<p>what was the point of this thread?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL, surely this is a joke–or you’re a very proud Rutgers student.</p>
<p>Yup, there seems no reason whatsoever to go outside of the North America to get an opinion of the international ranking of North American schools… oh wait a minute</p>
<p>Missed the point. That ranking is considered craptastic. Others are considered decent–especially the SJTU rankings as noted in the COHE when it discussed international rankings.</p>
<p>SJTU is nonsense: [Paked.net- </a> Shanghai Jia Tong University (ARWU) - 2008](<a href="http://www.paked.net/higher_education/rankings/sjtu_2008.htm]Paked.net- ">http://www.paked.net/higher_education/rankings/sjtu_2008.htm)</p>
<p>Schools must qualify on the basis of bicycle paths or crosswalk signs on campus.</p>
<p>^ What exactly was that link supposed to prove?</p>
<p>“As the first multi-indicator ranking of global universities, ARWU has attracted a great deal of attention from universities, governments and public media worldwide since its publication. A survey on higher education published by The Economist in 2005 commented ARWU as “the most widely used annual ranking of the world’s research universities.”[6] Bollag (2006) wrote on Chronicle of Higher Education that ARWU “is considered the most influential international ranking.”[
In two subsequent research papers [14] [15] published by Academic Leadership (2009), then in an article [16] published by the Times Higher Education (2009), Paul Z. Jambor of Korea University established the connection between any unfavorable image/reputation universities may develop (and/or their association, by country, to those universities linked to the wrongdoing) to a halt in their climb or even to a drop in their Times Higher Education - QS World University Rankings. This is because 40% and 10% of THE - QS World Methodology is based on Academic Peer Review and Employer Review respectively. In essence, any unfavorable image developed by a group of universities, associated by country, tends to harm their collective rankings. For this reason, universities worldwide should seriously consider adhering to internationally accepted standards so that they don not run the risk of sliding in the ranks on the international front. Consequently, a number of critics consider this aspect of THE - QS World University Rankings unfair and even biased.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The trouble with averaging only nonzero scores is that it leaves out everything else, and that’s why UCSD is skewed. It’s good at its specialties, but it seems to lack breadth. If you take the overall average, UCSD is in a more reasonable position.</p>
<p>jr1038 and ccc999, Post #5 answers your question why I ranked it in Top 5.</p>
<p>And ccc999, which public college is not currently (2007 onwards) not going through budget cuts. And every college has their own issues, such as Rutgers regarding their athletics.</p>
<p>^ While I could easily see Rutgers - New Brunswick within the top 20, ranking it in the top 5 (even top 10) is a bit extreme when there are better publics.</p>
<p>To be fair, it was actually ranked at #7</p>