Rank the universities of the WORLD

Applying to College
81

<p>"But that means that the business of making money, so to speak, does not lie with the academics. Their faculty are left free to pursue the currency of academia: prestige."</p>

<p>cevonia - However that currency of academia seems to be devaluing these days. Take a look at these articles and reports below. (And just for the record: I am NOT a die-hard fan of the British system, or any other systems for that matter. I merely feel that top American universities are given too much hype)</p>

<p>Excerpt from <a href="http://www.popecenter.org/issues/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.popecenter.org/issues/&lt;/a>
"American higher education is often said to be the envy of the world, but when it comes to academic standards, it may be more of the laughingstock of the world. Rather than demanding work and thought that really makes students "stretch," many courses have been so watered down, with professors demanding so little of students, that they have little or no intellectual value. College credits should only be awarded for work and learning that "</p>

<p>"Boundless: Grading wars"
<a href="http://www.boundless.org/2000/features/a0000400.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.boundless.org/2000/features/a0000400.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"Disney University and the Politics of Guilt"
<a href="http://www.americanoutlook.org/inde..._detail&id=1496%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.americanoutlook.org/inde..._detail&id=1496&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"Declining standards in Higher Education"
<a href="http://www.cybercollege.com/plume8.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cybercollege.com/plume8.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"Too late for remediation"
<a href="http://www.prism-magazine.org/nov04/last_word.cfm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.prism-magazine.org/nov04/last_word.cfm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"Studies show U.S. losing edge in innovation"
<a href="http://new.nique.net/issues/2005-04-15/focus/3%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://new.nique.net/issues/2005-04-15/focus/3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"Educators warns U.S. losing competitive edge in higher learning"
<a href="http://canberra.usembassy.gov/hyper/WF981001/epf413.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://canberra.usembassy.gov/hyper/WF981001/epf413.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"U.S. slips in attracting world's best students"
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/21/n...ner=rssuserland%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/21/n...ner=rssuserland&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

82

<p>I just wanted to add that it's ironic to read posters concerns/debate over which universities is more difficult to get into, or which one has bigger endowments, difficult of admission process, length of interviews etc etc (and hence why one is "better" than another) when what really matters is how much you actually learn at university, and how well you are taught. In this respect, the Oxbridge system of one-to-one teaching clearly beats top Ivies hands down.</p>

<p>I mean, so what if some arbitrary university takes in the very brightest in the world? What did that university do with these students? Did they push them further academically in their chosen subject, or did they let them 'enjoy life'?</p>

<p>I mean, even a Harvard professor moans about declining standards and grade inflation across courses in the university. One important question to ask is: if Harvard students are given inflated grades, how can one be sure an A grade student from Harvard is "better", "as good as", or "far superior" than a A grade student from Oxford, IIT or Beijing universities? So what if Harvard takes in the "very very best"?</p>

<p>(By the way, in case it seems like I am 'bashing' Harvard, I apologise in advance. That is NOT my intention. Was only using it as an example following from the article that I posted in my previous post)</p>

<p>It just seem that you pay tons of money at Ivies to be ensured you will definitely pass and graduate successfully from your course. This surely sounds more like a 'business transaction' than anything! Surely Oxbridge will seem to have more 'value for money' then. </p>

<p>In case I have not said it enough: I am NOT a 'die-hard' fan of British education system. Was just merely trying to put some perspective from my humble point of view. The oxbridge and british system clearly have its flaws too, just as is the case with any education systems world-wide.</p>

83

<p>jkh, hash, you've both made the same mistake: you've equated research with undergraduate teaching. Universities' prestige (especially in academic circles) is determined primarily by their research output (and, clearly, the faculty that does the research). The fact is the best researchers are rarely those teaching Physics 101: Introduction to Physics. It also answers jkh's point on how you determine the best university by what it does to students: you don't. That's why Amherst does not appear on any global ranking of world universities. Your point about what a university does to its students is a fair one though - but don't tell anyone at Harvard they're just 'enjoying life'. They may be guaranteed a good grade, but they still work. Possibly they work harder at what they enjoy, since grades are no longer the primary motivation, but if anything that is a good thing: it lets them focus on what they enjoy more, not worry about Organic Chemistry, the pre-med hell. </p>

