<p>World's</a> Best Universities; Top 400 Universities in the World | US News</p>
<p>It's the only ranking you'll ever see, where Michigan's ahead of Ber-kel-ey :p</p>
<p>What’s also interesting is that USNWR does both this and the US list, but the order of the US schools (i.e., disregarding the foreign ones) is somewhat different.</p>
<p>Me like this ranking!! 
I see Ohio State ranked ahead of Virginia, USC, Emory, Dartmouth, …etc.</p>
<p>Actually, these rankings are not done by USNWR. They are from the QS World Rankings [QS</a> World University Rankings | Top Universities](<a href=“http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings]QS”>QS World University Rankings: Top global universities | Top Universities) which are done by Quacquarelli Symonds a UK company. Their methodology is different than USNWR and so the relative rankings of U.S. universities are different.</p>
<p>thanks, xray</p>
<p>It does illustrate the point that rankings are based in which criteria the ranker chooses and how the ranker chooses weight or apply them. All of these factors have elements of subjectivity to them.</p>
<p>While most know this, it often gets forgotten … but the point remains that rankings should be only one of many factors in choosing a college. The higher ranked school in many cases is not the best choice for an individual student.</p>
<p>Cornell ahead of Stanford!</p>
<p>I think both Asia and the UKs universities are inflated. For example, 4 of the universities in the top 10 are from the UK; and only 6 of the universities from the 25-50 ranking are American universities. </p>
<p>Aside from Oxbridge, i think UK universities (and especially Asian universities since they’re so new) lack the financial and scholarly resources to seriously compete with American universities.</p>
<p>Interestingly enough, although their ‘world ranking’ gap is large (9 spots,) relative to American schools, Berkeley is ranked 14 and UCLA is ranked 16.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, Cornell is ‘an ivy-league’ after all :p</p>
<p>EDIT: apparently 50% of the ranking is based on reputation (40 on academic; 10 on employer):</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.iu.qs.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/[/url]”>http://www.iu.qs.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/</a></p>
<p>I’m not going to say this ranking is “wrong” per se, but Wisconsin ahead of Carnegie Mellon and UNC-Chapel Hill is just one of the examples I don’t agree with.</p>
<p>And I agree, the asian and UK schools seem to be higher than they should be in some cases…</p>
<p>The one who made the rankings must be dumb, the one who published the rankings must be dumber, and the one who read the rankings must be…:)</p>
<p>Just kidding.</p>
<p>Wisconsin is stronger in life sciences and engineering than UNC. Maybe you were just uninformed. They are close in liberal arts areas still with an edge to UW.</p>
<p>The worldwide rankings are heavily weighted towards faculty research output. The USNews raning is focused on undergraduate education. Look at the methodology for each ranking.</p>
<p>
The only low score Ber-kel-ey has is “faculty-student ratio”, where it has a score of 47 … significantly lower than some of its public peers like Michigan(92), UCLA(62.3), Wisconsin(85.2) and UVa(66.2). It’s probably a mistake.</p>
<p>The “international faculty” score is also a joke.</p>
<p>Definitely a mistake, GoBlue.</p>
<p>I don’t understand the international faculty criteria. So the more passports from different countries there are on campus the more a university’s prowess increases?</p>
<p>Times Higher Education and QS used to do the ranking together; shortly after starting this venture, they split as a result of a fundamental disagreement about what the methodology should be. Basically, QS wants to emphasize factors that make British universities look better, even if the results are just bizarre. There’s at least a few op-eds online from British profs criticizing QS (and other comparative “studies” produced by the British government) for not attempting to create a ranking reflective of reality, but instead one that offers an ego boost and a false sense of security. </p>
<p>Times isn’t much better - both make use of international measures in order to knock down US universities. The US is large enough to produce a critical mass of phenomenal researchers without needing to rely heavily on other countries for sources of talent. The UK, being 1/5 the size of the US, does not have that luxury, and relies heavily on other countries for both faculty and students. The reasons they offer for including the international scores are many, and all are watery at best. (In the past, CC posters have recalculated the rankings without the international scores, and IIRC, nearly all British U’s dropped, and of course the US had a greater dominance in the top 5/10/20/etc.).</p>
<p>In academia, the Brits still have a hard time dealing with US hegemony, which results in them constantly striving to prove that Oxbridge are comparable to Harvard/Stanford/etc. (they aren’t, by most meaningful academic measures), and that their other universities compete with similarly elite universities in the US (they don’t, for the most part).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s probably true. I’m sure that an ego boost is provided by thinking that Caltech is a slightly worse Imperial; or that Princeton is a slightly worse Oxford. But again, lacking the comparable endowment, facilities, and academic talent, this probably isn’t the case.</p>
<p>As a side point, i find it interesting that QS and Times used to work together and now, each lists one of two rivals as the best university in the world: MIT and Caltech (respectively)</p>
<p>Eh, I have a hard time believing that Oxbridge is NOT comparable to Harvard/Stanford/MIT/Caltech. Their endowment does not properly reflect their prowess in academia since the University is a federation of colleges and functions differently than the standard US university. Maybe it’s just my British bias even though I have never stepped on British soil, I don’t know, but I really do legitimately believe that Oxbridge is comparable to Harvard/Stanford/MIT/Caltech.</p>
<p>They’re equal in reputation, but then you’d also have to call Berkeley their peer as well, which seems counter-intuitive (at least to me.)</p>
<p>They’re great universities, that’s undeniable. But they’re just slightly below HYPSM.</p>
<p>After Oxbridge, there’s a steep fall in the quality of universities. It’s hard to compare Imperial or UCL to American universities. But i think most would agree that they shouldn’t be with oxbridge among the top 6 worlds best universities.</p>
<p>
Eh, I don’t know about that. I think most people would agree that Cambridge is their peer in math, for example, and Oxford in philosophy. Both outperform HYPSM in some humanities and social sciences like classics, archaeology, Oriental studies, and geography. Law takes about 3 years, and medicine 6, a significant advantage over the American system in both time and money. Let’s also not forget the tutorial system, which even Williams (considered one of the most undergraduate-focused colleges in the US) has striven to emulate. Many of the museums and resources – Oxford’s Ashmolean, natural history museum, and Bodleian, for example – compare favorably with the holdings of any American university. </p>
<p>Princeton, MIT, and Stanford are stronger in engineering, and most/all of HYPSM may be a bit stronger in the sciences in general, but overall, I think Oxford and Cambridge perform quite well.</p>
<p>That said, I agree that there is a noticeable drop in quality and reputation after Cambridge and Oxford, and UK universities do seem to be a bit overranked in the QS ranking. UCL is arguably the third best university in the UK, and even it is probably closer to Toronto or Wisconsin than Stanford and Harvard.</p>
<p>Well then if everyone truly believes that Oxbridge is not on the very same level as HPSMC then maybe the real question should be what happened for the English Ancient Universities’ to fall from grace? They used to be undisputably the #1 academic center on the planet before the last quarter of the 20th century. Everything used to be the British. I’m just wondering maybe we have a big American bias because how many people in this thread actually have even half a year of personal experience at Oxbridge?</p>