<p>It is IMPOSSIBLE to do a worldwide rank of universities, simply impossible.</p>
<p>Int'l_85,</p>
<p>Nope, Berkeley's rank is well justified, Berkeley grad studies have much more dominant contributions to the academic society than Yale/Princeton</p>
<p>rtkysg is correct. Most rankings have Berkeley way up there. Berkeley in fact does have more strength in individual departments than either Princeton or Yale. I dont believe it beats Harvard or Stanford in that respect though.</p>
<p>University of Massachusetts?</p>
<p>3 letters: WTF!?!?!?!?</p>
<p>Who made this ranking, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy?</p>
<p>haha i can get a full ride to the 45th best university in the world</p>
<p>actually, the only school with more top ranked programs than Berkeley is Stanford.</p>
<p>here's a ranking based soley on the quality of academic departments</p>
<ol>
<li>Stanford University (66) 15 2 0 0 </li>
<li>University of California, Berkeley (59) 12 3 1 0 </li>
<li>Harvard University (54) 9 5 0 3 </li>
<li>University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (49) 7 3 5 2 </li>
<li>Princeton University (48) 6 6 3 0 </li>
<li>Massachusetts Institute of Technology (43) 9 1 2 0 </li>
<li>Columbia University (40) 3 5 6 1 </li>
<li>Yale University (40) 5 4 2 5 </li>
<li>University of Chicago (39) 5 4 2 3 </li>
<li>Cornell University (38) 0 8 6 2 </li>
<li>University of California, Los Angeles (37) 1 5 7 4 </li>
<li>University of Wisconsin, Madison (34) 1 5 5 5 </li>
<li>California Institute of Technology (33) 6 2 1 0 </li>
<li>University of Texas, Austin (26) 0 2 7 6 </li>
<li>University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (24) 3 2 0 7 </li>
<li>University of Pennsylvania (23) 0 4 2 6 </li>
<li>Johns Hopkins University (22) 2 2 2 4 </li>
<li>Duke University (21) 1 2 3 5 </li>
<li>Northwestern University (21) 0 2 5 5 </li>
<li>University of Minnesota, Twin Cities (19) 1 1 2 8 </li>
<li>New York University (18) 2 2 0 4 </li>
<li>University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (17) 1 0 4 5 </li>
<li>University of California, San Diego (16) 0 1 2 9 </li>
<li>University of Washington, Seattle (16) 0 2 1 8 </li>
<li>Brown University (14)</li>
</ol>
<p>However Kazz, the list you gave from philosophical gourmet does not reflect the "quality" of each academic program, it is good enough as long as you put more weight on the quantity/completeness of the fields/programs offered. That is, you would hardly find such research quality of Caltech or MIT or Brown at Winsconsin, UCLA or University of Washington.</p>
<p>Philosophicalgourmet I think puts much more emphasis on Philosophy majors.</p>
<p>okay,i'm not very aware of the grad program of berkeley.i was just talkin' about overall undergrad rank..when considering the undergrad..berkeley cannot beat those HYPSM and other tops..<br>
is this ranking solely based on grad schools?</p>
<p>read the research information above the ranking... </p>
<p>"Although philosophy is a specialized enough field that a strong philosophy program is reason enough to attend a particular school, many students may find it helpful to have some perspective on what schools have to offer beyond philosophy. "</p>
<p>its an overall ranking based on USNews data... "Those core fields are: Law, Medicine, Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Geology, Applied and Theoretical Mathematics, Physics, Economics, Engineering, English, History, Philosophy, Political Science, Psychology, Sociology. "</p>
<p>stosj: Why are universities like Hong Kong and Nanyang even mentioned, when they are no where near the level of Tsinghua (which is not mentioned)?</p>
<p>I totally disagree with you (well, besides the Nanyang part). I have seen numerous rankings of world universities in the past, and the Chinese University of Hong Kong has always been ahead of China's schools, whether it's TsingHua or Beijing University. Hong Kong's University of Science and Tech is also usually ranked ahead of those schools as well. While rankings are just numbers and rarely is it 100% accurate, it reflects approximately where a school stands in terms of rank in the world. I think you need to do some research before jumping to the conclusion that just because HK is a small place, its universities aren't as good as China's.</p>
<p>stosj: Why are universities like Hong Kong and Nanyang even mentioned, when they are no where near the level of Tsinghua (which is not mentioned)?</p>
