Regretfully reviving an unnecessary thread--essentially for my own edification and enlightenment, partially out of preening pride and homerism. Yes, yes, the USNews English ranking is dubious for many reasons, and I will not defend its "methodology," but its results don't strike me as absurd. If nothing else, the subsequent rambles might lay groundwork for a better ranking--
(Also provoked to fall out of lockstep and complicate the "this ranking is obviously nonsense" consensus.)
(i) The 2017 USNews ranking--at least for the incandescent brand-name schools--corresponds to (recent) placement better than, say, the NRC rankings. (That despite the greater complexity and alleged credibility of the NRC's methods.)
NRC:
1. Harvard English--#1 in NRC survey (roughly, "quality") ranking, top-5 in regression ("reputation") ranking, #1 overall
2. Princeton and Stanford--also top-5 in both "quality" and "reputation" and top-3 overall
3. Berkeley--tip-top for "reputation," much lower for "quality" (also true for Columbia & Yale, though those departments have smaller gaps in performance between the two measures)
USNews 2017: Berkeley and Chicago > Stanford, Penn, Columbia > Michigan > Harvard, Yale, and Princeton
Recent placement (counting TT jobs and postdocs): Berkeley, Penn, Columbia, Yale, Chicago >>> Harvard, Princeton, Stanford (and Michigan, which places fourth for NRC "quality").
One would think that Berkeley, having been exposed in the NRC books as a "name without a substance," would have plummeted in rankings and estimation since 2010! (That might have been Harvard instead--Harvard, which has the Golden Name among universities, the blessing of the NRC devas, the sleekest roster of elite literary critics, and until this year top-3 status in USNews, but startlingly feeble English PhD placement since ~2009.)
(ii) Resources outside English. (One wonders how a good ranking of English departments would incorporate these.) Berkeley and Harvard have PhD minors in fields that fill many of their English departments' gaps. Berkeley's "designated emphases" include "Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies," "Critical Theory," and "Early Modern Studies," all of which English PhD candidates can study and all of which might contribute to the English department's consistent sheen in the relevant USNews sub-specialty rankings. Harvard offers "secondary fields" in areas like "African and African-American Studies" and "Medieval Studies." (Yale, Chicago, and Princeton have something similar, though perhaps less extensive and involving less intermingling of disciplines.)
(iii) Halo effect in reputation rankings. Unclear effect--I would expect Harvard and Stanford (the two "most [over]hyped schools in America, if not the world") to consistently outrank. say, Chicago and Berkeley, if the shininess of the school or of its most famous professors predominated in the rankers' evaluations.
No time to write more.
Obvious caveats/assumptions: that I have not and cannot adduce the experience of attending any of these schools to support my claims (and thus must trust what the Internet tells me); that the schools with the most breadth and depth of resources might not be the bellwethers for literary scholarship and training of graduate students; that departments' placements and other successes are endogenous (when in fact they might correlate heavily with ranking and perceived reputation); I did not attempt to anatomize each school's results in the NRC ranking.