<p>I do not doubt that the British universities manage to do more for less and are therefore probably better values for money. But that's not the worth of a university. Their money allows HYPS to attract the best researchers, regardless of where they are from or who taught them, give them the most academic freedom and let them use the best and most up to date facilities.</p>

<p>Hash: I don't think you understand how Oxbridge tuition works. It is exactly that: tuition. You learn in large lectures and so many times a week visit you tutor who checks if you have any problems. You're not even obligated to go: all he (or she) does is try make sure you're getting the stuff. He (or she) doesn't actually teach. And your "isn't a wonder" comment was ironic: clearly they, can't. The fact that they're either cutting it down or restricting UK students shows that undegraduate teaching is pretty much their last priority. Something they have to do, but are not enjoying it. As I said before: undegraduate teaching is not what research universities are really about.</p>

84

<p>Cenovia - I don't think you understand what 'prestige' means. You are putting all its weight on 'research output'. By this reasoning, any donkey university with tons of money can 'buy' prestige by building the best labs, acquiring top-notch equipments etc and then 'buying' in top researchers so that they can work with each other to produce top research output. So what you are saying is, money gaurantees 'prestige'? LOL! That means, if I have the dough, then let me start a 'Crap University' and buy all top ivies researchers, and hey! Crap university is a prestigious university overnight!</p>

<p>Clearly, your idea of 'prestige' is a weird one.</p>

<p>Your other argument that "since grades are no longer the primary motivation, but if anything that is a good thing: it lets them focus on what they enjoy more" baffles me even more. If that is the case, one can safely assume that all kids go to American universities to enjoy what they enjoy more (without worrying too much on grades), and hence those kids who go to Ivies are paying tons of money just to add the 'name' to that piece of paper they get at the end of 4 years. If this is so, how can that be a 'good' thing? What is so 'good' about it? The only reason I can think of is better chance at job prospects (I can't figure out why really but that's for the employers to say), since they do not do much for students academically-wise.</p>

<p>Everyone already knows that "undegraduate teaching is not what research universities are really about". But would top researchers take in research students who does not know much about his subject area? And where do potential research students go to learn about their subject matter? Surely, undergraduate education is important for really serious students who want to move into academia, or for someone who really want to learn about his chosen subject. In this respect, Oxbridge again seems hard to beat for undergraduate studies. (I'm sure there are other uni other than Oxbridge. I'm not particularly advocating ONLY oxbridge. just using it as an example here)</p>

<p>The only edge I can see Ivies have is that they have more 'prominent' researchers on their faculty, but only because they have more money to pay them. Hence, it is widely viewed by many that UK is the place to go for undergrad studies and to US for grad studies.</p>

<p>And by the way, "teaching" is the process of imparting knowledge. Sharing ideas and thoughts, and holding discussions on the work you have done with a Professor one-on-one IS part of the process of a 'teacher' imparting knowledge to the 'student', hence "teaching". I actually don't think you know very much about the Oxbridge system, regardless of what you say about you knowing it, reading what you wrote in your posts.</p>

<p>The primary function of a university is still to teach students. If a top university cannot ensure minimum standards when graduating their students in comparison with other top universities world-wide, it surely cannot be called a 'good' university. Hence, my humble view that what matters most in going to 'top' universities is what they really do to you, or make you do while you are there, and how they teach you, and how well they make you learn. And by this, I don't mean just in the academic sense. Other non-academic areas are important too, but the academic bit MUST be one of the parts.</p>

<p>All other things about research, admission process, entry grades etc etc are not important. As mentioned before, research only matters to researchers and potential research students.</p>

