Discover the Best College Model UN Teams
National Rankings for College Model United Nations
National Rankings Overview
Our comprehensive national rankings analysis provides insights into the performance and achievements of college Model UN teams. The methodology we developed was designed to achieve the following results:
- Effectively compare the performance of large and small delegations.
- Encourage schools to expand opportunities for more students to compete by disincentivizing competing with only small, less than eight-member delegations.
- Provide a fully transparent ranking calculation and showcase a full data set.
- Equip college teams with a data-driven justification for funding and allocation. Our methodology rewards schools that attend at least eight conferences per year.
- Encourage more participation in Model UN by including all conferences, including newer conferences, in the ranking calculation.
- Further legitimize Model United Nations as a serious academic competition by relying on a quantitative, data-driven ranking.
National Model UN Rankings
The following rankings were compiled using the methodology outlined below. Our full data set is available to view and download. Viewers can see individual conference performance per team, our calculations, and all weights and points used to calculate the rankings. All-American Model UN took great care to protect the fidelity of the data. We cross-checked awards data from multiple sources. We reserve the right to issue corrections to the data but will not adjust the rankings once released. Please contact us with any questions at hello@allamericanmun.com. If your conference would like to be included in our rankings system, you must submit your awards data to All-American Model UN.
2024 Mid-Year Rankings: Top Ten Teams
Released: January 30, 2025
Full Data Set
RANK
SCHOOL
CHANGE
1
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
American University had a dominant fall semester in 2024, scoring more than 20 conference points at BarMUN, TrojanMUN, UPMUNC, NCSC, and UNCMUNC. After finishing in third place last year, they earned the top spot in the National Model UN Rankings to start the 2024-25 season. There’s no reason to expect AU to slow down in the Spring.
2
2
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
The Georgetown Model UN team performed incredibly well at MUNE, BarMUN, and UPMUNC. Their final results at CIAC and UNCMUNC were strong but did not reflect their potential. By hosting NCSC, a tier-one conference in our rankings, they lost the opportunity to win important conference points. They’ll make it up in the Spring, to be sure.
3
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
The college Model UN circuit had better be on the lookout for new powerhouses coming out of the Southeast. Florida State lit up the scoreboard at AIRMUNC, DawgMUN, and NCSC, where they finished 5th according to our methodology. They benefited from dominating smaller conferences like AIRMUNC and DawgMUN. It will be fun to see where FSU ends up at the end of the season!
5
4
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
The Harvard Model UN team slipped a few spots from the end of last year from #1 to #4. Harvard started strong out of the gate with the best team performance at BarMUN. Harvard’s disappointing performance at NCSC cost them in the mid-year rankings. A strong Spring will propel them back into the top three.
3
5
CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE
The small but mighty CMC Model UN team had a terrific outing in the first semester of 2024. Their only blemish was a subpar performance at UPMUNC, where they uncharacteristically only squeaked out one honorable mention. Had they skipped UPMUNC, Claremont McKenna could have earned the #2 spot in the mid-year rankings.
2
6
UNIVERSITY OF GEORIGA
The University of Georgia Model UN team continues to build on its recent momentum and earns a spot in the top ten list. Their strong performances at TennMUN and UNCMUNC propelled them to their highest-yet ranking. We’ll see if they can compete at the highest level at larger conferences in the Spring.
8
7
US MILITARY ACADEMY AT WEST POINT
West Point started the fall semester slowly at BarMUN, where they didn’t crack the top 15 teams at BU’s conference. They went on to rack up points at CIAC, NCSC, and UPMUNC to finish mid-year in the top ten.
7
8
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
Take a look at the Orange and Blue! UF made the biggest leap of any team this fall, moving up 15 spots and into the top ten. Anchored by a dominant performance at DawgMUN, the University of Florida Model UN team put up respectable results at AIRMUNC, NCSC, and 305MUN. Will teams start dreading the Gator Chomp at closing ceremonies in the Spring?
15
9
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
For the first time in years, AU, Georgetown, and THE George Washington University are among the world’s top ten Model UN teams. GW put up solid numbers at MUNE, BarMUN, and NCSC before rolling up some points at UNCMUNC to finish out the fall semester.
4
10
MCGILL UNIVERSITY
McGill edged out Boston University for the final spot in the mid-year top 10 with a strong fall performance. McGill’s superb outings at BarMUN and NCSC, the fall’s toughest conferences, landed its team at #10. Even though they won a delegation award at 305MUN, their small delegation size held them back in the midseason rankings.
1
2024 Mid-Year Rankings: Teams 11-25
11
BOSTON UNIVERSITY
Expect to see BU jump up in the next set of rankings. Boston University’s team was hindered by a poor outing at UPMUNC and not being able to collect points at its own conference, BarMUN. Had they skipped UPMUNC, BU would have landed in the #4 spot just ahead of Harvard.
12
CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY
Concordia Model UN only competed at two conferences in the first half of the MUN season, meaning their total conference points were divided by three (our conference minimum). If they meet the full-year conference minimum of eight conferences, they could jump into the top 5.
13
INDIANA UNIVERSITY
IU ran through TennMUN, finishing second in conference points, before having solid performances at AIRMUNC and NCSC. Their points result at MUNE held them back. Will they be the only Midwest school in the top 10 by the end of the year?
14
UCLA
UCLA had an incredible performance at NCSC and solid results at BarMUN, TrojanMUN, and SBIMUN. They could easily find themselves in the top ten with a few more NCSC-level outings.
15
FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY
The FIU Model UN team had a chaotic first semester. They clearly prioritized outcomes at BarMUN and NCSC, where they finished 3rd and 4th, respectively. That may have come at the expense of their outings at MUNE, UPMUNC, 305MUN, and UNCMUNC.
