<p>
This has ALWAYS been the case.</p>
<p>There is no empirical or halfway objective means to measure strength in the humanities. Professionals do not take such rankings seriously, thus the popularity of LACs. Furthermore, any such ranking is pungently stinking of Western bias. </p>
<p>Culture is not an international phenomenon! No one cares what a self-absorbed Oxford scholar thinks about Hamlet!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well spoken. Rankings based on humanities is heavily dependent on cultural biases. The fact that for example University of Tokyo does not spend all its time focussing on western philosophy or Homer, Kafka and the rest does not make it any less better than its western counterparts. Even studies like International relations and political theory are heavily based on the idealism of a country. </p>
<p>Now Science, engineering and to some degree economics are of a more purer quality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Errm this does not tell us about quality</p>
<p>Hmm, we’ve hit on a subtheme here.</p>
<p>to the extent that a person views scientfic discovery as more “academic”, or even dare we say, more useful than the humanities, </p>
<p>Cambridge trumps Oxford
Stanford trumps Oxford
Harvard and Princeton trump Yale</p>
<p>these are value judgements. Function vs. form; Utility vs. beauty.</p>
<p>I have a technology friend who left Silicon Valley some 12 years ago because ultimately he couldn’t stomach a Valley 80-90% populated with workers who did not have, nor cared to have, a single conversation over lunch about art, literature, philosophy, politics, religion, sporting events, or current events. In his view these people were more machine than human, laboratory mice in a maze of 1s and 0s, with lives devoid of meaning.</p>
<p>^ Not really- just that humanities has to do . . .with studying human behavior which kind of varies across cultures. One perspective is not greater than another. A professor in American political theory should not be given precedence over colleagues who study politics base don their region</p>
<p>Humanities are valuable and obviously have an important place in society. But it is a lot less homogenous than science, and as SentimentGX4 and Sefago have said, varies a lot by culture/ideology/geography. On the other hand, we have a lot of data in the sciences (citations, etc.) that is far more objective than that available in the humanities. So if we wish to really compare the academic output of a university, then naturally it would be easier to focus on the sciences.</p>
<p>And in the sciences, I’d have to give the edge to Stanford. The gap probably isn’t so great that Oxford will “pale in comparison”, but there are like at least 10 universities that separate the two. Now, warblersrule86, is there objective data, other than hearsay, on which you can base your claim that Stanford pales in comparison to Oxford in the humanities?</p>
<p>
“Errm” the thread is about prestige, not quality. </p>
<p>Which of these universities do you think is the more prestigious?</p>
<p>Prestige is not necessarily the same as quality. Take Stanford and Harvard, for example. Most programs at Stanford are as good as those at Harvard, if not better…yet nobody would place it on the same level nor will do so in the foreseeable future.</p>
<p>
I may not care what a Chinese scholar thinks about the unusual reproductive cycles of a bamboo, but that doesn’t make it “less better” than any other discipline. </p>
<p>Culture is not an international phenomenon? Are you suggesting other cultures do not have art, philosophy, literature, and religion? Are American universities the only ones to study such things? If there is “Western bias” to be had - indeed, bias in general - I don’t think it’s in my camp.</p>
<p>Take my primary discipline, for example (archaeology). Universities tend to focus on their own disciplines (American universities on the Southwest/Mesoamerica, UK universities on Britain, Asian universities on China, Middle Eastern universities on Israel/Iraq, etc.), but nevertheless it’s a subject usually covered at reputable universities. Of course, universities do not only study those areas. Egyptology, for example, is taught on every single continent except Antarctica (in Uruguay, Japan, South Africa, Bulgaria, and New Zealand, to name but a few). </p>
<p>I’d love to know the empirical measures of science rankings that make them radically different from the humanities rankings. (As a science/humanities double major, I keep a foot in both camps.) Perhaps it is publications…nope, they have those in the humanities as well. Perhaps it is awards…nope, they have those in the humanities as well. Perhaps it is patents…that could work but seems limited. Help me out, people!</p>
<p>warblersrule86:</p>
<p>Are the humanities as focused on citations as the sciences? How do publications like books factor in?</p>
<p>
Another problem is not whether we should value humanities or not, but whether the humanities is “academic” at all!</p>
<p>Dozens and dozens of talented authors and artists wake up one morning and write their inspired works without ever setting foot on a university. What does that speak for the value of a university education?</p>
<p>The only part of humanities which is remotely “academic” revolves around history, reading and piecing together the past. I’m not sure how important this very minor aspect of academia should be to rankings.</p>
