What do Planning School Rankings Really Mean?

Last Year Planetizen published their first Guide to Graduate Urban Planning Programs. The Guide includes basic information about the programs (location, specializations, faculty, etc) and an overall ranking of the schools and ranking by specialization. It is these rankings that are the source of much consternation within the planning academy.

3 minute read

December 1, 2007, 3:55 AM PST

By Lance Freeman


Last Year Planetizen published their first Guide to Graduate Urban Planning Programs. The Guide includes basic information about the programs (location, specializations, faculty, etc) and an overall ranking of the schools and ranking by specialization. It is these rankings that are the source of much consternation within the planning academy.

If my conversation with colleagues and discussions on the PLANET listserve which serves planning academics is any guide most planning professors strongly oppose the notion of ranking planning schools. In this way planning academics echo the growing resistance to the well known ranking of undergraduate schools by U.S. News and World Report. School rankings are usually criticized for two reasons. First, rankings are misleading in the sense that they misrepresent the nature of education. Education involves an interaction between the school, the student and classmates. What might be best for one student may not be best for another. A professor might inspire one student but bore to tears another. A student may find her classmates especially stimulating or hard to get along with. In this way rankings are misleading because they cannot possibly tell each student where they would best fit in or get the best education. Planetizen's rankings appear to be based primarily on reputation. Clearly the perceived reputation of a school provides only minimal information as to how a particular student might be educated there.

A second criticism of rankings is that they often induce school administrators to attempt to game the rankings in order to improve their own position. For example, the U.S. News and World report has typically assigned considerable weight to the selectivity of the school. Schools can easily increase their selectivity by encouraging applications from applicants they are likely to reject. A school that improved its ranking using this tactic can hardly said to be providing a better education despite its rise in the rankings.

A third criticism that is specific to Planetizen's rankings is the lack of transparency in how the rankings were calculated. This lack of transparency is inconsistent with inclusive collaborative planning approaches taught in most planning programs where openness and inclusion is stressed. It should be conceded, however, that by not revealing its methodology one of the key criticisms of rankings, that they encourage administrators to focus on improving their rankings, is rendered moot.

So what should a prospective planning student make of rankings such as the one produced by the publisher of this blog? They should not interpret the rankings as a precise measure of the quality of planning education offered by a particular program. There is no way a third party could quantify with any degree of precision the quality of education they are likely to obtain at various schools. This assumes there is even agreement on what "quality of education" is.

Nonetheless, reputational rankings do provide some useful information. They do give the student some sense of how others in the planning community view the program. People's perceptions of a particular program might be outdated, overly influenced by the reputation of the planning program's university, or just plain wrong. But perceptions do count. A student from graduating from a particular program will be judged, in part, on the reputation of her school.

So a prospective student should take the reputation of a program into consideration when considering a school. Reputation is not necessarily indicative of quality of education, but it is suggestive of how others will perceive their credential. Planning is not a profession where one's pedigree necessarily determines one's career trajectory, however, so students should not attach too much weight to national rankings. Indeed, if students are planning to use their planning degree to go into another profession the reputation of the larger university will probably be more important than that of the planning program.

In sum, reputational rankings cannot possible tell a student about the quality of education they will receive at a particular school. But they can still provide useful, albeit limited, information that a student should consider when choosing a school.


Lance Freeman

Lance Freeman is an associate professor in the Urban Planning program at Columbia University in New York City where he teaches courses on housing policy and research methods. He has also taught in the School of Urban Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Delaware. Prior to this, Dr. Freeman worked as a researcher at Mathematica Policy Research, a leading social policy research firm in Washington D.C. Dr. Freeman holds a Masters degree and a Ph.D. in City and Regional Planning from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr.

portrait of professional woman

I love the variety of courses, many practical, and all richly illustrated. They have inspired many ideas that I've applied in practice, and in my own teaching. Mary G., Urban Planner

I love the variety of courses, many practical, and all richly illustrated. They have inspired many ideas that I've applied in practice, and in my own teaching.

Mary G., Urban Planner

Cover CM Credits, Earn Certificates, Push Your Career Forward

Logo for Planetizen Federal Action Tracker with black and white image of U.S. Capitol with water ripple overlay.

Planetizen Federal Action Tracker

A weekly monitor of how Trump’s orders and actions are impacting planners and planning in America.

July 16, 2025 - Diana Ionescu

Green vintage Chicago streetcar from the 1940s parked at the Illinois Railroad Museum in 1988.

Chicago’s Ghost Rails

Just beneath the surface of the modern city lie the remnants of its expansive early 20th-century streetcar system.

July 13, 2025 - WTTV

Blue and silver Amtrak train with vibrant green and yellow foliage in background.

Amtrak Cutting Jobs, Funding to High-Speed Rail

The agency plans to cut 10 percent of its workforce and has confirmed it will not fund new high-speed rail projects.

July 14, 2025 - Smart Cities Dive

Worker in yellow safety vest and hard hat looks up at servers in data center.

Ohio Forces Data Centers to Prepay for Power

Utilities are calling on states to hold data center operators responsible for new energy demands to prevent leaving consumers on the hook for their bills.

July 18 - Inside Climate News

Former MARTA CEO Collie Greenwood standing in front of MARTA HQ with blurred MARTA sign visible in background.

MARTA CEO Steps Down Amid Citizenship Concerns

MARTA’s board announced Thursday that its chief, who is from Canada, is resigning due to questions about his immigration status.

July 18 - WABE

Rendering of proposed protected bikeway in Santa Clara, California.

Silicon Valley ‘Bike Superhighway’ Awarded $14M State Grant

A Caltrans grant brings the 10-mile Central Bikeway project connecting Santa Clara and East San Jose closer to fruition.

July 17 - San José Spotlight