Shanghai-Jiaotong Rankings Posted

Graduate School
1

<p>[url=&lt;a href=“http://www.arwu.org/rank2008/ARWU2008_A(EN).htm]ARWU2008[/url”&gt;http://www.arwu.org/rank2008/ARWU2008_A(EN).htm]ARWU2008[/url</a>]</p>

<p>Really not much change from last year. Top 20 are:</p>

<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Berkeley</li>
<li>Cambridge</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Caltech</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Chicago</li>
<li>Oxford</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>UCLA</li>
<li>UCSD</li>
<li>Penn</li>
<li>University of Washington</li>
<li>University of Wisconsin - Madison</li>
<li>UCSF</li>
<li>Tokyo University</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins</li>
</ol>

2

<p>is that undergrad rankings??? </p>

<p>Or is it grad.. then it makes sense for Yale being so low. Otherwise it does not. Why is UW madison so high?</p>

<p>Duke is also very low… AHHHH… so many contradictory rankings!!</p>

<p>Carnegie Mellon also very low</p>

<p>Wow, Brown univ. got slaughtered at 71…someone tell me what is going on..so they look at COMPLETELY new crietarias and even if they do should Brown be that low?</p>

3

<p>Those are some crazy rankings…</p>

4

<p>

</p>

<p>International rankings tend to weigh research heavily.</p>

<p>Doesn’t UW-Madison get the most funding for research in the country? Brown is pretty much an undergrad focused school, isn’t it?</p>

<p>I don’t think these rankings are outrageous.</p>

5

<p>

Read the ranking criteria:
[url=<a href=“http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/ARWU-FIELD2008.htm]field[/url”>http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/ARWU-FIELD2008.htm]field[/url</a>]</p>

<p>Any ranking with UCSF on the list is not exclusively “undergrad”.</p>

6

<p>[url=<a href=“http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/ARWU-FIELD2008.htm]field[/url”>http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/ARWU-FIELD2008.htm]field[/url</a>]</p>

<p>Top 10 in Natural Sciences and Mathematics:

  1. Harvard
  2. Berkeley
  3. Princeton
  4. Caltech
  5. Cambridge
  6. MIT
  7. Stanford
  8. Tokyo
  9. Oxford</p>

<p>Engineering & Technology:

  1. MIT
  2. Stanford
  3. Illinois
  4. Berkeley
  5. Michigan
  6. Texas
  7. Carnegie Mellon
  8. Georgia Tech
  9. Penn State
  10. UC San Diego</p>

<p>Life & Agricultural Sciences:

  1. Harvard
  2. MIT
  3. UCSF
  4. Washington
  5. Stanford
  6. Texas Southwestern Medical Center
  7. Columbia
  8. Cambridge
  9. Rockefeller
  10. Wisconsin</p>

<p>Clinical Medicine & Pharmacy:

  1. Harvard
  2. UCSF
  3. Washington
  4. Johns Hopkins
  5. Columbia
  6. UCLA
  7. Texas Southwestern Medical Center
  8. Michigan
  9. Karolinska Institute
  10. U Pittsburgh</p>

<p>Social Sciences:

  1. Harvard
  2. U Chicago
  3. Columbia
  4. Stanford
  5. Berkeley
  6. MIT
  7. Princeton
  8. U Penn
  9. Yale
  10. Michigan</p>
7

<p>These are essentially science/engineering [research] rankings, and not much more…</p>

8

<p>why is cornell not even top 10 for engineering and technology?</p>

9

<p>The crazy Chinese are at it again with their singular focus on math/science/engineering departments and individual award winners in those fields.;)</p>

10

<p>oops…misread</p>

11

<p>How can Berkeley possibly be below UIUC for Engineering & Tech?</p>

12

<p>THES is a better representation of breadth and reputation, as it is largely based on international peer assessment of graduate programs (without leaving out Arts and Humanities). This ranking is really just a science/engineering <em>research</em> ranking that does not take into account the size of an institution. (With Berkeley/Harvard/Stanford’s sheer size, of course they will have more citations, alumni, research, etc. than their smaller peers.)</p>

<p>Use this for what it is: a science/engineering research output ranking.</p>

13

<p>I love how Harvard has “100” in every category. IT IS THE GOLD STANDARD BY WHICH EVERY OTHER SCHOOL IS MEASURED!</p>

14

<p>Which implies that Harvard is better than the rest at those respective fields??</p>

15

<p>Guys, the rankings are based on academic or research performance. Of course it favors math/science/engineering departments.</p>

16

<p>UW Madison is high because it has strength across many areas from sciences to engineering to social sciences. Its long list of NAS members and other major award winners as well as top research funding and numerous patents should give you a clue. It is very underrated here.</p>

17

<p>I’m a little surprised that Cambridge, UK beat out Oxford, UK. Reason?</p>

18

<p>Cambridge is better in sciences?</p>

19

<p>this ratings are ridiculous. Honestly who cares what people internationally think. USNWR may be flawed, but at least its pretty realistic and matches most peoples views.</p>

20

<p>I would say it matches everyones views because everyone reads it.</p>