<p><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14321230/%5B/url%5D">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14321230/</a></p>
<p>Anyone else agree?</p>
<p>I don't think it's "dumb". It just uses a different methology than most other rankings.</p>
<p>Yes. But the methology is way off base. That ranking is based largely on the size of the school. Larger schools will have an advantage. Of course, institutes of technology will also have an advantage since research is their primary concern. The idea that Michigan beats out Princeton... that'll be the day.</p>
<p>So what? Why shouldn't large universities have an advantage?
What's your definition of a university anyway? The makers of this ranking think that the best university is one that produces the most knowledge and makes it available to everyone in contrast to US News which thinks that the best university is the one which is most selective and can afford the highest faculty salaries.</p>
<p>us news ranking is important to high schoolers and undergrads
these rankings are important to grad students, post-docs, and professors</p>
<p>neither is "dumb"</p>
<p>Their Engineering Rankings are worse. UMD - CP beats CMU.</p>
<p>UMD-CP is an excellent university and a fantastic one for engineering, but beating CMU come on.</p>
<p>Rankings, by design, are subjective. You can't have an entirely "objective" ranking of a university. The fact that there are now about as many rankings out there as there are universities should demonstrate that.</p>
<p>You want to say rankings are subjective? What if I put Rutgers above Harvard? Thats just like MSNBC putting UCSD above Princeton.</p>
<p>Of course rankings are subjective.</p>
<p>If my ranking was based on proximity to New York, Rutgers would win.</p>
<p>If my ranking was based on biology and political science, UCSD would win.</p>
<p>Ranking is entirely based on what you're looking for.</p>
<p>What a disgrace. University of Minnesota is above some of the finest academic institutions:
-WUStL
-Northwestern
-UVa
-Emory</p>
<p>lol... that is priceless...</p>
<p>this ranking I do believe* although it seems impossible</p>
<ul>
<li>= not everything, but most</li>
</ul>
<p>haha groenveld...The Ohio State University has a better ranking than 6 ivy league schools, including Princeton and Yale.</p>
<p>umm...i don't see why people are complaining? did any of you read the article...or did you all just scroll down to the numbered ranking?</p>
<p>the methodology is </p>
<p>50%: the number of highly-cited researchers in various academic fields, the number of articles published in Nature and Science, and the number of articles listed in the ISI Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities indices. </p>
<p>40%: the percentage of international faculty, the percentage of international students, citations per faculty member (using ISI data), and the ratio of faculty to students. </p>
<p>10%: library holdings (number of volumes)</p>
<p>so for example, if UCSD has a bigger library than princeton, has more people published in nature and science and highly cited researchers in "various fields" and has more international students and faculty...then obviously it would rank higher. Whats the argument? While to me, these means are useless, so is most of the data in the USNews ranking useless. What does freshman retention or % of students who graduate in 4 years matter to me? I didn't transfer after my freshman year, nor do i plan on being at school for more than 4 years...yet that accounts for like 40% of the ranking. What makes that "meaninful" in rankings.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Thats just like MSNBC putting UCSD above Princeton.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>You guys are getting way too wound up over this. Based on their methodology it's clear that this is a ranking based, not on some quality of undergraduate education (whatever that is), but on research capacity and success. And for that purpose it's about as good or bad as any other ranking.</p>
<p>Look, it has UCSF ranked 9th for crying out loud. That tells the story right there. Because UCSF doesn't even have any undergrads; it's a medical and grad school. So it's not surprising that Princeton falls down on this particular ranking, because they don't have a medical school and only a small grad school. That doesn't mean that Princeton provides lousy education. It just means that they are not the research powerhouse that some of those ranked above them are. Which is fine, because Princeton has deliberately chosen not pursue that path.</p>
<p>I am against rankings in general. There are so many aspects to each college; how can people say so definitively that one college is better than another?</p>
<p>true,</p>
<p>however I do believe rankings are good for general knowledge... just to see if a school is 'top 10' or top '50'
For those who need to know the difference between Nebraska State and Yale... etc</p>
<p>not 23rd or 24th behing so and so.</p>
<p>Almost all the methodologies are bias and they weigh certain unecessary factors in etc etc etc.... baaaaaaaaah</p>
<p>I agree we need rankings. I mean how would kids know which colleges to even research.</p>
<p>I used the Top 25 rankings to research schools and add the schools I like (culture, not academics) to my ever-growing list.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I mean how would kids know which colleges to even research.
[/quote]
You could simply start by using a search engine where you enter your geographical preference, the size of college/university you prefer, your aspired major and your SAT score. That way you might even come across the perfect school for you that's ranked #62 (using rankings, you might have only researched the top 50 universities).</p>
<p>case western being at the bottom at 95? comon now...</p>
<p>the cheeky b<em>a</em>star<em>d</em>s</p>