<p>Top</a> 200 - The Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2010-2011</p>
<p>i'd say this is a much bigger difference between the two in this ranking than than few spots in the USN&WR rankings lol.</p>
<p>Some Notable Rankings:</p>
<p>UCLA - 11
U Washington - 23
UC Irvine - 49
U Minnesota - 52
UC Davis - 54
BROWN - 55 (look at the 4 schools i listed ranked above?)
U Virginia - 72
USC - 73
U Arizona - 95
Dartmouth - 99</p>
<p>Dartmouth at 99, UCLA at 11. Makes sense.</p>
<p>USC jumped THIRTY-NINE (39) spots in the rankings from last year.</p>
<p>Last comment:
Stanford 35, UCLA 0</p>
<p>This ranking is based primarily on research as you can see by how all those schools are ranked completely different to most other standard university ranking lists such as usnwr.</p>
<p>Good try Bruin but not quite :P</p>
<p>USC is ranked number 1! In number of international students. How stupid are we getting with these rankings? It seems like we keep trying to find new ways to slice ranking methodologies just to see who comes out on top - it’s like the proverbial #1 dad tee shirt.</p>
<p>As Kulakai pointed out, this ranking is primarily based on research - an area that USC is just getting started at investing heavily in while maintaining its commitment and focus on the undergraduate experience - something many in the top 50 (including and especially UCLA) do not do a very good job at.</p>
<p>UCLA gets a lot of money in Subsides from the federal goverment which is the only thing saving them from bankruptcy. A lot of that money they get for “research” is used for different reasons that have nothing to do with research.</p>
<p>Would this be the same ranking “system” that put UMass ahead of Notre Dame & Virginia? The same “system” that doesn’t have Georgetown anywhere in the top 100? </p>
<p>Puh-leeze.</p>
<p>even though usc is above ucla on the usnews ug ranking (which is awesome), i still dont agree with a lot of the placements. rankings are bs</p>
<p>This ranking is especially frustrating - it is based almost entirely (nearly 70%) on the perceived reputation of its research and researchers. Even its “teaching” category is heavily based on the perceived reputation of research faculty within a population of the academic community - which is primarily determined by published research - and has little to do with the actual learning environment. </p>
<p>With the misleading title of “world university rankings,” this ranking will unfortunately sway many unsuspecting students and families into believing this actually has some merit.</p>
<p>If they also counted Heismen and not just Nobel prize(still 1 and only…),
then USC should be top 10 in this even minus Reggie Bush’s LOL.</p>
<p>Anyone remembers was SC rock-bottom-of-the-world at 180(out of 200)
in this “beauty pageant” just 5 years ago?</p>
<p>So based on this “yet another arbitrary-flawed” methodology,
what did SC exactly achieve recently on its perceived research reputation
to rise 107 spots(!?) within 5 years span?</p>
<p>This even makes USNews rise from 51 to 23 within 20 years look trivial…</p>
<p>Someone should stop them…UCI is higher than USC…WOW</p>
<p>They also put UC Davis at #54 in the whole world ridiculous.</p>
<p>I lol’d lolz</p>
<p>This ranking accurately reflects the fact that UCLA has a lot of name recognition overseas while USC has none. I would say that to an extent the same is true even in the US, particularly on the East Coast, and especially for those that ignore the college sports scene.</p>
<p>Before you blast me due to hurt feelings please read what I said again. The discussion here is all about perceptions. And as usual, people tend to believe the statistics that reinforce their own biases (in this case USNWR, which is no less subjective than any other ranking).</p>
<p>Agree.
No one knows USC overseas, e.g. Europe, Asia, etc,
same as East Coast and Central US,
despite the big name Football team,
let alone “research perception”.</p>
<p>UCLA often has more name recognition overseas than Berkeley.</p>
<p>On the negative, SC’s still inexcusably underachieved-lagged on this
to evolve from former regional school to true
national and international name, despite past 20 years’ rise.</p>
<p>On the positive, brand-building should be one of SC’s biggest strengths.
