<p>For whatever it’s worth, following are Newsweek’s top 20 most global universities:</p>
<li>Harvard University<br></li>
<li>Stanford University<br></li>
<li>Yale University<br></li>
<li>California Institute of Technology<br></li>
<li>University of California at Berkeley<br></li>
<li>University of Cambridge<br></li>
<li>Massachusetts Institute Technology<br></li>
<li>Oxford University<br></li>
<li>University of California at San Francisco<br></li>
<li>Columbia University<br></li>
<li>University of Michigan at Ann Arbor<br></li>
<li>University of California at Los Angeles<br></li>
<li>University of Pennsylvania<br></li>
<li>Duke University<br></li>
<li>Princeton Universitty<br></li>
<li>Tokyo University<br></li>
<li>Imperial College London<br></li>
<li>University of Toronto<br></li>
<li>Cornell University<br></li>
<li>University of Chicago</li>
</ol>
<p>Ranking Methodology:
“We evaluated schools on some of the measures used in well-known rankings published by Shanghai Jiaotong University and the Times of London Higher Education Survey. Fifty percent of the score came from equal parts of three measures used by Shanghai Jiatong: the number of highly-cited researchers in various academic fields, the number of articles published in Nature and Science, and the number of articles listed in the ISI Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities indices. Another 40 percent of the score came from equal parts of four measures used by the Times: the percentage of international faculty, the percentage of international students, citations per faculty member (using ISI data), and the ratio of faculty to students. The final 10 percent came from library holdings (number of volumes).”</p>
<p>The methodology suggests this has more to do with academic publishing and research than education received. UCSF always makes out like a bandit with such criteria...Princeton falls way behind.</p>
<p>What a sad list. Who, besides a prospective professor, would use these criteria to choose a university? They in no way reflect the quality of education students will receive.</p>
<p>this is ridiculous! look how low they ranked Duke, for instance. and this seems really biased towards foreign colleges, doesn't it? I mean, half the Ivy League schools arent even on there...</p>
<p>
[quote]
They in no way reflect the quality of education students will receive.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is not really true. </p>
<p>Having top faculty researches will probably augment undergraduate student research. The quality of education said undergrads receive will effectively "increase."</p>
<p>
[quote]
I mean, half the Ivy League schools arent even on there...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"half the Ivy League schools" obviously don't meet the research requirements.</p>
<p>
[quote]
this seems really biased towards foreign colleges
[/quote]
What'd you expect? This is a ranking of "world" and "global" universities ... unless you interpret "world" in the same category as in "world series" or "world championship"...</p>
<p>Only Dartmouth is missing out of the Ivies, but the rankings don't make sense.</p>
<p>I don't think the US universities' rankings should conflict with the Top National Universities ranking or else one or the other list is nullified. Either way, I think this proves how accurate rankings really are. (one publisher ranking in multiple ways is just funny)</p>
<p>Given the small size of many of the foreign countries vs the US of course they would have more "internatonal" faculty and students. That part of the ranking is ridiculous.</p>