THES-QS Rankings 2008

Graduate School
1

<p>They’re out again. These rankings primarily serve as a judge of research institutions.</p>

<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Cambridge</li>
<li>Oxford</li>
<li>Caltech</li>
<li>Imperial College London</li>
<li>University College London</li>
<li>Chicago</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Penn</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>Australian National University</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Michigan</li>
<li>Tokyo</li>
<li>McGill</li>
</ol>

<p>Since these rankings have a huge British bias, let’s take a look at the top 10 U.S. institutions by this measure.</p>

<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Caltech</li>
<li>Chicago</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Penn</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins</li>
</ol>

2

<p>Hopkins a stronger research institution than Stanford? Doubtful.</p>

3

<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>

4

<p>
[quote]
Number of students per professors has nothing to do with research.

[/quote]

I don't think that's entirely true even for graduate education.</p>

<p>At a school with fewer students per professor, each professor will have more research money available for lab supplies and reagents rather than having to pay tuition and stipends for students. A graduate student costs a professor around $70,000 per year, so the expense of having too many students is not trivial, and can really cut into the funds available for necessary research equipment.</p>

5

<p>It is conducted by a group of people who have no clue in how to process data. It shows that sometimes even crappy stuff can become famous and can fool around lots of people.</p>

6

<p>The Academic Ranking of World Universities is good too.</p>

7

<p>WHY is THES-QS ranking a joke? Look at the following examples.</p>

<h1>Peer review according to THES-QS:</h1>

<h1>1 Berkeley, score 100</h1>

<h1>4 Stanford, score 100</h1>

<h1>10 Yale, score 100</h1>

<p>Duke not in top 10</p>

<h1>Employer review:</h1>

<h1>7 Stanford</h1>

<p>Berkeley, Yale, Duke not in top 10</p>

<h1>Citation:</h1>

<h1>2 Stanford</h1>

<p>Berkeley, Yale, Duke not in top 10</p>

<h1>international staff (why this ties to quality? no clue):</h1>

<p>Stanford not in top 10
Berkeley not in top 10
Yale not in top 10
Duke not in top 10</p>

<h1>International students:</h1>

<p>Stanford, Berkeley, Yale, and Duke not in top 10</p>

<h1>staff/students ratio</h1>

<h1>3 Yale</h1>

<p>Duke, Stanford and Berkeley are not in top 10.</p>

<p>Below is THES ranking result by fields.</p>

<p>In humanities, Berkeley is #2, Stanford is #11, while Yale is #5, Duke is #20.</p>

<p>In life science, Berkeley is #5, Stanford is #6, while Yale is #8, and Duke is #19.</p>

<p>In technology, Berkeley is #2, Stanford is #3, while Yale is #46, and Duke is not in top 50</p>

<p>In science, Berkeley is #1, Stanford is #7, while Yale is #10, and Duke is not in top 50.</p>

<p>In social science, Berkeley is #2, Stanford is #5, while Yale is #4, and Duke is #25.</p>

<p>The OVERALL THES ranking: Yale #2, Duke #13, Stanford #17, Berkeley #36.</p>

<p>Let me sum up. Stanford beats Yale in peer review, employer review, citation, life science, natural science, and technology, lost to yale in humanity, social science, and staff/students ratio. What drives Yale to be #2, and puts Stanford so far behind? Is that due to staff/students ratio? </p>

<p>Now, look at Berkeley. Berkeley beats Yale in humanities, life science, social science, techgnology, natural science, employer review, citation, peer review, and only lost to Yale in staff/students ratio. The end result is Yale #2, Berkeley #36. Why? What happened? Why is staff/students ratio so important in THES RANKING? Why does this metric alone dominately impact the overall ranking? Do THES-QS staff have any clue on this? </p>

<p>If you compare Stanford, Berkely with Duke, both Stanford and Berkeley beat Duke in every category that THES-QS used, except lost to Duke in staff/Student ratio. But that stupid ratio alone puts Duke ahead of Stanford and far ahead of Berkeley. </p>

<p>I really don't understand what the hell THES ranking is doing. I suspect THES ranking staff are extremely poor in math at the elementary school level.</p>

<p>In conclusion, THES overall ranking = TRASH.</p>

8

<p>
[quote]

At a school with fewer students per professor, each professor will have more research money available for lab supplies and reagents rather than having to pay tuition and stipends for students. A graduate student costs a professor around $70,000 per year, so the expense of having too many students is not trivial, and can really cut into the funds available for necessary research equipment.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I've actually found the smaller groups in my option to have more difficulties with funding than the larger groups. Larger groups tend to have post-docs and staff which also help bring in money to support grad students, while in small ones it tends to fall solely upon the professor. For example, my group doesn't know if it'll be able to support another student next year, while all of the larger ones want a handful each. There's also a lot more equipment sharing available to larger groups as the professor tends to own more machines and less time has to be borrowed and bargained from other groups. If you're a very independent worker being in a large group has a ton of advantages.</p>

9

<p>Oh, I agree -- I'm in a large lab myself -- but I think the too many students per faculty member issue is a separate one. In your case, the larger groups are taking more students because they can afford it. In mine, they're taking students because they have to, essentially.</p>

<p>I'm coming from the perspective of a student in a program where there are many more professors than grad students, and so taking on a graduate student is a choice that a PI gets to make. In some of the programs at which I interviewed, there were more students for fewer PIs, and current students talked about difficulties getting into their first-choice labs, as well as funding problems in the labs.</p>

10

<p>Datalook, the data actually makes mathematical sense this time:</p>

<p>Times</a> Higher Education</p>

<p>That chart shoes all of the individual scores and the final score. It all adds up accurately.</p>

11

<p>rd31, it may add up mathematically, but this table still makes no sense. Berkeley comes on top in all important categories yet ends up behind the likes of UCLA, U Michigan , U Hong Kong only because it has a really low "international student score" and "staff/student ratio".</p>

<p>More importantly, though, is that I don't want to trust an extremely volatile ranking, where some universities move by 50-100 points from year to year. Do you really think the university quality changes that much in a single year? If not, then when was THES lying- when it called Berkeley a second best in the world, or when it put it on 36th place?</p>

12

<p>P.S. This made me laugh so hard:</p>

<p>"International reputation is an undeniable component of today's world class universities. How better to evaluate that than to assess the proportion of international students and faculty who are attracted to that institution. Representing 5% each in this evaluation, the international students score and international faculty score are calculated based on those proportions. "</p>

<p>Are these guys for real?</p>

13

<p>International reputation is an undeniable result of PR.</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
International reputation is an undeniable result of PR.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>State government don't give a damn how many internationals/out of staters are in universities funded in part by tax payers.</p>

15

<p>Oxford >>> The Other Place. Obviously.</p>

16

<p>^^^
Couldn't disagree more! Obviously the best uni in the UK is on the river Cam! Cambridge should be ranked #3...#4 is a bit high for that 'other place'</p>

17

<p>false. You Tabs are simply blind to the splendors of the Bod/Isis/Cherwell/High Street/etc., etc. You're just bitter because we're older and infinitely better at everything. Including a certain rowing race...</p>

<p>(And, secretly, Oxford > Harvard as well. Just because.)</p>

18

<p>4 UK schools in the top 10, LOL</p>

19

<p>The THES is hilariously bad.</p>

<p>I disagree with whoever said this ranking has become "famous" unless he</p>

20

<p>So would you say that the Shanghai rankings are better?</p>