I've been reading through all the comments, many of which complain about bias. That's only part of the problem. Often students applying to graduate school hav

I've been reading through all the comments, many of which complain about bias. That's only part of the problem. Often students applying to graduate school have a better idea of what they're looking for, but for undergraduates the metrics that they're weighing with other factors such as campus life are much murkier, and these rankings don't analyze the questions that deeply. For example, Stanford and Rice University have the same student-to-faculty ratio, and their endowments are proportional, but Stanford has 2 graduate students for every undergraduate student, whereas Rice is one of the smallest Division 1 schools AND has fewer graduate students. So when Rice claims undergraduates interested in interacting closely with faculty in cutting-edge research will have ample opportunity to do so, one could argue they may be more likely to provide that to undergrads than even Stanford. Because I've compared experiences with Stanford folks, I don't think Stanford is behind Rice in that category, but the fact is, I'm comparing against one of the very top schools. So perhaps my argument holds for most universities that are ahead of Rice in the rankings, but a student is going to have to really dig to figure that out, and perhaps speak with students and faculty at each university to grasp the differences that matter to him or her. And that's only in the category of undergraduate participation in research--there are many other questions students face that these rankings can't properly answer.