Rankings systems are a necessary evil. If the US News didn't create them, someone else would. And they have flaws, as do all single measurements. (Stock pric

Rankings systems are a necessary evil. If the US News didn't create them, someone else would. And they have flaws, as do all single measurements. (Stock price, imperfect. Page clicks, imperfect. IQ, imperfect.) That said, the article can be misleading. They claim that merit scholarships are crowding out need due to the rankings. According to their charts, public school aid is increasing very much and private school aid is flat as a % of students. What isn't included is the quantity of aid. Most top ranked schools (call it top 15?) have increased the amount of aid for people falling below a certain threshold such that they can graduate near debt free. This helps at Cornell and Chicago more than George Washington, but it's the winners who are leading on need based aid. The comments on reputation are a little strange too. They claim "High reputation schools do well because they are high reputation." This misses the virtuous circle of "Good reputation improves rankings" -> "High Rankings draw better students" -> "Better students get better jobs and donate more money" -> "More money enables investments in improving reputation" Despite all of this, the rankings only go so far. That's why it's good to have a lot of them, and other data points for choosing a school.