MIT Dethrones Princeton as U.S. News Adds "Earnings by Major": What the Rankings Really Tell You
The first new No. 1 in fifteen years owes as much to a methodology change as to anything that happened on either campus. Here is how to read the 2027 rankings without letting them rewrite a plan built on fit.
By Dr. Nathan Hurwitz · Higher Ed Insider, Edition 2026-23 · Rankings · About 8 minutes
New here? Get every edition of Higher Ed Insider free: Subscribe
U.S. News released its 2027 Best Colleges rankings on September 22, 2026, with MIT at No. 1.
On September 22, U.S. News & World Report released its 2027 Best Colleges rankings, and for the first time since the 2012 edition, Princeton was not No. 1 among National Universities. MIT, which had been ranked second for five years, took the top spot with a perfect overall score of 100. Princeton followed at 99 and Harvard at 96. Yale placed fourth, with Caltech and Stanford tied for fifth. Williams again led the National Liberal Arts Colleges, with Amherst second.
If you are a parent of a high school junior or senior, the headline probably landed with a thud somewhere between curiosity and anxiety. Did something happen at Princeton? Did MIT suddenly get better? The most honest answer is the least dramatic one, and understanding it will make you a better consumer of every ranking you see this fall.
The story is the formula
The change at the top was driven largely by methodology. U.S. News introduced a new "earnings by major" factor that measures graduates' earnings four years after graduation, using the Department of Education's College Scorecard. It also replaced the median federal loan debt measure that had historically favored Princeton.
That detail matters enormously. Princeton's generous financial aid has long meant that its graduates leave with unusually little debt, and an older formula that rewarded low debt rewarded Princeton. A new formula that rewards graduate earnings in specific fields rewards schools whose graduates move quickly into well-paid work, and few institutions do that more reliably than MIT. A U.S. News analyst told The New York Times that Princeton's underlying data netted out about the same as last year. In other words, the university did not change. The yardstick did.
Other outlets point the same direction. MIT also topped the Forbes and Niche lists this year, and Princeton remains No. 1 in U.S. News's separate Best Value ranking. When two lists from the same company disagree about the best school, the lesson is not that one of them is wrong. The lesson is that "best" depends on what you choose to measure.
The 2027 U.S. News top National Universities and the two formula changes that mattered most.
Why "earnings by major" is a genuine improvement
I want to give U.S. News credit here, because I have criticized rankings for years for measuring what is easy rather than what is useful. The most common frustration I hear from families is that an institution-wide statistic tells them almost nothing about their own student. The average graduate of a large university might be a computer scientist, a nurse, a historian, or an art major, and a single earnings figure blurs all of them together.
An earnings-by-major factor starts to answer a better question: what do graduates of this specific program earn? That is the question that determines whether a degree is a sound investment for this particular student. It also aligns the rankings with what families actually care about, which is return on investment, and with the direction the federal government itself is moving, as the new FAFSA now surfaces earnings information for the schools students list.
Because the data come from the College Scorecard, they are also free. Any family can look up the same numbers, program by program, without waiting for a magazine to interpret them.
What the new metric cannot see
A better question is not a complete one, and the limits of four-year earnings deserve plain language.
• It favors fields that pay quickly. Engineering and computer science graduates tend to earn well early. Graduates in education, social work, the arts, and many public-service careers do not, even when those careers are essential and satisfying over a lifetime.
• It penalizes graduate school. A student who goes on to medical school, law school, or a PhD has little or no earnings four years out, but may have far higher lifetime earnings. A formula that looks four years out cannot see that.
• It reflects geography. Wages vary dramatically by region. A graduate who stays in a lower-cost area to teach or serve the community may earn less than a classmate in a major metropolitan area, and that says nothing about the quality of the education.
• It tracks where students start, not only what colleges add. Students who arrive with family connections, wealth, and professional networks often do well after graduation almost regardless of which college they attend. A formula that rewards outcomes can reward a college's admissions profile at least as much as its teaching.
None of this makes the metric useless. It means the metric answers one question well and others poorly, which is true of every metric.
Two quieter details worth noticing
Two other findings from the release deserve more attention than they received.
First, participation is slipping. This year, 73% of the nearly 1,500 ranked institutions returned their statistical survey, down from 79% last year. Ninety-nine of the top 100 National Universities did report, so the top of the list is well covered. But the further down the list you go, the more the rankings rely on data that colleges did not supply, and the more cautious families should be about reading small differences as meaningful.
Second, many schools changed ranking categories because of the 2025 update to the Carnegie Classification, the system used to sort institutions by type. That means many year-over-year jumps and drops reflect a school moving to a different list rather than changing in quality. If a college on your list seems to have surged or collapsed, check whether it simply switched categories before you draw any conclusion.
