Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What criteria do historians use to rank US presidents?
Executive summary
Historians and scholars use a mix of measurable metrics—economy, war leadership, legislative/administrative skill—and qualitative judgments—public persuasion, moral authority, and crisis management—to rank U.S. presidents [1] [2]. Major, recurring academic projects (Siena, Presidential Greatness Project, C‑SPAN and others) apply multi‑category surveys and sometimes weightings to create overall lists, but methodologies, sample frames, and which presidents are included vary and affect outcomes [1] [3] [4].
1. What historians actually rate: categories, not just “greatness”
Large scholarly surveys ask experts to rate presidents on many discrete attributes rather than a single vague “greatness” score. The Siena Research Institute’s long‑running study, for example, asks scholars to evaluate presidents across about 20 different categories—attributes, abilities and accomplishments—and then derives overall rankings from those scores [1]. Other projects similarly break judgment into pieces such as public persuasion, administrative skill, economic management, foreign policy and crisis leadership [2] [3].
2. How data are collected: expert surveys, public polls, and academic projects
There are two common approaches in the sources: expert surveys of historians, political scientists and presidential scholars (Siena, Presidential Greatness Project, university studies) and public opinion polls that measure how ordinary Americans expect presidents to be remembered (Gallup, YouGov, public polls cited in Wikipedia’s survey summary) [1] [3] [4]. Expert surveys aim for disciplinary judgment; public polls capture contemporary reputation. Which method is used explains many differing rankings reported across outlets [1] [4].
3. Which criteria tend to matter most in scholarly rankings
Scholarly respondents repeatedly emphasize leadership in war and crises, accomplishments in legislation and governance, and impact on the nation’s long‑term trajectory. Siena’s work and other academic studies show historians prize transformational leadership (e.g., Lincoln, FDR) and measurable policy outcomes when forming top‑tier judgments [1] [2]. Economic stewardship, public persuasion, administrative competence and moral authority are recurring subcategories that shape the final ordering [2].
4. Methodological differences that change results
Rankings vary because projects differ in sample composition, categories rated, weighting schemes and which presidents are eligible. The Presidential Greatness Project sampled political scientists and other scholars and produced a different ordering than Siena’s multi‑category expert panel; C‑SPAN’s polls and other academic surveys each use distinct instruments and timeframes, which produces shifts—e.g., rehabilitation of some figures over time or postponement of surveys when a sitting or recently returned president complicates “historical” analysis [3] [4] [2].
5. Politics, sample bias and “who rates” matter
Who is asked to rate presidents influences outcomes. Academic samples skew toward scholars with particular disciplinary or ideological profiles; a survey of historians and political scientists will differ from a general public poll [4]. Projects sometimes disclose response rates and respondent pools; Siena’s multi‑decade series explicitly targets historians and presidential scholars, while other initiatives like the Presidential Greatness Project surveyed hundreds of scholars in political science and history [1] [3].
6. Inclusion rules and timing change comparisons
Which presidencies are included and when the survey is done affects rankings. Some studies exclude sitting presidents; C‑SPAN postponed its 2025 survey after a former president returned to office, saying the timing risked turning the exercise into punditry rather than historical analysis [4]. Newer presidents are often reassessed over decades as more archival material becomes available and as scholarly perspectives evolve [2].
7. How to read headline rankings: context matters
Headline lists (top 25, worst X, etc.) simplify a complex process. A president’s rank masks underlying category scores—someone might score high for public persuasion but low for ethics or administrative competence, producing mixed overall placement [2] [5]. Different projects also produce divergent placements: for instance, multiple surveys consistently place Lincoln and FDR at or near the top, but positions for recent presidents vary widely across Siena, the Presidential Greatness Project and media summaries [2] [3] [5].
8. Limitations in current reporting and what’s not in these sources
Available sources document methods and some category lists, but they do not provide a single standardized, universally accepted scoring rubric; instead, multiple methodologies coexist [1] [3] [4]. Available sources do not mention a single, definitive hierarchy or an agreed‑upon weighting system that all historians use to produce one canonical ranking [1] [4].
In short, historians rank presidents by combining quantitative and qualitative evaluations across multiple categories, but outcomes depend on who’s surveyed, which categories are emphasized, how scores are weighted and the timing of the survey—so treat any single “best/worst” list as a methodological product, not an absolute verdict [1] [2] [3].