<p>Cambridge is generally better in the sciences and consistently beats Oxford in international rankings. The main reason why Americans think Oxford is better is because of the Rhodes scholarship.</p>
<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>
<p>That is an incredibly naive and America-centric statement. The world is becoming smaller and what is going on outside of the US is quite important. The USNews rankings are as flawed as the rest of them...you have to take all rankings with a grain of salt.</p>
<p>Actually these lists (broken down by fields) match pretty closely with the NRC rankings (excluding the non-US universities of course), and NRC is a respectable, nonprofit, NATIONAL institution.</p>
<p>I thought Caltech and Imperial (UK) should've also come out tops for Engineering & Technology.</p>
<p>With all due respect, what people think doesn't always equate to reality. I think that it's ridiculous when people say "x university is ranked lower than y university...these rankings are bogus!"</p>
<p>WHY is THES ranking a joke? Look at the following examples.</p>
<hr>
<h1>Peer review:</h1>
<h1>1 Berkeley, score 100</h1>
<h1>1 Stanford, score 100</h1>
<h1>1 Yale, score 100</h1>
<h1>28 Duke, score=98</h1>
<h1>Employer review:</h1>
<h1>6 Stanford, score=99</h1>
<h1>11 Berkeley, score=98</h1>
<h1>12 Yale, score=98</h1>
<h1>23 Duke, score=97</h1>
<h1>Citation:</h1>
<h1>2 Stanford, score=100</h1>
<h1>18 Berkeley, score=92</h1>
<h1>18 Duke, score=92</h1>
<h1>30 YAle score=91</h1>
<h1>international staff (why this ties to quality? no clue):</h1>
<p>Stanford not in top 50
Berkeley not in top 50
Yale not in top 50
Duke not in top 50</p>
<h1>International students:</h1>
<h1>43 Stanford, score=93</h1>
<p>Berkeley, Yale, and Duke not in top 50</p>
<h1>staff/students ratio</h1>
<h1>1 Yale, score=100</h1>
<h1>11 Duke, score=100</h1>
<p>Stanford and Berkeley are not in top 50.</p>
<p>Below is THES ranking result by categories.</p>
<p>In humanities, Berkeley is #2, Stanford is #11, while Yale is #5, Duke is #20.</p>
<p>In life science, Berkeley is #5, Stanford is #6, while Yale is #8, and Duke is #19.</p>
<p>In technology, Berkeley is #2, Stanford is #3, while Yale is #46, and Duke is not in top 50</p>
<p>In science, Berkeley is #1, Stanford is #7, while Yale is #10, and Duke is not in top 50.</p>
<p>In social science, Berkeley is #2, Stanford is #5, while Yale is #4, and Duke is #25.</p>
<p>The OVERALL THES ranking: Yale #2, Duke #13, Stanford #19, Berkeley #22.</p>
<p>Let me sum up. Stanford beats Yale in employer review, citation, # international students, life science, natural science, and technology, tied with Yale in peer review, lost to yale in humanity, social science, and staff/students ratio. What drives Yale to be #2, and puts Stanford so far behind? Is that due to staff/students ratio? </p>
<p>Now, look at Berkeley. Berkeley beats Yale in humanities, life science, social science, techgnology, natural science, employer review, and citation, tied with Yale in peer review, and only lost to Yale in staff/students ratio. The end result is Yale #2, Berkeley #22. </p>
<p>Now I really don't understand what the hell THES ranking is doing. I suspect THES ranking staff are extremely poor in math at the elementary school level.</p>
<p>In conclusion, THES overall ranking = TRASH.</p>
<p>
[quote]
These are essentially science/engineering [research] rankings, and not much more...
[/quote]
[quote]
The crazy Chinese are at it again with their singular focus on math/science/engineering departments and individual award winners in those fields.
