<p>ewho, don't forget Princeton? ;)</p>
<p>Honestly I don't like any of these and I don't believe any is terribly accurate. I prefer HEEACT's methodology, yes! But actually less so than THES as a comprehensive ranking</p>
<p>Thirty years from now, if there happens to be 10 Nobel Prize winners who had all graduated from Penn State in 2008...</p>
<p>then you'll know it was fair.</p>
<p>Unless you are Ezra Pound. Then you'll know that awards are jokes. Even the Nobel Prize is a joke.</p>
<p>I think I should clarify, I never said awards or the Nobel Prize are "jokes", they are absolutely not! It's Shanghai's measurement of awards that's the joke. Unfortunately even if there were 10 graduates from Penn State winning the Nobel Prize they would still get a 0 score (for the huge 20% category, unless they were a part of their faculty at the time of receiving the award). I don't dislike Penn State, it's just the example I used for a very big state university.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yale is what it is. A top school that's lacking in certain areas.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Don't worry, significant funding is being used to improve engineering/science (although science is already strong). Unfortunately, due to the static nature of peer reviews, it will take awhile before significant improvements are actually visible in domestic graduate rankings (PA). Although, the only area that's really lacking is engineering...</p>
<p>Anyways, in an attempt to be on topic, international rankings are almost always going to be unreliable. The university in charge of the SJ rankings obviously used criteria that suited its own interests (someone provided evidence a few pages ago). Now there's evidence that the rankings aren't even calculated accurately. Why we care about attempts at ranking international universities -- when schools have different missions and different countries have different educational values -- will never cease to baffle me.</p>
<p>Why was this moved?? Seems very arbitrary. Foul!</p>
<p>^^ Haha, I think it's very fitting. These definitely aren't undergrad rankings...</p>
<p>Sure they are for universities. Why do you say that? Does not the quality of the faculty count for undergrads too?? Is the international academic reputation not important in the global economy?</p>
<p>Where does the "College Search and Selection" forum state it's for "undergrad discussions" exclusively?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sure they are for universities. Why do you say that? Does not the quality of the faculty count for undergrads too?? Is the international academic reputation not important in the global economy?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes graduate faculty count for undergrads, but graduate rankings are a lot more straightforward. Check out the 15 most prestigious universities forum and somewhere in there Svalbardlutefisk and I made comments on how graduate/research strength is one of very many factors influencing undergraduate education. I really don't feel like discussing this one again...</p>
<p>I think the international academic reputation is important somewhat, so perhaps I misspoke. What I was getting at is that most attempts at international rankings will reflect the bias/interests/educational values of the country that performs the rankings (in terms of what criteria and weightings they select). Just look at the difference between THES (UK) and JS (China). To get an accurate perception of international reputation, I think you would need independent rankings from numerous countries around the world. I guess this ranking reflects Asian interests. That's just IMHO, I'm not looking for another debate at the moment.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Where does the "College Search and Selection" forum state it's for "undergrad discussions" exclusively?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My guess is that the word "College," as opposed to "University," inherently implies undergrad.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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. (post #87)
[/quote]
They did count alumni Nobel winners. Could you give specific examples of alumni winners being left out?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The other problem is they simply don't account for a university's size...
[/quote]
It's true that the SJTU ranking favors universities with affiliated medical schools. However, despite the large difference in undergrad population, the number of faculty at top research universities are roughly the same. For example:</p>
<p>UC-Berkeley: 1,723
Duke: 1,659
Wisconsin: 2,054</p>
<p>Tenure-track Math professors
Penn State - 57
Princeton - 41
Chicago - 39</p>
<p>There are 2 ranks for the Nobel prize, one is worth only 10%, that one accounts for alumni, the larger 20% one doesn't. A 0 on this really affects a university's ranking (there are universities who are competitive in almost every category but end up losing big time because of this (and not because they never had Nobel laureates), even very small differences mean a lot in these rankings once you get passed the top 20 or so), I think if they want to award a university for Nobel laureates they should award the institution where the Nobel winning research took place, more than anything.</p>
<p>Are you trying to say student pop. does not contribute to research output?
Answer this question and I will respond later.</p>
<p>The size of some public univ labs, their concentration on more soluton driven as opposed to fundemental science research all play a very important role. And it's perhaps one of the reasons why Princeton was ranked #48 in the HEEACT behind many other public univ.s.</p>
<p>I'll be on again tomorrow.</p>
<p>Academic Ranking of World Univ. 2008 is out!!
Shanghai Jiao Tong University published its ranking of world Top 500 universities on 15/8/2008.
Harvard is again the No. 1 in the world, ANU ranked 59 in the world & No. 1 in Australia.</p>
<p>1 Harvard Univ
2 Stanford Univ
3 Univ California - Berkeley
4 Univ Cambridge
5 Massachusetts Inst Tech (MIT)
6 California Inst Tech
7 Columbia Univ
8 Princeton Univ
9 Univ Chicago
10 Univ Oxford
11 Yale U
12 Cornell U
13 U California - Los Angeles
14 U California - San Diego
15 U Pennsylvania
16 U Washington - Seattle
17 U Wisconsin - Madison
18 U California - San Francisco
19 Tokyo U
20 Johns Hopkins U
From:
Link to blog deleted</p>
<p>haha..</p>
<p>Bescraze is going to freak out when he(she?) sees this</p>
<p>^standing by with a sudden cardiac arrest tool kit. ;)</p>
<p>I do so hope I'll get in to that abroad program at Kyoto University.</p>
<p>list looks good to me.</p>
<p>What could be better? Maybe they have the wrong UW higher? But we'll take it and try harder next year.</p>
<p>I love how this thread got moved and added to the bottom of the pile...:rolleyes:</p>
<p>There isn't even a direct link to this forum.</p>
<p>To me, it looks better than USNWR which consistently ****s on public schools.</p>