<p>My only comment is that there is something to be said for reading posts in their entirety before posting...</p>
<p>
[quote]
my college is ranked 20 and all you poor saps going to duke are at 31! I'M BETTER THAN YOU!!!
[/quote]
<em>sobs uncontrollably</em>
<em>world crumbles</em>
Actually, it doesn't matter as long as we stay ahead of UNC. :p</p>
<p>um, everyone is pretty much reposting the same *****, so stop.</p>
<p>I agree. . .</p>
<p>I disagree strongly simply because of the numerical gap between schools like Harvard and Princeton.</p>
<p>100 vs a 63.4 which I feel is incredibly inaccurate.</p>
<p>umm.. the lack of top lacs tells me that this thing is based almost solely on graduate and research but still... university of arkansas-little rock is on this list, explain that</p>
<p>Shanghai Jiaotong needs to go back to the drawing board and evaluate colleges on additional standards and not just on Chinese perceptions of a good university.</p>
<p>Brown is 82- ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!?!?!?!</p>
<p>This is the most pointless thread ever. Everyones just defending their favorite school, saying its the best in the world...</p>
<p>precisely;)</p>
<p><3 this ranking</p>
<p>This list is confusing.... is it for best part time summer programs' food selection or some other obscure category?</p>
<p>I believe this has been stated plenty of times, but nonetheless I shall state it once again for the unenlightened. </p>
<p>Rankings are all subjective, and varies greatly according to the methodology used. Obviously this ranking by Shanghai Jiaotong is based largely on the research credentials of the faculty (citations, nobel winners, etc.), and little to none on the quality of teaching. I applaud this ranking, for it attempts to put an objective measure to the quality of universities, instead of merely relying on subjective "peer reviews" from Times Higher education Survey or the wealth of individual universities in "faculty:student ratio/alumni giving/etc" of USNEWS. </p>
<p>Obviously this ranking does not reflect the quality of undergrad education, because most of the research is done by grad students and their professors. It is also an understatement that good researchers does not necessarily make good teachers. Non-research schools such as Brown are not highly ranked due to the fact that it doesn't focus heavily on research, as compared to Harvard that is overwhelmingly research-oriented.</p>
<p>As for those who condemn the Shanghai Jiaotong rankings due to its narrow and possibly limited methodology, why don't you notify USNEWS and TIMES as well? As far as I know, the American perception of a good university for undergrads in USNEWS rankings have been recognised with severe limitations, even though its focus has been on the quality of undergraduate education. The quality of undergrad education at Harvard has been brought into the limelight by the resignation of Larry Summers, yet Harvard is consistently ranked tops by USNEWS.</p>
<p>As a conclusion, I would like to state that it is truly difficult to determine the quality of an education, relatively harder for undergrad, relatively easier for postgrad. All these rankings delve into different aspects within universities, and we need to recognise each ranking's limitations, and use our intellect to analyse the rankings to get a wholesome picture of an university, so as to determine which school suits him/her best. Shanghai Jiaotong rankings merely focuses on the research quality of faculty, and that is all, unless you wish to doubt that winning nobel prizes/field medals and getting cited by top science journals does not correlate to a quality researcher. And for my saving grace, I'll admit that this ranking favors the performance of science over that of the humanities/arts. So please take note of that limitation as well.</p>
<p>I truly pity all these unenlightened individuals who are still confused about the ranking methodology. This shows that they probably applied to college based on USNEWS rankings alone. This is truly disappointing, given the higher than average quality stats in CC members.</p>
<p>17 for Tokyo Univ?? What the..</p>
<p>
<p>Rankings are all subjective, and varies greatly according to the methodology used. Obviously this ranking by Shanghai Jiaotong is based largely on the research credentials of the faculty (citations, nobel winners, etc.), and little to none on the quality of teaching. I applaud this ranking, for it attempts to put an objective measure to the quality of universities, instead of merely relying on subjective "peer reviews" from Times Higher education Survey or the wealth of individual universities in "faculty:student ratio/alumni giving/etc" of USNEWS. </p>
<p>Obviously this ranking does not reflect the quality of undergrad education, because most of the research is done by grad students and their professors. It is also an understatement that good researchers does not necessarily make good teachers. Non-research schools such as Brown are not highly ranked due to the fact that it doesn't focus heavily on research, as compared to Harvard that is overwhelmingly research-oriented.</p>
<p>As for those who condemn the Shanghai Jiaotong rankings due to its narrow and possibly limited methodology, why don't you notify USNEWS and TIMES as well? As far as I know, the American perception of a good university for undergrads in USNEWS rankings have been recognised with severe limitations, even though its focus has been on the quality of undergraduate education. The quality of undergrad education at Harvard has been brought into the limelight by the resignation of Larry Summers, yet Harvard is consistently ranked tops by USNEWS.</p>
<p>As a conclusion, I would like to state that it is truly difficult to determine the quality of an education, relatively harder for undergrad, relatively easier for postgrad. All these rankings delve into different aspects within universities, and we need to recognise each ranking's limitations, and use our intellect to analyse the rankings to get a wholesome picture of an university, so as to determine which school suits him/her best. Shanghai Jiaotong rankings merely focuses on the research quality of faculty, and that is all, unless you wish to doubt that winning nobel prizes/field medals and getting cited by top science journals does not correlate to a quality researcher. And for my saving grace, I'll admit that this ranking favors the performance of science over that of the humanities/arts. So please take note of that limitation as well.</p>
<p>I truly pity all these unenlightened individuals who are still confused about the ranking methodology. This shows that they probably applied to college based on USNEWS rankings alone. This is truly disappointing, given the higher than average quality stats in CC members.
</p>
<p>agreed! </p>
<p>Its not this ranking that's flawed, its ** the whole idea of being able to 'correctly' rank colleges that are flawed**</p>
<p>Seriously chanky.</p>
<p>A question for everyone on here who has stated what they think: what, exactly, gives you the power to say such things? You've looked US News' rankings and listened to all these other anonymous internet users' opinions, and now know more than the university that compiled this list? I'd be willing to bet that those people did more INDEPENDENT research than 100% of the people who've posted in this thread. </p>
<p>Open your eyes, people. You are in no position, at all, to dispute the findings here. Obviously, their methodology differs quite a bit from the more popular rankings, but sheesh, all it is is a different perspective. </p>
<p>Take it for what it's worth...just don't come on here trying to enlighten all of us with your infinite knowledge of world higher educational institutions (since you've studied the US News rankings and all).</p>
<p>I can't believe it took three pages to reach this point, but I'm glad it finally happened.</p>
<p>Gosh
There are sooo many people who can only read during SAT tests..</p>
<p>They suddenly become illiterate as soon as they leave the testing centers.</p>
<p>um you guys didnt need to spend so much time typing for the other ignorant people here.</p>
<p>In a mildly amusing way, this thread makes me fear for the future of the country, but I suppose everyone is enjoying themselves.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The stated methodology used by the ranking is:
(1) Alumni of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals - 10%
(2) Staff of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals - 20%
(3) Highly cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories - 20%
(4) Articles published in Nature and Science - 20%
(5) Articles in Science Citation Index-expanded, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index - 20%
(6) Academic performance with respect to the size of an institution - 10%</p>
<p>The ranking is based almost entirely on the prestige of the doctorates working at the college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, I mean, you can't be upset with it, it's all based on Graduate research and publishings. Williams, Amherst, etc aren't even on there...so who cares, doesn't affect anyone's undergrad experience, I'm not going to die now that Tufts is ranked 99 in the world or whatever, lol.</p>