<p>This discussion just prooves the bias on CC for HYPS and the like. When you don't like the rankings you dis the organization that came up with it. What's wrong with Umass anyway? Sometimes all anyone looks at is the "brand name". It is just like any other marketing ploy. Look beyond HYPS and the others you might find something postive.</p>
<p>Nothing is 'wrong' with UMass; there is something 'wrong' with the ranking. </p>
<p>Insert your argument to why UMass is better than Duke, Northwestern, Dartmouth, Brown, and Rice here:</p>
<p>Because it fits the criteria much better. Come on people, you're complaining about nothing. If you don't think a ranking is valid for what school is 'best' (which is an extremely subjective word anyway), then throw it out.</p>
<p>However, looking at the original PDF, I find the thing hilarious</p>
<p>After the first 20 or so unversities, all the U.S. colleges are named by this formula</p>
<p><strong>name</strong> + "university"
so...
UPenn = Pennsylvania University
U of I = Illinois University
UM = Michigan University</p>
<p>Wow, Anu beating Melbourne uni 16th in the world this is a suprise... I can't comment much on the others, but imo Melbourne is a lot better than ANU. That's my 2 cents, I suppose its dependant on how the grade it. A lot of this findings are built off articles published/cited, so I guess you can't always fudge it so the ones you thought were best end up there (however Harvard uncannily always wins these things whether its the Times Education or the Chinese Unis which are ranking them!). As for comments about Berkeley being undeservent I've seen them rank on a few, I guess they must be doing something right in terms of ranking, yeah but guys if your from Georgetown....dont take it personal... okay!</p>
<p>The OP's ranking is two years old. You guys should argue over the more recent Times 2005 ranking. I'm too lazy to look for it, but I remember that Duke zooms from #60ish to #11.</p>
<p>This thread and this ranking system should both die.</p>
<p>Everyone please remember that its for grad rankings too, whereas most people are concerned with undergrad</p>
<p>Where does it say that, thethoughtprocess? You could assume it if you want, but does it say so anywhere? Would you say the same thing of the US News and world report universities listing?</p>
<p>Ummm...because that is what it SAYS! It is a ranking of "universities" based on research (which happens at the graduate level), etc.</p>
<p>USNEWS clearly is an undergraduate ranking of colleges. They have a graduate guide for grad schools. </p>
<p>Not rocket science Drab. </p>
<p>This ranking has nothing to do with undergrad.</p>
<p>slipper1234, the qualification for being a university is that one grants PhDs or other such high degrees above a masters degree. Also, you don't have to be a prick about things, I'm asking a legitimate question.</p>
<p>PKU ranks No 17? No way, this ranking is ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>They mean the whole University, including graduate schools, professional schools, etc. All of their criteria are graduate level based, this has nothing to do woth undergrad. For example, UCSF doesn't even have an undergrad school yet its highly ranked here. </p>
<p>It isn't relevant.</p>
<p>can someone tell me what the point of this list is?</p>
<p>So crap schools can advertise that they're in the top 200 for monkey **** or whatever in the world.</p>
<p>Haha, reminds me of Malaysia. :p</p>
<p>Like every other ranking, it's significant as far as one is concerned about the factors. This ranking is basically how a bunch of academics feel about other universities, I think, so that's what this ranking means. But maybe it isn't, because I haven't seen a list of the criteria yet. If it's the entire university, wouldn't that include undergrad? But again, I don't know the critreria. Also, UCSF used to have a small undergrad program, which they still might.</p>
<p>Berkeley higher up in the academic ladder than Stanford, Cornell, Yale...???</p>
<p>I really don't think this ranking stuff is true...</p>
<p>UCSF doesn't have an undergrad program and its top 10 here. Once again read the criteria, undergrad isn't relevant here.</p>
<p>National University of Singapore is 18th?!?!! you must be joking!! the whole place is just an attempt to memorize all the dry information in the world!! who came up with this?!</p>
<p>sure, Singapore's schools may spew top-notch math and science brainiacs, but they're no match for people who are trained to think CREATIVELY in the sciences...and not spoon fed 'knowledge'.</p>
<p>You should see how NTU describes its place in the rankings. They even used the words "same quartile as Harvard" even though its like 47 places below ... and honestly- does any believe that for the sciences (not just engineering) that NTU is better than Princeton???</p>