about your clemson argument, the deal is that if enough HS applicants or graduate/professional schools or employers or students, take it seriously, then it matters. i know this "rank doesn't matter" argument is being pushed now. just like WSJ is pushing its own new rank, which leans conservative in values. just like some want to push "you don't need a degree for that." such efforts only work if the consensus shifts. otherwise, you have an argument. but reality persists.
i mean, i help with some of the hiring on employees and consultants. you bet i notice where they went and what they accomplished there. weaker school, better accomplish a lot. and even then where do i stack you relative to harvard boy. and like it or not, the student bodies at some schools are just better. nope, don't buy it.
and on clemson or tulane specifically, i could argue it proves my point. some second rate school tried to fake their way in and got caught. the rankings matter enough they tried. and if the implication is the others are faking it, sorry, no, buzz. try applying to one of the best if you don't have the numbers. my experience the applications process came out right about what the numbers predicted. and if it didn't, the school was usually very expensive and low yield. and even that anomaly would be showing up in their acceptance rates.
nah, WSJ can try its own list and most of us giggle. very few items except maybe babson provoke much. most of it is how can you possibly think x is better than y. which suggests you are fighting the general reputational impression, not forging new consensus.