<p>There are just so many companies that rank McGill differently. This one is different from the UK one. I was too shocked...someone please tell me the "truth" about McGill's rank.</p>
<p>honestly- you're gonna find different rankings for every school no matter where you check. the thing to know is that mcgill IS a highly prestigious and reputable university and compares to the best in the world. i wouldn't be here otherwise. good luck!</p>
<p>Come'on, your choosing a school in terms of ranking? You're putting four years of your life into there, the environment, the clubs, the atmosphere is what you should focus on. What good is an awesome school if you can't learn at your full potential. UOT, McGill, and UBC are all about in the same place in rankings, you just got to decide where you learn best. They're all respected and known universities, mostly because of their size, which is why one like Queen's doesnt show up that high in those rankings. Give all the ones you applied for a visit, find out which one you can roll with the best.</p>
<p>In the end, it doesnt matter where McGill is ranked, its an excellent school.</p>
<p>i just thought i would let you know and others who might potentially make the mistake of following rankings, that Harvard is rated as one of the worst schools in north america for teaching standards. Most of their professors are too busy with their research, getting huge research grants in the process. McGill has a harder time generating the same finances due to the quebec tuitions being frozen for a decade, but they still manage to get generous donations to the school such as the recent Desautels Faculty of Management and the Schulich Music Building.</p>
<p>These rankings are usually based on research money, nobel prize winners, strength of doctoral programs etc. None of these factors will affect you, hence why care about rankings.</p>
<p>remember these rankings were done by a chinease university that didnt hav clases in english till this centuary...trust it if u want but i bet u its methology/reserch is falty</p>
<p>I looked over the methodology, and the methods used to rank universities seem to be very narrow. For their quality of education criteria, all they had was number of alumni winning nobel prizes and fields medals. I would say that wouldn't be the only indicator of the quality of education at a university. The other indicators also seem quite narrow minded. For example, one of the indicators is the number of journal articles written by professors at the university in two specific journals: 'Nature' and 'Science'</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_%28journal%29%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_%28journal%29</a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_%28journal%29%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_%28journal%29</a></p>
<p>10% is given to the size of the institution, not relative size (i.e. professor to student ratios):</p>
<p>"Size: The weighted scores of the above five indicators divided by the number of full-time equivalent academic staff."</p>
<p>I would assume, then, that larger institutions get penalized if you have a higher number of professors (even if you have a smaller number of students, a good student : prof ratio, which is a good thing, I would think). </p>
<p>All in all, a pretty flawed ranking.</p>
<p>Check it out:
<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>Indeed, if you want to look at rankings, Macleans has a much more comprehensive methodology.</p>
<p>yes... that ranking doens't mean anything, it's by this random chinese univeristy...</p>
<p>You totally just missed the point. It's not the university. It's the methodology. The University is fine.</p>
<p>toucheeee toucheeee tmak! haha</p>
<p>Let's just forget about rankings. Decide whether you'd enjoy the school, whether it would be best for you.</p>
<p>And yes Araba, this is a "toucheee" subject.</p>
<p>Rankings are subjective and vary from one another based on their respective methodologies and criteria. The Shanghai ranking, like Tmak wrote, is extremely flawed (although most rankings are), and even the Times ranking criticized it for putting too much emphasis (like 20 or 30%? I can't remember) on a university's DEAD Nobel prize laureates and their research that could have been done 20 years ago. Plus the methodology is much more beneficial for universities with strong science/med/engineering programs as opposed to the arts. That being said, McGill also happens to be ranked in the top 25 in the world by THES for the past two years. But like the others have wrote, there are more important factors to think of when you choose a university.</p>
<p>67th isnt bad..</p>
<p>Firstly, thanks for your opinions. I really think that this is disturbing subject for many people and I realize that this is not the most important factor for choosing a school. </p>
<p>After getting know much more about the school, Montreal, faculty members, and much more, I found McGill an excellent school. (By the way I am going to this school and I am happy about this decision). </p>
<p>With best luck,
hope2GI</p>