Worldwide University Rankings

<p>By the London Times.</p>

<p>Methodology used peer review based on strength/effectiveness of teaching, research, and international reputation.</p>

<p>Worldwide Ranking:</p>

<li>Harvard</li>
<li>University of California at Berkeley</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>California Institute of Technology</li>
<li>Oxford</li>
<li>Cambridge</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>ETH Zurich</li>
</ol>

<p>US Ranking:</p>

<li>Harvard</li>
<li>University of California at Berkeley</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>California Institute of Technology</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>University of Chicago</li>
<li>UT Austin</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>University of California at San Francisco</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>University of California at San Diego</li>
<li>John Hopkins</li>
<li>University of California at Los Angeles</li>
<li>University of Pennsylvania</li>
<li>University of Michigan</li>
<li>University of Illinois</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon</li>
<li>University of Massachusetts</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>Purdue University</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>Georgia Institute of Technology</li>
<li>University of Wisconsin</li>
</ol>

<p>im incredulous...</p>

<p>okay...<em>searches for meaning</em></p>

<p>maybe im wrong here, but i dont think u normally say "im incredulous"... anyone wanna back me up here?</p>

<p>that said, fairly suprising... some 'notables' are missing on that list... whats Zuring ETH anyway... better apply there... :p</p>

<p>its for university. meaning grad schools included.tahts why u dont see dartmouth.</p>

<p>Dartmouth College is ranked 138 on the worldwide rankings. It scored rather low on peer review scoring.</p>

<p>who cares? California1600 is just mad that he didn't get into an Ivy League school and wants to prove to the world that all ivies are overhyped. That's why he lurks all the Ivy league sites and posts mindless crap. And in a way, he's right. Ivy isn't everything. But his delivery borders on arrogance that I don't appreciate.</p>

<p>Well, Cali, your point is proven. Ivies (bar Harvard) are only worth a name, afterall. How did we not realize? I'd better withdraw my Princeton app and apply to Berkeley.</p>

<p>Those look like rubbish to me....UVa didn't even make the list ahead of Illinois, Purdue, GA tech, and Wisconsin? It's at least on par with UMich. And what's up with Caltech placing 4th? And Berkeley ahead of Stanford? And Harvard 1st? And the Sorbonne didn't make the int'l list? Ahh, whatever....the London Times can be forgiven for being a less-than-accurate critic of US universities (if the London Times actually did print this...)</p>

<p>hahahha stony brook is ranked 50th! hahahahahahh</p>

<p>thats higher than dartmouth hehe - such bizarre rankings</p>

<p>It's science-geared (no wonder Caltech was 4th)....see this:

[quote]
The Shanghai list also awards a fifth of its points on the basis of articles published in Science and Nature, thereby conferring a big advantage on universities with strengths in the areas covered by these journals. A further 40 per cent rides on two overlapping citation indices, with a final 10 per cent devoted to a complex measure compensating for the advantages enjoyed by big universities. The Times Higher ranking rates universities as they are now, or at least as they were at the time of the most recently published statistics. The use of citations and staffing levels helps institutions dominated by the sciences, but the measures are as neutral as possible. When the next rankings are published in 2005, more improvements will no doubt have been made.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Haha...UVa is 47th and UC-SF is 11th, go figure.</p>

<p>^ Yes the Citations/Faculty is biased towards science. Because obviously, more journals and citations are scientific oriented. However, the peer review methodology which is the biggest chunk of the methodology is more biased towards universities with a wide breadth of majors. Cal Tech didn't do so well in the peer review, but their #1 ranking 400 citations/faculty number was off the charts. </p>

