<p>Another ranking is out today ! It looks more credible than USN&WR.</p>
<p>I agree. This one makes more sense than USNWR, except for Caltech.</p>
<p>wow Brown is # 49. I think Stanford belongs in the #2 spot.</p>
<p>A good reflection that without any IVY bias, Harvard and Stanford are THE top US universities.
But Caltech and Yale seems kinda out of place…wtev</p>
<p>Woohoo, UT Austin at #29. Not sure I agree with #1 tho. Whatever.</p>
<p>I find this ranking methodology interesting. It does indeed show the Ivy League bias in the USNWR rankings. For those interested in working outside the US or for a company based outside the US, this ranking might actually be more meaningful.</p>
<p>Definitely better than USNews’ ranking. But I would personally swap Caltech with Harvard, Chicago with Yale and UCLA with Michigan.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very much This and I would swap MIT with Princeton or Oxford.</p>
<p>^ Well, I really wouldn’t say I’m a huge fan of Yale, but I don’t think I’d rank it below Chicago.</p>
<p>Everyone always likes some new random ranking better if it happens to rank their favorite school(s) higher than USNews does and/or if it ranks some school(s) they hate lower than USNews does.</p>
<p>Coming up with a ranking that aligns with your personal preferences, by definition, makes the methodology strong and scientific and anoints the people doing the rankings as wise and perceptive scholars of school quality.</p>
<p>Sigh. Another very silly and very subjective ranking. Just more fuel for the eager beavers of elitism. Good grief.</p>
<p>And ranking most Canadian schools better than many top 20 US schools? Are you kidding me? PUHLEEZE. As soon as I saw that I just laughed, rolled my eyes and clicked it off. </p>
<p>UToronto and McGill are the ONLY Canadian Universities even close to top US schools. </p>
<p>Fuhgettaboutit!</p>
<p>Next.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have to keep in mind that this is primarily a research ranking… so exchanging Harvard and Caltech makes sense, as Harvard probably has better research output than Caltech overall. I agree with a swap between Michigan and UCLA as well. </p>
<p>However, Chicago is overall a better research institution than Yale, hands down. Shanghai-Jiaotong rankings reflect this as well. Yale is simply not a world-class research institution at the same level as Harvard, MIT, Stanford, et al., and neither is Princeton for that matter.</p>
<p>It is about time we realize UMass and Pitt are better schools than Dartmouth and Notre dame. Zac Bissonnette and similar morons will be thrilled. </p>
<p>Now can this august orrganization work on a ranking that reflects the scope of this forum, namely a college ranking. There is no need for another grad school BS compilation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What can I say but word? The fact that the OP did not present any critical analysis on why this was better than the undergraduate USN ranking is equally perplexing</p>
<p>Also why do the schools go up like a yoyo in these international rankings (well except for the ARWU because they have a transparent methodology). I have seen some schools change by twice their position in the last year. How much improvement can you do in a year? Or is this a methodology problem? The USNWR might have faults but year-in year-out reproducibility is not one of them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And how is Yale not a world class research instituition? Its only major weakness is engineering and thats because of the size of its departments. The research impact per faculty of its engineering department is probably one of the best in the world.</p>
<p>So many subjective biases you want to put in. That was the problems in the first place with the ranking criteria by the US News.</p>
<p>US News Methodology of college ranking:
I placed in bold face the items that favor the schools with a large alumni size (in alumni giving – legacy admits, in favoring their alma mata when providing peer assessment, etc.); the schools with huge application numbers (in selectivity – look how Columbia does in ranking because their app pool increased to over 35k aafter changing to common app); and the opinions of severalx30,000+ highschool guidance counselors (wow).</p>
<p>US News rankings rely too much on these subjective opinions and items that can’t be a measure of the quality of education of 4 years (knowledge transfer, knowledge creation, and student experience). </p>
<p>On the other hand, Times Higher Education’s ranking cirteria:
It does not have the bogus items that skew the results in favor of the schools that they graduated from or the school names that they heard of the most or from somewhere. It does adhere to measuring the higher education’s true objective: knowledge transfer and nurturing for the intellectual creativity of its students.</p>
<p>The US News rankings are naturally biased toward bigger schools and toward the name recognition of the college through advertising, national news, sports teams, or whatever. If a college is rich in research funding and in student scholarships, why do you care whether it came from the alumni (US News’s alumni giving) or from some philanthropists or from a company?? Many almuni give to their alma mata in the hope that their giving may raise the chances of their offsprings’ legacy admission. If they are going to ask 100,000 highschool guidance counselors for their opinion as to which college is the number 1 (just like many of you are trying to place one school above another, in this thread), why not also ask the parents whose children will be applying, or just applied, to colleges say within plus minus 5 years?? Also, how does the size of the alumni can affect the quality of education of the students? US News’s criteria are so much detached from what really matters for the students education. </p>
<p>As long as there is market to sell, and as long as there are customers that are relying on these, these bogus ranking numbers, they won’t stop producing it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because of some inane variables</p>
<p>For example</p>
<p>All the American universities have very low international outlook scores while Uk and some canadian schools have roughly twice to three times the average american university outlook scores. So you got schools like Penn having 34.1% international outlook while Oxford would have 90% and Mcgill (81%).</p>
<p>Now the relationship between international outlook and university ranking . . .</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The lack of a weakness does not a world-class research institution make. </p>
<p>As far as I know, Yale hasn’t really tried to establish itself as a research institution in the same vein as Harvard, MIT, or Chicago. The primary purpose of MIT and Chicago is to produce world-class research (while Harvard does quite a bit of everything). On the other hand, Yale tends to produce quite a few top-notch politicians, lawyers, etc. but doesn’t devote quite as much of its resources toward research as it could. Same with Princeton. </p>
<p>It’s really a question of end-goal… both Princeton and Yale have the financial resources to compete head-to-head with Harvard in research, but they choose to preserve the traditional institutional goals (e.g. for Princeton, undergrad education), which is admirable in its own right.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Teaching: They measure teaching through ** subjective** peer assessment. Its not objective at all.</p>
<p>Research volume, income and reputation (worth 30 per cent): They measure volume regardless of the quality of the papers. Moreover schools which specialize in fields where publication volume tends to be high (such as science focussed school) get a bump.</p>
<p>And why dont they publish a full methodology? So we can peruse how they measure teaching, research and research influence and a reasoned argument for why the selected such proxies to measure the unmeasurable.</p>
<p>What shoddy work!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think its the traditional ivy league goal to be undergraduate institutions. A lot are just more serious about it than others. But a focus on undergraduate education does not preclude one from being a major research institution. And while Yale and Princeton are not at the level of Harvard/Stanford/MIT, they are still pretty close relative to other universities. And to be honest probably better than Chicago. Princeton had graduate programs it just does not have professional schools but that does not weaken its research standing.</p>
<p>There are two ways of measuring research: Breadth (which THE does by measuring volume et al.) and Depth ( which THE does by measuring research influence). While schools like Yale and Princeton might lack the breadth of alot of schools, they make sure that what ever research they do, its as top as it gets</p>
<p>Sort it by “research” score and Berkeley is No. 1. <em>waves pom poms</em></p>
<p>Berkeley = 99.4
Princeton = 99.1
Stanford = 98.9
Caltech = 98.2
Harvard = 97.4
…
some others.</p>
<p>
“Citations” is their “research influence score”.</p>
<p>MIT, Princeton = 100
Caltech/UCSB (!) = 99.9
Stanford/Harvard = 99.8
Berkeley/Chicago = 99.4</p>
<p>Yale = 96.7</p>