US News Top 400 World U's for 2011

[barrons]

<p>World's</a> Best Universities; Top 400 Universities in the World | US News</p>

[JamieBrown]

<p>The U.S. News World’s Best Universities rankings, based on the QS World University Rankings, evaluated schools in countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, China, and more, and identified these to be the world’s top universities in 2011</p>

[bruno123]

<p>That is actually the QS ranking, which was out a couple of months ago.</p>

<p>Glad to know though that Dartmouth is #99, Emory is #114, Rice is #117, Vanderbilt is #131, and Georgetown is #166. All those aforementioned schools are greatly over-ranked in the US News national list.</p>

[20more]

<p>bruno123</p>

<p>You forgot Wash U (#79).</p>

[fishymom]

<p>And in the opposite vein, Boston University at #70.</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>[Top</a> Universities for Engineering & Technology 2011-2012](<a href=“http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/engineering-and-it.html]Top”>Subject Ranking 2011-12: Engineering & Technology | Times Higher Education (THE))
Engineering and Technology

1. Caltech
2. MIT
3. Princeton
4. Berkeley
5. Stanford</p>

<p>Arts & Humanities, Social Sciences, Life Sciences, and Physical Science rankings upcoming in future weeks.</p>

[barrons]

<p>But when US News says it, it is gospel?? No??</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>^ Pretty much. Since US News endorses it, this thread probably won’t be whisked off to CC Neverland.</p>

[sovereigndebt]

<p>No. There are many inconsistencies between what USNWR says domestically and what this international rankings says. WashU and BU are but one example of many.</p>

<p>Its more gibberish. And has the singular purpose of feeding all the people obsessed with such elitist rankings. And then starting arguments.</p>

[swimchris]

<p>At least the US rankings are built upon real metrics. I have big issues with ones that are based solely on peer review such as this one. Forbes is also much closer to peer review (actual peer review from schools, ratemyprofessor.com, who’s who, and other horrific metrics that make me embarrassed as a journalist).</p>

[SMCguy]

<p>Now this list I like!</p>

<h1>34 University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)</h1>

<h1>107 University of Southern California (USC)</h1>

[NYU2013]

<p>Since most of the above posters seem to like the QS over the USNews (?), out of curiosity, do people agree with NYU’s overall ranking (#44). It seems odd, at least to me (perhaps I’m wrong) to places NYU so far above Emory, USC, WashU, Rice, Dartmouth, GTown, and Vandy given their usually more favorable in terms of academic quality versus NYU.</p>

[timeless]

<p>lol whats with US news and Stanford. Did they fight or smthing?</p>

[Alexandre]

<p>Let me start by saying that I do not agree with this ranking, or that USNWR best colleges ranking. This said, it is important to realize that it is an international ranking and includes universities from all over the world. Stanford may be ranked #11 in the World, but it is still ranked #7 in the US. I personally rate Stanford among the top 5, but 7 is not that far off.</p>

<p>Bruno, I do not see how ranking WUSTL, Dartmouth, USC, Rice, Emory, Rice and Georgetown between #27 and #45 in the US any less acceptable than ranking Cal, Michigan, UCLA, UNC, Wisconsin and Texas between #22 and #45 in the US. There are literally thousands of universities in the US. The top 50 or so research universities are all excellent. Depending on which metrics one chooses to use to rank universities, there will be disparities.</p>

[20more]

<p>I am really surprised by Dartmouth’s Academic Reputation Score.</p>

<p>It is 44.6.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

This said, it is important to realize that it is an international ranking and includes universities from all over the world. Stanford may be ranked #11 in the World, but it is still ranked #7 in the US. I personally rate Stanford among the top 5, but 7 is not that far off.

</p>

<p>It is MORE than being an international ranking. It is a ranking that is specifically tailored to the international student. Accordingly, the methodology developed has a strong focus on the opinions internationals and focuses on metrics they BELIEVE might be important to international students. Some might believe that the NUMBER of international students and international faculty is both relevant and important. Others might consider that pretty silly as the implication is “that the more is not only the merrier but the better.” Through the lens of a domestic applicant to a domestic university, the number of foreign students and foreign faculty might be positive or negative. </p>

<p>As far as Stanford, you do not need to look farther than this questionable metric to understand the differences with other rankings. Of course, people who simply value a ranking when the outcome fits their inherent bias will not be interested in looking at the methodology with an objective eye.</p>