<p>Here is an excerpt from the ranking methodology group.</p>

<p>This listing of the most-esteemed
universities in the world, compiled on
the basis of a peer review of 1,300
academics and weighted by area and
subject, shows that old is beautiful.
The top two are Berkeley and Harvard in
the US — the second a 17th-century
foundation and the first set up as the
Harvard of the West 200 years later — and
they are followed by the medieval
foundations of Oxford and Cambridge.
More encouragingly, this analysis shows
that academics find excellence across the
world, with Japan and China joining the
UK and the US in the top ten. Singapore’s
National University comes in at 11 and the
next nine places go to universities from the
UK, the US, India, Australia and Japan.
The discipline balance achieved in this
analysis removes some of the bias in favour
of science and technology that is apparent in
our citations-based data, as well as eroding
the advantage the US enjoys in the citations
count. The California Institute of Technology,
substantial staff numbers, it performs less
well on citations per staff member than its
reputation might suggest. By contrast, the
California Institute of Technology, fourth in
the world overall, drops down to 11th on this
analysis despite its low student numbers.
This analysis shows that the most
student-oriented institutions vary widely
in attractiveness to overseas staff and
students. The Ecole Polytechnique
Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland, is top
at attracting foreign students, but it comes
in at joint 117th on the faculty-to-student
count. The top institution for overseas
students, the London School of Economics,
is 29th on this measure.
But despite the wide variety in
institutional behaviour this measure reveals,
it is notable that the world’s top university,
Harvard, is also prominent in this ranking,
where it appears in eighth place.
fourth in our overall rankings, plummets to
15th on this count, while ETH Zurich, tenth
in the world overall, falls to number 25. ETH
is a specialist science and technology
university and does not have a medical
school. An exception to this rule is the Indian
Institute of Technology, which is 18th in our
peer review but 41st in the world overall.
Peer review favours large universities with
a wide range of subject coverage. The
Massachusetts Institute of Technology is the
only specialist institution in the top ten, and
its agenda now runs far beyond technology.
Beijing, at number ten in this ranking,
has seen its reputation outside China rise
rapidly in recent years across a wide range
of subjects, including science and
technology. It is already widely regarded as
a substantial institution, and this reputation
may grow and be followed by success in
citations and by our other criteria in future
years. By the same token, Tokyo University,
like many other pillars of Japanese society,
is involved in a slow process of
modernisation in response to social and
economic change in Japan. Its prestige may
rise or fall in line with trends over which it
has little control.
Future analysis will show whether this
peer-review exercise predicts future success
or reflects past glory. Institutions such as
Harvard and Cambridge have enormous
financial advantages over their newer and
less prestigious rivals but can stay ahead of
the game only by reinventing themselves
continuously.</p>

<p>UC San Francisco?! HAHAHAHHAHAHAA what a joke</p>

<p>Kebree,</p>

<p>I don't think something is wrong with Caltech ranking 4th on the list ahead of Stanford. These two universities are of equal status and are not lesser than the upper Ivies, except Harvard.</p>

<p>
[quote]
...peer review methodology which is the biggest chunk of the methodology

[/quote]

No..it's 30%. A significant "chunk," perhaps, but not the biggest.</p>

<p>These rankings are based on:
30% international peer review
20% publishings in Science and Nature
40% citations
10% compensating for privileges of large universities.</p>

<p>That's 60% on science articles/research, which is ridiculous...these rankings might help a future chem/bio engineering major, but for most of us they mean very little.</p>

<p>And I thought the US News rankings were odd.....compared to these, they look brilliant.</p>

<p>Edit:
rtkysg---I wasn't saying that Caltech is not a good school---if I were an aspiring engineer, it would be among my top picks---but it's impossible to rank a technical school with liberal arts schools. They just don't mix. This list seems to be ranking science strengths in schools, so Caltech's ranking (in that case) is not out of place.
.</p>

<p>I agree with you, Kebree, this should have been labeled a survey ranking primarily on "scientific merit" - it's very misleading the way it is presented here.</p>

<p>Well..these rankings have certainly been amusing. Whoever invented the ranking formula was.....well....</p>

<p>EDIT:
Thanks, kat1!</p>

<p>Yeah, and even the peer review was strange....how do they select peers? The rest of the rankings make me wonder if they polled the Science/Economics departments, lol.</p>

<p>And Princeton's citations in various history books/texts are part of what made me want to go there...I wish they did rankings based on different departments' relative strengths. I know Yale's and UVa's history depts. are good, too....</p>

<p>So, according to this list, since MIT and CalTech are third and fourth respectively (a full few notches above Princeton, no less!), they must be better for an English major like me! What a fool I've been for never having seen the light.</p>

<p>when they say worldwide
they mean the western world?
i'm sure Todai (tokyo university) should've been ranked at least in the top ten.</p>

<p>"when they say worldwide
they mean the western world?"</p>

<p>you mean Todai is located somewhere in the moon ? ;p</p>