[OCcardinal]

When the US News & World Report rankings first came out they were based entirely on peer reputation.  Under that criteria, Stanford finished #1 each of the first 3 rankings (Cal was 5th):  University Rankings

But USN&WR had a problem. Academic reputations don't shift that much. So why would people want to pay for a magazine that keeps reporting the substantially same rankings over and over.  So for their 4th ranking they introduced "objective" components, like graduation rates, faculty resources, etc.  From that point on the rankings started floating all over the place.  (As you can see in the linked summary above, Stanford dropped to 6th and Cal dropped to 24th in the first "objective" ranking in 1989.)  Problem solved - unstable rankings lead to higher magazine sales.  Further tweaks to the methodology over time lead to further (welcomed) volatility. 

Note that there is no such thing as an objective ranking, because the selection and weighting of any given criteria is itself subjective.  I actually think the peer ranking methodology was a pretty good one (and not just because Stanford was consistently #1 under that ranking).  Universities are knowledgeable about what makes other universities good.  Certainly more knowledgeable than reporters trying to sell magazines.

[OCcardinal]

When the US News & World Report rankings first came out they were based entirely on peer reputation.  Under that criteria, Stanford finished #1 each of the first 3 rankings (Cal was 5th):  University Rankings

But USN&WR had a problem. Academic reputations don't shift that much. So why would people want to pay for a magazine that keeps reporting the substantially same rankings over and over.  So for their 4th ranking they introduced "objective" components, like graduation rates, faculty resources, etc.  From that point on the rankings started floating all over the place.  (As you can see in the linked summary above, Stanford dropped to 6th and Cal dropped to 24th in the first "objective" ranking in 1989.)  Problem solved - unstable rankings lead to higher magazine sales.  Further tweaks to the methodology over time lead to further (welcomed) volatility. 

Note that there is no such thing as an objective ranking, because the selection and weighting of any given criteria is itself subjective.  I actually think the peer ranking methodology was a pretty good one (and not just because Stanford was consistently #1 under that ranking).  Universities are knowledgeable about what makes other universities good.  Certainly more knowledgeable than reporters trying to sell magazines.