US News & World Report Slips In Grinnell College Rankings

U.S. News & World Report is disappointed by their sharp drop after years of steady advancement

WASHINGTON- Writers, analysts, and executives at U.S. News & World Report were dismayed this week by the news that their institution has fallen four places in the 2010-11 Grinnell College rankings, to number 18. The annual rankings list, which compares the nation’s most prestigious magazines for the benefit of prospective subscribers, places U.S. News behind Rolling Stone and Golf Digest, both tied at 16.

Grinnell gave U.S. News a score of 83 for the 2010-11 list, based on numerical data as well as intangibles such as reader surveys, reputation factors, and even comments from the website www.ratemymags.com.

“We fell a few slots this year, but our placement on Grinnell’s arbitrary list should not influence anyone’s final decision,” said Don Peltson, head editor of U.S. News & World Report. “We don’t rely on artificial measurements to know we’re the best for our readers.”

“Why? What did we do wrong? Please tell us!” added Peltson.

U.S. News has long tried to break the Top 10, but perennially falls short due to the complex and, some say, unreliable ranking system used by Grinnell College. Grinnell ranks magazines based on a combination of factors, including page/issue ratio, circulation, glossiness, and juicy celebrity gossip to determine which publications make the cut.

Since Grinnell began its ranking system in 1983, some magazines have criticized or have independently boycotted the survey. Editors of Time, Newsweek, and The Economist have accused Grinnell’s ranking of being biased toward the superficial qualities of magazines like People or top-ranked AARP The Magazine, which depend largely on reputation.

“The backwards incentives mean that the big, Glossy League magazines, the older publications, coast on reputation and huge endowments to high rankings, but the system doesn’t recognize the smaller guys who strive for quality of information,” said Peltson.

Grinnell’s formula has also been accused of being outdated and irrelevant to the kinds of searches readers are conducting for their magazines in the 21st century.

“The Grinnell rankings only works for subscribers who are just looking for the biggest name publications,” said Time Features editor Jenna Kipney. “If you want the magazine that best fits your personal niche, you need to do your own research to find your own Popular Mechanics, Good Housekeeping, or Maxim.”

Kipney is adamant that, when it comes to choosing a magazine, rankings don’t matter as much as the content the magazine offers and whether it is a good fit for the reader.

“For instance, Grinnell doesn’t care at all about website functionality,” added Kipney.

U.S. News publicly disregards Grinnell’s published list and claims their policies are unaffected by their drop in the rankings. Magazine administrators, however, are making broad changes in an attempt to climb the rankings, including a sweeping advertising campaign, a new sweepstakes for readers, and shiny new offices complete with a pool and indoor track.