<p>This is a great post on a UK website similar to CollegeConfidential on rankings.</p>
<p>Check it out, you won't regret it.</p>
<p>In case the link doesn't work, this is what is said:</p>
<hr>
<p>There are many university rankings out there, but the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) Top 200 Global Universities ranking and the Financial Times (FT) Top 100 Global Business Schools rankings are simply a farce.</p>
<p>Consider the THES rankings: </p>
<p>There are 12 Australian Universities represented and 50 American Universities represented in the Top 200. This seems OK right? Nope, not by a long-shot. Briefly consider that there are only about 50 nationally accredited Universities in Australia, and there are over 2,600 nationally accredited Universities in the US. Thats right, the Times Higher Education Supplement has ranked a whopping 24% of Australian Universities in the top 200 globally and a mere .8% from the US; a nation with over 100 times the endowment capital of all Australian Universities combined. Can you say "Lost Credibility".</p>
<p>I emailed the THES about this apparent paradox, and not surprisingly I was given little more than a nice ohhh email from a company rep that apparently didnt understand what I was getting at. </p>
<p>Anyway, now consider the FT rankings:</p>
<p>When comparing the shift in rankings from the year 2007/2008 against the
general ranking fluctuations from the years 2002 through 2007, a statistical abnormality can be identified between Universities located within the US and those located within the UK. </p>
<p>For example, the average US University shifted down roughly 6.5 places in the 2007/2008 rankings. Because there are some 54 US Universities listed in the top 100, this equates to a total United States Educational System shift of roughly 345 places to the negative. By contrast, UK Universities jumped roughly 10.5 places per school in the 2007/2008 rankings. This represents a United Kingdom Educational shift of roughly 148 places to the positive when all fourteen UK Universities are aggregated. </p>
<p>The divergent production of US and UK Universities produced a total ranking gap of roughly 493 places in a single year! </p>
<p>I emailed FT about this and was told; over the past few years London has
been an increasingly attractive place for MBAs to work by Della Bradshaw
(Business Education Editor of the Financial Times). Soooo HOW IS THAT RELATED TO EDUCATION QUALITY?!? </p>
<p>Further, I was told by Ms. Bradshaw that A lot of our data - eg salary data, PhD data, research data, are compiled over three years, not just one. This statement makes the whole FT ranking thing a completely INCOMPREHENSIBLE. If three years of data are aggregated to rank a University, than the rankings should move MUCH LESS than if only one year of data were used. Given this fact, the 2007/2008 FT rankings are STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE (did you get that, statistically impossible) unless you believe that aliens landed in the US, sucked out the knowledge from all of the top Universities and implanted it into the top UK schools overnight. </p>
<p>Did I mention the FT is a UK publication?</p>
<p>Thanks for letting me vent this. As you can tell, its been driving me nuts.</p>
<hr>
<p>Any comments on this?</p>