THES London Times Ranking vs. US News World Report

College Search & Selection
1

<p>THES London Times vs. US News World Report </p>

<p>Which is a better ranking that is respected worldwide? Is it US World News Report or THES London Times? </p>

<p>Here is my gripe about the US World News Report:</p>

<li>Different method of counting SAT for public and private schools.</li>
<li>Faulty method of overstating endowment </li>
<li>Use of statistics that has zero correlation with student education such as “yield rate” which studies have shown can be managed. </li>
<li>Ignores vital component of Baynesian econometrics, KISS (Keep it Simple Stupid)</li>
</ol>

<p>etc…etc…</p>

<p>THES London Times ranking uses statistics that can be used worldwide, and reminds us that the world is indeed catching up to us, not just in basketball and baseball, but in education as well. </p>

<p>Here is the London Times ranking</p>

<p>

</p>

2

<p>go compare grad school admissions from texas and duke and see how they stack up</p>

3

<p>^ these rankings reflect a widely used international standard for all universities around the world.</p>

4

<p>Ummm...they are not comparable.</p>

<p>USNEWS is for UNDERGRAD, London Times is looking at GRADUATE work at the university level.</p>

5

<p>No. London Times reflects overall university prestige. </p>

<p>It also takes into account faculty/student ratio, university prestige, faculty rankings, quality of research, etc... etc...</p>

<p>US News World Report has too many flaws with it. The world is starting to use these rankings.</p>

6

<p>What is the University of California, San Francisco?</p>

7

<p>Yeah, Overall University has nothing to do with undergrad. There are plenty of top schools focused on UNDERGRAD, and this ranking looks at primarily graduate factors (research, etc). </p>

<p>Its irrelevant to undergrad.</p>

8

<p>Yield is not counted anymore. Look at [url=<a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/about/weight_brief.php%5Dthis%5B/url"&gt;http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/about/weight_brief.php]this[/url&lt;/a&gt;]. It explains the methodology. I think that some things are given too much weight and others too little but nothing's perfect.</p>

<p>I can't find anything about the criteria for the THES rankings. However, I must say that I find it hard to believe, like other posters, that UT-Austin is 11 spots above Duke in a ranking, especially of overall prestige. (Peer institutions rated Duke with a 4.6 out of 5 and only 4.1 for UT-Austin. Unless these peers are just being mean to UT, it really shows that Duke is more respectable than UT)</p>

9

<p>For example San Fransisco is so high up because of their med school, the undergrad is the pits!</p>

10

<br>


<br>

<p>What? Shows how much you know about UC San Francisco "undergrad".</p>

<p>UC San Francisco undergrad can't be "the pits" because it doesn't exist. There is no undergrad program at UCSF. It's a medical school and graduate school only.</p>

<p>UCSF started out as Berkelely's medical school but was granted separate UC campus status decades ago. And so Berkeley has no medical school to this day. UCSF is one of the premier medical schools in the country. Many chose it over Harvard. But one thing it doesn't have is undergraduates.</p>

11

<p>Haha, I know, that's why I called it "the pits".</p>

<p>Regardless, if a "university" with no undergrad is ranked 11, it clearly means undergrad education is irrelevant. </p>

<p>These rankings are bunk.</p>

12

<p>UMass? UMASS? UMass doesn't even have very many good grad programs, how on earth are they 20?</p>

13

<p>They call the University of Wisconsin, "Wisconsin University."</p>

<p>Some British intern made these rankings up.</p>

14

<p>If these are undergraduate rankings, where's Amerherst, Swarthmore, and Williams? </p>

<p>I think that these rankings seem to be much more science and medical research focused than liberal arts focused(literature, political science, etc.).</p>

15

<p>^ Yes that is one valid criticism. Like the US News World Report, LAC's are not put in the same category as traditional universities. Excellent schools like Harvey Mudd, Pomona, Claremont would not be reflected in this ranking. </p>

<p>However, this ranking does give you a good idea of how important the international prestige of schools are, especially since non US schools are catching up in the field of faculty prestige, research, academic excellence, and reputation.</p>

16

<p>They're completely different types of rankings. The London Times rankings ranks by international prestige, which means largely by graduate institutions. You have to remember, research, discoveries, and inventions are done at the graduate level. Academia is based at the graduate level and graduate students. US News just ranks the quality of the undergraduate institutions. In other words, major breakthroughs in science and technology as well as strong research in humanities largely comes from research institutions like Hopkins, UT-Austin, and UMass- not from great undergraduate powerhouses like Dartmouth and Middlebury. The US government puts their money in those large research institutions to make breakthroughs in the world of academia- and they gain prestige through that/ The rankings are ranking two completely different things.</p>

<p>*and if you noticed, the London Times science university rankings correspond almost directly to the overall university rankings.</p>

17

<p>if you notice, the london times ranking is similar to the chinese ranking published before it. both measure the graduate level. we may say "oh that has nothing to do with undergrad," but when these two rankings are published and the schools end up in similar positions, it says something about what the international community seeks and what they think is important. and we cant dismiss this because the world is becoming more globalized and interdependent.</p>

18

<p>So what about US News and their faulty methodology of using different SAT measurements for public and private schools? In the international community, they recognize that science and math is universal. Science and math are least likely to be prone to politics ruling intelligence and promotion. True education lies in being able to see true talent and intelligence, and to nurture it based on educational excellence instead of politically oriented fields where a lot of "fuzzy math" prevents true intelligence from blossoming. </p>

<ol>
<li>Different method of counting SAT for public and private schools.</li>
<li>Faulty method of overstating endowment </li>
<li>Use of statistics that has zero correlation with student education such as "yield rate" which studies have shown can be managed. </li>
<li>Ignores vital component of Baynesian econometrics, KISS (Keep it Simple Stupid)</li>
</ol>

19

<p>pretty sad to see slipper at it again. Hes just mad because "Ivy" doesnt mean the same overseas, so his beloved dartmouth is ranked so low.
thank god at least the europeans dont assume that a university is "good" just because it is related, by obscure 18th century tradtions, and loosely by athletics, to Harvard, Yale and Princeton.
with that said, these rankings are useless when choosing a college. Theyre based basically on how much weight the name of your university carries. At least the Times didnt purport to be representing anything else, (I believe they stated its a survey of reputation in teh actual report, maybe even teh title) unlike USNWR, which actually believes it can quantify a "best college" bsaed on how much moeny they get from alumni and how many people dont get to go there.</p>

<p>UCSF: One of USNWR best hospitals every year, usually second ranked grad nursing school (second only to JHU) and top programs in all the graduate levels of health sciences. You ignoramuses will be happy to know that even here in san francisco, many people do not know that UCSF is such a top university. I was suprised then, that so many europeans know of it. But then again, it produces a ridiculous amount of research.</p>

20

<p>UCSD is ahead of UCLA at the grad level?</p>