, '93). And the stage musical adaptation of 13 GOING ON 30, co-written by former Gaieties writer Cathy Yuspa (Class of '92), just premiered to rave reviews in the UK.

Not to be the Time Bandit, but when you say "these days", in the context of this post, everyone mentioned graduated at least 32 years ago. That's a full generation ago, not "now". Also, I'm slightly worried that videos of games played in 1970 and 1982, as fun as they are to watch, are garnering more discussion than actual games played this season. But I'm as nostalgic as the next guy. I remember the Michigan-Stanford Rose Bowl on a NEW COLOR TV (our first) from a snowed in basement.

RE: WSJ rankings - Mick - 10-03-2025

(10-02-2025, 11:37 AM)Papa John Wrote:  For the first time since 2018, Stanford is 2-0 at home. Sounds pretty fun to me (so far).

Yeah. Four consecutive 3-9 seasons. Mucho fun.

RE: WSJ rankings - Leftcoast - 10-03-2025

In all fairness, I attended games the last three years and there's more excitement and hope in the stadium this year.  

Sure, it's not top 5 Stanford vs top 5 Oregon of years past but ... fun.  The team is playing well and for the first time in many years the total is greater than the sum of it's parts pointing toward competent coaching.  The schedule gets harder, injuries are mounting, and our so-called "depth" is tissue paper thin so who knows if this will continue.

But .... arrow slightly up and to the right for the 2025 season.

RE: WSJ rankings - 82lsju - 10-03-2025

(10-03-2025, 06:42 AM)Mick Wrote:  
(10-02-2025, 11:37 AM)Papa John Wrote:  For the first time since 2018, Stanford is 2-0 at home. Sounds pretty fun to me (so far).

Yeah. Four consecutive 3-9 seasons. Mucho fun.

at least we are now scoring TDs at home games so we can have touchdown cookies!!!!!

RE: WSJ rankings - SkiBum80 - 10-03-2025

(10-03-2025, 06:42 AM)Mick Wrote:  
(10-02-2025, 11:37 AM)Papa John Wrote:  For the first time since 2018, Stanford is 2-0 at home. Sounds pretty fun to me (so far).

Yeah. Four consecutive 3-9 seasons. Mucho fun.

Maybe it will be as Dr Leo Marvin said to his impressionable patient Bob and his pet goldfish Gil:  Baby Steps