THES-QS Rankings 2008

<br>


<br>

<p>And these comments made me laugh. As if there is anywhere such a bunch of prestige-obsessed youth as the contributors to College Confidential.</p>

<p>"As if there is anywhere such a bunch of prestige-obsessed youth as the contributors to College Confidential."</p>

<p>'Tis sad, but true. When I was first on this site, looking for ways to beef up my app.s for undergrad, I was convinced that the rank of the school I attended was a reflection of my worth. I ended up at Big State U for financial reasons, and have gotten a darned good education so far as I can tell ;) Now that I'm back for grad school tips, I have made it my mission to snipe the rank threads. Mwahaha.</p>

<p>The 2008 London Times (THES/QS) rankings of world universities are out. Here is the list of top universities overall, and in the specific fields of engineering and IT, social sciences, natural sciences, life sciences/biomedicine, and arts & humanities.</p>

<p>THES ranking makes no sense....... Berkeley is ranked #36 on their list, but ranked #2 in Engineering and IT, #2 in Social Sciences, #2 in Natural Sciences, #4 in in life sciences/biomedicine, and #2 in Arts and Humanites, and is overall the strongest across the board.</p>

<p>That is probably because of differences in methodology. The specialty rankings are based, I think, on academic peer review assessment only, whereas the overall rankings take other factors into account.</p>

<p>^the only criteria where berkeley doesn't get high marks is international studets and faculty/student ratio.........i personally don't understand how that correlates to quality but either way that causes it to fall to #36?</p>

<p>UCB does fine in the more widely respected SJTU rankings.</p>

<p>[url=<a href="http://www.arwu.org/rank2008/ARWU2008_A(EN).htm%5DARWU2008%5B/url"&gt;http://www.arwu.org/rank2008/ARWU2008_A(EN).htm]ARWU2008[/url&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p>

<p>By now I find it difficult that anyone can take the THEs rankings seriously enough to even bother criticizing their methodology. The THES reminds me of the Larouch PAC in the sense that you already know it's so ridiculous, it's barely even worth your time to stop and debate with them, much less give any serious credence to their views.</p>

<p>I looked at the methodology and it seems fine to me, apart from the fact that it gives too much weight to academic peer review (which USN&WR also does BTW). In any case, THES looks far more reliable than the Chinese ARWU for example. </p>

<p>If you disagree, please list object reasons to support your claim that "THES is a joke".</p>

<p>Looks like we have a British student in our midst!</p>

<p>If you want me to list my objections with the THES, Ill start with the fact that 50% of the "ranking" is pulled out of thin air. Id love it if I could go to my stats prof and say "Here's my research! 50% of it is based on non measurable, non specific criteria that I pulled out of nowhere. Enjoy!"</p>

<p>Defending the THES is about as pointless as arguing that the Maginot line was brilliant military planning.</p>

<p>The ARWU is also pretty pathetic, this topic has been discussed in length a million times.
The reality is kids from the big state schools hate the THES because it makes them look worse than the ARWU (not as much emphasis on research output) and kids in the private schools prefer the THES because it often ranks their university higher (due to the bogus faculty:student ratio measure), that's why I advocate the HEEACT, a measure of research quality, it's not perfect (makes Caltech and Princeton look like ****) but I like the methodology.</p>

<p>Berkeley, according to THES, performed absolutely horribly in "international student score" and "faculty-student ratio" score. I don't care about the former (it's ludicrous to assume the number of international students reflects anything on the quality of education), but the latter made me wonder if it was really true. I just made a couple of comparison and here 's what I found:</p>

<p>According to UC Berkeley, its student-faculty ratio last year was 15.1:1
Facts</a> at a glance - UC Berkeley</p>

<p>UCLA, on the other hand, had a ratio of 16:1
University</a> of California--Los Angeles | The Princeton Review</p>

<p>However, THES gives Berkeley only 24 points, and UCLA gets 48 points. </p>

<p>On the other hand, U Michigan has a student faculty ratio of 15:1, which is just a tiny bit better than Berkeley's 15:1.
University</a> of Michigan--Ann Arbor | The Princeton Review</p>

<p>Yet Michigan's score in this area, according to Times, is 85, compared to Berkeley's 24. </p>

<p>I can go on and on like this, but you get the message. I guess this is something for the Berkeley's marketing department to consider.</p>

