Q&A with President Hiram Chodosh
Each year, publications and websites release rankings for higher education institutions across a variety of categories. Claremont McKenna College routinely performs well in several national rankings of note, especially among liberal arts colleges. But how should CMC community members interpret these rankings—and why should they be seen as trustworthy representations of the overall campus experience?
In the below Q&A, President Hiram Chodosh shares his view of rankings and how CMC does its best to take a balanced and transparent approach to the methodologies and outcomes of each. To learn more, visit CMC’s Current Rankings, where we encourage you to draw your own conclusions about the criteria driving the latest publicized results.
How do you think about rankings, specifically as they apply to higher education?
Rankings in any institutional or other setting, from the top teams to the best restaurants, are simplistic, short-hand ways to get a sense of comparative achievement. Higher ed rankings evoke a wide range of responses, from justified criticisms of gaming the methodology to strong criticisms by those who feel unfairly represented. Far too often, institutions are vulnerable to observed hypocrisy when they celebrate in the endzone when they do well and then complain about the refs when they fall short.
Do any higher education rankings measure what matters or put CMC at a disadvantage in any way?
Einstein said it best when he pointed out that we tend to measure what we can count easily and more often fail to measure what really counts. So, instead of focusing on the rankings, we should ask ourselves which measurements count on our own ledger of high value achievement. Do we care about the quality of student satisfaction with their full experience? Yes. Do we care about student persistence and completion rates, social mobility and the expansion of opportunities in the post-graduate years including earning potential, especially for students who come from families with fewer resources (or who are the first in their families to go to college)? Yes. Do we care if students feel confident in speaking up and expressing their own independence of mind or whether students are open to views different than their own? Yes. Are there rankings that include data that put us at some disadvantage or those that measure values we don’t care about? Yes. Do we manage to any of these metrics so that we get a better place in the rankings? No.
How do you advise that community members approach these rankings when they are released every year? Prospective students and families who might rely on them when choosing to apply?
At CMC, our faculty, staff, and students look critically and thoughtfully at the underlying methodologies to see what’s measured and how the data is collected and weighed in the methodology. That process helps inform our views (positive or negative) of any specific ranking. For prospective students and families, these rankings provide, again, a simplistic, short-hand way to compare institutions. But here too, it’s important to understand the quality of the underlying data gathered and the weights rankings apply in their methodology so that prospective families can align the values reflected in the rankings with their own. Finally, even when we see our achievements reflected in the data, we do not rest. At CMC, we always strive to do both good and better.
For additional perspective, here are three recent national rankings and what they choose to measure as part of their evaluations:
Wall Street Journal/College Pulse
In a combined ranking of all U.S. universities and colleges, CMC is listed as #5 on the WSJ/College Pulse 2025 Best Colleges in the U.S., which produces five different rankings/lists related to student experiences, salaries, social mobility, and value. CMC is #1 among liberal arts colleges and all western institutions in this ranking. WSJ/College Pulse uses data from the following sources: the Department of Education, Census Bureau, and a nationwide survey of undergraduate students and alumni graduating within the last five years.
The factors and weights associated are:
- Student Outcomes – 70%
- Salary Impact, 33%
- Years to pay off net price, 17%
- Graduation rate impact, 20%
- Learning environment (based on student survey responses) – 20%
- Learning opportunities, 4%
- Preparation for career, 4%
- Learning facilities, 4%
- Recommendation score, 4%
- Character score, 4%
- Diversity – 10%
- Opportunities to interact with students from different backgrounds, 5%
- Ethnic diversity, 1.7%
- Pell proportion, 1.7%
- Students with disabilities, 1.7%
U.S. News & World Report
CMC is in a four-way tie for the #8 Best National Liberal Arts Colleges of 2025, along with Carleton, the U.S. Air Force Academy, and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. There were no changes to the methodology this year, after several shifts in the 2024 publication where the following ceased to be included in the rankings, even though the data was still collected and published: alumni giving, class size, high school class standing, the proportion of instructional faculty with terminal degrees, and the proportion of graduates who borrowed federal loans. Also, the following new indicators were added for the 2024 publication: borrower debt and graduates earning more than high school graduates.
Highlights from CMC’s performance this year include:
- Graduation rates – 95% overall and 97% for Pell students
- Median debt for graduates with federal loans of $13,500
FIRE Free Speech
CMC ranked #6 in the 2025 rankings with an overall score of 69.15/100. The FIRE College Free Speech Rankings are based on a combination of student survey responses (103 CMC students responded) used to gauge perceptions of free speech on campus, along with measures applied to campus behaviors of faculty, staff, and students. Bonus points (supporting free expression during a deplatforming campaign) and penalty points (successfully deplatforming a speaker, sanctioning a scholar) are also applied.
Highlights from CMC’s college free speech student survey responses include:
- #1 on “Comfort Expressing Ideas”
- #3 on “Mean Tolerance”
- #7 on “Tolerance for Controversial Conservative Speakers”
- #8 on “Tolerance for Controversial Liberal Speakers”
- #9 on “Administrative Support”
- #25 on “Self-Censorship”
- #44 on “Openness”
—Compiled by CMC’s Office of Institutional Research