<p>
[quote]
Top 5 Universities That are Primarily Science/Engineering Schools</p>
<ol>
<li><p>California Institute of Technology</p></li>
<li><p>Massachussetts Institute of Technology</p></li>
<li><p>Carnegie-Mellon University</p></li>
<li><p>Case Western Reserve University</p></li>
<li><p>Georgia Institute of Technology
[/quote]
</p></li>
</ol>
<p>As distinct from the top 5 science and engineering schools:</p>
<p>MIT
Berkeley
Stanford
Georgia Tech
UIUC</p>
<p>Putting UIUC and GT ahead of Caltech is a bit... misled. Even placing MIT and Berkeley ahead of Caltech is questionable.</p>
<p>washu st louis behind arizona and ohio state- gimme a break</p>
<p>Wash U St. Louis ISN'T behind Arizona and OSU. It just ranks low for faculty quality, which isn't that surprising.</p>
<p>
[quote]
1. Harvard University
1. Princeton University
1. Stanford University
1. University of Chicago
1. Yale University
[/quote]
</p>
<p>now thats what willis was talkin bout</p>
<p>how do you guys feel about rankings in general? </p>
<p>it really annoys me when people use rankings as an indication that harvard, yale, princeton, and mit are better than uchicago. it also bothers me when they say that those schools have more prestige than uchicago so they are academically better.</p>
<p>The THES bascially just seems like an international prestige ranking, with a few errors (stanford too low).</p>
<p>
[quote]
The THES bascially just seems like an international prestige ranking, with a few errors (stanford too low).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Way too low for Berkeley and Stanford -- which leads me to think they called up a friend from the Ivy League who had never been to the West Coast to get their rankings, and that their rankings were that well thought out. Too high for Oxford, ICL, UCL (wow, what a surprise -- all British universities?!). And too high for several other international universities. Rankings tend to fall along two lines, emphasizing one or the other or blending both: 1) research output and quality (Shanghai Rankings, e.g.) or 2) undergrad selectivity of student admission. There is no evidence that either one of these measures was used -- or what exact measure was.</p>
<p>They must have used SOME objective measure, because otherwise how would Berkeley and Stanford go from top-6 to barely top-25 in two years? If they had called up a friend in the Ivy League, Berkeley and Stanford would have been much higher. (The Ivy League has no trouble acknowledging the existence and quality of Berkeley and Stanford. It has a lot more trouble with WashU or Northwestern.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
They must have used SOME objective measure, because otherwise how would Berkeley and Stanford go from top-6 to barely top-25 in two years?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do universities change that quickly? The measure changed, of course, and I defy you to tell me what changed that would move Oxford and Cambridge up, a bunch of US schools down a bit and others (that are roughly comparable to the ones that moved just a bit except for their West Coast location) much more.</p>
<p><a href="The%20Ivy%20League%20has%20no%20trouble%20acknowledging%20the%20existence%20and%20quality%20of%20Berkeley%20and%20Stanford.%20It%20has%20a%20lot%20more%20trouble%20with%20WashU%20or%20Northwestern.">quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed with the point about the midwestern u's, with some exceptions: Kellogg for NU, Med for Wash. U. But how non-Ivy League schools as a whole are viewed is really, really suspect. Stanford has the greatest breadth of quality across the widest spectrum of universities full-stop, IMO. Same for Berkeley, particularly at graduate level.</p>
<p>People/companies can rank whatever they want to, it wouldn't affect my educational experience at any of the colleges..unless I want to..so, yea..I didn't even look at more than one list or posts...lawl.</p>
<p>
[quote]
One ranking I thought was somewhat reflective of the true state of the colege world was Brian Leiter's University rankings. He was at the University of Texas at the time and was mostly known for his Law School Rankings. He goes to some length to explain the approach taken.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Leiter is coming to UofC Law School. Also, he is not most known for his law school rankings; he is most known for his grad philosophy department rankings: <a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/04/20/the_philosopher_kingmaker/?page=full%5B/url%5D">http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/04/20/the_philosopher_kingmaker/?page=full</a> ). Also his methodology is completely suspect, as it is based primarily in his understanding of "gestalt."</p>
<p>Wow! I think a lot less of UofC knowing that the school has hired Leiter. It will probably improve Chicago's ranking though. The schools with which he is associated do very well in his rankings.</p>
<p>The LS student community did not exactly seem enthused about his hire. However, just because he took on a major internet phenomenon and lost face with the 22-25 year old age bracket does not make him a poor professor objectively. He certainly adds something to the interdisciplinary graduate work being done across law and philosophy. </p>
<p>His college rankings though were completed long before he had any idea he would end up at UChicago either as a visitor or full time faculty member, so I think his choice of criteria is fair enough. Obviously, the perennially high stature of ChiLaw in his other rankings will no doubt be suspect in the future.</p>
<p>This is a typical CC thread.....very very typical.</p>
<p>wait why does everyone hate this dude. excuse the ignorance.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wow! I think a lot less of UofC knowing that the school has hired Leiter.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why? He is the most powerful person in philosophy today. He has singlehandedly made philosophy of mind more important and improved continental v. analytical philosophy. Analytical always seems like a bit of a circle jerk to me anyways. Wittgenstein is great and all, but I mean really, where do you end up?</p>
<p>
[quote]
It will probably improve Chicago's ranking though.
[/quote]
Yeah, but who will take Chicago's rise seriously? Nobody who is using Leiter's philosophy rankings to actually pick a grad school.</p>
<p>Leiter is arrogant and an elitist, even by law professor standards. To be fair, I've been told he's moderated some recently, so maybe he'll continue this trend at UC.</p>
<p>I can't comment on his position in philosophy, but I can tell you that his position on teaching primarily (or only) the philosophy of law at "elite" law school and basically expecting the graduates to just figure out things like codes, rules and procedure because they are smart is laughable in its absurdity to nearly anyone that actually practices law. If he wants to be a philosophy professor, that's fine, but don't criticize law schools for teaching students how to be a lawyer.</p>
<p>This is true. He is distaste for high caliber political science is oddly outlandish.</p>
<p>The THES-QES rankings have about as much credibility as P.T. Barnum does.</p>