16
UC BERKELEY
Berkeley Model UN should have finished in the top ten and would have if not for their performance at NCSC, where they won only one verbal commendation. They had solid outings at BarMUN and UPMUNC and crushed everyone at TrojanMUN.
17
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
UVA MUN was the model of consistency in the fall, with solid performances at CMUNNY, BarMUN, TrojanMUN, and UPMUNC. Can they take it to the next level and land in the top ten next semester?
18
FORDHAM UNIVERSITY
Schools can’t sleep on delegates from Fordham. Had it not been for a frustrating outcome at NCSC, you may have seen Fordham crack the top ten in the mid-year ranking.
19
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
What happened UChicago? It seems the team from the Windy City was laser-focused on NCSC, where they finished second in conference points. They put up decent points at BarMUN and TrojanMUN before stumbling at UNCMUNC.
20
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
21
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
22
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA
23
COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY
24
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
25
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
FULL DATA SET
Rankings Methodology
Comparing Large and Small Delegation Sizes
Comparing and ranking delegation sizes at conferences continues to be the most challenging quantitative obstacle when creating a ranking system. Over the last twenty years, conferences have overcome this challenge by creating two categories of team awards: Large Delegations and Small Delegations. Each conference independently determines the threshold for a large and small delegation, but the consensus seems to be driven by two variables. Large delegations tend to have 16 delegates or more on one team, or the large/small cutoff is determined by the average size of delegates per team at a conference. This works well at the conference level. At the national ranking level, it is not feasible to use the same approach because teams bring a combination of large and small delegations to various conferences throughout the year.
To best solve this problem, our national ranking system borrows from other activities, such as cross country, that must score comparatively large and small teams to each other. Our underlining methodology compares the top eight finished each team achieves at each conference they attend. In theory, we believe that competitive collegiate Model UN teams should be able to field a team of at least eight high-level delegates. When developing our system, we experimented with four, six, ten, twelve, and sixteen delegates, which dramatically changed the results. Ultimately, we selected eight for two main reasons. First, Model UN is a cost-intensive activity. Not every collegiate team has financial support from their university or college. Additionally, teams often must fly coast-to-coast to compete. We did not want to put an additional financial burden on schools to travel with larger teams for better rankings. Second, our rankings look to disincentive teams from bringing four to six delegates to conferences to solely try to manipulate ratio calculations for conference delegation awards.
This methodology is not foolproof. Its rightful criticisms include discounting awards won beyond the first eight highest finishes and encouraging teams to bring only eight of the school’s highest-level Model UN delegates, taking opportunities away from more students to travel. We prioritized transparency in our calculations ahead of the weight of criticism in the methodology.
We reserve the right to update our methodology if we find a better solution in the future.
Awards Data
Model United Nations is not a centralized activity. We rely on conferences and collegiate teams to supply accurate awards data in a timely manner so that their conference may influence national rankings. We will include any conference that submits awards data to us.
Conference Delegation Awards
The National Model United Nations Rankings by All-American Model UN do not consider delegation awards given by conferences. Each conference should be empowered to reward teams based on their methodology. We applaud teams that win delegation awards at conferences but opt not to include them in the national rankings because each conference may use different methodologies.
Conference Award Calculations
The National Model UN Rankings only consider the top eight awards won per delegation to discourage teams from bringing less than eight delegates on a conference team. For teams that win less than eight awards, the point total for any awards won will be divided by 8 to calculate a team’s conference performance. We want to encourage teams to bring more students without making the financial requirement untenable.
Conference Minimums per Team
Our ranking system assumes that top Model UN teams compete in at least eight conferences each season. Teams do not need to attend eight or more conferences to be ranked. Teams that attend less than eight conferences will have their weighted conference point total divided by eight. For example, if a competitive team wins points from five conferences, the weighted point total will be divided by eight. If a team attends more than eight conferences, its weighted point total will be divided by the number of conferences it attends.
For Mid-Year Rankings, we opted for a three conference minimum. Schools that competed at less than three conferences will have the sum of their conference points divided by three. Teams that competed at more than three conferences will have the sum of their conference points divided by the number of conferences they attended.
Individual Awards Points System
The point values assigned to Model UN awards do not dramatically impact the final rankings to the degree first anticipated. We experimented with various points systems to see to what degree points could influence rankings. The final rankings stay consistent if the margin between award points stays consistent. We did not see an impact until assigning large point differences between awards. For example, when assigning 10 points for Best Delegate, 5 points for Outstanding/Book, 2 for Honorable Mention, and 1 for Verbal Commendation, the final rankings would be substantially difference than a 4/3/2/1 point matrix.
Our rankings use the following award points:
Best Delegate: 5 Points
Outstanding Delegate or Book Award: 4 Points
Honorable Mention: 3 Points
Verbal Commendation: 2 Points
Ranking and Weighting Conferences
When first designing our ranking methodology, we attempted not to weight conferences, as weighting conferences may harm competitive schools that host conferences and, therefore, cannot compete at them. If Harvard National Model UN (HNMUN) is ranked as the top conference and carries the most weight in a set of rankings, it punishes the Harvard travel team because they cannot compete at their school’s conference.
Ultimately, we decided to weigh conferences in three tiers. After analyzing the data, we noticed that some teams acquired a significant number of points at conferences less attended by a high concentration of competitive teams. Tier 1 conferences had a weight of 1, Tier 2 conferences carried a weight of .9, and Tier 3 conferences carried a weight of .8.
Fall 2024 Conference Tiers
Tier 1 Conferences: BarMUN, NCSC
Tier 2 Conferences: MUNE, TrojanMUN, DawgMUN, UPMUNC, UNCMUNC
Tier 3 Conferences: CMUNNY, TennMUN, RISC, AIRMUNC, 305MUN, CIAC, SBIMUN