Publication Details

Abstract

U.S. News & World Report’s National Universities rankings, published annually, use standard competition ranking, which creates gaps in the ranking sequence when institutions tie. This methodological choice dramatically inflates apparent year-to-year volatility, potentially leading institutions to respond to changes that largely reflect mathematical artifact rather than meaningful performance differences. This study compares standard competition ranking to dense ranking (which eliminates gaps after ties) using 2025 and 2026 National Universities rankings data (U.S. News & World Report, 2024, 2025). Results show that standard competition ranking produces 11 times more apparent volatility than dense ranking: institutions moved between –58 and +75 positions under standard competition ranking versus –6 to +6 under dense ranking. Notably, 112 institutions (28.9%) experienced no change in performance tier yet still moved in standard competition rankings, with 21 dropping by double digits. While this analysis does not address well-documented critiques regarding the validity of underlying ranking metrics, it reveals how ranking methodology itself creates substantial volatility independent of institutional performance changes. These findings have significant implications for institutional research professionals who must interpret ranking changes and advise leadership on strategic responses. The study concludes that institutional stakeholders should consider performance tiers rather than specific numerical positions when evaluating ranking data, and that ranking organizations should report both standard competition and dense rankings to provide clearer information about institutional performance.

Keywords: university rankings, ranking methodology, U.S. News rankings, institutional research, performance measurement

Author

• Don Rudawsky

Copyright © Association for Institutional Research 2026