Right. The rankings aren't the last word on an institution. They aren't even close to it. But that doesn't mean they're meaningless. Similarly with countries. T

Right. The rankings aren't the last word on an institution. They aren't even close to it. But that doesn't mean they're meaningless. Similarly with countries. These metrics refer to real data corresponding to the actual, real-life experience of people living in these places. If the number of emergency rooms per capita in a country is low, for example, that corresponds to actually higher likelihood that you'll be unable to get to one if you live in that country and are in an emergency situation. The data is real - the author might not like that it seems like a simplistic representation and glosses over a lot of nuances, but then why else do we measure and quantify these trends than to tease out meaningful information from an otherwise incomprehensible, highly complex system? Even though a single year snapshot of college rankings isn't completely meaningful by itself, you can glean a lot from the movements in the rankings, even with small movements. If a college goes from 200 to 190 in a single year, you can probably determine precisely what changed how by looking at the changes in the internals that they used to derive the number. And sometimes even a small change in ranking does reflect a significant, concrete change in the experience of students attending these institutions. Similarly, with countries. The dynamics over time of these metrics is what gives this data meaning - not any single ranking.