<p>No seriousely, though.</p>
<p>PRINCETON IS NUMBER FIFTEEN??????</p>
<p>UCSF over PRINCETON?????? AHAHAHAHAHAHAH this made my night</p>
<p>UCSF does more groundbreaking research.</p>
<p>only a idiot or a blind guy could come up with such list</p>
<p>UCSF has a med school. Princeton doesn't.</p>
<p>"To capture these developments, NEWSWEEK devised a ranking of global universities that takes into account openness and diversity, as well as distinction in research.
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>If you don't like the methodology, then fine. But it's not like some random person just made these rankings up. It every bit as respectable as US News.</p>
<p>just what we need... stealing data from other sources and taking credit for it</p>
<p>Wierd methodology.</p>
<p>% of internation faculty? how does that add quality to a school?</p>
<p>50% from academic research?!!! they should be taking into consideration grad school placement, quality of life, average salary upon graduation. sure, research plays a part, but FIFTY PERCENT??</p>
<p>This isn't a ranking of undergrad experience. This is a ranking of global UNIVERSITIES which takes into account graduate programs.</p>
<p>I'm not sure what's with the UCSF hating. As a premed, I would sell my soul for an acceptance into UCSF (trust me, UCSF med school is much much harder to get into than any undergrad in the country). UCSF has top-tier programs in a variety of fields and does cutting-edge research. It is certainly more renowned globally than Dartmouth or Brown or the like.</p>
<p>Maybe it's because I'm at that point in my life where I will be applying to graduate school (while most of you guys are still in HS) but things like NIH research dollars and research facilities have become extremely important. Like I said, the ranking doesn't attempt to measure undergraduate quality. It measures universities. And a university's reputation is most certainly bolstered more by its graduate programs than by its undergrad college.</p>
<p>I can't believe anyone would mock UCSF's quality, or its place in a ranking based in part on research. UCSF ranks #5 in the country on overall R&D expenditure. It may not be where you personally want to attend undergraduate study, and it may not be high on a list of traditional rankings for baccalaureate degrees, but sneering over its place on this list seems unjustified.</p>
<p>It's definitely not a place where you'd want to go for undergrad because, well, it doesn't have any undergrad programs. It is strictly a graduate school.</p>
<p>Think about it this way: Out of 1000 starting premeds at Cornell, 800 are weeded out before application time. Out of the remaining 200, MAYBE 5-10 are good enough to get into UCSF. In the real world, you know with jobs and adults and stuff, the graduate school you go to is way more important than your undergrad.</p>
<p>you must not know much about med schools then, ucsf is a top 3 medical school. 1 Harvard 2 JHU 3 UCSF last time i checked</p>
<p>^ For at least the last couple of years at US News: 1. Harvard 2. JHU 3. Penn. UCSF is currently #5 (still nothing to sneeze at).</p>
<p>Harvard, JHU, and Penn are also the top 3 schools for NIH research funding (if Harvard's associated hospitals are included).</p>
<p>This list is pretty innacurate. How can UM Twin Cities rank ahead of Penn State, Pitt, Northwestern, NYU.... this is rediculous. Its an insult. </p>
<p>UC San Diego above John Hopkins...... whatt???????? again a really odd list.
Sounds like Shing Taos rankings of world universities.</p>
<p>I know many critisize US News, but seriously its US News dosnt make these kinds of rediculous assertions.</p>
<p>After reading 17 pages of this thread I can see that most of the posters on this thread, with the exception of a handful of people, really don't understand the methodology of this ranking and can't seem to get over undergraduate perceptions. Maybe it is the fact that I have done research and have learned a lot about graduate schools but I agree with this list because many of the universities ranked at the top are research POWERHOUSES. While many of the top publics don't offer great undergraduate-focused educations, they sure as hell are some of the best research institutions in the world that rival and, at many times, beat many of the "top universities" (HYPS...hate this acronym) in research output. Also I am surprised that so many people don't know about UCSF....that place is again a RESEARCH POWERHOUSE, when I apply to grad schools I will die a happy man if I can get into that school!</p>
<p>Frankly, I think a lot of you need to learn about the clear differences between graduate schools and undergraduate schools and the potential advantages of each to your undergraduate experience. For example, I chose Brown University because it is so undergraduate focused (which is especially enhanced by the fact that it has a small graduate school). Yet it still has a graduate school and a med school which means that I will still have the chance to do research in many different labs which I would otherwise be limited to had I selected a LAC. So if you want both worlds I suggest you look for research universities that basically act like LAC's (some other examples would be Dartmouth, Princeton (to some extent)).</p>
<p>UCSF and UCSD are research powerhouses on the graduate and medical level. Read the methodology before bashing the ranking.</p>
<p>University of British Columbia rocks...but then being Canadian totally undervalued. It should be around behind UCB but around UCLA level </p>
<p>UBC ranks in the top 10 universities in the world in creating spin-off companies, and has ranked ahead of MIT and Stanford in US patents filed and spin-offs formed per $100 million US.</p>
<p>Alumni: There are more than 240,000 UBC alumni in 120 countries, including Nobel laureate, economist Robert Mundell, former Canadian prime ministers Kim Campbell and John Turner, the late author and historian Pierre Berton, Man-in-Motion Rick Hansen and opera singers Ben Heppner and Judith Forst.
Economic impact: UBCs total economic impact amounts to $6.3 billion in Metro Vancouver income and
over 39,700 jobs.</p>
<p>Research funding: In 2007, research funding totalled more than $485,600,000, mainly from federal and provincial governments.</p>
<p>$1-billion club: UBC is one of only 76 North American universities with an endowment worth more than $1-billion to support learning and research.</p>
<p>Well, this certainly was resurrected from the archives!</p>
<p>I only read through ten pages, but did not find the US rankings of graduate programs noted anywhere -- the data from 1994, which are to be updated and released this year sometime. The 1994 data are for 41 graduate areas of study (mostly Ph.D., some terminal masters) in both science and humanities, aggregated into five general areas of study. Therefore this study does not rate the quality of professional degree programs -- LLD, MD, or MBA. Anyway, the rankings from that study show:</p>
<ol>
<li>UC Berkeley (by a wide margin)</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>UC San Diego</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Chicago</li>
<li>Michigan</li>
<li>UCLA</li>
<li>Penn</li>
<li>Wisconsin</li>
<li>Washington</li>
<li>Texas</li>
</ol>
<p>This ranking is not from the publication. It is from my compilation of the published ranking in each of the five general areas, taking each school's top four scores out of the five areas, with a slight bonus for offering programs in all five. For this reason MIT and Caltech are not included, but in their limited scope (excluding humanities completely or mostly) would be in the top 3.</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see how much has changed from the 1994 publication to the 2008 publication. Will Stanford overtake Berkeley?????</p>
<p>Not that it matters, really. How many of us plan to pursue a Ph.D. in all 41 areas of study? Or in all 5 general areas of study? Who would choose a Ph.D. "program" at a #1 ranked school over a more supportive committee chair at a #5 school?</p>
<p>
[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"...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>haha so true...you gotta love america's cultural hegemony</p>
<p>these rankings are excellent. in terms of global reputation and fame, they're very accurate. many people on this thread need to discard their undergraduate-centered, USN&W-biased perceptions when evaluating universities.</p>