<p>US dominates top level.</p>
<p>World</a> University Rankings 2013-2014 - Times Higher Education</p>
<p>It’s interesting that the number one school on that list isn’t really a university.</p>
<p>Based 60% on research.</p>
<p>We only know what we know via research. It is the foundation of knowledge.</p>
<p>Once again, a stunning underperformance by Germany.</p>
<p>Isn’t really a university??? Have you been there? It sure is… Yes, it’s small, but more of a university than many other schools with “university” in their name.</p>
<p>
I think he referring to the limited fields of study available.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It wouldn’t be appropriate to call it a college either as most colleges have nowhere near that level of research funding.</p>
<p>Maybe we should call it a liberal STEM college? ;-)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Rule of thumb I’ve seen commonly used to differentiate between a college or university here in the US is to inquire whether the institution only offers bachelor degrees or a limited subset of MA/MS degrees in a heavily undergrad teaching centered institution(i.e. Oberlin College offering some MAs in the conservatory) or offers a comprehensive set of research-oriented graduate programs/degrees…especially professional/advanced graduate degrees.</p>
<p>On that score…Caltech definitely qualifies as a university…albeit one with some LAC characteristics like UChicago or Princeton.</p>
<p>A few things explain Caltech’s standing: 33% of the score is based on two surveys, one regarding academic quality and the other teaching quality. The objective indicators are all, as the explanatory article says, “scaled against staff numbers,” so that consistency of excellence is greatly rewarded and breadth of faculty expertise not deemed that important. So of course Caltech is going to show well.</p>
<p>I’m not sure how well known Caltech is for its teaching quality. At least, if we’re talking about the quality of lectures and not the sheer amount of information students are expected to understand.</p>
<p>Strong showing for Big Ten/CIC: Chicago #9, Michigan #18, Northwestern #22, Illinois #29, Wisconsin #30, Minnesota #46, Penn State #49, Ohio State #59, Purdue #62, Michigan State #83. #132 Indiana, #161 Iowa, and #251-275 Nebraska drag down the average a bit, but still, 10 schools in the top 83 globally isn’t bad.</p>
<p>The PAC-12 bifurcates high and low: #4 Stanford, #8 UC Berkeley, #12 UCLA, and #25 Washington are stellar, but from there it’s a big drop to #70 USC, #97 Colorado, #103 Arizona, #143 Utah, #146 Arizona State, #301-350 Oregon State, #301-350 Washington State. Unless I’m missing it, Oregon appears not to be in the top 400.</p>
<p>The ACC didn’t fare well apart from #17 Duke and #28 Georgia Tech. Not so much trans-Atlantic love for #46 UNC Chapel Hill and #78 Pitt; even less for #90 Notre Dame, #112 UVA, #135 Boston College, #180 Wake Forest, #185 Miami, #276-300 Va Tech. And unless I’m missing something, schools like Syracuse, NC State, Clemson, and Florida State didn’t make the top 400. #108 Maryland leaves the ACC for the Big Ten next year, which will bring down both conferences’ average.</p>
<p>The SEC gets no love at all: #88 Vanderbilt, #128 Florida, #159 Texas A&M, #251-275 South Carolina, #276-300 Georgia, and #301-350 Missouri are the only SEC schools in the top 400 (unless I’m missing some). Absent are a majority of the conference: Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Arkansas, and LSU.</p>
<p>I disagree with The University of Chicago being ranked higher than Yale, UCLA being ranked higher than Columbia, and Johns Hopkins being ranked higher than Penn and Duke. Other than that, this ranking looks spot on if we are rating universities based on academic strength and research output.</p>
<p>Can anyone who is familiar with British universities corroborate Imperial being ranked higher than half of the Ivy League?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Higher than six out of eight! It’s for the same reason CalTech and MIT are ranked so high - totally relentless well-funded research powerhouse. It was basically purpose-built for rankings like this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow, on your third point, I’m really torn between my dislike of Hopkins and my dislike of Penn and Duke. :-)</p>
<p>I’m not sure why goldenboy thinks Duke and Penn should be ranked higher than Hopkins but JHU is the biggest research powerhouse among the 3 and gets more funding than both schools (sure Duke comes in at a close second).</p>
<p>Chicago just sits quietly and theorizes…</p>
<p>Stanford is the only school on the list that ranks in the top 5 in ALL subjects - pretty impressive!</p>
<p>
By that standard, isn’t Juilliard also a “university?” Yes, my point is that it’s silly to compare a specialized school like Caltech with universities that offer studies across a much broader range of subjects.</p>
<p>Hunt, the only thing Caltech is really missing is humanities departments, and fewer and fewer students major in those fields. If you are going to exclude Caltech as a university for having only rudimentary programs in things like literature and history, you would also have to exclude Chicago for not having engineering, a field which nearly all research universities cover and which is extremely popular among students.</p>
<p>The way the THE ratings are constructed, institutions are not really penalized for failing to offer one or more fields. If they were, Caltech’s rank would be lower . . . and so would be the ranks of most, if not all, of the non-UK European universities, as well as places like Imperial which are dear to many hearts at the Times (of London). Caltech is an institution any country would love to claim as its own.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, maybe humanities and social sciences? In humanities Caltech offers only history, English, philosophy, and history/philosophy of science. Good core disciplines, but no classics/classical studies, archaeology, foreign languages/literatures/cultural studies, art history, music, fine arts, theater, linguistics. On the social science side they offer economics and political science, but no sociology, anthropology, psychology, area studies. To me, that’s a pretty impoverished idea of what a university should be. Not to mention no business (undergrad or grad), law, or medicine. </p>
<p>I have tremendous respect for what Caltech does with STEM, but to my mind it’s one-dimensional. This can’t possibly be the model for the “world’s best university” unless we’re prepared to shut down half, or more, of human learning and intellectual and creative achievement.</p>