<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>yes i would agree since these are graduate school rankings =P</p>
<p>Shrek, that's not true. The rankings are for Universities as a whole, not just graduate. The data they use to rank student/faculty ratio as well as international students combine both grad and undergrad. And when calculating citiations per faculty memeber, do you think they say no, we can't count that citation because that faculty memeber teaches undergrads? Many of the judged qualities are seen more in graduate departments, but the biggest part of the ranking is peer review. Peer review isn't about strength of grad departments, its about prestige of a university as a whole. If this were only grad school rankings then I'm pretty sure Berkeley would have been number one, because the catergory that hurts them (not even ranked in the top ten) is student/faculty ratio.</p>
<p>so, this rankings should be fairly accurate, right?</p>
<p>lol caltech > princeton </p>
<p>U San Fransisco over so many other shools ( peer value of 21 did nothing apprently ) </p>
<p>enough said</p>
<p>These rankings are as acurate as any other rankings. The question is not if they are acurate but if you agree with the methodology. They tell you what they use to judge the schools and then they plug the numbers in and the rankings come out, just like any other rankings.</p>
<p>Caltech > Princeton could very logically be argued from a science standpoint, but comparing a place like UCSF to complete universities is a bit ludicrous (even if it is the best in its narrow scope).</p>
<p>Dartmouth #138???
Georgetown #165???</p>
<p>"The five indicators have been chosen to reflect strength in teaching, research and international reputation, with the greatest influence exerted by those in the best position to judge: the academics. University staff from every continenet have given their verdict on the top institutions in their feild, rather than delivering a more impressionistic judgement of quality across the board."</p>
<p>So you see guys, this is a global collection of opinion. The verdict was determined by university professors and administrators around the world. I don't really think that this ranking should be percieved as better nor worse than the USNews ranking system, or the like. This is just a different approach, perhaps to some more reliable, and to others, much less.</p>
<p>The point is, this is what major figures of the academic world believe. We all have our own opinions as to which universities reign over others, and that will continue forever. Who cares if we don't agree with this paticular ranking. It exists, it will stay, yadda yadda. Sure, there are some questionable decisions throughout, but some are very well deserved.</p>
<p>MIT is number one in my book</p>
<p>I still don't understand their method of ranking the universities.</p>
<p>Hmm, I really don't how they ranked these universities, but at least for U.S. universities it seems a bit funky. For example you have, Illinois University and Alabama University (not they are bad universities themselves!) in the 30-100 range, while Georgetown and Dartmouth ranking in the 130-170 range. While they are excellent institutions, it really makes me think if those U.S. News rankings are truly something to value.</p>
<p>yeah, some of it seems really funky.</p>
<p>The only reason Genlteman likes the list is because Berk is ranked number 2. Kinda sad.</p>
<p>duke #52??</p>
<p>I think it is important to put things into perspective. We are talking about the best universities in the WHOLE WIDE WORLD!!! We are talking about 10,000 universities...of which 1,000 are good. To be ranked in the top 200 is amazing. There is almost no difference between #10 and #100. Let us not get too bogged down with the tiny differences.</p>
<p>what is pennsylvania and Illinois university? lol....at least they should get the name right.</p>
<p>These rankings are so freakin-funny. I love all you suckers/gentleman who get all up in a lather over them.</p>
<p>It is obviously a graduate school ranking. </p>
<p>Yes, they say it is the whole school, but the graduate school is the reason for almost all of the statistics. If you compose a basketball team by combining the New York Yankees with the Harvard baseball team, guess who starts, who makes all the hits/runs and gets all the babes: the pros, and the undergrads get to be the bat-boys and hand out towels in the shower.</p>
<p>Kalidescope and cj, I never said that these rankings are the gold standard. All I claim is that they achieved what they set out to do given ther requisites. I'll freely admit that there could be a cushin of roughly 20 spots to any school on that list. Cal could just as easily be 21st in the world. For example, I don't think anyone believes Dartmouth should be ranked 138th in the world. However, 118th is very fair and very generous if you ask me. See, just use the 20 spot cushin and everyone will be happy.</p>
<p>does anyone else smell that?</p>
<p>smells like a troll</p>