<p>Based on objective measure of productivity, Stanford ranking slips a little recently. Here is the faculty paper impact ranking (Performance</a> Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities). Now, Stanford lags behind two Asian upstars Tsinghua and National University of Singapore. Initially, I thought the ranking being an error. But I checked Reuter Thompson 'Science Web' and did my calculation. The ranking is accurate. Based on the trajectory, I suspect that Tsinghua may overtake MIT and UCB in five years, because it is already top in the number of articles in high impact journals in the last 2 years.</p>
<p>^ Yawn, bigfatwhite. You can find a ranking to satisfy any preference or agenda these days, it seems. That one is the view of a higher ed council in Taiwan; this one, e.g., is the view of US News and World Report for 2011: [World’s</a> Best Universities: Engineering and IT - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/worlds-best-universities/articles/2010/09/21/worlds-best-universities-engineering-and-it-]World’s”>http://www.usnews.com/education/worlds-best-universities/articles/2010/09/21/worlds-best-universities-engineering-and-it-)
People can, and do, also argue ad nauseum about the methodology and validity of these things. Taken individually, at least, they don’t have much value as a college or grad school selection tool.</p>
<p>Stanford is hiding all their inventions and patenting them instead of publishing them.</p>
<p>The QS ranking is largely perception. It could be illusion as well. The objective evaluation carries more weight. No matter how you defend Stanford, its overall productivity does lag, probably because of smaller size. Size does matter. Please look at Harvard Medical school: It is five time the size of Stanford university in terms of faculty number and is unquestionable Number 1 in its field.</p>
<p>Good one, texaspg! LOL</p>
<p>Whatever you say, bigfat. And thanks for joining CC just to let us know that size matters!</p>
<p>According to AWRU 2010 ranking (<a href=“http://www.arwu.org/FieldENG2010.jsp[/url]”>http://www.arwu.org/FieldENG2010.jsp</a>), Stanford is 2nd, behind MIT. Stanford beats MIT in HiCi (# highly Cited scholars) and in TOP (# papers published in top journals), but lost to MIT in PUB (total publications) and in Fund (total fund). Clearly, MIT wins by its size. But Stanford looks like more “elite”.</p>
<p>Academic Ranking of World Universities in Engineering/Technology and Computer Sciences - 2010
World
Rank Institution Country Total
Score Score on
HiCi PUB TOP Fund<br>
1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 100.0 90.9 76.7 95.4 100.0<br>
2 Stanford University 94.6 100.0 64.7 97.3 81.2<br>
3 University of California, Berkeley 86.1 71.1 70.8 92.6 77.9<br>
4 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 84.2 58.1 70.3 88.9 88.3<br>
5 Georgia Institute of Technology 82.5 36.7 80.2 84.3 98.3<br>
6 The University of Texas at Austin 81.8 67.5 63.1 85.5 80.8<br>
7 University of Michigan - Ann Arbor 80.8 56.6 68.1 89.9 78.5<br>
8 Carnegie Mellon University 79.3 48.6 54.2 87.3 97.6<br>
9 Pennsylvania State University - University Park 78.1 63.6 65.2 85.6 69.0<br>
10 University of California, San Diego 76.8 62.3 55.5 90.1 70.8<br>
10 University of Southern California 76.8 60.9 51.0 88.8 78.1<br>
12 Northwestern University 75.6 63.6 51.7 95.4 63.6<br>
13 Purdue University - West Lafayette 75.4 46.8 67.4 82.5 77.0<br>
13 University of Maryland, College Park 75.4 55.1 58.7 83.9 76.1<br>
15 University of California, Santa Barbara 73.9 73.8 46.4 100.0 48.1<br>
16 University of Cambridge 73.6 50.3 63.1 86.9<br>
17 Cornell University 72.9 53.0 49.5 94.0 68.0<br>
18 California Institute of Technology 72.2 67.0 48.9 95.5 50.6<br>
19 University of Toronto 72.0 56.6 63.4 83.9 57.4<br>
20 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Lausanne 71.5 46.8 61.7 86.1</p>
<p>Haha, right, bigfatwhite. This is a classic case of a country overrating its regional universities in a fit of ‘regionalism’ (akin to nationalism). Notice how many Asian universities make the top 10 or top 20, when they wouldn’t in any other ranking: ARWU (another ranking from Asia) has 2 Asian universities in the top 20, while yours has 8.</p>
<p>Before you say that’s what the rankings of Stanford do, just check the international, non-US-affiliated ARWU rankings, THE rankings, QS rankings, among others… Those all corroborate the data from the NRC rankings, the citation rankings from Chronicle… and all of them point to Stanford (#1-2) being leaps and bounds ahead of Tsinghua and National U of Singapore.</p>
<p>No matter how much you defend your ranking, nobody takes it seriously, not even in the academic world. ;)</p>
<p>Now, another AWRU ranking in computer science (2010).</p>
