<p>Yea sure, and Columbia + UPenn > Stanford.</p>
<p>I don't think so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Get off the drugs dude. How can you seriously say that BU is academically better than Georgetown. I doubt 90% of the kids at BU could get into Georgetown.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know plenty of kids who got into GTown. A kid down the hall from me got into Harvard.</p>
<p>This is an international ranking. NOT A NATIONAL AMERICAN ranking. The Fact is the ranking cannot be biased for against anyone, because you are not allowed to vote for your own institution. Also 40% of respoondents were american, only 30 or so were from EU/Africa/Middle East combined. So american ACADEMICS had the biggest say in who they think is the best. And that is fair eoungh because majority of the most higjly cited scientists work in america. I dont understand why some cannot comprehend that good colleges exist outside the USA.
There may be few colleges placed in the wrong place, specifically Standford, but besides that reps of the colleges in the list is very consistant. UCL has consistantly ranked above UPENN in this specific ranking since it started.<br>
Also what does a kid who got into Harvard but went to GTown, got to do with the list.</p>
<p>New methodology? More likely it's used to push the UK unis up the ranks.. Darn bias</p>
<p>this is a joke.. seriously.. queensland over peking? edinburgh over brown? I got into edinburgh when i dont even know if I can get into Brown and the admission rate for Mechanical engineering at Edinburgh is like 70%?? while at brown its 15% for all courses.. OMG..</p>
<p>and push universities outside of the US up the ranks huh? </p>
<p>if you look at the top thirty, youll see the ranking is very consistant with most opinions. 15 of the top 30 are american. being 5 places up or down doesnt really tarnish a colleges reputation/prestige, because there is so little between the top 30. sign up to the the free trial a look at the overall scores, and the specific scores.</p>
<p>edinburgh has a less then 10% acceptance overall.
UCAS</a> Statistical services: HE institution 2006
all the statistics on UK college applicants/acceptances.
Its not just UK students that apply in high volume to uk colleges, because the way the EU operates EU students pay same as UK students. so colleges can select from the entire EU. Also Top UK colleges are very popular in Asia.</p>
<p>It just shows that how easy is it to get in IF you can pay the full fees</p>
<p>right............</p>
<p>For me, one really strong indicator that this ranking is bogus is the position of Oxford University....In the UK itself there have been a lot of write-ups about how Oxford has been slipping. From what I have gathered to a lot of British folks and have known grads of both Oxbridge schools, Oxford may be a quite respectable place to get admitted to and attend and the tutorial system is wonderful for undergraduates, but the quality of academic output particularly in the sciences and engineering is not at the level or even close to it of probably a dozen US universities.</p>
<p>The US News rankings are basically more or less aimed at sorting out which schools have a) the strongest undergraduate selectivity among the schools that have b) the broadest array of academic endeavor and most elite reputations (thus, extremely selective LACs don't figure at the top of university rankings for the USNews because they don't have the breadth of academic endeavor of universities though in many cases they may be more selective). The Shanghai rankings on the other hand are based almost entirely on research output especially in the sciences and engineering and so are almost entirely a reflection of the breadth and quality of academic and research endeavor. </p>
<p>It's hard for me to see what this new ranking is based on exactly. It looks like it might be based on undergrad selectivity with Harvard and Cambridge at the top. But then it puts BU above Georgetown so that doesn't really make sense. </p>
<p>Then it looks like it might be about research output and essentially graduate school strength, but it seems very dubious to me that the Oxford Brits complains is slipping beats out the vaunted research powerhouses such as Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, Princeton, Chicago, etc.</p>
<p>I am left thinking that they tried to go to each region and determine which schools were amorphously considered the best in their respective regions -- probably a proxy for undergrad selectivity or just a sense of elite reputation. And then they tried to "smoosh this together" with a sense of what schools are research powerhouses in their regions. they are left with a ranking that indicates nothing really.</p>
<p>I've read on these boards that some Canadians who attended McGill almost considered it a commuter school and that is considerably easier to get into than top US universities. Does it really deserve to be ranked above Stanford or Berkeley? If it approaches Berkeley undergrad in terms of student selectivity or surpasses it even, I guarantee it doesn't get close to it in terms of research output and academic leadership....</p>
<p>If one is going to undertake cross-ranking across nations of different schools, I think one ranking should be about undergrad selectivity. And another should be about the ranking of graduate schools and academic output. </p>
<p>In the first case -- undergrad selectivity -- I am sure Harvard and Cambridge would be close to the top but likely at the top would be MIT, Caltech, one or more IITs of India, several other universities worldwide etc. perhaps ahead of them and Oxford respectable but behind. In the second case -- graduate school output and academic leadership -- you'd probably end up with something very close to the Shanghai rankings.</p>
<p>The fact that this ranking was done in Britain is probably the strongest indicator of why Oxford is ranked so high....</p>
<p>Haha
40% of US
30% of UK/EU/Middle East/Africa Combined</p>
<p>I doubt that if you change it the other way, this can be
45% of US/EU/Middle East/Africa Combined
and 25% British</p>
<p>So that would be 40% US
25% UK</p>
<p>and you know what
if a country have 100 competitive uni
but have the right to vote in the ratio of 40</p>
<p>but another have 10 competitive uni
but have 25% ratio</p>
<p>If you are not dull, you can figure it out who will do well in the ranking more</p>
<p>This is not counting the fact that after they have got all the data, they can just choose the methodology which maximize the likelihood of their preferred ranking. You will see that they have changed form this to that methodology every year and even change the journals to count for publication this year.</p>
<p>I can resist with Cambridge being 2.
