<p>Times</a> Higher Education - Shanghai Jiao Tong university rankings revealed</p>
<p>The full lists are here.</p>
<p>[Academic</a> Ranking of World Universities | ARWU | First World University Ranking | Shanghai Ranking](<a href=“http://www.shanghairanking.com/]Academic”>http://www.shanghairanking.com/)</p>
<p>Interesting how well represented University of California campuses are on this list despite dire warnings of the decline of the system.</p>
<p>Honestly, some of the universities on that list make me scratch my head in confusion.</p>
<p>Good, it is doing the job then.</p>
<p>Great, thanks to the pseudo-scientist that collate that ever so precious information, now we are again so much wiser about the state of research and publishing at graduate schools in the world. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Enjoy the ego-boosting and immensely irrelevant “research!”</p>
<p>Actually most of the institutions are universities. Not grad schools.</p>
<p>Perhaps, but it does not change that the focus of this research represents the output of graduate schools’ faculty. Nor does it change that colleges that do not have graduate schools are … hardly represented, if at all.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that this academic navel-gazing pretending to be “research,” just as the garbage produced by UK based counterpart, shines by its irrelevance to the general focus of THIS community, namely the undergraduate experience.</p>
<p>They count their socks in the drawer and declare the best men in the world based on the count!</p>
<p>Yet increasing numbers of internationals are going to US schools and many of them prefer these rankings. One man’s garbage is another’s treasure.
And it’s not the graduate school’s faculty. It is the university faculty the vast majority of which serve all levels of students. Exceptions would be medical school and vet school faculty and the like.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What exactly did you learn Xiggi in your undergrad days? And where did that content come from?</p>
<p>While rankings do indeed play a part in college admissions for the general population, the people here at CC represent a rather niche group. It would be better if we encourage our children to apply to someone that fits best. A bunch of ranking numbers can’t dictate long term admissions.</p>
<p>Starbright, I surely did not learn much about rankings such as this one, which was the supposed research covered by my comment. Irrelevant and ego-boosting referred to this ARWU compilation.</p>
<p>From the quoted criteria above, it would appear that the humanities are completely ignored. So a school could have someone as important and talented as Robert Pinsky, who has published top notch poetry, scholarship, and translation, or a figure on the scale of Harvard’s Helen Vendler or Yale’s Harold Bloom, and it would not matter a whit.</p>