<p>1 HARVARD University United States
2 University of CAMBRIDGE United Kingdom
2 University of OXFORD United Kingdom
2 YALE University United States
5 Imperial College LONDON United Kingdom
6 PRINCETON University United States
7 CALIFORNIA Institute of Technology (Caltech) United States
7 University of CHICAGO United States
9 UCL (University College LONDON) United Kingdom
10 MASSACHUSETTS Institute of Technology (MIT) United States
11 COLUMBIA University United States
12 MCGILL University Canada
13 DUKE University United States
14 University of PENNSYLVANIA United States
15 JOHNS HOPKINS University United States
16 AUSTRALIAN National University Australia
17 University of TOKYO Japan
18 University of HONG KONG Hong Kong
19 STANFORD University United States
20 CARNEGIE MELLON University United States</p>
<p>You know how good a ranking is by comparing the ranks from year to year. If there are too many jumps, it isn't a good ranking. Imperial College London -- 9 to 5. Princeton -- 10 to 6. Chicago 11 to 7. University College London -- 25 to 9. MIT -- 4 to 10. McGill -- 21 to 12. JHU -- 23 to 15. Stanford -- 6 to 19. CMU -- 35 to 20. Cornell -- 15 to 20. Berkeley -- 8 to 22. University of Edinburgh -- 33 to 23. King's College London -- 46 to 24. And a ton of others like Northwestern, Brown, and Michigan that jumped 10+ spots.</p>
<p>I think we know the quality of this one.</p>
<p>That's quite possibly the worst ranking I've seen in my life.</p>
<p>yeh like BU way above Georgetown....what???</p>
<p>47th sounds good to me :P</p>
<p>I'm sorry, but that's a load of bull.</p>
<p>anybody can come up with an arbitrary ranking just like this one.</p>
<p>Like I said in another thread about this ranking, the variability from year to year is just too high to be meaningful. How on Earth can they justify moving Wash. U. like 100 places in one year? Did it somehow change drastically in a single year?</p>
<p>Wow, look at all the advertisements on the webpage. I doubt this is a reliable ranking system.</p>
<p>THES-QS is actually upfront about the big jumps schools are having, as they have stated in their press release that they had changed their methodology. Since the methodology changed so drastically, I think we ought to treat this as a "new" ranking rather than comparing it to the 2006 rankings.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Developments in the methodology in 2007 compared to 2006, influence the reduced performance of some single faculty universities and universities which place less emphasis on the Sciences. In particular, Z-scores have been applied to all the criteria to reduce outliers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>University of Hong Kong above stanford. Whoa lets all stop trying for Stanford and go for Uni of Hong Kong.</p>
<p>What I like about this is that it makes patently obviously how ridiculous rankings are.</p>
<p>I think this ranking is basically based on the number of Nobel prizes and fields medals which happened to be won by a few professors at these colleges. Apart from that, I can say that this is full of bull****</p>
<p>Imperial>Caltech>MIT? Hello???</p>
<p>I can't access any of the "links" on the top, such as "About QS." That, along with the numerous ads, leads me to think this website is complete bull.</p>
<p>Actually it is the Shanghai rankings that are "basically based on the number of Nobel prizes and fields medals which happened to be won by a few professors at these colleges." The Americans on these boards usually seem to be rather keen on those rankings.</p>
<p>I suggest people actually read what the THES website says about the reasons for the new methodology before jerking their knees. As frankchn points out, that is the reason for the significant shifts this year. The website also points out that it will mean the rankings will become more stable year on year in the future.</p>
<p>If you can come up with justifiable criticism of the methodology, all well and good. Just not liking the results is not valid criticism.</p>
<p>how is this a hot thread?</p>
<p>This ranking is from the Times Higher Education Supplement, one of the most respected educational publications in the world. Think twice before you play it down just because the referral site is ugly and has ads. If you have a subscription, you can get them right off of <a href="http://www.thes.co.uk/%5B/url%5D">http://www.thes.co.uk/</a> instead.</p>
<p>I don't think prestige really matters here (and I'm talking about the prestige of the THES). If the ranks jump by 10+ spots, why should we believe that this year's is any more accurate than last year's? The credibility of a ranking is largely dependent on its variability.</p>
<p>^Not really, considering that the publication explained why all of its changes in methodology were needed to make the rankings less biased on the outcome of specific individual measures. You can think of them as perfecting the ranking, not varying it.</p>
<p>^^"Just not liking the results is not valid criticism."</p>
<p>Agree. To the poster who thought Georgetown should be above BU, I know more people who think the opposite. Academically speaking, BU is actually much stronger.</p>
<p>I'm glad Mcgill is up there , but it is a little ovverrated . I'd put it at 18. Chicago is right where it needs to be though.</p>