[screenager2004]

According to this, Warwick is ranked 15th-19th nationally? I don't think so!!!

[Phantom_X]

LOL LSE is in the 200's category ?

yeah, i think i'll discard this table.

[deathbeforeimmortality]

Where is LSE?

Yo at least Manc is 44? Not that this means anything though.

[EricOfficial]

http://www.topuniversities.com/unive...s/2009/results
The most accurate one, I guess
but, still the rankings of 2009.

[Ultimate1]

No Durham? Warwick? LSE?

[swallows]

I get the impression the size of a university has a lot to do with this table.

[xoxAngel_Kxox]

Haha mine isn't even on there

[samtec]

For those wondering why LSE isn't up there, these are global rankings and as far as I can remember LSE has never really performed all that well in any of the global ones, not even in the times one. Global rankings take different factors into consideration than our national ones do and it seems LSE lacks in one particular area that prevents it doing well globally.

[HighestKungFu]

He must be talking about a different world ranking table, The Times QS one isn't out yet for 2010.

[Inspironie]

(Original post by samtec)
For those wondering why LSE isn't up there, these are global rankings and as far as I can remember LSE has never really performed all that well in any of the global ones, not even in the times one. Global rankings take different factors into consideration than our national ones do and it seems LSE lacks in one particular area that prevents it doing well globally.

thus a failure in its methodology

[GodspeedGehenna]

Yeaaaaaaaah Rhul is number one as usual.

[AfghanistanBananistan]

LSE Doesn't do well because this focuses heavily on science subjects and the size of the university is important. I must say that i am suprised by Warwick though, but shows that it is not as much of a world beater as it claims.

Now the THES say that they have sorted out the citation problems in their new ranking, im guessing LSE will definately be in the world top 20 this year and perhaps in the top 10 (it has been 11th in the world twice afterall)

[phen]

O JOY! NEW WORLD UNI RANKINGS OUT TODAY!! I've been looking forward to this day for months now!

TSR sigh

[tillytots]

UCL is gonna take a blow if this is reflecting what other tables will say.. 3 down to 21 eeek

[HighestKungFu]

Did you happen to see where Queen Mary was? It usually ranks well in the ARWU (alongside Warwick and Durham at around 150).

[cooolpavan]

I couldnt find Lancaster in this list.

[HighestKungFu]

It ranks (for the UK) LSE at 20 and QMUL at 23, with both having moved down from last year...I'm not so sure about this one lol.

There is so much disparity between all the rankings that to be honest I'm starting to think they have little to no value now.

[pharmakos]

This is an academic ranking, which means it has nothing to do with student's satisfaction and entry standards that decide national rankings and which relies heavily on a uni's RESEARCH output and quality, esp. in the fields of natural sciences. LSE is a social science uni and therefore doesn't perform well in this ranking.

[vander Beth]

(Original post by tillytots)
UCL is gonna take a blow if this is reflecting what other tables will say.. 3 down to 21 eeek

I hope they really didn't believe they were no. 4 mwahaha

[River85]

(Original post by tillytots)
UCL is gonna take a blow if this is reflecting what other tables will say.. 3 down to 21 eeek

(Original post by vander Beth)
I hope they really didn't believe they were no. 4 mwahaha

This is a different table. You're referring to the THES World Rankings. This is the Academic Ranking of World Universities. UCL's position has remained the same in this table as I think it was 21st last year.

(Original post by Inspironie)
thus a failure in its methodology

It's not a failure in methodolgy. That university rankings can vary so much (not just domestic to international but also one international table to another international). What this shows is that you can use statistics to show pretty much anything.

(Original post by Phantom_X)
LOL LSE is in the 200's category ?

yeah, i think i'll discard this table.

Why? Because it doesn't conform to your pre-conceived ranking?

No one table has a distinctly flawed methodology.