<p>New World Rankings: QS</a> Top Universities: Top 100 universities in the THE - QS World University Rankings 2007</p>
<p>I was quite surprised seeing that Stanford got 17th and UCLA got higher than Cal.</p>
<p>I think there are quite a few flaws with it, although i think generally publics get more respect by THES (which they deserve) in comparison to American rankings which seem to overvalue top privates.</p>
<p>The biggest flaws the come into play IMO for THES is that they use random stuff like student teacher ratio which throws off the ranking. I think better indicators of ranking shows up when you look at the individual section rankings (humanities, social sciences, eng., life and medical sciences, physical sciences) of THES. Those are the ones that seem to make more sense. LIke it doesnt make much sense why Berkeley would be beat out by UCLA (or most schools for that matter--at least at graduate level very few schools even compare to Berkeley) in the overall when Berkeley destroys the ranks of the THES specialty rankings.</p>
<p>You know it's flawed when it states UCLA > Cal.</p>
<p>I would put MIT in the top 3.</p>
<p>Its a joke.</p>
<p>Not as good as these.</p>
<p>New</a> 2008 world university rankings from SJTU Registrarism</p>
<p>^ Purdue ranked higher than Brown and Dartmouth?</p>
<p>They are both jokes.</p>
<p>Rankings are for people obsessed with superficial qualities and narcissism.</p>
<p>I like the QS top universities rankings. Michigan is way above Wisconsin in that one. ;-)</p>
<p>UCLA IS > Cal</p>
<p>Fools. :)</p>
<p>These are graduate (research), not undergraduate, rankings.</p>