40% research – the obvious grad component. Are they counting grad teaching too as part of the “teaching” chunk?
Um, for Social Science they have The New School at #39 and UChicago at #46.
@DunBoyer I have no problem with Imperial being ranked quite highly. Higher than Stanford, Cambridge, Oxford… err no.
I mentioned BU because it was ranked far, far too high, and Berkeley was far, far too low. Those were examples that really stuck out for me.
They are actually quite transparent about their data sources ( not Russian) and have a detailed explanation on the website.
**Teaching 40% ** consisting of
- Academic staff per students (8%)
This indicator shows how many faculty there are per student in a university
- Academic staff per bachelor degrees awarded (8%)
This indicator specifies the number of academic staff per undergraduate degrees awarded in a given year.
- Doctoral degrees awarded per academic staff (8%)
This indicator shows the number of PhD degrees awarded or its equivalent per academic staff
- Doctoral degrees awarded per bachelor degrees awarded (8%)
This indicator shows the ratio of PhD degrees awarded to bachelor degrees awarded.
- World teaching reputation (8%)
The international reputation of the university in the field of teaching shows the degree of university’s fame in the international academic community. The initial data on reputation represent the distribution of respondents’ votes among universities. A special survey - Academic Reputation Survey - is conducted annually among representatives of the academic community to collect the reputational data. Participation in this survey is possible only by invitation. In other words, it is the survey operator who determines the initial sample of potential respondents who will receive an invitation letter to participate in the survey.
** Research 40%**
- Citations per academic and research staff (8%)
The number of citations of all University’s scientific publication authors for a certain period of time (different for the 2010-2015 and 2016-2017 rankings) is divided by the number of academic staff and researchers who worked at the university for a certain year. When counting the number of publications, there are taken into account only «Article» and «Notes» indexed by Web of Science Core Collection’s bibliometric system.
- Doctoral degrees per admitted PhD (8%)
The number of dissertations defended at a given university during the year under review is divided by the number of PhD programs and their analogues accepted for the first year.
- Normalized citation impact (8%)
Normalized Citation Impact (NCI) shows the ratio of average citation of university publications per average citation in the world, type of publication and subject area for a similar time interval.
- Papers per academic and research staff (8%)
The number of scientific publications is divided by the number of academic staff and researchers working at the university during the last year when the publications were rated.
- World research reputation (8%)
The reputation is the number of votes given for the university.
The reputational survey called Academic Reputation Survey is conducted by Clarivate Analytics. On average, 10,000 respondents participate in this survey every year, leaving 60,000 votes for universities participating in the RUR ranking. Participation in the survey is possible only by invitation. In other words, any third parties, including universities themselves, cannot send Clarivate Analytics a list of participants recommended for the academic survey.
** International Diversity 10%**
- Share of international academic staff (2%)
The number of foreign professors and teachers (Faculty) is divided by the total number of academic staff working at the university
- Share of international students (2%)
This indicator shows the share of students of foreign origin, students in the university on programs of 3 levels (bachelor’s, master’s, postgraduate). Using this indicator, the attractiveness and competitiveness of the university for students from all over the world are assessed.
- Share of international co-authored papers (2%)
The indicator shows the proportion of publications with at least one foreign co-author in the total number of publications of the university.
- Share of international co-authored papers (2%)
This indicator shows the reputation of the institution outside the geographical region of the university’s location.
- International level (2%)
This indicator shows the overall level of institution internationalization and the average for indicators 11-14.
** Financial Stability**
- Institutional income per academic staff (2%)
This indicator shows institutional income per academic staff ratio (Faculty). When calculating the total budget, all incomes that the university received from all types of sources (both state and non-state) for a fiscal or calendar year are taken into account.
- Institutional income per students (2%)
This indicator calculates the level of university funding per student.
- Papers per research income (2%)
This indicator shows the number of publications concerning the university budget allocated for researchI, n other words, the average cost of a publication is measured
- Research income per academic and research staff (2%)
The total amount of the research budget is divided by the number of academic staff and researchers in the university (academic staff).
- Research income per institutional income (2%)
The share of the research budget in the general budget of the university shows the degree of university orientation for carrying out advanced research.
It is interesting. Chicago got severely docked on the faculty to student ratio in the Social Sciences category and the share of grad degrees received.
Uchicago made 3 spot and your are still finding ways to complain. You must be a Chicago person 
I just want to point out how ridiculous it is for everyone here to actually be giving any credence whatsoever to what the Russians think about our educational system. Yes, the information fits with some of our preconceived beliefs about our institutions of higher learning. But NO we cannot learn anything new from this list. %-(
@Sam-I-Am I do not agree with your dismissal of the Russians. They are highly educated and very focused on education, having produced some of the world’s leading scientists and scholars. This is just another data point illustrating the reputation of US universities outside the US. Moreover, their ranking methodology is no less “siound” than that of other rankings world-wide.
The Russians. Scapegoat du jour.
If this were a Russian government publication, and Russia had any national interest in ranking BU above Berkeley or Imperial above Stanford, there might be cause for skepticism of the ranking creators’ motives. As it is, you can question their methodology, but I don’t see how Russia factors into this.
This might not fit everyone’s expectations, but I don’t see why a private consultancy (in partnership with Thomson Reuters, a widely respected media firm) is less trustworthy simply because it shares a country with Vladimir Putin. The president of Russia is a very shady guy, but I’m fairly certain he has better things to do than mess with CC posters.
There is no need whatsoever for us to turn to Russia to advise us on the respective strengths of our own educational institutions. But please carry on with the Party… <:-P
@Sam-I-Am Yes, I know it is because of this Russian ranking that Hillary lost …
As with domestically sourced rankings, if you do not like this one, either criticize its shortcomings or find another one that better aligns with your preconceived ranking order. And remember the difference between being ranked #x and #y is HUGE (so much so that you would send your first born genius snowflake to x at full pay but not even your 15 year old dog who wasn’t very smart to begin with but now has Alzheimer’s to y). Fill in your own values for x and y (ranging from deltas of 1 to 1 million).
@saillakeerie, what you are missing here is the fact that no one cares what Russia thinks of our educational system. Since when do we take advice from a nation like Russia? I know I don’t. Never have, never will, no way.
It is not Russia. It is Thompson Reuters.
RUR not Russian, I guess RT is not Russian, either?
@Dunboyer “If this were a Russian government publication…”
Right now, everything in Russia is overwhelmingly influenced by the government, either directly or indirectly out of fear of the government. There is virtually no independent media and there there essentially are no independent institutions. Concepts like truth and objectivity are obsolete. Thompson Reuters may supply the data RUR chops up, but what RUR does with that data is up to them.
I can look at the rankings and see that they are garbage solely by the results (even though the result for my particular school is excellent).
@Sam-I-Am I am not missing anything (at least not in this context). I have a certain high level of disdain for college rankings (whatever the source). Its trying to take the subjective (“best” college – best for what? for whom?) and make it appear objective by applying weighted formulas to selected quality factors (all of which are totally subjective) to produce ordered lists. Changed the factors or the weights and you may well get very different results. Is one necessarily better than the other or are they just different?
You see the same dynamic here when any of the multitude of college ranking lists is posted here. Doesn’t matter the source.
@saillakeerie, the schools are all fine schools. That is not the point. I am not going to take my information from a Russian entity.
Edit: [-X
@ThankYouforHelp YES Putin is severely concerned whether Stanford is ahead of Harvard in a ranking. It is all a giant Russian secret service plot as this involves Russian national security. This is just another ranking based on objective metrics that are fully transparent. No more no less. You can agree with or dismiss the metrics. But this has nothing to do with evil Russia.