<p>masterchiefll: I totally disagree with you (well, besides the Nanyang part). I have seen numerous rankings of world universities in the past, and the Chinese University of Hong Kong has always been ahead of China's schools, whether it's TsingHua or Beijing University. Hong Kong's University of Science and Tech is also usually ranked ahead of those schools as well. While rankings are just numbers and rarely is it 100% accurate, it reflects approximately where a school stands in terms of rank in the world. I think you need to do some research before jumping to the conclusion that just because HK is a small place, its universities aren't as good as China's.</p>
<hr>
<p>I agree with mastechiefll. The two ranked universities from Hong Kong have better research facilities and are more well-rounded than Tsinghua.</p>
<p>lol my mum saw this and she's like "I didn't know berkely was better than Yale! Why didnt you apply there?"</p>
<p>I just rolled my eyes..</p>
<p>Int'l_85,</p>
<p>In this world ranking? yes, grad schools dominate. Also think more about your major, if you are international student and you choose Yale over Berkeley for chemistry, well, you will not become that 'elite' :). </p>
<p>Kazz,</p>
<p>You can justify it by your own thinking, Philosophical gourmet, as you know, has the lowest credibility among others.</p>
<p>Joe, I think you need to read up on the Times' methodology for their ranking.</p>
<p>1/The main weight in drawing up the table was the views of 1300 academics across the globe - these people were systematically polled. LSE was one of the institutions that came out very, very strongly in that, despite its small size and relatively specialised nature (the social sciences as a whole)</p>
<p>2/If you read the comments you'll see that the Times was very sceptical about citation ratings -citation counting massively favours multi faculty science and medicine institutions and also many of the well known citation indexes themselves are very selective in what they count.</p>
<p>3/Of course the Times includes citation rankings, but because of point 2) above they exercise discretion about how they interpret them - it is wrong to say that having lots of international students is the primary reason for a university's place in the table -it is one factor among many.</p>
<p>4/LSE is high up in the table because for the the 100 years of its existence it has steadily produced world leaders, social and political innovators,celebrated academics and Nobel Prize winners, and all this in a period of American dominance with only a fraction of the money available to many excellent American universities that are well behind it in the table.</p>
<p>5/Come to that LSE would be even higher in the table if it weren't for the bias in the rankings towards the aforementioned multi faculty science/medicine universities, a bias which the Times acknowledges.. I mean who has ever heard of ETH Zurich at position 10, one slot above LSE? It's an excellent place, but is it really that influential?</p>
<p>ITT number 41. Hell no! I would say it's just as good if not better than MIT. and Berekley number 2. This ranking is ruled by reputation it appears to me.</p>
<p>omg its ANOTHER thread about the london rankings. (btw whoever made the comment about this being the stupid asian ranking, your ignorance is acknowledged). </p>
<p>guys, please stop making these comments about how such and such school doesnt deserve to be ranked # whatever in the rankings. these rankings are made with DIFFERENT CRITERIA than the US news that we're accustomed to, and DIFFERENT VALUES that lead up to the criteria (such as # of international students). sure it doesnt accurately reflect academic quality nor prestige nor name recognition, but the ranking is legit nonetheless because it fits THEIR FORMULA. you can disagree with their values and their forumula, but you can't throw out numbers. we can all make our own rankings with whatever criteria we deem important or necessary (we'd all have different lists), and the criteria they chose was that they thought was important or necessary. doesn't mean it's wrong. </p>
<p>hmm... although its funny how french universities faired poorly in this ranking hehe.</p>
<p>Listen to kfc4u. He goes to the best school in the world and is obviously very bright because of this.</p>
<p>He goes to University of Massachusetts?</p>
<p>I think too much emphasis is placed onto rankings for their own good. There are schools with a great amount of legacy and tradition, but each school has its own merits.</p>
<p>those are very strange rankings, i mean, take out the international schools for instance and it makes little sense considering how it places some american schools above others, and whilst others arent even on the list, very strange indeed how they came to that.</p>
<p>and the second one is just odd considering some of the things i do and do not see on it.</p>
<p>--i declare shenanigans.......i'm going to get my broom.</p>