Every fall, universities wait anxiously for the newest U.S. News & World Report college rankings to be released. This year, Northeastern continued to be spotlighted in discussions about its growth, ranking in the top 50 nationally in the 2026 U.S. News & World Report rankings and in the 201–250 range globally in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings.
For a school that prides itself on rapid growth and a global network, that might seem like proof of success, but many students are beginning to wonder whether this rise reflects genuine progress or strategic maneuvering.
Administrators have played a key role in shaping the university’s reputation among employers and ranking agencies. In recent years, Northeastern has expanded its global presence and emphasized its signature co-op model, which the university promotes as a hands-on learning experience that is distinct from traditional internships. These accomplishments have shaped how employers and ranking agencies perceive the university.
It’s easy to see why many believe the school’s standing is a well-earned reflection of ambition and innovation.
Yet rankings can be deceiving. Critics, including campus voices and education commentators, argue that Northeastern’s success isn’t solely due to academic excellence. Some suggest it’s the result of Northeastern “playing the rankings game,” focusing on manipulating measurable metrics rather than improving the educational experience itself. Factors such as co-op participation rates, graduation timelines and peer reputation can be improved through data and metrics, though not always through genuine academic growth.
In other words, the numbers might look good, but they might not tell the whole story.
The methodology behind the U.S. News rankings has also faced widespread criticism. Northeastern recently noted that the publication increased its emphasis on post-graduation outcomes, debt and salary data — while warning that some third-party data about the university can be misleading. These methodological shifts can benefit schools with strong employment outcomes, like Northeastern, but they also create opportunities for institutions skilled at reporting certain metrics to gain an edge, even if their academic or social environments haven’t meaningfully improved.
Students often feel this discrepancy firsthand. While Northeastern’s co-op program is widely praised, and many students do gain valuable experience, internal critiques suggest that not all placements are equal. Some students report that the structure pressures them into extending their time in school or accepting unpaid or low-paid roles. A higher ranking or impressive placement rate doesn’t erase concerns about affordability, advising quality or student well-being. Numbers can obscure these realities, making them easier to overlook.
Still, it would be unfair to say Northeastern hasn’t earned some of its success. Its co-op model, global network and employment outcomes remain strong selling-points. The university itself reports that co-op students are typically paid, don’t pay tuition while working and gain meaningful full-time roles after graduation. For many, the co-op model truly sets Northeastern apart — providing students with real-world experience that opens doors.
But if Northeastern’s leaders want the university to continue rising in both rank and reputation, they should focus on substance over statistics. Rankings should be a by-product of excellence, not the definition of it.
Instead of chasing another numerical jump next year, the university must continue improving student life, including focusing on affordability, transparency, advising and equitable access to high-quality co-op placements. Prestige means little if the students behind the numbers don’t feel they themselves progress.
Ali Abdelal is a second-year economics and international business major. He can be reached at [email protected]
If you would like to submit a letter to the editor in response to this piece, email [email protected] with your idea.
