<p>^ I guess I could have used a better word in place of Fondled. hmm...Mesmerized, incapacitated, starstruck, or enthralled. Yes. Enthralled.</p>
<p>Just that Fondled was the first thing that came to mind after watching CNN's documentary on the children sexual exploitation trade in South East Asia. :-)</p>
<p>^^ Hmm, things you don't mention and expect people to look at you the same...</p>
<h1>1, or #2. If it means that much to you I can live with either. But I still think it becomes apples and oranges when secret defense research at APL is included as this is not normal university research and in fact many schools will not do secret non-publishable research as a matter of policy as it violates academic freedom goals. Peace.</h1>
<p>There's so much wrong with these rankings I don't know where to begin...</p>
<p>Fine, I'll admit, things would be different if JHU's APL was not admitted into the fray. Very different, UW may as well be #1. But to claim that "JHU refuses to separate APL" from its data ....seems to be.... like your trying to say we're forcible trying to manipulate data or something. You see, to me thats wrong.</p>
<p>Now, with what you did just say whether or not secret defense rearch at APL is deemed justifiable as normal university research....is debatable. I'm not ready to concede to that just yet however I do not have substantial enough knowledge about APL to say whether or not things you said are true. BUT, I'm willing to say that APL does a lot more stuff than just secret defense research for the government. a lot more stuff.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I guess, the problem is, that, I wasn't arguing with you KyleDavid.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, yes you were.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You weren't even in the original argument in the first place, AND I gave merits to your argument.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Funny thing, these forums: anyone can post. Simply because you and barrons got into it doesn't bar anyone else from having a say, especially when some of your claims don't appear to be logical, and since another dimension to the issue was not given the full attention it deserved.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but the problem is, You are the problem that I've gone overboard
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry, you'd gone berserk before that. (REMEMBER TALKING LIKE THIS??)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm truly fondled by the fact that you think you can join in in the middle of a heated argument and not expect to get smacked around.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry I'm not attuned to the "heat" of the argument. For what it's worth, in civilized debate, nobody need be "smacked around" if everyone stays level-headed and replies politely. I'm glad you're fondled, though.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Don't join if your not wishing to willing to participate collaboratively
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"Collaboratively"? Is calling others idiots, even after making simple statements, considered "collaborative" or merely "abrasive"?</p>
<p>
[quote]
if you basically raising questions again that requires reiteration from the last post.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I asked those questions that you conspicuously failed to explain adequately. (Funny, since I'd given you a very long explanation before in a PM--I still have it, if you'd like me to c/p it.) Unfortunately, you didn't see the subtle nature of the tangential point; notably that a reiteration of your past points would fail to explain or counter said point, but rather exacerbate the whole situation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
P.S. your just making me look stupid in your post.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I haven't done anything that you haven't done yourself.</p>
<p>
[quote]
like, I have no other way to reply than just to say shut up ok. just shut up.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Always a good conclusion to a rollickin'-good discussion. :)</p>
<p>And to cap off this discussion, I still love you Kyle David. And I love you too Shad Faraz. Have a good night everyone. :-)</p>
<p>P.S. i'm not done, I just saving my energy for another day. This discussion is not over.</p>
<p>I was going to commend you for the grace of that last response, but then you followed up with that Terminator-like statement: "This discussion is not over." (<em>Terminator music</em>)</p>
<p>:p</p>
<p>I personally like these rankings, more than USNews at least. I've gotten the impression that quite a few Professors at research-heavy schools have this sort of perception of colleges as well. I won't say it's correct (no ranking is correct) because I'm sure I'm gonna get flamed...but I will say why I like it (emphasis on math/science, de-emphasis on humanities, number of world renowned faculty, international review, including grad schools into the equation, jokers like Yale being out of the top 10) Granted, each person has their own sort of "rankings" of how they view colleges and I'm not prescribing that this one works for everyone. It just works for me.</p>
<p>^^^
Agree</p>
<p>Like it or not, they will continue to publish the rankings and influence people. BTW, Jiaotong Univeristy used to be the top 10 in China fifty years ago, like UW-Madison. Now, well, it is like UW-Madison of China now.</p>
<p>It is the Chinese view on universities outside China. I still don't see why MIT is so low. In the past 20 years, MIT had 10 faculty members won the Nobel prizes, followed by Stanford with 9,... Harvard ..mm 4?</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>
<p>You're welcome (though I didn't really do anything ;) ). Oxford is still a great university, don't get me wrong, it's just that rankings tend to favor science-based universities, hence Cambridge's advantage. Here's an article talking about the UK league tables which are essentially the UK's version of the USNews rankings.</p>
<p>Cambridge</a> beats Oxford in best university list - Telegraph</p>
<p>Don't argue research funding.</p>
<p>The government has had it pocket open to UCal thanks to the Manhattan Project. </p>
<p>Right now, Cal-Tech JPL is highest in Government funding I bet.
MIT is probably a close 2nd since there Nano Research for the military is huge</p>
<p>These rankings are HEAVILY flawed.</p>
<p>The problem with this ranking is simply too much weight is put on N and S and awarding Nobel laureates' institutions at the time of receiving the reward as opposed to where the research was conducted, some international universities (and to some extent Duke) get a zero (and this is worth 30-40%) in this category, and they really don't deserve to, it makes them appear to be much worse than they actually are. Also, there's only a 10% correction for size. I don't believe this is a good ranking for research universities (I find that these international methodologies are pretty meaningless, unless it's some sort of international peer ranking). I would trust national rankings (in general) a bit more, although this might be a bit more accurate than the overall USNews rankings, for research.</p>
<p>Like others have mentioned, this is mostly a ranking of research output...</p>
<p>Don't you like that there are 16 Nobel laureates on faculty in your school, like Stanford does?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh-huh. Your poor word choice reveals your lack of maturity, and you certainly deserve to be flamed. I just don't have the energy to dispel all the ignorance on CC.</p>
<p>Again, this is a narrow science/engineering research ranking, not an overall quality ranking.</p>
<p>Lol, I'm sure he's joking.</p>
<p>Different rankings emphasize different things. Some people just like this schematic more so than others. They feel it's more reflective of overall quality. </p>
<p>Why so defensive?</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Uh-huh. Your poor word choice reveals your lack of maturity, and you certainly deserve to be flamed. I just don't have the energy to dispel all the ignorance on CC.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah because Yale must be in the top 10 of all colleges, hm? I find that to be pretty immature and just as ignorant. You don't see me hating on rankings where Stanford ranks low, like the THES ranking. Never said any ranking to be correct, but it is very correct for me. Understand? Be careful whom you call ignorant and immature.</p>
<p>The problem is it's not even a good science/engineering ranking, the emphasis is research output (much less so research quality) and the methodology is simply ridiculous, I wish people would actually look @ this stuff before they look @ these rankings. Also, some of the results could not be replicated using the same methodology. It's also a very lazy ranking, they don't actually spend time gathering data on every university, they just look @ one source/site to get their info for every category (the Nobel prize/award ratings are ridiculous because many universities with plenty of Nobel winners end up with 0s).</p>
<p>They do emphasize research quality in several ways--the times an article is cited in other aticles. the number of publications in the top journals, and articles listed in major indexes.</p>
<p>"Institutions are ranked according to their academic or research performance.
Ranking indicators include the alumni and staff winning major international awards, highly
cited researchers in major research fields, articles published in selected top journals,
articles indexed by major citation indexes, and performance per capita"</p>
<p>It's also amusing how Hawkette avoids these rankings like Superman avoided Kryptonite</p>