<p>The new Times Higher Education Supplement ranking of world universities has been published.</p>
<p>This year's new rankings, now compiled in partnership with Thomson-Reuters, show the strength of the US public research universities, often overlooked by USN&WR and other less reliable/more subjective rankings. Here is the list of top schools in North America only.</p>
<p>This [link](<a href=“World University Rankings 2010-11 methodology | Times Higher Education (THE)”>http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/analysis-methodology.html</a>) describes the methodology used in the THES ranking.</p>
<p>What’s this – BC beat out Georgetown in the world rankings!!! I think a formal letter of condolence is due our lesser peers (no, wait they can’t be peers if they are not equal!) on the Potomac.</p>
<p>Funny, though, how BC’s seal is depicted – that of Boston State College!!! Oh well, when one is ranked 161st in the world (oops maybe I should call it the “planet”, so as not to offend subscribers to that current vernacular) one must expect such errors…</p>
<p>While it’s nice to see UMass listed as one of the top universities (56th, and 36th in North America), I have to wonder a bit about the accuracy of their research since they state that UMass is located in Shrewsbury, Mass. Not one of the UMass campuses is in Shewsbury. Hmmm…</p>
<p>This world ranking is less reliable and more subjective than the USNWR rankings. Its a completely bogus system. They have weird measurements, heavily biased towards graduate research and government support/grants. It does NOT measure academic quality for undergraduates.</p>
<p>The Provost of Fordham University gave a scathing speech in Belgium to an International Society of Higher Education on Monday, specifically aiming at the growing problem of university rankings and the harm they are doing. </p>
<p>Be warned. Do NOT select a college based on these rankings.</p>
<p>No surprises here. The United States does have most of the top research universities in the world.</p>
<p>The point here isn’t to measure the academic quality for undergraduates. It measures how powerful universities are as research institutions as a whole. And the size of an university matters here simply because the bigger the university, the more top notch research it can produce. Therefore, you don’t see small teaching-focused schools such as Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, etc. ranking high here. I do agree that a student shouldn’t select a college for undergrad based on this since it’s not a ranking of undergraduate programs. On the other hand, a grad student would usually select universities based on the strength of individual programs, which can differ by a lot across various disciplines. Therefore, this list has no value when it comes to selecting undergraduate programs, and has little value when it comes to selecting graduate programs.</p>
<p>If you plan to study science there is little reason not to go where there are top people doing the current research in state of the art facilities that will be in books in 5 years. You can either learn from the best or read about them.</p>
<p>I think the take away from all these rankings is that there are alot of good schools out there with different strengths - basically, there is something for everyone. At the end of the day, it is about what the student does with the opportunites that they create or come their way.</p>
<p>
How is the fact hat they are biased toward graduate reseach make it “bogus”? It never claims to be a measure of undergraduate educational quality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>. . . and twenty places above Dartmouth!</p>
<p>To renew the classic CC debate, The Times says that the #4 Ivy after HYP is Cornell.</p>
<p>As I pointed out in another thread, there are some notable omissions from the list (UT Austin, Texas A&M) while some lower-tier schools (Kent State, UIC) make this “top 200.” Something seems wrong here.</p>
<p>“To renew the classic CC debate, The Times says that the #4 Ivy after HYP is Cornell.”</p>
<p>Although many people believe there’s a connection between strength of grad programs and strength of the undergrad program at a school. The connection is tenuous at best, though it can make a big difference for a few students. Universities such as the University of Minnesota has many top notch grad programs, but it’s undergraduate program is no where near the top. On the other hand, schools like Tufts have few top notch grad programs, but has an excellent undergraduate program. The #4 Ivy in terms of research output (what this ranking essentially measures) is arguably Cornell. Cornell is a huge research powerhouse. What is there to debate about? If Cornell is better than Columbia and Penn? In terms of their research output, they are about the same. There is no debate.</p>
<p>What do you think about #13 michigan?</p>
<p>In this ranking there are some things that seem questionable, but at least the top 10 or so are quite right. I’ve yet to see a ranking (except the unreliable QS) where HYPSM + Berkeley + Caltech + Oxbridge doesn’t dominate the top 10.</p>
<p>The methodology of this THES study is solid. It’s a somewhat accurate measure of the influence of universities around the world though it doesn’t speak much about anything other than research.</p>
<p>Doesn’t the THES ranking come out like twice a year?</p>
<p>you’re confusing it with the QS ranking. last year it was called THES-QS (collaboration), but this year THES has used thomson reuters (probably because QS ranking was no good!).</p>
<p>Ok, I got you. I take it then the US News will also show the THES rankings or does US News only show QS on there site? Thanks.</p>