So… Everyone is righty pointing out the uselessness of ranking systems. But, these are also the same kinds of ranking systems that place MIT, Cambridge, Stanford &amp; the rest in the elite. Publication, reputation, etc. It&#x27;s not about a specific ranking system either. Every ranking uses circular, subjective or self fulfilling measures. These reputations are also very long lived and carry outside of their context. Great research in biology does not really indicate great undergraduate teaching in the humanities.<p>Universities attract students, funding, press and all the other goodies with their reputations. Students then trade on these reputations. It&#x27;s a big problem overall, and it doesn&#x27;t have good feedback loops of the kind which will encourage universities to improve.<p>Also, the more attention the rankings get, the more they get gamed and corrupted.<p>Here&#x27;s the thing, say you are looking for a place to study mechanical engineering, it will be difficult to find the new upstart schools that are doing great work. It&#x27;s even harder to get employers, parents and colleagues to respect it. That&#x27;s to say nothing of a course attempting to teach a subject like engineering outside the paradigm of Universities altogether.<p>It&#x27;s a pickle.<p>The world is way too big for us to rely on a vague name recognition &amp; reputation system anymore. It&#x27;s too dynamic to wait for them to self correct and it&#x27;s way too thirsty for better ways to train and educate to be without a dynamic system where new approaches and institutions can emerge.