Drexel University has climbed to 80th in the country on US News’ “Best National Universities” list for 2026. These rankings carry significant symbolic weight for universities, as they have a substantial impact on their reputation and increase applications. It would not be an overstatement to say that an astronomical amount of effort is involved in advancing up the ranks even a few spots, and it is no small feat that Drexel has been advancing for three consecutive years. However, while Drexel’s national standing signals growth and recognition, its students should consider how these rankings affect their day-to-day experiences, both positively and negatively.
Among the most favorable outcomes for Drexel’s students is the increased prestige and reputation that accompany being higher in the rankings. Future employers may be more likely to recognize graduates from Drexel, which could significantly impact whether one is hired. For instance, a manager at an elite institution would be more likely, if only subconsciously, to favor a graduate from Stanford than from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Future Drexel alumni will significantly benefit from the “halo effect” of being a part of a rising institution.
Another potential benefit from this rise would be a boost to applications, and consequently, an increase in networking opportunities. As more and more applicants to colleges nationwide flock to the universities at the top of the rankings, an increase in Drexel’s standing means an increase in the number of applicants, especially those seeking to distinguish themselves from their peers by being accepted to elite universities. The effect of this would be a significantly stronger peer cohort as more students from across the country and, indeed, from around the globe rush to Drexel, thereby making the acceptance rate more selective. Furthermore, when the number of new students arriving at Drexel is guaranteed only for the top applicants, a stronger bond may be formed among alumni, enabling many more opportunities to find a spot in the increasingly competitive American job market.
One additional advantage of being higher in the rankings would be an increase in investment and resources for the university. Drexel’s administration, aware of its newfound standing and accompanying prestige, may invest more in its faculty, research and facilities to maintain its current position and potentially further enhance it. This new investment would mean that students would have better access to grants and partnerships while enrolled.
Nevertheless, it must be noted that some caveats accompany this increased position in the national rankings. Most obviously, the national standing a university possesses does not necessarily reflect the student experience, since the rankings themselves are determined – with all its claims about proper methodology – somewhat arbitrarily. Indeed, the statistics used to determine a university’s score are unambiguous, but the weight given to each metric is entirely subjective. For instance, why should borrower debt account for only 5 percent of the score, peer assessment 20 percent, or the salaries of faculty 6 percent? These metrics do not, and cannot, account for the quality of the individual professors a student may take or the mental health of the graduates, nor does it factor in Drexel’s co-op system or the five-year graduation tracks. Therefore, there is significant and reasonable concern that students may see little change in the areas that significantly impact them but do not contribute to Drexel’s ranking, such as advising or mental health services.
Another such disadvantage would be an increase in pressure on students and faculty. When the position in the rankings rises, administrative expectations also rise, adding considerable stress on students to succeed and faculty to work harder. As is often the case, these added stresses and the university’s higher selectivity would disadvantage transfer, first-generation and lower-income students.
Now, for the most significant downside for students, we have been avoiding the fact that tuition would rise. Surprise! The money for new facilities and research opportunities must come from somewhere. Thus, as a university becomes more selective and elite, the students who can afford to attend tend to reflect a certain, privileged demographic. The students that Drexel has historically served may, if the university does not account for them, be completely priced out.
However, most crucially, we must once again note that these rankings, so highly valued by the nation’s universities, are relative. Drexel’s rise in the rankings may be due to its internal improvements. However, it could also be because other universities, such as Pepperdine and the University of Illinois at Chicago, are struggling more from the ongoing shortage of applicants than Drexel. For students, the lived experience, like the opportunities provided by co-op, the mentorship by faculty, and its affordability, matters more than a number in a newsletter. Students should view the increase in rankings as a sign of increased visibility, but they must also remain critical. Is Drexel investing in the areas that matter the most for students’ education and further careers? We will have to see.