85

<p>"Cenovia - I don't think you understand what 'prestige' means. You are putting all its weight on 'research output'. By this reasoning, any donkey university with tons of money can 'buy' prestige by building the best labs, acquiring top-notch equipments etc and then 'buying' in top researchers so that they can work with each other to produce top research output. So what you are saying is, money gaurantees 'prestige'? LOL! That means, if I have the dough, then let me start a 'Crap University' and buy all top ivies researchers, and hey! Crap university is a prestigious university overnight!</p>

<p>Clearly, your idea of 'prestige' is a weird one."</p>

<p>Isnt that the story of Stanford rise.</p>

86

<p>HAHA! It's amazing that a single person can create a thread that can escalate into an essay contest.</p>

87

<p>You people are missing the point. Oxford 100 years ago and Oxford today are two VERY VERY different universities. First of all, it's the people that make a university. Since all those people who made Oxford great are dead, why do you still rely on the past to justify your current level of prestige? Once Oxford started lowering its admissions standards, and stopped being able to afford the very best professors and research equipment, it stopped being the best university in the world. How long a university has been in existence means jack. WHo cares if you were good yesterday, if today all those people who made it so good are dead?</p>

88

<p>
[quote]
That means, if I have the dough, then let me start a 'Crap University' and buy all top ivies researchers, and hey! Crap university is a prestigious university overnight!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And that would be wrong, because...? If you have the money and the right scholarly atmosphere to attract the best, you've got them. From that point on, news articles are going to read: Researchers at Crap University yesterday discovered a possible cure for cancer. Instant prestige. The thing that works against you is one, you need a hell of a lot of money, and two, you do need some sort of previous reputation, so it takes time. But not that long. Stanford is barely 150 years old (if that, I'm not going to look up Stanford's founding date) and ten years in looked like it was going to collapse from financial uncertaintly. Look at it now. (Oops, just noticed 2bad4u's post on the subject. Seems like he beat me to it). If Bill Gates died tomorrow and left his money for the establishment of a university, by the time I graduate from college that school will probably be one of the best in the world.</p>

<p>Clearly undergraduate teaching is important, I don't doubt that. But, uh, you'd have a hard time proving that Yale graduates don't pass the mustard, which is what you imply. I don't know if Yale graduates are any better or worse than Oxford graduates, but clearly Yale is doing something right, as it issues undergraduate degrees to many to go on to become leaders in their fields. For all the talk of falling standards, it doesn't seem as though Yalies are becoming any stupider - but if they are, it clearly hasn't reached the point where Yale notices that it's graduates can't place into graduate schools. Note that the Wall Street Journal ranks Harvard, Yale and Princeton as the schools that place their graduates into the best graduate programs.</p>

<p>I'm afraid that no one, when considering how 'good' a university is, takes into account undergraduate teaching. Because it's exactly that, teaching. There is no new knowledge involved. After all, doesn't everyone tell the student who got rejected from Harvard - "don't be so upset, you'll get a similar education no matter where you go?" (Most people assume that anyone who applied to Harvard could have made it, and therefore will be going to a good, if not quite top flight school). They're not wrong; he or she will. Undergraduate teaching does not advance academia. It trains people to stand on the shoulders of giants, and that's when they advance academia, by being able to see further than anyone before them. But that doesn't require much, just textbooks and a lecture hall. Proof lies in that there are so many universities capable of it - it simply doesn't cost much to teach undergraduates. Therefore it is impossible to determine the value of the university by it. </p>

<p>Let's face it: the worth of a university lies solely in research. HYPS take graduate students and research faculty from all over the world. The seem to have gotten the deal right: outsource undergraduate teaching (though they still do some inhouse) then attract the best graduates, regardless of where they're from, with the big bucks. Why do you think Tilghman and Summers have spoken out against visa restrictions? They know where their brain talent comes from. </p>

<p>Your argument, that undergraduate teaching is the cornerstone of a unversity, works only if universities refuse to take any one other than their own graduates as graduate students or faculty. They know better.</p>