But
Oxford should be around 10
Imperial and UCL, who ever cares?
Go to this link </p>
<p>Nobel</a> laureates by university affiliation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>and you will find how funny this is that a university that only has 14 and 20 nobel laureates can be no.5 and no.9 in the world and while you are scrolling downnnn, please also notice the names of the one above</p>
<p>No need to argue by saying that education is more than research and should consider the quality of education, this is so subjective (everyone should view their university great) and in fact the peer score used here is to ask academicians who are in the field and should have heard about Nobel prize more than knowing the quality of each university they have never set foot on it.</p>
<p>UK university marketing. Rubbish!</p>
<p>Exactly. Universities change very slowly. If the ranking doesn't reflect that, then it isn't a very good ranking. (Not that rankings are even that great in the first place.)</p>
<p>I find it incredibly discouraging and unattractive when I see American students being so dismissive of foreign universities (usually with no recognizable basis for doing so!). It certainly doesn't do anything for our international image of being self-righteous, ignorant, pompous asses, with less than *30% of us actually owning a passport *(figure isn't exactly reliable...but you get my drift).</p>
<p>While some people are at least attempting to offer some explanation for their indignation at foreign unis ranking higher than national ones, others seem to be merely throwing out random slurs. Case in point: the baseless (and imho incredibly ignorant) comment from Edwinesque about the University of Hong Kong. The poster gives no explanation whatsoever for his/her distaste and merely suggests that there is noooo way that a university in the likes of Hong Kong could compete with ours. </p>
<p>And, even those that do ATTEMPT to offer some insight into the origin of their wonderful words of wisdom and enlightenment are falling short. I'm sorry, but I don't see how admit rates and Nobel Lauretes somehow correlates to a great education at a great university? Can someone explain?</p>
<p>I think its time we stopped being so close-minded and short-sighted and realise that there are other countries in this world other than our great nation, many of them with excellent education systems, containing very efficient universities and with a highly talented student body. </p>
<p>Note: I do have to agree that Oxford University is ranked a bit too high. I know several students attending Oxford and they all admit that its standards and excellence have been falling over the past few years. Still a great uni though!</p>
<p>kyledavid80, that reasoning does not make sense. If the methodology has been significantly changed, the ranking may as well. In this case, you can consider the TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPLEMENT ranking a completely "new" ranking from the year before, and one that is not comparable with the one published the year before.</p>
<p>If a ranking methodology for universities stays the same and the universities move in rank, then yes, that means it isn't a good ranking, but that's just not the case here at all.</p>
<p>Hi CorruptedMorals,
I have made clear why this ranking whose methodology should produce a ranking, to some extent, consistent with nobel loreates more than the quality of education if there is no some sort of correcting details in methodology after getting all the data when trying to maximizing this UK's ranking company's preferences.
