<p>sefago, I think you’re trying to read too much into these rankings. They are very simplified, even crude, measure for something as large and varied as higher education. However, the measures can be as interesting and crude as some of the weightings in the USNWR ranking. So why discriminate?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Humm, not sure about that part. It seems that there have been discussions about other rankings such as the Mother Teresa rankings (Washinton Monthly,) the RateMyProf/Payscale rankings (Forbes), and the Chicago Democrat ranking where voting often is rewarded (Princeton Review.) And then, did we not have plenty of homemade rankings by Hawkette and Collegehelp? I probably forget a couple … perhaps the Atlantic Monthly.</p>
<p>So, there is hope for ARWU and the rest of that same bunch. All the “scientists” behind that silly exercise have to do is using a methodology that represents the undergraduate education and stop focusing on research universities exclusively.</p>
<p>You’re right, I forgot about those.</p>
<p>Are all international rankings deemed “graduate school” rankings?</p>
<p>I don’t know about “all international” rankings. The ones that show up on CC with regularity are definitely beauty contests for the researchers who operate in graduate school departments. This is easily confirmed by the fact that their methology excludes schools that have no or small graduate schools.</p>
<p>You people realize that rankings are arbitrary and subjective, right?</p>
<p>Answering claims that one school is better than another school with a link to a college rank is a subjective and stupid response.</p>
<p>It’s like saying, “that’s so stupid” and your response is “nu-uh, they didn’t think so.”</p>
<p>Sheesh, if you people spent more time on doing your own thinking other than someone else’s thinking, you might actually do something worthwhile.</p>
<p>I can come up with my own rankings too. I can tweak any number, weighting, whatever, to make any school look amazing. And yet you people seem to see USNWR as the holy grail of objectivity, as if they peer reviews represent the unquestionable truth. And if something belies USNWR, it’s seen as a “bad ranking.”</p>
<p>Just because any ranking doesn’t conform to your preset notions doesn’t mean it’s bad, but different. It just highlights ranking subjectivity.</p>
<p>This also goes for people who claim that if a certain school improves in USNWR, or is in a spot that doesn’t confer to their tastes, that the school must have “manipulated” or cheated or whatever. Perhaps instead of trying to keep reality in whatever way you see fit, try to understand that arguments about subjectivity, of which rankings are a paramount, can never be objectively concluded. Even selecting what criteria to weigh is highly subjective (google USNWR 1999 ranking controversy).</p>
<p>Don’t argue with a fool, they will just bring you down to their level and beat you with a stick.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Posts that start with “you people” always carry “special weight”, with a lot of “do as I say, but not as a do” idle rhetoric. </p>
<p>I’d say that I see little difference between posting a link to a ranking and … quoting from a ranking or survey.</p>
<p>Does this sound familiar? </p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12967251-post4.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12967251-post4.html</a></p>
<p>Never argue with a fool, they bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience. ;-)</p>
<p>Always nice to read smart and never-used internet quips!</p>
<p>I’m just saying that you people act like it’s fact. ALL rankings are subjective, even ones I cite. I think rankings are a tool that can be positively used. Yet they can also be harmful if they are the sole arbiter of opinions. I like the idea that rankings can be used as a reference point but not as a measure that x is better than y. I think we are all, at some level, guilty of that. I just see these things pop up over and over and it’s the same thing over and over.</p>
<p>Why do you assume that the “you people” do not understand that? Should the “you people” not have the right to discuss the rankings without thinking they are everyone’s gospel?</p>
<p>Have you seen CC before?</p>
<p>Probably, you have like 11K posts. Haaaa. Sheesh, this must be your favorite site.</p>
<p>As long as we can all agree that</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and that the rest is subjective, I don’t see why we shouldn’t have fun debating it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>one of the issues I have with the Times of London ranking is the international mix indicator. while it does include 60% international staff ( which I still find dubious) What does size of the international student body have to do with the quality of a university? Schools like McGill for example, offer many French countries Quebec residence rates that makes the university cheaper for them than students coming from neighboring Ontario. Therefore they attract a high number of internationals and their place on this ranking becomes higher. And frankly what if the best faculty are not international but from your own country, and furthermore some countries tend to favor recruiting their own nationals and have policies and even laws that mandate this.</p>
<p>who cares?</p>
<p>Ivyleaguer, while I agree that the size (or percentage) of a university’s international faculty is not an important indicator, I think that the size of its international student population is an important factor in determining its international appeal. </p>
<p>Since graduating from college, I have lived in several countries, including France, German, the UAE and the UK. From my experience, I have noticed that the most well regarded universities in the US share the three following traits:</p>
<ol>
<li>Strong undergraduate programs in Business and Engineering</li>
<li>Excellent graduate programs across several disciplines</li>
<li>Large alumni networks living in most major countries</li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who cares that you don’t care? Go read something else.</p>
<p>I live in NJ. I think most of you would agree that Princeton is a “better” college than Rutgers. If you agree with that, you are agreeing with the fundamental concept of ranking. Why is Princeton better? What are the diffferences between these two very good to excellent colleges? I would love to hear what each of you think differentiates the two universities.</p>
<p>^if there was some way to accurately determine what students go on to do after college (which is why people become educated), that would in my opinion be a very good indicator of the differences between 2 colleges. Forbes using that “payscale” ranking is a good start but we need far more accurate data.</p>
<p>
Princeton, The State University of New Jersey at Princeton, formerly known as the Teacher College of New Jersey, is better than Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey at New Brunswick, because Princeton is better than New Brunswick.</p>
<p>pierre0913</p>
<p>What students do AFTER college seems to be a good indicator but is it really about how much they earn? Does this imply that the only objective of college is to help students make more money? Nonetheless, I agree with your point. For example, if we could compare what students ultimately make where the students all went into the same profession (e.g., investment bankers) and then compared average levels of total compensation (assuming we could get accurate and adequate information) by college attended.</p>
<p>I was thinking more about a similar but (I think) broader measure of getting to a desired outcome (which could be compensation or earnings but might be any number of other things as well). For example, a student who goes to college and wants to be a doctor, lawyer, engineer, or accountant and achieves the desired outcome. A useful measure might be the percentage of premed students that get into med school (immediately upon graduating).</p>