Shanghai-Jiaotong Rankings Posted

Graduate School
81

<p>Ummm look @ the percentages each of these categories you mentioned get. I'm sure you will be even more amused. These rankings are a farce, and I say this despite the fact that my university does very well in them.</p>

<p>They allocate 50%+ to Nobel prizes and N and S, and they do so in a very STUPID manner. Also more than anything it's about #s not quality and this is more or less the only reason why some state schools like Penn and Ohio State perform so well (and I don't mean UCB). People should stop looking at rankings and go straight to the source look @ ISI (for their department's faculty etc...). You simply cannot use any one methodology to rank all universities in the world. Even if you could, ARWU's would not be the one, I'm sorry. And to add it's not replicable!</p>

82

<p>Education minister Valerie Pecresse used the relatively weak showing of French institutions to underscore the need for reforms championed by the government.</p>

<p>The French Senate last month “proposed developing a new European university ranking system to counter the powerful Shanghai world ranking, which is said to favor English-language institutions.”</p>

<p>From the COHE</p>

83

<p>


</p>

<p>Do you read what you write? Pay close attention to the first word in your phrase below.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Those who call Yale a "Joker" are pretty ignorant. I was not referring to its top 10 status in this ranking, and never implied that Yale MUST be in the top 10 for science/engineering. I said your word choice reveals immaturity, and it does.</p>

<p>You also cited Yale's (a "Joker") absence from the top 10 as a REASON that you like the ranking, which seems rather vindictive and irrational. But I won't continue to judge, as you're entitled to your opinions.</p>

<p>Yale is not a "Joker" by any standard, and I take great offense to that. Think about your words before you choose them. That was my point.</p>

84

<p>barron, there are 2 possible things I can interpret from your post, forgive me if I'm wrong: </p>

<p>You don't need to have a news item confirm that Shanghai is "powerful" (whatever that's supposed to mean), you look at the methodology and use your head. I don't particularly disagree with the top 20. Once you get passed the top 20 the dfferences become a lot smaller. This ranking makes smaller Australian and Canadian universities seem much worse (as research universities) than they are so I don't think it has that much of an "English-language" bias. Those who lose in the award category simply because it's a lazy measurement come out as seeming much worse than they actually are, as research universities. </p>

<p>If you're agreeing with the comment I made "People should stop looking at rankings and go straight to the source look @ ISI (for their department's faculty etc...). You simply cannot use any one methodology to rank all universities in the world." I should say, if such a "continental" ranking comes out it might be better than an international ranking, but I'd still be very skeptical.</p>

85

<p>This is from the FAQ section of the ARWU website, which may explain why some of your favorite schools are ranked lower than expected:</p>

<p>"6. Why do institutions specialized in social sciences have lower ranks?</p>

<pre><code>We tried really hard but were not successful in finding special criteria and internationally comparable data for social sciences and humanities. Many well-known institutions specialized in humanities and social sciences are missing from our list, or their ranks are relatively low.
In our ranking of 2004, the indicator of N&S is not considered for institutions specialized in humanities and social sciences such as London School of Economics, its weight is relocated to other indicators.

Nevertheless, if a university specialized in social sciences and humanities had Nobel Laureates in economics and Highly Cited Researchers in social sciences, it should have good standing in our academic ranking."
</code></pre>

86

<p>That's the problem look @ some of the universities with a 0 in Nobel Prize wins/the Awards category, some of them have half a dozen or more Nobel laureates (as previous alumni or faculty members). Some of them have 3-4 people, or more who have conducted their Nobel-prize winning research in those "0 for awards" institutions. The problem is they only look @ faculty Nobel wins. The other problem is they simply don't account for a university's size, that's more or less the only reason why places like Toronto, Ohio and Penn State rank so high.</p>

87

<p>My opinion counts as much as your opinion in the world--about 1 in several Billion. So I look to other sources to bolster my opinion--thus--an article in the esteemed COHE which is the paper of record for higher ed in the US. I would agree that the more you go down the list the less the rank means.</p>

88

<p>
[Quote]
Those who call Yale a "Joker" are pretty ignorant. I was not referring to its top 10 status in this ranking, and never implied that Yale MUST be in the top 10 for science/engineering. I said your word choice reveals immaturity, and it does.