<p>FYI: I don't wish to denigrate the tutoring system. I know it's great. But my point was that hash seemed to believe that at Oxbridge, undergraduate students only learn one-on-one. As for not knowing it - well, I took a hard look at it when deciding where to go. I did eventually turn down Cambridge, but only because I wasn't committed enough to the subject I had applied to read for. (The other thing is that, as in international student on financial aid, Princeton is much cheaper than Cambridge.) I know Oxbridge are fabulous at teaching undergraduates - maybe even better than Princeton, where I'll be going. But that doesn't make them the best universities in the world. This thread is on 'ranking' the universities of the world, and I stand by my point: you can't judge a university by it's undergraduate program. Again, that's why Amherst isn't on any ranking.</p>

<p>My point about not worrying about grades being a good thing apparently also needs clarification. First, I am assuming that the undergraduate student body of HYPS are (mostly) very intelligent and intellecutually curious students. Therefore, by not worrying about Organic Chemistry as much, they can focus their time both on having fun and surely some of it in the subjects they are interested in, doing extra research, reading more, going to meet professors, etc (that's what I meant by 'enjoy more'.) I seriously doubt they are taught any worse than they used to be because of grade inflation.</p>

89

<p>Read in "Shakespeare, Einstein and the Bottom Line" that a few years ago, NYU didnt have a philosophy department. Now it has one of the best in the world, because it offered profs from places like Chicago, Yale, and Harvard a wheelbarrow full of money that they werent getting at their old job, plus a primo Manhattan apartment. </p>

<p>So, to review, I dont know if you can take crap university and make it into a prestigious one overnight, but you certainly can take a crap program and make it into a prestigious one overnight.</p>

90

<p>Oxford and Cambridge are the best places in the world to go for undergraduate education. Full stop. </p>

<p>American Universities probably have the edge for graduate studies. Graduate students can then fully exploit the resources.</p>

91

<p>"Undergraduate teaching does not advance academia"</p>

<p>For someone who is supposedly going to Princeton, this must surely be very poor reasoning. Undergraduate teaching does advance academia: because it does.</p>

<p>I suspect you don't know what 'research' really mean. Research is not <em>snap finger</em> Hey! I found a cure for cancer on my own so now I'm going to tell the world! </p>

<p>Let me share with you a little bit on what I think an 'academic' education is all about. Firstly, you need to sit down and understand what 'research' means. Research, in very general terms, can be defined as advancing knowledge in any particular field of study. So, how can one 'advance knowledge'? Put it in another way: how can one advance knowledge without knowing about the relevant subject matter thoroughly? For example, how can you find a cure for cancer, if you do not know what cancer is? This is where undergrad studies come in. That is when we learn all about our chosen subject matter, before we go on to grad studies to advance that knowledge creatively and collaboratively with our research supervisors and peers. </p>

<p>The key issue is: undergraduate teaching must therefore play a very important role before one can advance his knowledge of the subject matter. How well you are taught, and how well you learnt it is where it all is at the crux of every research paper out there. If someone is very passionate about his chosen subject and want to go on to do serious research, the UK is a better place to go for undergrad as you get to learn deeply into your subject matter in three years. The US, on the other hand, is a better place to go for graduate studies <em>only</em> because of better lab resource, more prominient professors etc. (This is not to say UK universities labs are crap and their professors are lousy.)</p>

<p>If anyone think that Oxford's (and Cambridge's) system of "one-to-one teaching" is merely making sure you understand your subject matter thorougly, they cannot be more wrong. The most important and most valuable aspect of this type of teaching is how the tutors make you <em>think</em> about your subject matter. It is not about reading recommended texts and understanding the material. The tutors are not interested in how many books you have read and how well you understand them. They are of course necessary and important for discussions in the tutorials, but more than anything, tutors want to see how critically you <em>think</em> about them, how well you can 'stand on your own feet'. This training is surely very valuable if you want to go on to grad studies later to 'advance knowledge'. </p>