Who is hurt and who is helped by a ranking culture
An inclusive discussion of rankings has to acknowledge that they do not land equally on all families.
Students who are first in their family to attend college often lean on rankings more heavily than their peers, because they have fewer relatives and mentors to tell them which colleges are strong. For them, a single number can feel like objective guidance. That makes it all the more important that the number be explained, and that the broader range of excellent options, including regional public universities, community college transfer pathways, and institutions with strong records of serving students like them, is not obscured by a list that favors the already famous.
Families with limited resources also face a trap. Highly ranked colleges can be wonderful and, at the most selective schools, remarkably generous with aid. But chasing a ranking without examining net price can produce debt that no formula will show on a list. The best-ranked college a family can afford and a student can thrive at is a better choice than a higher-ranked one that creates a decade of financial strain.
A sensible way to use any ranking
I do not tell families to ignore rankings. They are one input among many, and treating them as the least important number on the page is a more accurate stance than either worship or dismissal. Here is a practical approach.
1. Use rankings to discover colleges you had not considered, not to settle the final order.
2. Look up earnings, completion, and debt for your student's intended program on the College Scorecard.
3. Compare net price, not sticker price, at every college.
4. Check whether a school changed categories before reading its "move."
5. Ask what the college actually does for students like yours: advising, internships, and support in the first year.
Building a list that does not depend on a ranking
The most useful thing I can offer families after a week of ranking headlines is a method that works whichever number is on top. A balanced list has three kinds of colleges: a few where admission is a stretch, several where a student's record sits comfortably within the typical range, and a few where admission is very likely. What ties them together should not be a rank. It should be that the student would be glad to attend any one of them.
To get there, I ask students to describe what they want from the next four years in concrete terms before they look at any list. Do they want a large university with endless options or a small seminar-style community? Do they want to be close to home or far from it? Do they need strong support for a learning difference, a sport, a faith community, a lab, or a studio? How important is it to be in a city, near internships, or in a place where they will see people who look and sound like them? Those answers tend to eliminate far more colleges than any ranking, and the colleges that remain are the ones that will actually produce a good four years.
Then comes affordability. I would rather a family run the net price calculator on twelve colleges in October than discover in April that the dream school was never within reach. Net price is the number that determines whether a student can graduate without a burden that narrows their choices afterward.
Questions parents ask me about this year's list
"Does MIT's rise mean it is harder to get into now?" Not because of this ranking. Admission rates are shaped by applicant volume and class size, not by where a publication places a school. A rankings headline can influence how many students apply, but it does not change what an admissions office is looking for.
"Should we change our list because Princeton dropped?" No. Princeton is still No. 2 overall and remains No. 1 in U.S. News's Best Value ranking. If it was right for your student last week, it is right this week.
"Is a school that fell in the rankings a worse choice?" Check whether it changed categories first, and then look at what actually matters to your student: the program, the cost, and the community. A small shift in a score is rarely a signal of anything an undergraduate would notice.
"Which ranking should we trust?" None of them completely. Each one is a different formula answering a different question, which is exactly what this year's results demonstrated.
Perspectives
Defenders of the new methodology argue that families deserve to know what a degree leads to and that earnings data bring accountability to a market that has long sold prestige. Critics counter that tying rankings to early earnings pushes institutions to prize high-paying fields over broader missions, and that the numbers risk rewarding wealth that students brought with them. Both arguments have merit, and a thoughtful family can hold them at the same time.
Dr. Hurwitz's Take
Rankings are a snapshot of a formula, and this year the formula changed. Nothing about the undergraduate experience at Princeton or MIT is different from what it was on September 21. What the new metric does do well is push families toward the right question: what do graduates of this specific program earn, not what does the average graduate of this university earn? Use the College Scorecard directly to answer that question for your student's intended major, and treat the ranking number itself as the least important figure on the page.
Your action checklist
• Look up earnings for your student's intended major at each college on the College Scorecard.
• Check whether a school on your list changed ranking categories before reading its "move."
• Compare net price, not sticker price, alongside any ranking.
• Keep the early-application decision anchored to fit, not this week's headline.
Key sources
Is your student on track for this admissions cycle?
Book a College Readiness Assessment, a focused 60-minute session ($225) covering your student’s list, early strategy, testing, and financial aid timeline.
Watch. Read. Follow.
• Watch on YouTube: @HurwitzAdmissions
• Read the blog: hurwitzadmissions.com/blog
• Follow on Facebook: Hurwitz Admissions
• Follow on Instagram: @hurwitzadmissions
Dr. Nathan Hurwitz · Hurwitz Consulting · hurwitzadmissions.com · nathan@hurwitzadmissions.com · (203) 613-9262
This article provides general information and analysis, not legal, immigration, or financial advice. Families with specific questions should consult a qualified professional. © 2026 Hurwitz Consulting.
Comments