Should hopefully see improvements sooner.</p>
<p>I agree for the most part that perception has not caught up with reality - but disagree that USC has no name recognition overseas. USC has the highest number of international students enrolled in the US - even with strong recruiting, it must have has some name recognition to attract that many foreign students. </p>
<p>I do agree that USC needs to do a better job of promoting itself both nationally and globally.</p>
<p>As claimed –> USC has the highest number of international
students enrolled in the US
Think Top 2’s USC and NYU(or City College of NY?)
Possibly SC recruiting and scholarships $pay enough to pull in the students
despite relatively unknown of its name.
But this is exactly the surprising discrepancy between this “claim”
and the “reality” why I said SC’s seriously lagging here.</p>
<p>All NY natives (more than 15) I talked to in past year
only know one school UCLA in LA, never heard of USC,
stunning’s that they’re NY natives, not overseas people.
Thought at least they should’ve heard the football team on ESPN?
Same complaints from
my every SC friend working in NY, who “woke up” from
SC’s claimed alumni network in the hard way on east coast.
But then this is just my own (sampling of) experience.</p>
<p>Perhaps the NCAA sanctions will help a little on the national scene,
be it a good name or bad name,
certainly not overseas where few people watch football.</p>
<p>But yes positive that SC should improve sooner on this</p>
<p>USC has been making a strong push all along the pacific rim</p>
<p>[International</a> Offices - USC Globalization](<a href=“http://globalization.usc.edu/international/offices.html]International”>http://globalization.usc.edu/international/offices.html)</p>
<p>i trust that USC’s reputation will continue to go up and probably in the next 10-20 years will be very well-known and well-regarded internationally.</p>
<p>I’m born in raised in NY - your claim that no one in NY heard of USC is simply false (All NY natives as you put it) It doesn’t have the instant recognition of a Stanford, but I have yet to meet anyone that didn’t at least know of USC whether its via athletics, the marching band, George Lucas, or “gasp” an academic program. I’ll admit that many assumed “USC” was U South Carolina, but when you mention Southern California - they get it. </p>
<p>Also, the second highest source of out of state students is from New York and a Princeton Review national survey of students and families ranked USC as one of their top 10 dream schools. I think its safe to say USC has some name recognition nationally. </p>
<p>[Princeton</a> Review’s 2010 ‘College Hopes & Worries Survey’ - TheStreet](<a href=“http://www.thestreet.com/story/10709802/princeton-reviews-2010-college-hopes-worries-survey.html]Princeton”>http://www.thestreet.com/story/10709802/princeton-reviews-2010-college-hopes-worries-survey.html)</p>
<p>I can honestly say that although there is name recognition in NY (I live in NY), USC’s academic reputation is not necessarily well regarded. Indeed, most people would definitely consider UCLA and UC Berkeley and Stanford to be the premiere Caifornia schools. USC has the reputation of being more a “safety school/school for rejects”.</p>
<p>I know this to be absolutely untrue, but this is what most of my friends and their parents think. </p>
<p>However, the “hot girls at USC” are actually quite well known. ;)</p>
<p>I already claimed it’s my own sample of NY natives I talked to,
and every of my own USC friends in NY.</p>
<p>Maybe someone else knows 30 friends sample from Ethiopia,
and they all somehow know SC.</p>
<p>That’s fair to some respect, because that’s what SC was more of
until reforming 10 years ago –> a rich safety jock school to Ivy, can’t dispute much
on that, though Ivy’s safety’s still no shame by any means.
That’s why the past 60-year America’s stereotype still hangs on so
strong the past 10 years, even as a “spoiled” joke
on McCain’s presidential election speech, since his wife’s SC alum.</p>
<p>But unfair’s that one would wonder why not any other school in US top-100
received near as much such “ubiquitous-bash-labeling”. UCLA’s “hardpush-promotion”
probably has the most to contribute on this due to bloody-feud in sports.</p>
<p>Either way don’t think even with national/internl recognition of SC’s ESPN big name
has anything to do with this ranking here on research recognition.</p>
<p>[List</a> of Nobel laureates by university affiliation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation]List”>List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation - Wikipedia)
Even Florida State has 6. Florida has 2.<br>
East Coast Mirror of Rich Spoiled Party Safety BostonU has 4.
This IS objective data on research and faculty,
though it simply counts Nobels and not overall research.</p>
<p>With the $money and determination SC has,
and its prime centre of LA location, it has to improve sooner.</p>