<p>Times</a> Higher Education</p>
<p>...one spot behind Penn now!</p>
<p>This is also being discussed in the following thread:</p>
<p>My personal take on it is here:</p>
<p>The change appears to be entirely associated with varying ways of reporting the total number of faculty members resulting in very different student/faculty ratio calculations.</p>
<p>i've never really liked rankings.. they can be so corrupt.. i base my opinion on what the school has to offer (which princeton will offer a lot.. so will any IVY league school for that matter)</p>
<p>I wouldn't pay much attention to the Times ranking. It is a ranking that rewards size of school. The ranking is seldom, if ever referred to in the US because of the ridiculousness of its ranking criteria. One of its prime ranking components is the paperwork production of its faculty. Apparently a concept of some value in a socialist/bureaucratic society. The criteria obviously rewards schools with large graduate programs whose faculty produce much paper (sometimes to the detriment of the students who as a result are given less attention). Those who quote the ranking, seldom publish the list of schools. The reason is clear, the list is laughable. Smaller elite US universities and colleges with top notch undergrad programs can be found somewhere beyond #150 in the rankings. Large universities with freshman SAT scores in the 500s can be found in the top 50.</p>