<p>1.) Harvard University
2.) Stanford University
3.) UC Berkeley
4.) Univ. Cambridge
5.) Massachusettes Institute of Tech.
6.) California Institute of Tech.
7.) Columbia University
8.) Princeton University
9.) Univ. Chicago
10.) Univ. Oxford
11.) Yale University
12.) Cornell University
13.) UCLA
14.) UC San Diego
15.) Univ. Pennsylvania
16.) Univ. Washington - Seattle
17.) Univ. Wisconsin - Madison
18.) UC San Francisco
19.) Johns Hopkins University
20.) Tokyo University</p>
<li> Harvard University </li>
<li> University of Cambridge </li>
<li> University of Oxford<br></li>
<li>Yale University<br></li>
<li>Massachusetts Institute of Technology<br></li>
<li> Stanford University </li>
<li> California Institute of Technology </li>
<li> University of California, Berkeley<br></li>
<li> Imperial College London </li>
<li> Princeton University<br></li>
<li> University of Chicago </li>
<li> Columbia University<br></li>
<li> Duke University<br></li>
<li> Peking University </li>
<li> Cornell University<br></li>
<li> Australian National University </li>
<li> London School of Economics and Political…</li>
<li> Ecole Normale Sup</li>
</ol>
<p>This has nothing to do with undergrad. Once again, in the US undergrad ranks and overall university ranks are very different things. Some incredibly prestigious and powerful undergrad schools have no/ weak grad schools (Amherst, Williams), while some prestigious grad schools have weaker undergrad (UTexas, Minnesota, Illinois).</p>
Fixed. That's what you meant to say, right? :) </p>
<p>Incidentally, the Newsweek list doesn't really count as an independent ranking. Its "methodology" is to average the ranks of the Shanghai Jiao Tong and THES rankings.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This has nothing to do with undergrad.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I beg to differ. THES is an undergrad ranking that factors in class size and recruiter assessment. </p>
<p>The reality is that, regardless of their quality, U.S LACs are not well-known internationally. On top of that, in Europe at least, colleges that do not grant doctorates and are not research-intensive are normally seen as inferior to research universities. That's the case e.g. of the * Fachhochschulen * in Germany or the old Polytechnics in England. I guess it is just a different culture compared to the US as far as higher education is concerned.</p>
<p>Why? There's really nothing to think about. The rankings are based on various methodologies. The results are useful only in light of these methodologies. It's not as if there are benchmarks one can regress against.</p>
<p>Accept or reject the methodologies as you will, because that's all this is about.</p>
<p>Cornell is good at like almost everything, and has like one of the only good engineering departements in the ivies. Internationals do care a lot about engineering</p>
<p>RE: UTexas-Austin: I think the Wuhan ranking did the same thing The Times Higher Ed. ranking did the first year of their rankings. The Times ranked UT-Austin #12 in the world (and #5? or something in the US) because they combined UT-Austin with the UT-Southwestern Medical School in Dallas. UT-Austin itself doesn't have a medical school on campus, while UT-Southwestern is only a medical university. Since UT-Southwestern has more Nobel Laureates on faculty than any other medical school in the country (incl. Harvard and JHU), when combined with UT-Austin's strong grad programs, it creates a powerhouse university that technically doesn't exist as a singular institution even though it's all under the University of Texas system umbrella. Makes one wonder what UT-Austin would be ranked if it did have a medical school on campus. (Berkeley, on the other hand, is all the more impressive for being able to attain its stellar reputation without a medical school either.)</p>
<p>For the last time, these are UNIVERSITY rankings, not college rankings. They rank the most prestigious universities as viewed by the rest of the world. For the most part, they are correct.</p>