<p>Well, there’s a non-sequitur. The overseas perceptions about the relative strength of US universities aren’t based in any actual data or knowledge; they’re rooted in a whole bunch of “I heard …” and “I haven’t of this so it can’t be any good” and “this has a prestigious name” and hearsay. Therefore, they are unimportant, and therefore, USNWR is quite right in not including a measure of overseas perceptions. It’s about as irrelevant as saying that the ranking doesn’t reflect what the average kindergarten class thinks of all of these universities.</p>
<p>No, the people who are providing the bad guidance are the people overseas, who have decided that because they’ve heard of some universities and not others, that the group they’ve heard of “must be good” and the group they haven’t heard as much about “must not be any good.” There’s no need to compound the clueless “but I’ve never heard of it, so it must not be any good!” from people who are unfamiliar with America in the first place, by adding such a measure to USNWR.</p>
<p>Ok, I know you studied chem eng and you guys are really into ballpark figures and estimations but … usually when something is accurate it typically means to draw ana anlogy to the last decimal point. Meaning to the end of the ARWU list and not just the top 3 or top 20.</p>
<p>The nearly 30 point lead of one school is particularly funny.</p>
<p>Can we all finally agree that all rankings suck? People are just using them to argue for and against certain groups, championing one when it suits them and deriding it later when their views are best suited to that. Man, what happened to the day when we could brutally flame and ■■■■■ each other in factions, for individual colleges? I guess the times they are a changin’…</p>
<p>PS Ever thought how the ARWU and the non-PA ranking deserved by Cal COULD end up averaging to its exact position in the USNews rankings? And, no, I do not really believe such non-generous equation!</p>
<p>So, what the rest of the world thinks is “unimportant” and probably “uninformed” anyway ? That is a slightly arrogant statement, don´t you think ? It reminds me of Obama’s mediocre speech yesterday saying basically that we don’t care about what S&P thinks because the US “will always be a AAA nation”. A little bit of reality check would be good both for you and for the POTUS.</p>
I agree. World university rankings like the QS and the Times are nothing more than beauty contests. But it shows how little my HR friends know about US universities and USNWR rankings. The World university rankings are popular because their local universities are ranked and it makes the news.</p>
<p>At least ARWU is closer in ranking what it professes to rank – the overall Academic Ranking of World Universities. It does not claim to be an undergraduate ranking. It ranks the overall academic reputation, and its methodology is heavily related to the research prowess of the university.</p>
<p>I just looked at ARWU and you have got to be kidding me. Clemson was in the 300s which I agree with because it is primarily an undergraduate institution and is very unknown worldwide. However, grouped together was Georgetown University?? Syracuse, Tulane, Wake Forest, BC, Lehigh were also ranked very low (top 50 US News schools).</p>
<p>Meanwhile, in the top 100 worldwide: Utah, Arizona State. And in what world is UC-Berkeley #2?</p>
<p>Just shows that nobody is perfect haha</p>
<p>I was shocked to see that Clemson was 51-77 in their Economics/Business rankings haha</p>
<p>Yeah agree. Nobel prize winners are great but honestly they have very little to do with undergrad quality. What matters is how much a school puts into its undergrad. I’m always surprised at how little Internationals understand the US college system, they seem to confuse undergrad and grad. Who cares if you have a nobel when you’re being taught by a TA and the nobel doesn’t even teach undergrad classes?</p>