<p>[ARWU</a> in Computer Science - 2010](<a href=“http://www.arwu.org/SubjectCS2010.jsp]ARWU”>http://www.arwu.org/SubjectCS2010.jsp)</p>
<p>Stanford is #1. MIT is #2. Stanford beats MIT in alumni (alumni who have won Turing awards), in HiCi (# of highly cited scholars), and in TOP (# papers in top journals). MIT beats Stanford in award (a score based on faculty winning Turing awards) and PUB (total publications).</p>
<p>Again, MIT wins in size. Stanford wins in quality (RELATIVELY SPEAKING)
Academic Ranking of World Universities in Computer Science - 2010
World
Rank Institution Country Total
Score Score on
Alumni Award HiCi PUB TOP<br>
1 Stanford University 100.0 90.7 86.6 100.0 80.9 97.9<br>
2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 94.8 54.2 100.0 89.2 87.8 89.3<br>
3 University of California, Berkeley 82.7 100.0 96.8 42.9 76.7 86.1<br>
4 Princeton University 78.7 68.6 71.8 60.6 63.0 94.7<br>
5 Carnegie Mellon University 76.4 42.0 79.1 55.3 85.4 75.4<br>
6 Cornell University 67.9 42.0 57.3 55.3 57.3 85.5<br>
7 University of Southern California 66.6 0.0 39.5 65.5 68.4 86.8<br>
8 The University of Texas at Austin 66.3 42.0 39.5 55.3 70.4 77.2<br>
9 Harvard University 65.6 97.0 0.0 42.9 65.5 93.7<br>
10 University of Toronto 65.5 24.3 53.0 49.5 71.1 78.3<br>
11 California Institute of Technology 63.0 59.4 0.0 60.6 46.8 100.0<br>
12 Weizmann Institute of Science 62.8 54.2 72.9 49.5 37.0 78.6<br>
13 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 62.5 42.0 0.0 49.5 81.7 81.5<br>
14 University of Maryland, College Park 61.9 0.0 0.0 60.6 81.5 84.9<br>
15 Technion-Israel Institute of Technology 61.1 34.3 0.0 49.5 76.7 84.3<br>
16 University of California, San Diego 58.5 0.0 0.0 65.5 68.0 81.3<br>
17 University of Oxford 57.5 24.3 53.0 42.9 60.0 66.6<br>
18 University of Michigan - Ann Arbor 57.4 54.2 0.0 49.5 63.5 76.2<br>
19 Purdue University - West Lafayette 56.6 0.0 0.0 49.5 82.7 75.4<br>
20 Columbia University 56.2 0.0</p>
<p>Klystron (the foundation of radar)
spy satelite
GPS
laser (stanford graduate Maiman invented the 1st workable laser)
Carbon dioxide laser
computer controled robot arm
DNA splicing
atomic clock
micro processor
Google
multiprotocol internet router
expert system
birth control pill
satelite dish
SUN work station
DSL broadband internet connection
digital music synthesis
56k modem
cryptography
Stanley (the driverless car)
TEX (The Latex is built upon TEX)
microsoft word
SQL
matlab
optogenetics
internet protocol (TCP/IP)
fluorescence-activated cell sorter </p>
<p>If Stanford is declining in engineering, which universities dare to say they are not declining?</p>
<p>Guys, it appears that Stanford people is obsessed with MIT. My point in the post is that Tsinghua and other asian universities are overtaking top US engineering schools, including Stanford, UCB and MIT. The Shanghai ranking is very generous in categorizing “top” journals (top 25%). Those journals are not elite journals, merely solid regular journals. The Taiwan criteria are a lot more stringent (top 5%). When using top 5% as criteria, Stanford not only lags behind MIT, UCB, Georgia Tech, but also other top Asian universities as well. In the highly cited papers category, Stanford is merely solid, but not outstanding. Another flaw in Shanghai ranking is counting the highly cited researchers from Thompson’s websites. Many of those highly cited people have retired, left, or even deceased, but still listed in the website. Shanghai ranking is more of a reflection of historical strength.</p>
<p>There is no denying that Stanford made a lot of contribution to science and engineering in the past. But the world is not standing still. This time, the wave is coming from Asia. It is just the beginning.</p>
<p>bigfat, as it was easy to predict, you’re electing to ignore the great preponderance of data to focus on a single data point (of debatable significance) because it happens to suit your agenda. Of course China and some other Asian nations are on the rise, but at this time there’s no meaningful basis to declare that any of the top US engineering programs have “declined” in relation to them. (And Chinese students in particular continue to storm the gates of Stanford’s engineering programs, as well as those of its US peers, in unprecedented numbers, so it looks like they didn’t get your memo.) The real story in coming years is going to be increased collaboration between top US and Asian engineering schools anyway, since they’ll have to join forces to solve crucial problems and share human resources and capital to do so. But again, thanks so much for joining CC just to clue us in that the world isn’t standing still–we’ll have to make sure that newsflash makes it into the Daily. Buh-bye.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Haha, best post ever! :D</p>