The Rankings Are Out. But Are We Measuring What Matters Most?

The 2027 U.S. News Best Colleges rankings are out, and like many alumni, I looked to see where my schools landed.

Spelman College was ranked the No. 1 HBCU in the nation for the 20th consecutive year, No. 2 for Social Mobility, and No. 34 among National Liberal Arts Colleges. Harvard University ranked No. 3 among National Universities. Harvard Business School is ranked separately in the graduate business school rankings, where it tied for No. 4 in the 2026 U.S. News Best Business Schools ranking. 

As a graduate of Spelman and Harvard Business School, I am proud to see both institutions recognized.

But I keep coming back to a more important question:

What are we really measuring when we call a college great?

U.S. News says its rankings are designed primarily to help prospective students and families compare undergraduate institutions. The 2027 methodology places substantial weight on student outcomes, including graduation, retention, social mobility, and a new earnings-by-major measure. That shift toward outcomes is important, especially as families continue to question the cost and value of higher education. 

Still, no single ranking can tell the whole story.

A prospective student may care about affordability, graduation rates, career preparation, campus culture, faculty access, or whether she will feel that she belongs. A parent may focus on cost and debt. An alumnus may care about reputation and long-term institutional strength. A trustee should be asking an entirely different set of questions about whether the institution is delivering on its mission and creating sustainable value for students.

That is where rankings become relevant to governance.

In my recent articles, I have written about the responsibility of boards to understand institutional risk, financial sustainability, student outcomes, and the difference between managing an institution and governing one. Rankings can provide useful external benchmarks, but they should never substitute for a board’s own performance dashboard.

If I were sitting in the boardroom, I would want to know much more than where the institution sits on a national list.

I would want to know how many students graduate in four years, how much debt they carry, how quickly they secure meaningful employment, what they earn relative to the cost of their education, and whether they are advancing into graduate school, leadership, entrepreneurship, public service, or other paths aligned with their goals.

I would also want to know whether the institution is creating opportunity for students who did not arrive with wealth, professional networks, or social capital.

That is why I am increasingly interested in the idea of Return on Opportunity™.

Traditional return on investment asks whether the financial return justifies the cost of the degree. That is an important question. But it is not the only one.

Return on Opportunity™ asks something broader:

What became possible for this student because they attended this institution?

Did the student graduate on time? Did the institution expand her network? Did it create access to internships, mentors, employers, graduate programs, capital, leadership opportunities, or experiences she may not otherwise have encountered? Did the degree increase her economic mobility and broaden the choices available to her?

Earnings matter. Given the cost of higher education, I believe they should matter more than they once did. U.S. News’ decision to add earnings by major reflects that reality. But salary alone is not enough. A graduate who becomes a teacher, researcher, nonprofit leader, artist, or public servant may generate tremendous social value without earning the salary of an investment banker. 

That is why I would never rely on one measure.

I would look at U.S. News alongside tools such as the federal College Scorecard, social mobility measures, graduate earnings data, affordability, career outcomes, and the institution’s own mission-specific indicators.

And boards should go one step further.

They should ask whether the institution is improving those outcomes over time.

An institution can rise in a ranking and still have serious financial or operational problems. Another can improve graduation rates, student outcomes, and economic mobility without moving dramatically in the rankings.

The ranking tells you where you stand relative to others.

Governance should tell you whether you are becoming a stronger institution.

So yes, I pay attention to the rankings. I am proud that Spelman continues to lead among HBCUs and that Harvard remains among the nation’s most highly ranked universities.

But I am even more interested in what happens to the students who walk through those gates.

Where did your alma mater land this year? Does its ranking matter to you? And if you could add one measure to the rankings, what would you want colleges to be judged on?