What this article doesn't mention is how much effort the colleges at the top put into gaming the rankings. For example, Harvard spends millions of dollars every year sending direct mail to graduating seniors who they know have no chance of getting in, encouraging them to apply. Why? To increase their rejection rate.
Similarly, Stanford was considered a relatively mediocre school until one year when they rejected every single valedictorian across the country as a marketing stunt, and suddenly jumped in the rankings after guidance counselors started encouraging the kids with the highest grades to apply there.
Similarly, the admissions departments get an update twice a day telling them their projected US News rank based on the grades and SAT scores of the kids who they are admitting. Thus your chances of getting in can vary wildly based on whether your application is read in the morning or afternoon. If the projected rank drops too low then they stop even reading the essays and just admit solely based on grades and SATs until the rankings are back up.
Similarly, Stanford was considered a relatively mediocre school until one year when they rejected every single valedictorian across the country as a marketing stunt, and suddenly jumped in the rankings after guidance counselors started encouraging the kids with the highest grades to apply there.
Similarly, the admissions departments get an update twice a day telling them their projected US News rank based on the grades and SAT scores of the kids who they are admitting. Thus your chances of getting in can vary wildly based on whether your application is read in the morning or afternoon. If the projected rank drops too low then they stop even reading the essays and just admit solely based on grades and SATs until the rankings are back up.