I've sat in department wide meetings where deans of engineering compared their schools to 'the competition,' both in terms of US news rankings and their own preferred metrics. Usually to bemoan how unfair it is that Texas is a petrostate with 10x the population that can fund top tier engineering schools.

But by and large, the tiers are static and a uni in the #47 slot isn't making to the top 10 any time soon. Might not even make top 40. For undergraduate education I think you're right, nobody really cares. There's really three categories of schools: private schools / ivies, flagship state schools, and the rest. I'm guessing if you asked employers to rank schools, they would largely match selectivity -- how hard it is to get into the school. (or more depressingly, how good the athletics programs are doing lately)

Because getting a job in those areas is about abstract abilities that can't be (somewhat) measured with code tests, technology signifiers, and tricky questions like tech interviews.

So a certain school is a "class entry cue" for such tracks.

Most high school students/parents/guidance counselors/etc check the rankings, reputation, average salary of graduates, etc. It even extends to majors and rankings within majors - which might matter more.

> Even then it's not like it's common for people to pick which school to go to out of the ones that accepted them based solely on rankings.

Who said solely? Of course there are many other factors ( location, tuition, scholarships, etc ). But rankings/reputation/etc are a big part of a high schooler's college decision.

When you're making one of the biggest decisions of your life, rankings can help you know how good your choices are.

Not saying rankings are correct...

But for those applying, they likely appreciate having a ranking mechanism.

It's one of the few objective measures of universities available.

How do you know, otherwise, if this university that wants to charge you $40,000 per year is really going to deliver on their promise?

You can't just go back to school again and start over.

It's a life decision, so there is a desperate desire for the applying student to have an objective way of stack ranking the choices.

(Disclosure: I attended MIT. And I basically just applied to the top 5 or 10 computer science universities -- again, using rankings. And hoped to get into one of those.)

I've observed that, among people who care about university rankings in hiring, there are exactly two categories: the top five, and everything else. If you went to #200, you're the "same" as somebody who went to #25.