<p>I can tell you with absolute confidence</p>
<p>that Oxford beats Stanford BY FAR in terms of international prestige</p>
<p>if you’ve ever lived outside of the United States, you would know…</p>
<p>Impetuous: Not many people will put things in such absolute terms. I’m curious as to what the basis for your claim is. If you look at the UK student forums, most of the Brits readily admit that HYPSM are equal to Oxbridge if not better…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s like saying we make babies and cook food without setting foot on campus, so we have no need of biology or chemistry. </p>
<p>There is a significant difference between authors/artists and scholars in the humanities. The former create; the latter study. A professor of religion does not preach, a professor of art history does not paint, and a professor of music theory/history does not perform in Carnegie Hall. </p>
<p>
If you’re referring to rankings, I haven’t the faintest idea. If you’re referring to academia, they are of course extremely important. As with any field of academia, it’s publish or perish in the humanities.</p>
<p>To give you some idea, the literature review portion alone (i.e. going over previous publications referencing the topic) of a humanities publication is typically longer than many science articles. It’s not unusual for many books, particularly the more detailed ones, to have about 3 times as much material in footnotes as in the text itself. Additionally, students in the humanities are trained to read research languages (e.g. German, French, Russian, Japanese, what have you) so that they can read publications done by scholars in other parts of the world, something atypical of science programs. This is on top of the primary languages one learns for the discipline, whatever those might be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Duh . . . because the humanities is bull crap. Its usually regurgitating stuff that has already been done previously. If you do science you are doing real research not reviewing the work of your peers. In alll the humanities papers (I have read quite a lot in my college days), I have encountered from Art history, Psychology, Classics, Sociology to Comparative Literature and philosophy have seemed less academic than pure hard science. In English, professors could spend time on a whole publication discussing subjective theories of what an author wrote about a book, and perform some pseudoanalysis on stuff that is entirely dependent on the perspective of the academic. The academic would cite tons of sources (which most people rarely reference anyways) to construct his argument, but most times it involves the academic looking for “fit”- articles that fit the argument of the academic.</p>
<p>Like one can write at least 80 different papers on ones “interpretation of Hamlet” and have colleagues write over 80 different responses- in support or against- ones piece, which would be arduously published in the name of “academia” but that does not change the fact that research in most of the humanities is usually subjective crap.</p>
<p>That’s not Academia that is fake-ademia. Massive production does not suggest quality production.</p>
<p>I have NEVER heard of Oxford mentioned outside the context of CC. And even on this board nobody seems to have any reason to think it’s better than US Universities. I haven’t seen it to be the case that international students prefer to study in England over the US. </p>
<p>I agree with the poster that said that some Americans tend to romanticize Europe with no basis for their argument.</p>
<p>Because it’s true, I’ll just reiterate what others have said: in the US, Stanford passes Oxford in prestige. Overseas, however, Oxford surpasses Stanford.</p>
<p>My foreign friends tell me that this obsession with college prestige is pretty much just an American thing. I don’t know how true or false that is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very very true lol.</p>
<p>Haha I think kids everywhere are obsessed with college prestige. In England almost every reputable paper puts out their own university league tables, and there are even rankings for high schools. They don’t argue as much as we do here on CC because their hierarchy is quite set in stone. And since they apply to specific majors they place more emphasis on subject rather than overall prestige, so the debates are more precise and there’s less BS like MIT >>> Harvard because H’s engineering sucks!! </p>
<p>I hear that the French have to take extremely competitive prep courses to get into the Grandes Ecoles, and don’t get me started on how prestige-conscious the Asians are…</p>
<p>“1) Oxford
2) Cambridge, Harvard
3) Stanford, Berkeley (yeah, believe it or not Berkley is very well regarded internationally)
4) Yale, Princeton”</p>
<p>From what I’ve seen and heard, it goes something like this:
<p>Completely agree with Tyler09. Top international students always believe American universities are superior to British ones (and top of the Ivy League superior to Oxbridge, since they consider the Ivy League as a whole equivalent to Oxbridge), I would say over 90% of students at UWC chose Stanford over Oxford; the 10% that chose Oxford because it’s cheaper.</p>
<p>“Overseas, however, Oxford surpasses Stanford.”