[/Quote]

First off, this ranking is not purely science/engineering, otherwise Harvard wouldn't rank first. Secondly, I consider Yale to be a "joker" when it has the second highest endowment of all colleges in the country but cannot even offer top of the line (top 20 or better) programs in almost every program it offers. I also consider it a "joker" because of how America fawns over this university while there are many other universities which (in my opinion of course) deserve much more praise than Yale. Berkeley comes to mind here. I'm not saying I am correct, but that's how I view things. I still don't think my maturity comes into play here (Yale is a university not a person), but whatever.</p>

<p>
[Quote]

You also cited Yale's (a "Joker") absence from the top 10 as a REASON that you like the ranking, which seems rather vindictive and irrational. But I won't continue to judge, as you're entitled to your opinions.</p>

<p>Yale is not a "Joker" by any standard, and I take great offense to that. Think about your words before you choose them. That was my point.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>If you read my post it wasn't just Yale, it was jokers like Yale who are also ranked in the top 10, have a huge endowment, and do little more and sometimes less than public universities in the way of engineering. It is not vindictive (didn't ever consider applying to Yale) or irrational, its just that when I see schools ranked in the top 10 whose sciences and engineering are not up to par, I think they are "joker" schools. As for Yale not being a joker by any standard, that's your opinion not a provable fact. I respect your opinion, but don't think you're correct. Perhaps your definition of a joker is not like mine. And, lastly, you take this wayy too personally. Every time someone says something negative about Yale you're quick to pounce. Granted, if people post things like Yale students are dumb, I'd agree with your vigorous defense of Yale. But, however, when people post things that are subjective and can't be proven right or wrong (and are personal beliefs) you shouldn't be so quick to pounce. I assume you think Yale is one of the best, if not the best, university in the world. You don't need a ranking or some random person's post on the internet to tarnish or validate that. Anyway, I'm bowing out of this conversation with you, because if we continue its going to become a discussion of rankings, values, priorities, and most of all a spitting match.</p>

89

<p>I think everyone's guilty of defending their university at some point or another, even if it's obvious that the university in question is top-of-the-line overall (Stanford, for example, or Yale--or Duke, though I'm afraid to mention that one).</p>

90

<p>


</p>

<p>Um...Yale definitely has top 20 programs or better in every program it offers except engineering (consult USNWR). You pretty much just made that up (which reinforces my ignorance argument), but I'll let it slide.</p>

<p>Anyways, your assessment in your first paragraph isn't accurate because you don't know how Yale uses its money. I could go on and on about this but I won't. And the people I "pounce" on are generally Stanford students who harp on the same things. </p>

<p>We definitely have different definitions of the word "Joker," which I suppose is fine. I could call Stanford a joker for its comparatively weak student body in terms of SAT/GPA, and I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate that. But I suppose I'm done with this conversation as well.</p>

91

<p>LOL @ the rankings</p>

92

<p>
[quote]
I could call Stanford a joker for its comparatively weak student body in terms of SAT/GPA

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Weaker in numbers? I suppose (though this year average SAT was something around 2180). Overall selectivity? Nope. Yale's acceptance rate was probably even slightly higher once you account for those it accepted from the waitlist.</p>

93

<p>barrons, I am not presenting an opinion because I am unhappy with the rankings, my university is in the top 15 (and was in the top 10 last year) so I'm not at all offended by these rankings. I'm just criticizing the methodology and I think if people looked more carefully at the data they might draw the same conclusions. I think one can make very good arguments for why these are not accurate rankings, forgetting the fact that the numbers don't add up properly (which is apparently also a problem with the THES).</p>

94

<p>flyzeggs,</p>

<p>what numbers didn't add up for Shanghi ranking? I have much stronger belief in this one than in THES. The people who created THES ranking did not know simple math. That is for sure.</p>

95

<p>SpringerLink</a> - Journal Article</p>

96

<p>flyzeggs,</p>

<p>how can your university be in the top 15 this year and top 10 last year when the top 10 hasn't changed?!?!?</p>

97

<p>I made a mistake, somehow I thought it was in the top 10 last year when in fact it was ranked lower, Top 15 both years, sorry.</p>

<p>I'm not a big fan of international rankings, but I'd say the HEEACT is a bit more accurate (just a bit, as an objective scientific research ranking) than these really flawed Shanghai ones. And it brings my university 6 points down, so I'm being as genuine and unbiased as I can be. ;)</p>

98

<p>I think I discussed the HEEACT with you in a previous thread. It's okay, but I don't know if it's any better than THES or Shanghai...ok maybe better than THES, but it only ranks on scientific papers and science isn't everything. My undergrad university ranks in the top 10 in HEEACT because it's good at science, but it's definitely not a top 10 university overall. Our current universities are neighbors on the HEEACT btw.</p>

99

<p>Yale is what it is. A top school that's lacking in certain areas. Some no longer feels it deserves the prestige its name carries.</p>

100

<p>And you think that Penn State is above Cal Tech in HEEACT is fair?</p>