<p>Hahaha, I agree ^</p>
<p>
[quote]
How do you know that peer evaluation is based solely on grad schools?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, seeing as UC San Francisco is listed at #17, we can assume that at least a very large part is based on grad school rankings. UCSF is solely a grad school -- no undergrads there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wisc and Umass (among others) are way better than williams, amherst, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course -- Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, etc are LACs. No grad schools.</p>
<p>"Just because you have a theory that peers only judge on amount of research being put out doesn't make it so."
no i said if the school doesnt publish enough, then it would not be known in the academic world because the more you publish, the more your peers can look at your work and evaluate it. schools with only undergraduate programs will not publish much and amherst is not ranked here because how are other "peers" going to know it if it doesnt publish any. the ranking is based on quality "peer evaluation" and quantity of "citations". the student faculty ratio as i said before is the only criterion thats not based on research size or ability</p>
<p>^^^Please show me where the evaluation form says to base your evaluation soley on citiations and research. Again, that's your theory, but unless there is some sort of proof to back it up you have nothing but a theory. </p>
<p>Frozen tears said, "Well, seeing as UC San Francisco is listed at #17, we can assume that at least a very large part is based on grad school rankings. UCSF is solely a grad school -- no undergrads there."</p>
<p>First, there are undergrads at ucsf. Not many, but a few. Second, I never claimed that the ranking are entirely based on ug. I think a big part of the rankings are based on grad work. I'm simply arguing that, unlike jimmy, I see no evidence that it is entirely based on grad.</p>
<p>its based on the 6 things i have stated "peer evaluation, recruiter's evaluation, student faculty ratio, international students, international faculty, and citations"
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THES%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THES</a>
i showed you in the previous post how all 5 criterias except student faculty ratio are connected to big research universities in some form, but there are exceptions.
my previous post said "its mainly based on reputation of the school in academia. so this means it will benefit universities with a long history of excellence or simply produces a lot of research." mainly is the keyword</p>
<p>"i showed you in the previous post how all 5 criterias except student faculty ratio are connected to big research universities in some form."</p>
<p>No you didn't. You TOLD me that they are based solely on research. You haven't showed me anything worth noting. If I say that peer evaluation is based purely on anecdotal evidence conjecture, does that make it true? I mean, I said it, so I guess its true, right?</p>
<p>"this ranking takes into account peer evaluation, recruiters eye, international student, international faculty, citations, fauculty student score. these are all factors that affect huge graduate schools because good marks in peer evalutaions need a lot of research so other schools and academians will know you and actually evaluate your work. most schools with a lot of international faculty focus heavily on research because most huge research schools attract a lot of good faculty from across the globe. international students are also more prominent at huge research universities because most international students do either PhD or masters so they will usually go to universities with a lot of funding and can engage in a lot of projects with professors. citations are self explanatory because the more papers you publish, the more likely you will be citied."</p>
<br>
<p>UCSF is only good for biology. Thats it and that doesnt merit #17 in the world.</p>
<br>
<p>UCSF is basically a top med school and good for research in the medical
field. I'd rank it with Mayo clinic, top ranked in a highly specialized field.</p>
<p>You think medicine is not important? Think again. By the time you
grow old and die you would have spent the larger portion of your earnings
and savings on medicine. A large portion of the GDP of most developed
countries will be in the medical field as people live longer and the
population keeps aging. What a mess.</p>
<p>Man, you really don't understand what difference between facts and opinions, do you?</p>
<p>this is only an assertion supported by warrents, simply because its an opinion doesnt mean its not true. unless you can offer counter syllogism or evidence, you have no right to say what i have stated is wrong or false.</p>
<p>Maybe it is right, but unless you can prove it its meaningless. I say that the peer evaluation is based on quality of undergraduate students, prestige, and a little hearsay. Disprove that.</p>
<p>"its mainly based on reputation of the school in academia. so this means it will benefit universities with a long history of excellence or simply produces a lot of research" i stated this in my previous post and i do agree prestige matters and that probably also influences hearsay. i mean more "peers" have heard about harvard than some school in africa no matter how much they publish. its about the quality of the publications along with quantity that really matters since just because your school publishes a lot doesnt mean the publications will be cited if its low quality.
"The sample used to compile the
peer-review column of this table comprises
2,375 research-active academics. They
were chosen by QS Quacquarelli Symonds,
consultants to The Times Higher and experts
in international rankings of MBA courses.
The selection was weighted so that just
under a third of the academics came from
each of the worlds major economic regions
Asia, Europe and North America with
a smaller number from Africa and Latin
America. It also had to yield roughly equal
numbers from the main spheres of academic
life: science, technology, biomedicine, social
sciences and the arts. The selected academics
were asked to name the top universities
in the subject areas and the geographical
regions in which they have expertise."
so peer evaluation is not basedon undergraduate students.</p>
<p>I don't see anything that says its not based on ug students. They were asked to name the "top universities in the subject areas and the geographical regions in which they have expertise." Why are they the top universities? Maybe because of research, maybe becuase of top notch students. But see we'll never know, because we aren't in the minds of those people while they filled out their evaluation sheets. Maybe one person read the question one way and another saw it in a complete different way. My whole point here is that neither you nor I can say one way or another what those people thinking about as they voted. You claimed that these rankings are based solely on grad schools and research, which is false by your own admission.</p>
<p>Gah, I always wanted to go to Penn U....oh wait...</p>
<br>
<p>"I don't see anything that says its not based on ug students. "</p>
<br>
<p>UCSF on the list has <em>NO</em> undergrad students. It's a graduate
school only, because medicine in america is a graduate program :-)</p>
<p>So there exists an epsilon so we can find a delta where H = phi.
QED.</p>
<p>Well, if it were based on "international", Tufts would probably be on there somewhere...and they're not...so I'm going with "no".</p>
<p>"UCSF on the list has <em>NO</em> undergrad students"</p>
<p>I think that the many fine men and women who have graduated with a bachelor of science degree in dental hygiene would beg to differ with you, smart guy.</p>
<p>The ranking has it's faults but it is a far better one than the Shanghai one.</p>
<p>riiight.. this list is ridicolous</p>
<p>Yay Berkeley is ranked 6th. =)</p>