[/quote]
Not true. There are five categories - SCI(math/phys/chem); ENG(Engineering and CompSci); LIFE(Life/Agricultural Sci); MED(Clinical Medicine and Pharmacy) and SOC(Social Sciences). It's entire based on academic, faculty and research.</p>
<p>
[quote]
this ratings are ridiculous. Honestly who cares what people internationally think...
[/quote]
On the contrary, this ranking is entirely objective. You may not agree with the methodology but field medals, nobel laureates, reference citations, journal publications are all objective data. Btw, if that's the way you think, you may not like the new NRC rankings either.</p>
<p>THES rankings has its merits. You'd be surprised how much weight academics put on these and how they use these to gauge their own academic performance.</p>
<p>For those who don't know, this is from ARWU FAQ:</p>
<p>"Our original purpose of doing the ranking was to find out the gap between Chinese universities and world-class universities, particularly in terms of academic or research performance. It has been done for our academic interests..."</p>
<p>"Upon the request of colleagues and friends from various countries, we published the ranking on our website and update it annually."</p>
<p>Harvard...Science and Math.....There must be a mistake....Princeton should be higher</p>
<p>For a ranking that emphasizes research and technology, I don't see why their list is overly flawed...Harvard, Stanford, and Berkeley are consistently the top 3 in the US for graduate programs, and the rest of the schools on their list are very, very strong research institutions as well.</p>
<p>The Big H is very strong at science and math, btw.</p>
<p>^^^^</p>
<p>USNews uses different criteria. The ARWU (unlike most rankings) doesn't have an agenda and bases the rankings solely on data. You can't use USNews rankings to judge other rankings...it's like grading a test with the wrong answer key.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The crazy Chinese are at it again with their singular focus on math/science/engineering departments and individual award winners in those fields.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually their ranking also favors universities with strong medicine or biological/life sciences programs. That is why UCSF for example makes to the top 20.</p>
<p>As far as global rankings are concerned, I personally prefer the London Times (QS/THES) ranking.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As far as global rankings are concerned, I personally prefer the London Times (QS/THES) ranking .
Today 02:53 AM
[/quote]
But THES ranking is done by a group of people who have no clue on how to process data. They are lousy in simple math.</p>
<p>College applicants, beware: these rankings are pretty much meaningless. Apply to schools that match you academically, financially, and socially, and you won't be unhappy.</p>
<p>why can't we all agree that each ranking has its pros and cons. There will always be people that think one ranking is better than the other and i think that is completely subjective. People around the world may like a type of ranking that no one cares about here. The thing to remember is to research and find out about what type of school best fits you. Consulting a ranking should be a minor thing. I am just waiting until one of these stupid rankings puts Harvard at like 20th because only then will people understand how flawed every single one of these ranking systems are. </p>
<p>They all have their own way of deciding which is the best university. Instead of listening to their way, form your own way and have your own opinion. We do not need rankings to tell us what univ. is better than the other.</p>
<p>International Peer Assessment is SOOOO bogus. Those clowns have NO idea what they are talking about. NONE. They vote for who they know, not WHAT they know. </p>
<p>Ridiculous.</p>
<p>nocousin... no offense... you are really off here. I agree this ranking is flawed but so is EVERY single ranking out there. There is no 'best out of the worst.' Read my post earlier. Calling them 'clowns' will not accomplish anything. A lot of internationals know a lot about the system.. if you do not want to admit that, that is up to you. Remember, the universities in the world are in the States, UK and Canada. There are other countries out there and they are completely entitled to their opinion.</p>
<p>Ken:</p>
<p>Actually Johns Hopkins receives the largest amount of research money for science and engineering, but portions of it relate to the Applied Physics Lab. Additionally, JHU does secret research, and I believe that UW-Madison will not accept money for research that cannot be published. UW-Madison ranks number two for science and research expenditures. In 2007, the NSF ranked them number one for research spending outside of science and engineering.</p>
<p>(a little belated) thanks CWalker I didn't know that. I am looking at Cambridge/Oxford for post-undergraduate education in a science related field so thats good to know!</p>