<p>It is therefore a huge mistake for anyone to think that Oxbridge's one-to-one system is merely only about making you sure you have read and understood lectures.</p>

92

<ol>
<li>Kent State</li>
<li>Ohio State</li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Cleveland State</li>
<li>Yale</li>
</ol>

93

<p>
[quote]
This is where undergrad studies come in. That is when we learn all about our chosen subject matter, before we go on to grad studies to advance that knowledge creatively and collaboratively with our research supervisors and peers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So... undergrad is when you learn from the past, grad is when you use it for research. Wasn't that my point?</p>

<p>My other point was that Ivy league undergrad is definitely comparable to Oxbridge undergrad (based on the fact that so many Ivy graduates are in top graduate programs, both in America and other countries). Find a source that has any sort of hard evidence that the Ivies are definitively worse than Oxbridge. Here we can discuss about the merits of one-on-one tutoring and its value. (I'm basing my opinion of it partly on the experiences of my friends and my dad, who agree that it's very useful but not the be-all and end-all. I know that anecdotal evidence constitutes a logical fallacy, but it's all I have.) Alternatively we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.</p>

<p>My final point was that undergrad programs cannot be used to 'rank' universities becuase they are all broadly similar. Instead, the worth of a university is determined by it's research output (again, why Amherst is not on any global ranking). If you allow that the Ivies are better at graduate studies and research, then it follows that they are 'better' (the more accurate term is probably 'prolific') universities.</p>

94

<p>hash - regarding your questionable comments...i put it on my msg but i guess you missed it.</p>

<p>You make many "unfounded" comments yourself. You say that American schools make considerable room for athletes, legacies, etc put you dont attempt to prove this. The Ivy league cannot even give athletic scholarships. And while they do admit kids because of legacy etc, the number isnt as high as you make it out to be.</p>

<p>And I hate to say it but money matters in education. Harvard has an endowment of 22 billion....Ill be impressed of Oxford has an endowment of 3 billion US (quite a large number in the grand scheme of things). You just cant make up for that kind of financial gap. </p>

<p>Also, the UK system seems kind of BS. They went to get some ridiculous percentage of 18 year olds to enter university....dont they realize (basic economics/ common sense) that the degree will be devalued and thus there will be degree inflation. Dont they realize that everyone needs janitors, lumberjacks, fisherman, housekeepers, etc....not everyone is destined to attend university and it is insane to suggest such a plan.</p>

95

<p>aca,</p>

<p>If you seriously think that the ivies don't make places for recruits/alumni's children/potential donors, then you are only kidding yourself.</p>

<p>HYPS recruit athletes and give special consideration to legacies/potential donors. It is a FACT. I didn't just make it up - it's not my personal opinion.</p>

<p>If you don't believe this, then we must credit harvard & co for their excellent marketing skills.</p>

<p>For universities of HYPSM calibre, to have ANY students not admitted on the basis of merit alone is SHAMEFUL. For that one student who was admitted for $$$, at least 6-10 others with greater merits will have been rejected.</p>

<p>Obviously HYPSM would not put an official number on the number of students not admitted on merit. It would simply be too shameful.</p>

<p>But remember, when there are 20,000+ applicants, EVERY place counts.</p>

96

<p>Alumnorum children. Hahaha awesome.</p>

97

<p>aca,</p>

<p>Are you seriously suggesting British higher education is BS because they want to get 50% of students into uni? That's one of the funniest things I've ever heard.</p>

<p>The UK is moving away from industrial manufacture towards the services sector. </p>

<p>High wage demands, and the ridiculous benefits employees must be given (along with the strong pound etc) means that the UK is not competitive enough in the manufacturing areas (China is taking over).</p>

<p>So, the UK is now concentrating on the high end services sectors (banking, economics, engineering, IT etc...), which obviously means more students need university.</p>