<p>And, of course, this does not even address the issue that this ranking is very short on data and long on opinions. It is nothing more than a reputational assessment built on a poor methodology. No wonder USNews picked this one out the bunch of useless rankings.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

The Academic Ranking of World Universities initiated at Shanghai Jiao Tong University and now operated by Shanghai Ranking Consultancy was the first global ranking with its first results published in 2003. Its results are based on indicators of scientific productivity including Nobel Prizes, publications in Nature and Science and records in publications indices. It does a pretty good job of identifying the most prolific institutions in the world for research. Larger instituions with a strong focus in the sciences are favoured. With only 816 individuals having ever won a Nobel Prize, the biggest question mark may be the validity of their inclusion in two indicators representing a total of 30% of their methodology.</p>

<p>The QS World University Rankings began in 2004 and were published in Times Higher Education until 2009. They are designed with prospective international students in mind and as a result include measures such as faculty student ratio and the proportion of international faculty and students. It is the only global ranking to take on board employability as a critical factor. It does a better job of taking the size of institutions into account and produces a less US-centric set of results. The most frequent aspect called into question is the significant emphasis placed on survey responses. 40% is based on a survey of academics comprosing over 33,000 responses in five broad areas and 10% based on a survey attracting over 16,000 responses from employers.</p>

<p>The Times Higher Education World University Rankings were launched in 2010 and significantly remodelled in 2011 making year on year comparisons difficult and perhaps misleading. Their system involves 13 indicators grouped into five headings – Teaching, Citations, Research, International Outlook and Innovation. The target audience is the academic readership of their weekly magazine. It is the only of these three to draw on financial indicators such as research funding, which QS has avoided due to the complications of adjusting for exchange rate and cost of living changes. The biggest questions revolve around their citations measure where they have attempted to adjust fairly by discipline leading to Alexandria University placing 4th in the world in 2010 and Royal Holloway at 14th (ahead of Oxford, Cambridge and Yale) in 2011. The other aspect that might be worth thinking about is their principal teaching measure – based on a survey of academics evaluating the quality of teaching at institutions they may never have visited.

</p>

<p>Or perhaps from the other anatomical side of the beast. :)</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>

With only 816 individuals having ever won a Nobel Prize, the biggest question mark may be the validity of their inclusion in two indicators representing a total of 30% of their methodology.

Meh…at least it is an objective measure. Probably better than 25% opinion poll survey in USNWR. Use Nobel Prizes, etc. and Academy Memberships and you have an objective measure for faculty strength*.</p>

<ul>
<li>For the research university category.</li>
</ul>

[xiggi]

<p>UCB, you might disagree even more vehemently with this statement from the QS Rankings Public Defender:</p>

<p>

The area in which Berkeley performs least well is Faculty Student ratio, worth 20% of the overall methodology and in which it places outside the world’s top 300. That said our data shows improvement here in comparison with 2010 and as a result Berkeley has gained ground for 2011. By contrast Berkeley is withing the world’s top 200 for International Students and compares favourably with the likes of Duke and Michigan which place above it overall.</p>

<p>Whatever your overall perspective on our methodology and/or selection of indicators it is worth forming an accurate interpretation of the facts before forming and voicing an opinion.

</p>

<p>and fwiw here’s their take about the inclusion of Nobel Prize winners:</p>

<p>

We agree – only 816 individuals have won a Nobel Prize, including Peace and Literature which are excluded from the Shanghai evaluation anyway. So – for an example – the Nobel Prize for Physics awarded to William Conrad Roentgen in 1901 counts towards the ranking of ETH Zurich and the University of Zurich, the last of which he graduated from in 1869. What that says about the quality of those institutions today is far from clear.

</p>

<p>:)</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>If I was doing a ranking, it would include only award winners and academy membership for the current faculty.</p>

<p>I understand they want to use Nobel Prizes for a measure of alumni success, but I think the measure is too limited for that respect.</p>

<p>

The area in which Berkeley performs least well is Faculty Student ratio, worth 20% of the overall methodology and in which it places outside the world’s top 300.

Well, it ranked #21 overall with an “N/A” for the student/faculty ratio so it must have made up for that by quite a lot. It doesn’t make sense though…Berkeley’s student:faculty ratio is around the same as Michigan’s and UCLA’s (Numbers fluctuate yearly).</p>