<p>I can't get these lists as clear as I want them to be, but here they are nevertheless. If something is unclear, I will do my best to clarify it.</p>
<p>NORTH AMERICA:
Rank World Rank Name Country
1 1 Harvard University US
2 2 Massachusetts Inst Technol US
3 5 Stanford University US
4 6 UC, Berkeley US
5 7 Yale University US
6 8 California Inst of Technology US
7 9 Princeton University US
8 11= Duke University US
9 14 Cornell University US
10= 17= UC, San Francisco US
10= 17= University of Chicago US
12 20 Columbia University US
13 24= McGill University Canada
14 26 University of Texas at Austin US
15 27 Johns Hopkins University US
16 29 University of Toronto Canada
17 32 Pennsylvania University US
18 36 University of Michigan US
19 37 UC, Los Angeles US
20 38= Univ of British Columbia Canada
21 42 UC, San Diego US
22 44 Carnegie Mellon University US
23 46 Northwestern University US
24 54 Boston University US
25 56 New York University US
26= 58= University of Illinois US
26= 58= Washington Univ, St Louis US
28 61 Purdue University US
29 64 Pennsylvania State Univ US
30 68 Massachusetts University US
31 71 Brown University US
32= 73= Rochester University US
32= 73= Univ of Wisconsin-Madison US
34 88= Washington University US
35 105= Virginia University US
36 109= Case Western Reserve Univ US
37 114= Vanderbilt University US
38 117 Dartmouth College US
39 121= Michigan State University US
40 124 Univ of Southern California US
41 125= Texas A&M University US
42 132 Universit</p>
<p>Well, I wonder how scrupulous the study Barrons presents is, given that they list 51-102 twice, for no apparent reason, on their Top 100 U.S. list.</p>
<p>calipharius- The THES rankings are somewhat controversial. Duke jumped from 50-something to 11 in one year. That big of a jump (just one example) makes me question the accuracy of the rankings. Also, some of the British universities are definitely in the wrong places in the ranking (Bristol, for example).</p>
<p>I am by no means extolling these rankings. I just think that the U.S. News Rankings (which are completely specious, in my opinion) have a deleterious hegemony over college applicants. All college rankings are controversial, and I think the discrepancies between them tend to render the entire enterprise dubious, rather than flagging a particular ranking method as inherently flawed. Moreover, we all do well to be reminded that there is a world apart from the U.S., and that a schools place in the international consciousness is yet another consideration to bear in mind when choosing a college.</p>
<p>For the most part, the US News Rankings ARE accurate. They are by far the best rankings that anyone has come across, which is why they're so popular. Sure, a couple of schools may be underrated (MIT, Stanford, UCB), but everyone knows that those are great schools.</p>
<p>No, the U.S. News rankings do not seem accurate. Schools, knowing the gravity of the rankings, do their best to cater to the rankings. Thus, they play the admissions game to up their percent yield, and adopt policies that lead to rampant grade inflation (and thus high graduation rates). </p>
<p>I personally do not think either of these criteria is in anyway indicative of the overall quality of a college or university. After it proved polemical, the percent yield calculation was dropped from the ratings - a step in the right direction. But, the ratings still seem to me far from veritable. For example, the peer assessment portion or the ratings, which has the potential to be very revealing, has questionable methodology. This part accounts for 25% of the calculation, which in my humble opinion, renders the entire system questionable, if not entirely spurious.</p>
<p>"No, the U.S. News rankings do not seem accurate. Schools, knowing the gravity of the rankings, do their best to cater to the rankings. Thus, they play the admissions game to up their percent yield, and adopt policies that lead to rampant grade inflation (and thus high graduation rates). "</p>
<p>However, the U.S. News Rankings lay the bulk of the weight on the "peer evaluation." Yield isn't even a factor in the rankings anymore, and graduation rates are not that big either. The majority of the ranking points lie in the peer evaluation and selectivity categories.</p>
<p>Actually, the graduation rate accounts for almost 20% of the ratings - a pretty hefty chunk, if you ask me (especially if you consider the 25% allotted to the peer evaluation "the bulk of the weight").</p>
<p>The U.S News peer evaluations seem very odd to me. They do not ask academics, who are experts in their fields (as the foregoing rankings do), but rather administrators (some of whom, of course, are professors, but others who are merely admissions officers). Moreover, only 57% of those asked to do the assessments respond - making one think seriously about the influence of self-selection bias. I personally think that one gets a more holistic account from the THES ratings, and that those who are doing the peer assessments are more qualified to do them.</p>
<p>ALL THESE RANKINGS HAVE DIFFERENT FORMULAS AND RANK DIFFERENT THINGS!!!! </p>
<p>They ARE ALL LEGITIMATE according to whichever criteria they are measuring. This criteria is largely determined by the researchers' values into what makes a college great. </p>
<p>What you should NOT be arguing about is the legitimacy of these rankings. They are legitimate based on their criteria. What you SHOULD be arguing about is what makes a college great (and there's no right answer to this, because our values and beliefs are shaped by many factors, including our own culture and geography).</p>
<p>"UMass>Brown, and Michigan State and Boston U top UNC, Georgetown, Rice and Emory"</p>
<p>***.</p>
<p>UMASS>Brown? do u believe that?
huh?</p>
<p>Michigan State is better than Georgetown? are you joking? </p>
<p>I dont give a **** what those British/Chinese think, i'm going to one of the best universities and gonna find a hot job in AMERICA, not britain or China.</p>
<p>Well, you may be going to one of the "best universities" (however insecure your last post makes you look) but I think you need help with your reading analysis. The person that originally wrote that was making the same point as you as to the ridiculousness of the rankings.</p>
<p>Anyone considering top universities outside America? Such as the National University of Singapore? With cheap tuition and great academics, what more can you ask? =)</p>
<p>For the record, I am not endorsing these ratings. I merely think they are interesting, and in some senses, a step in the right direction. The US News ratings give no consideration to research, whereas these rankings clearly give research too much emphasis. It should also be noted, that while all of these universities do offer undergraduate education, the ratings are about the universities as a whole. </p>
<p>Take for instance, the apparent absurdity of ranking UMass above Brown. When considering undergraduate education (the focus of this website), it seems clearly false. Yet, UMass has a number of world-class graduate programs - I know that the Education program has historically been the strongest in the nation, and that they have a number of other top-tier programs. </p>
<p>In short, I think the rankings for universities should include some type of assessment completed by qualified academics, of the caliber of research and the actual strength of departments at U.S. universities. If orchestrated properly, I think we would have a more defensible rating system, and perhaps the schools toward the top of totem pole would have to fight a little for their spots. This is merely a postulate.</p>