<p>yea. This forum is for discussion about undergraduate institutions mainly.</p>
<p>uh, Rutgers>Brown is quite correct. </p>
<p>Rutgers beat Brown in aggregate nobel prize winners who are alumni, staff who are nobel prize winners, having more cited researchers, having more articles published in nature and science, having more articles cited, and the academic performance with respect to the size of an institution.
<a href="http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005Methodology.htm%5B/url%5D">http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005Methodology.htm</a></p>
<p>i dont see why you guys are fussing. </p>
<p>the only thing i see wrong is your interpretation that these rankings are supposed to capture something that it wasn't designed to (such as equating them to undergraduate quality or whatever)!! no, these rankings are perfectly fine (assuming they calculated correctly) BASED ON THE VALUES THAT THEY SELECTED. just because their values aren't the same as yours doesn't make you or them any more "correct."</p>
<p>same applies for the british ranking.</p>
<p>I wasn't able to log on through the link to check the methodology of the rankings, but I seem to remember that they had a mixture of components that affect both grad and undergrad, mostly money and class size issues. I think that when most people who are not in school or in the proccess of getting into school think about universities they don't narrow it down to only undergrad or only grad, so it would make sense that a ranking aimed at the layperson (which I beleive this one is) would give a ranking of the school as a whole, grad and undergrad.</p>
<p>US News rankings are a joke, just look where Reed is placed.</p>
<p>No one is interseted in an "overall" grad school ranking. It's idiotic. No one goes to grad school because the "grad school" is good; they go for a particular program, not a school.</p>
<p>The only overall ranking that matters is an undergrad ranking, where students are still working through their options.</p>
<p>Say what you will about USnews, but this ranking is worse than meaningless.</p>
<p>Melting snow, I didn't say, nor are these rankings trying to produce, an "overall grad ranking." They are ranking the entire universtiy, not just grad or just undergrad. And as I said, I don't think these rankings, as opposed to USnews, are aimed at highschool seniors. And you're crazy if you think people only look at thier specific program when applying to grad school. If Florida St. has a slightly better history program then, say, Harvard, do you really think that the person is going to attend Florida state just because it is slightly better? Of course not.</p>
<p>if FSU really had a better program than harvard in history, FSU'd be more well-known and people will go there.</p>
<p>people do look at the school's DEPARTMENT when choosing grad schools.</p>
<p>what is interesting is to look at a school in its entirety (grad and undergrad) and to see how "versatile" or "good" that school is. oftentimes, we overlook or overrate certain schools because of our own biases (i.e. what? how can School X be better than School Y?!"). these rankings not meant to tell you which school is good for undergrad either (US News supposedly does that). these rankings are meant to shed light and give credit where it may be due to universities that possess the qualities that the researchers deemed would make a good UNIVERSITY (that means undergrad and grad programs included). it is probably personally meaningless to compare UCSF (primarily grad) with amherst (primarily undergrad), but it is nevertheless still interesting.</p>