<p>It's quite possible that the Princeton Review is listing the wrong stats.</p>

<p>Why don't you offer better stats, VastlyOverrated.</p>

<p>Plus, do you really believe the real difference for this metric is that large between these 3 universities? I.e., UCLA has 2 times as good student-faculty ratio as Berkeley, and U Michigan is 3.5 times as good as Berkeley?</p>

<p>I'm not going to waste my time offering you better stats, Oaklander. I honestly don't care. My university has essentially the same rank in every major ranking. Berkeley is a pretty good university no matter what the THES says, so just relax.</p>

<p>When saying "just relax", you apparently imply that I'm unnecessarily stressed out over all this (and you are obviously not). Let me guess: your next step would be to advise me "not to be defensive" and "get over it", am I right?</p>

<p>Before you get excited, let me point out that my original intention was not to make a personal attack against anybody, including you. I was only responding to a very specific point made by you regarding inaccuracy of Princeton Review data. If you don't like my response please ignore it, or respond with substance. But please don't advise me to "relax"- this is not the comment that adds anything to the discussion.</p>

<p>I'd just like to say, cuz apparently no one else has, that unless you (the people criticizing or commending the THES) are a statistical analyst with actual, first hand knowledge of what the hell you're talking about, please refrain from spewing out your dogma all over our shoes. You simply don't know what you're talking about.</p>

<p>Saying "the THES sucks cuz it ranks my ______ university at 40 and the USNWR ranks it at 15!" is ridiculous. You're attacking one ranking system (that you don't know much about) by saying that ANOTHER ranking system (that you don't know much about) says something differently. The only reason anyone thinks that Harvard is better than Princeton, or that Berkeley is any better than UCLA, is because you read it in USNWR. The THES does not make up their numbers. They can't. They would go out of business too quickly because, as some of you don't seem to realize, the statistics they use are scrutinized in an extremely thorough manner by independent analysts who are in the business of making sure research isn't fudged. So please, spare us your hurt-ego blabbering about how your school ranked differently elsewhere.</p>

<p>In regard to the person who was complaining about the student/faculty ratio, and how schools such as berkeley and umich received such different scores, let me just say this: yes, at first glance that seems odd, but I'm guessing the many highly educated professionals, who would be quickly fired if they attempted to publish any sort of miscalculation, determined the scores by looking at a few more sources than your google search.</p>

<p>For those who are talking about the quality of research coming out of their institution, or the institution in question, please--do keep talking if you in fact know ANYTHING about the research that comes out of a university. If you have read hundreds and thousands of publications that have come from Harvard, or UCSB, or Arizona State, understood them, compared them to other universities, and looked at how many of those publications are used in other research, then your opinion is valuable to the college confidential community; the THES definitely did, and therefore their opinion is valuable. I'm don't think I'm taking a huge leap of faith in guessing that maybe 10 people on this entire website have--and those people have usernames such as "Researcher for the THES".</p>

<p>In reality, the only thing you can say about the THES is that you either agree or disagree with their methodology. If staff/student ratios, or international faculty and student numbers are not important to you, then disregard the THES because, surprise, that's taken into account (although to those of you complaining that one of these factors put one school at a much higher ranking than another, keep in mind that each of these factors account for 5% of the total score). If you're still stuck in the 12th grade "the harder it is to get into a school the better it is" mindset, then stick to the USNWR which caters more to that crowd.</p>

<p>I know this is a long post and most likely is wasting your time, but I feel like enough of my time has been wasted by reading the wonderful and ultimately helpful "UPenn >> Princeton WHHHAATTTTTT?" comments, that maybe people could take a second before they post and ask themselves "am i saying this because my ego has been hurt by these rankings and i feel the need to assert myself? or do I in fact have something productive to say that others might find helpful, interesting, or funny?"</p>

<p>May the yelling resume.</p>

<p>I can't believe you spent that much time defending such a huge, steaming piece of crap. Seriously, the THES isn't even worth an ant's fart, let alone a novel of the type you just wrote.</p>

<p>Haha alright, I'll keep that in mind.</p>

<p>THES:
1) Piece of steaming crap
2) Not worth an ant's fart. </p>

<p>Thanks for your input, buddy. </p>

<p>But again, I'm not defending the THES. I'm saying that people who write on these discussion boards generally have no idea what they're talking about (except for you, obviously), and it really is sad that some kids come to this forum looking for genuine college advice and have to wade through your "ant crap" to get to any real information.</p>

<p>*and I'm guessing I spent less time writing my previous post than you did coming up with the perfect phrase to put in front of "crap".</p>

<p>"steaming piece of". that was good.</p>