Stanford passes Oxford by a mile both in the US and abroad. Oxford is the past, while Stanford is the future, and in the US.</p>
<p>Sefago, your attack on the humanities is baseless and your bias in favour of the US is astonishing. In virtually every post of yours I read you try to belittle foreign universities and undermine their strengths. Not so long ago your location was set as “in European hell”, so you’ll excuse me if I dismiss your posts as biased and self interested ■■■■■■■■ until you can show even the tiniest amount of impartiality.</p>
<p>I’m not sure when this thread turned from a discussion on domestic and international prestige to a squabble over quality (which has nothing to do with prestige) or the worthiness of certain academic disciplines, but can we please revert back to the original thread topic?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all, I was pointing out that humanities does not give a clear cut idea of quality across board because of its subjectivity and biases. So more appropriate ways of considering universities would be focused on their research prowess in science and engineering. I know enough about humanities, having read lots of humanities publications to form my own opinions about it (a very generalized opinion I know). Nevertheless, Politics is different everywhere, literature is different everywhere, sociology is different everywhere. For example how would you compare Stanford law (American law) with Oxford law (British common law).</p>
<p>So we have not deviated too much from the topic. I would assume you study the humanities, and any analysis you do starts first with laying the framework for your argument. The first one of mine being that research that is minutely free of western bias is a better way of gauging a university across countries. Having shown this, I can now confidently say that Stanford>Oxford in terms of departmental strength. I cannot gauge undergraduate strength much because this impossible. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope, you are wrong. I am just arguing against preconceptions. I think the only university system I have discussed indepth is that of British Universities. I think a large majority of them are a waste of money for non-EU international students. And no, I don’t think the US is a better alternative. I also think they are less selective and badly run. </p>
<p>I have not undermined there strengths since they have no strengths that I am aware off. Depth can be found in every single country outside of North America and even in Canada. You are more likely to find depth at IIT than anywhere but if I tell a Brit that IIT is better than UCL for example they would not accept this. But they would pull the same spin when comparing to schools in North America.</p>
<p>This has nothing to do with a US bias but an interest in academia. I have not discussed any other foreign university systems because I dont know much about them. </p>
<p>I think you also operate under the assumption that most of us are ignorant about other universities and that you know it all. You would be surprised how informed my opinion is.</p>
<p>You appear to be arguing that humanities should not the recognised or considered when forming any type of university ranking or measuring prestige, because they are subjective? I hope not anyway, because science and the humanities are if nothing else manifestations of the same thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You aren’t arguing against preconceptions, you’re reaffirming them. Especially anti-European ones. The difference between you and me is that you could, and do quite often say things like IIT is better than UCL, probably with little to no knowledge or experience of either. I wouldn’t be so foolish to judge, let alone compare them without first experiencing them both.</p>
<p>I do not operate under any such assumption; I have no experience of American universities and do not profess to comment on their respective strengths and weaknesses other than to engage in basic discussions on issues like educational models (such as the liberal arts). You may well have been to Europe, or even studied there, but I very much doubt you are qualified to pass the judgements you do on multiple British universities, or the countries higher education model which you seem to hold in such contempt. Your statement that British universities have no strengths is confirmation for all that I have said about you.</p>