<p>Of course, there is some devaluation of degrees. So Mr X who got a degree in crap studies at crap university will still end up being a janitor. In which case...what's the harm in having an educated janitor?</p>

98

<p>This thread is ridiculous. Oxbridge the best places to be for undergrad??? Hahaha. For those who still live in the 19th century, I suggest this article:</p>

<p><a href="http://radian.org/%7Ekrstic/ftuniv.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://radian.org/~krstic/ftuniv.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

99

<p>An excerpt from the article for those who can't be bothered reading the whole thing:</p>

<p>As student numbers rose, average spending per student dropped - from £10,000 (in current prices) 20 years
ago to less than £5,000 today, according to the education charity, the Sutton Trust. Oxford and Cambridge
were not spared the squeeze because the point was that no university got preferential treatment. This had an
effect on standards.
”Suppose you move from 100,000 to 400,000 graduates a year,” says Alison Wolf, professor of education at
King’s College, London, in her book Does Education Matter? “All the latter have some of what the former
had, but you no longer have 100,000, or anything like it, educated in the way the old graduates were.”
When your average income per student is £4,000, but educating that student costs around £10,000, or more at
Oxford and Cambridge, the inescapable result is a loss. Of the 131 English universities, about a third
recorded deficits in 2003. Today, Cambridge loses about £11m a year. To cover the losses, universities have
failed to maintain their buildings or invest in new equipment, or even pay competitively. (The starting salary
at Oxbridge is in the region of £20,000, or less.)
”You focus your money on front-line activities,” says Michael Sterling, vice-chancellor of Birmingham
University and chairman of the Russell Group of England’s top 19 universities. “You direct your money out
of your estate. You don’t maintain your buildings. You can only do that for a limited amount of time.”
But perhaps more frustrating than the cutbacks was the salary and promotions structure that reflected the
system’s anti-elitist credo. The government handed each university a fixed number of students and a fixed
sum of money to teach them, so teachers had no financial incentive to improve teaching, which in a free,
competitive system might attract more students and higher fees.</p>

<hr>

<p>Faced with such a system, many of the brightest students who 30 years ago would have stayed on to teach or
do research didn’t consider academia as a career. Instead, they left for the comparative riches and greater
freedoms of the city, law or the media.
Leaking talent, poor, stretched, bureaucratic and scruffy - Oxbridge at the end of the 20th century was a
less-than-perfect model for incubating serious thought. This has been borne out in the international prizes
awarded for academic greatness over the past few decades.
Until the 1970s, Britain consistently won about a fifth of Nobel prizes for science. Now, however, its share is
less than a tenth. Another popular measure is the number of citations in academic journals garnered by a
country’s researchers. Today, of the 1,200 most highly cited scientists in the world, according to a poll by
Thomson ISI, only 80 work in Britain.</p>

<p>...</p>

<p>But if the UK got it so wrong, who in the world got it right? The country that now accounts for nearly
three-quarters of Nobel prizes won each year, and where 700 of the world’s most highly cited researchers
work, is the US. Last year, academics at Shanghai University constructed a league of the world’s best
universities, using a composite index of Nobel prizes, citations, and measures such as articles published in
Nature and Science. Oxford came in ninth, Cambridge fifth. The best four were all American: Stanford,
Caltech, Berkeley, and - at the pinnacle - Harvard University.</p>

100

<p>i think oxford and cambridge are GREAT places to do undergrad, my mates are there and they say you get 1 to 1s with some of the leaders in the fields (many/most of whom have written the textbooks they study from!) you dont get that anywhere else in the world, i mean take a while to think what that means!</p>

<p>my mates at gonville and keys college in cambridge and he says they get tutored by professor stephen hawking! amazing, no?</p>

<p>I know that research wise uk is NO WAY NEAR as good as US but in terms of undergrad, i think everyone in the world bar some americans would say the quality is better in the top british institutions. </p>

<p>Of course this is just my subjective opinion. feel free to disagree :)</p>