<p>here is the list
<a href="http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005TOP500list.htm%5B/url%5D">http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005TOP500list.htm</a></p>
<p>Don't you think the ranking sucks? Even Pennstate is far better than Brown according to this piece of crap.</p>
<p>hahhhahah brown is number 86...also i thought oxford was like number one in the whole world</p>
<p>and BC is ranked 401th. :))</p>
<p>hahhahahah this list made me laugh. George Mason is ahead of Georgetown? Kind of sums up the credibility of this list.</p>
<p>The focus of the ranking is science type areas. For that maybe Gtown is not that good--I have never heard of it as a leading science school. Same for Brown. They are liberal arts schools with a little science.</p>
<p>yeah international rankings focus on different, silly things when ranking universities. The Times Higher Education ranking is also wack, with Brown being way down there on the list.</p>
<p>These rankings are from a chinese research group which has a hidden agenda of motivating local(chinese) universities.</p>
<p>It's accurate for their ranking criteria. Read and then complain.</p>
<p>Brown's not that good. That's why they were in the OC.</p>
<p>yeah brown sucks...right.............</p>
<p>well if anyone would've read the methodology it might of made sense, they're ranking universities mostly by nobel prize winners, medal winners,research, articles published, noted researchers.</p>
<p>I'm tired of people posting this crap.....</p>
<p>Then don't read it.</p>
<p>Any ranking with "size" as a criterion is ridiculous to me…</p>
<p>A larger institution has more resources, including human, to produce scientific research. That's part of what this ranking is measuring. What's so hard to understand?</p>
<p>Yes I’m sure Harvard's 25 billion endowment is really a downside compared to Wisconsin’s large size…. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>first: Oxford 10th?That's a joke
princeton 8th?
just to name a few.. this ranking is a sick joke!!!
Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University!!give me a break</p>
<p>The methodology in most rankings is nonsense, but in this ranking it is more nonsensical than usual!</p>
<p>It is heavily biased to maths and science. Maths & (social? - economics) science are apparently the only things relevant to "Quality of Education". Half of "Quality of Faculty" and "Research Output" are open only to maths & science, but they can compete in the other half of those categories as well. So basically the humanities are only considered for 40% of the total figure at most.</p>
<p>And 30% is based on Nobel & Field prizes (excluding Nobels for Peace & Literature). They are so rarified it means almost nothing. How many Nobel prizewinners in the permitted subjects are alive today? And what percentage of the total living alumni or faculty of even the top institutions do they represent? A fraction of 1% would be the answer. They would probably be Nobel prize winners regardless of location. There needs to be a far broader assessment of the quality of alumni and faculty to mean anything at all.</p>
<p>I like these rankings, they align with what I want as an aspiring scientist and researcher. If you're not going into that, just ignore the rankings. They make clear what their criteria are.</p>
<p>Haha, just 'cause no one's mentioned it...</p>
<p>UC-San Diego... 13th best university in the world?</p>
<p>Heehee, and Brown is just behind Michigan State :D</p>
<p>University of Maine - Orono?</p>
<p>This list tickles my fancy!</p>