<p>At the very least Shanghai-Jiaotong is a better ranking than THES. Just look at how many UK schools THES placed in top 20.</p>
<p>THES was laughable. Agree fully.</p>
<p>The new Times rankings are out: </p>
<p>QS</a> Top Universities: Top 200 universities in the THE - QS World University Rankings 2008</p>
<p>University College London is no. 7 while Stanford University is 17, just marginally beaten by the mighty Australian National University. </p>
<p>Right.</p>
<p>ANU is an excellent university! Stanford should be higher though. No rankings are perfect and if you go over to the student room then you'll see plenty of people who agree with the rankings. They aren't bad just because you don't agree with them.</p>
<p>I am sure ANU is a great university. In its country. Ranking it higher than Stanford either shows a complete lack of the reality, or if it is indeed accurate then a senseless adherence to some arcane measurement criteria that demonstrate an utter disregard of reality or global perceptions. </p>
<p>Goes without saying that all these univs in the Top 100 are commendable, but the very purpose of a ranking is to order these schools in a list that reflects the real world. These are the "Times" rankings, which is why "UCL" is above Princeton. Sure. I bet I'd love to send my kids to UCL if he were also accepted at Princeton. His global prospects would be tremendous after UCL. </p>
<p>It's clear where the funding of this "study" came from. UK and Australia don't show up in technicolor by chance, and certainly not by deserved clout.</p>
<p>I posted this on another trend, but it's relevant here:</p>
<p>The Staff/student ratio and International staff/students criteria makes no sense to me as an indicator of research quality (not quality of education). Number of students per professors has nothing to do with research; and you go for the best in the field (students or professors), and I think that's independent from nationality. </p>
<p>For example: Australian National University scores 74 on Citation/Staff but 82 on staff/student ratio and highs of 99 and 91 on International staff and students; Berkeley has full marks on Citation/Staff but a horrendous 24 for staff/student ratio and a dismal 36 for international students (it is a public), while a 88 for international staff. The result? ANU is 16 while Berkeley is 36. Berkeley's research not as good as ANU?</p>
<p>research in both social science and natural science are weighted high, which is why University of Chicago is so high. The effective size not the real size matter, which is why Caltech rank so high. The Chinese pay a lot attention to the foundamental role of a univesity: learning and discovery!
I turn to like the Shanghai ranking better than the US News and World report ranking which is based on the polling and polling is influenced by how many journalists are promoting the schools.</p>
<p>FYI, Wisconsin has been ranked in the top 10 since 1925…(i have copies of the assesments if anyone wants them), in fact, the average ranking for US schools from 1925-1995 is:</p>
<p>1) Berkeley
2) Harvard
3) Stanford
4) Wisconsin
5) Chicago
6) Michigan
7)MIT
8)Columbia
9)Yale
10)Princeton</p>
<p>Wisconsin will dropp out of the top 10 this year (in the NRC ranking) because of state cuts, but being #15 in the US is still pretty good. also when the NRC comes out with its rankings in a few months, it will mirror this rankings…you will see UCSD and UCLA ranked very high… and Duke, Northwestern, Washington Univ. ranked way below them. Nobody ever looks at the historical facts of these schools.
I am always surprised that people don’t know how good some of the state universities are…Univ of Washington was ranked #16 by the National Research Council in 1993 and it will be coming out with its lastest report…It is, along with the ARWU, the bible of college rankings…you people have been taking the US news rankings seriously, the problem with it is the methodology for calculating the “academic reputation” score in their report…Instead of asking heads of departments for their opinion of schools, they ask “deans of admission” who know nothing about a school’s quality.</p>
<p>Yes, you are correct, Wisconsin gets more funding than any other US school.</p>
<p>This is the most accurate rankings that I have seen, they mirror the National Research Council rankings from 1993 and will have a new ranking in a few months…people have been taking US News seriously…as I have posted before, Wisconsin has been in the top 10 since 1925, so this is actually is drop in rankings for them…and this is an assessment of the whole faculty at a school</p>
<p>This is the rankings from the 1993 National Research Council Report and you see how similar they are to the ARWU rankings.
1.Berkeley
2. MIT
3. Harvard
4. Princeton
5 Stanford
6. Caltech
7. Chicago
8. Yale
9. Cornell
10UCSD
11Columbia
12.Wisconsin
13.UCLA
14.Michigan
15.Penn
16.Texas
17. Univ. of Washington
18. Illinois
19. Duke
20. Minnesota
21. Northwestern
22. Johns Hopkins
23. Purdue
24. UC Irvine
25. Brown
26. North Carolina
27.NYU
29. Carnegie Mellon
30. Virginia
31. Rochester
32. Emory
33. Washington Univ.
34. Brandeis
35. Penn State
36.Rice
37. SUNY Stonybrook
38. Ohio State
39. North Carolina State
40. Indiana</p>
<p>I would encourage students to look at this 1993 National Research Councils rankings of all major academic departments…this should be considered the bible, it was published by Texas AM university recently and it should be very helpful to all undergrad and grad students…the NRC will publish their next rankings in a few months.</p>
<p>[NRC</a> Rankings in Each of 41 Areas](<a href=“http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/nrc_rankings/nrc41.html]NRC”>NRC Rankings in Each of 41 Areas)</p>
<p>hugginduff> You’re pulling threads back from the dead.</p>
<p>just noticed the date…</p>
<p>^ But for some reason, I really don’t mind hugginduff’s posts… :)</p>
<p>“the NRC will publish their next rankings in a few months.”</p>
<p>been hearing that for years.</p>
<p>As one who has lived all over the world, I find this ranking service the closest to the real deal. Not perfect, but very good and free of fluff-factoring.
American students often focus on non-academic factors, such as how nice the dorms are, or how pretty the campus. And oh, the parties. That.
And many Americans see no value in attending a school that goes beyond four year/first degree, never even thinking about taking graduate courses while still in college. The popularity of LACs, vs. their absence here, showes the difference in the way others outside this our country think about it.</p>
<p>Going to university is first (maybe not only, but FIRST) an academic endeavor.</p>
<p>If you are looking to “major in beer,” like the son of the Crazy U author, stick to USNWR.</p>
<p>Sorry to be so harsh. Not my normal style. But DS is a senior and I am aghast not so much at his class mates as their parents, and the things they consider when talking about their own private rankings. Thankfully, much greater sanity prevails for those who continue to grad school. I think they come back to THIS ranking.</p>
<p>This is interesting stuff! Any updates?</p>
<p>2011 rankings released today.</p>
<p>My post ^ (#137) still stands.</p>
<p>thanks i will go check it out since u all really like it :)</p>