When an IEP ranks 138th out of 147 in a law ranking despite offering a multidisciplinary curriculum, the scale of the misunderstanding becomes clear. Sciences Po Saint-Germain-en-Laye is at the heart of a recurring disagreement among higher education analysts—not about the quality of the institution, but about what rankings actually measure.
DAUR law ranking: an unsuitable indicator for multidisciplinary IEPs
The 2024 DAUR ranking places the Sciences Po Saint-Germain-en-Laye degree 138th out of 147 in law. This figure gets shared, worries applicants and fuels discussions on university guidance forums. The problem is that it compares a multidisciplinary curriculum (political science, international relations, economics, languages) with programs devoted exclusively to law.
Applying an assessment framework designed for law faculties to an IEP is like judging a decathlete solely on their 100-meter performance. The DAUR ranking does not reflect the overall quality of the program; it reflects an analysis limited to one discipline among several. When people look at reviews of Sciences Po Saint-Germain-en-Laye, this methodological distinction comes up time and again.
Le Figaro Étudiant rankings take a different approach, measuring selectivity through Parcoursup and the average baccalauréat grades of admitted students. These broader criteria paint a different picture of the same institution. Two rankings, two methodologies, two opposing verdicts on the same IEP.
IEP common entrance exam: why campus allocation complicates rankings
Sciences Po Saint-Germain-en-Laye is part of a network of seven IEPs that share a common entrance exam. Applicants sit the same exams, then rank their campus preferences. Allocation depends on their exam ranking, the preferences they submit and the number of places available at each institution.
Choosing a campus involves balancing rank, location and personal preferences, not making a judgment about teaching quality. An applicant who lists Saint-Germain-en-Laye as their first choice and is admitted has not “failed” compared with someone admitted to Lille or Lyon. Yet the allocation process creates that impression in the informal rankings high school students make among themselves.
This shared system creates a practical challenge for ranking compilers: how can they isolate a campus’s performance when all campuses draw from the same pool of applicants? Admission rates vary by year and source, making year-on-year comparisons unreliable unless the exact scope is specified.
What selectivity rates don’t tell you
An IEP may have a low admission rate because it attracts a very large number of applicants (the effect of name recognition) or because it offers few places (the effect of capacity). Both situations produce the same figure, but they do not reflect the same reality. Saint-Germain-en-Laye, a more recent institution than Bordeaux or Lille, is at an inherent disadvantage in terms of name recognition, which affects the number of applications and, in turn, the published selectivity ratios.
Sciences Po Saint-Germain-en-Laye’s specializations and ranking criteria
Each IEP develops areas of specialization that set it apart. Saint-Germain-en-Laye has built its identity around specific themes, attracting a targeted applicant profile. General rankings struggle to capture this dimension because their criteria (starting salaries, reputation among recruiters, alumni network) structurally favor institutions located in major economic centers.
An IEP located in Île-de-France but outside Paris occupies a paradoxical position: geographically close to the Île-de-France job market, yet without the prestige associated with a Paris address. Rankings based on graduate salaries favor IEPs in high-income metropolitan areas, regardless of the quality of teaching.
Three factors explain why rankings differ on this IEP:
- The subject area covered (law alone, political science, generalist program) radically changes its position
- Reputation indicators rely on self-reported surveys of recruiters, who are more familiar with long-established IEPs than newer institutions
- Employment outcome data combine graduating classes of very different sizes, making statistical comparisons between a small IEP and a large one unreliable
How to interpret an IEP ranking: practical questions to ask
Rather than looking for “the best” ranking, it’s more useful to identify what each one measures—and what it leaves out. An applicant aiming for an international career has different needs from one pursuing a career in senior local government.
- Check whether the ranking covers a specific field (law, management) or the entire IEP program
- Check the year the data was collected, as a two-year gap between collection and publication is common
- Distinguish between admission selectivity (which measures appeal) and graduate employment outcomes (which measure alignment with the job market)
- Find out whether the ranking includes Sciences Po Paris, which operates on a very different model from regional IEPs, or compares only institutions in the shared network
A ranking is useful when you understand its methodology. Without this critical perspective, the published position is just a number without context. In the case of Sciences Po Saint-Germain-en-Laye, the disagreement among experts has less to do with the institution itself than with the measurement tool chosen: change the thermometer, and the temperature reading changes too.
