<p>Go to <a href=“http://www.epfl.ch/soc/etudes/pdf/world-rankingsUnis.pdf[/url]”>http://www.epfl.ch/soc/etudes/pdf/world-rankingsUnis.pdf</a> p.3</p>
<p>The current top ten universities in the world:</p>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Berkeley</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Caltech</li>
<li>Oxford (England)</li>
<li>Cambridge (England)</li>
<li>Stanford </li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>ETH Zurich (Switzerland)</li>
</ol>
<p>I think Harvard has been #1 for like the past 15 years already…</p>
<p>why's priceton so low international-wise?</p>
<p>good question, i think maybe Princeton's graduate program is not as strong as the other top schools</p>
<p>and this thing is almost a year old</p>
<p>this is the latest world university rankings I can find</p>
<p>So UCSD is ranked higher than UCLA, eh? And UTAustin is ranked higher than UCLA, UPenn, Columbia, Cornell, and Michigan? I don't know, that seems a little dodgy to me.</p>
<p>i think this ranking method is different from the one used by U.S. News</p>
<p>are you kidding me. Seoul National University ranked #118 that is completely insane.
Check out:</p>
<p>Look near the end of the first post and you'll see how hard it is to get in.ZZsleepzz your rankings are COMPLETELY biased and i would not be surprised at all if it was an american who wrote it.</p>
<p>My father is a graduate of SNU and I know how hard it is to gain acceptance. The reason why SNU is at #118 is the fact that the quality of its resources in respect to the rest of the world's universities is not that great. Furthermore, the college culture in Korea is totally different than the culture here. In Korea, after gaining acceptance into a college, if you're planning to get a 9-5 office job, you can party all day for the next four years. If you are planning to go on to graduate school in Korea, you do not have to do as much work as you do here. However, if you're planning to go overseas, it's a huge difference.</p>
<p>That said, the general culture in Korea about college is all about play and minimal work. Here, it's a balance.</p>
<p>ummm.... they don't base rankings on how hard it is to get in. why would they anyway? quality of the school is more important.</p>
<p>xjayz -- yeah, Taiwan's like that too.</p>
<p>This seems about right to me if one is talking about quality of the school's research product, its faculty and its students. Therefore, Ivies that are competitive as far as admissions but actually are much lower quality as schools [Brown (61) and Dartmouth (138)] rank low, while Columbia (19) Cornell (23), and Penn (28) are far ahead. By way of comparison, Brown is ranked behind U Mass and Dartmouth is behind SUNY Stony Brook. When you factor out admissions desirability, that's what you get.</p>
<p>i agree that admission and the quality of the school are two total different things</p>
<p>These rankings are completely off. Putting Stanford at #7, behind Berkeley, Caltech and Cambridge is clearly an error. Stanford's undergraduate education is excellent but its graduate schools are only second to Harvard's. The financial resources (actually invested in education rather than just "hoarded", location (on the Pacific Rim) should earn it a spot much higher than seven.</p>
<p>corhacol - How exactly do you make the determination that Brown and Dartmouth offer a significantly worse education than other Ivies, not to mention schools like UMass and Purdue? While it may not be the be all and end all that some would make it, you really can't factor out admissions in determining the quality of the school. Although this assessment seems fairer than the Shanghai ratings, it again seems to be heavily biased towards schools with strong graduate programs.</p>
<p>I agree that Harvard is a very good school, but these rankings won't be what convinces me of that. The biggest laugher here is "Massachustts University" (presumably UMass) ranked #45. And why is UCSF in there? It's a grad school only. It's apples and oranges to compare it to undergrad institutions,</p>
<p>Where is "Michigan University" ?</p>
<p>i dont know. maybe in michigan i suppose.</p>
<p>i think tetrah meant rankings wise, not location wise :)</p>
<p>These rankings were commisioned by The Times magazine which is biased towards British Universities. In addition, it is biased towards public universities since that is the way the British Higher Education system works. That is why UCB and UT-Austin rank so highly. </p>
<p>The reason why Princeton never comes out right on top in these world rankings is because they rank the university as a whole, including graduate and professional schools. As a result, Princeton tends to lose out to larger universities such as Harvard and Stanford.</p>
<p>Inuendo, why don't you just comment on the methodology rather than looking like a loon, saying that there is some conspiracy. The schools are ranked perfectly...according to the methods that they used to rank them. You can't argue with the actual rankings, but you can argue with what they chose to emphasize in those rankings. But when people start talking about how some american snuck into the offices and secretly ranked all the schools or that the times magazine is biased makes you look dumb. Did the Times arbitrarily decide how many citations certain schools had? Did they make-up the peer review numbers? How about the teacher/student ratio, that was made up too, right?</p>