And you know what, academicians throughout the world have really already ignored this ranking since two or three years ago. Try to search for a lot of academic world forums, and you will see how the real experts view this ranking by THES. Apart from UK universities and other universities who benefit from this result, the only people who still pay attention on this is usually people who are not in the education field like some countries' government.</p>
<p>Please do try to keep in touch with the world academic conferences, and you will find how funny real experts feel about this ranking.</p>
<p>When choosing universities based on rankings, it is up to you whether to choose universities looked up to by real experts or the ones looked up to by people who are deceived by this ranking.</p>
<p>
[quote]
kyledavid80, that reasoning does not make sense. If the methodology has been significantly changed, the ranking may as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm glad you've caught on, though we established this a while back. True, the ranking changes as the methodology does. But the methodology should be much more constant, too. If this year's methodology is "more correct" than last year's, then how do we know that next year's won't be drastically different from this year's but "more correct"?</p>
<p>
[quote]
and one that is not comparable with the one published the year before.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're right, it isn't. And that's the problem.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If a ranking methodology for universities stays the same and the universities move in rank, then yes, that means it isn't a good ranking
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That'd be close to impossible since universities change very little, and if such were even to happen, it would not be the ranking's fault. You're suggesting, I suppose, that method of measurement changes, but I'd consider that to be part of methodology, which should not change so much. But in reality, if the methodology is constant, then the ranking will be more constant, with changes happening very slowly, and this is because the universities are slowly changing. The only way for there to be a drastic change is if the methodology is changed.</p>
<p>To make clear, this sentence</p>
<p>"I have made clear why this ranking whose methodology should produce a ranking, to some extent, consistent with nobel loreates more than the quality of education if there is no some sort of correcting details in methodology after getting all the data when trying to maximizing this UK's ranking company's preferences."</p>
<p>should be</p>
<p>"I have made clear why this ranking with this kind of methodology which focuses on peer score should produce a ranking, to some extent, more consistent with nobel loreates than the quality of education , and if it is not, it may be due to the fact that there is some sort of correcting details in methodology after getting all the data to try to maximize this UK's ranking company's preferences."</p>
<p>From the methedology bit</p>
<p>"QS asks major global and national employers across the publ;ic and private sectors which universities they like to hire from. This year's sample includes 1,471 people, with 43 per cent in the Americas, 32 per cent in Europe and 25 per cent in Asia-Pacific."</p>
<p>So not too much of a UK bias at all then...</p>
<p>^It will be bias if you consider that 65% of top unis are in the US, 25% in Europe and 10% in the rest of the world</p>
<p>
[quote]
I find it incredibly discouraging and unattractive when I see American students being so dismissive of foreign universities (usually with no recognizable basis for doing so!). It certainly doesn't do anything for our international image of being self-righteous, ignorant, pompous asses, with less than *30% of us actually owning a passport *(figure isn't exactly reliable...but you get my drift).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>CorruptedMorals: If you read my post -- I am one whose boasting about American universities you probably find grating or worse -- you would realize that I questioned the particular basis of putting particular universities in their places. I think these rankings tend to be aligned in consideration of two issues: 1) undergrad selectivity and 2) quality of intellectual and research output.</p>
<p>In terms of undergrad selectivity, I would wager that Oxford (the position of which I criticized in this ranking) is probably above most US universities and may only be outdone by a very small handful. I do base this on only a passing explanation of what goes into getting into Oxford. But I would imagine it's the case, particularly given that generally I would assume that British, and European, high school students are on the whole better educated than their US counterparts.</p>
<p>I can't imagine, though, that in terms of being a research powerhouse that Oxford deserves one of the tip-top spots, based on things that I've talked about. There would be a number of universities that would come in quite above it.</p>
<p>Perhaps the best ranking of the research "powerhouseness" of a school, if you will, is the Shanghai University Rankings. Oxford comes in quite respectably but below several of the amazing US research powerhouses.</p>
<p>Some people have talked about the changes from this year's ranking to last year's. How can some schools drop so much? </p>
<p>Take for instance the US universities Stanford and Berkeley. They are arguably across the board the top research powerhouses within the US, in terms of Nobel prizes, various forms of research output across the sciences and arts, and engineering, etc. They differ in that Stanford is one of the most selective in the states for undergrad admissions full-stop whereas Berkeley tends to draw its undergrads from the State of California not as much from across the country and is highly, though significantly less selective. In last year's ranking, both were in the top 5 world universities for this ranking or close to it. I think Berkeley was 4 and Stanford was 6 or something.</p>
<p>In the US, however, most people would rank Stanford's undergrad as being close to a par with Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and MIT. And all would rank both Berkeley and Stanford as being, along with Harvard/MIT and maybe one or two others top, broad-based research powerhouses granting PhDs across sciences, arts, and engineering (in fact, Harvard doesn't come close to Berkeley or Stanford in engineering). And yet, both universities rank below several other US universities. Frankly the only rhyme or reason to that seems to be geography, since Stanford and Berkeley are California-based universities. It's almost as if someone who did these rankings called someone up and said "what are the best unis in the US?" And the person replied: "Just start with the Ivy League and go from there."</p>
<p>So just to be clear: these statements were based on</p>