American equivalents

casparma

Secondly, I wouldn't place Chicago, Columbia, UPenn and UCLA equivalent to Imperial/LSE.

For postgrad, why not? Unless you're using breathe of programs as a criterion, I can't see why Imperial and LSE postgrad education (MS., MSc., MA, PhD.) can compete against Chicago, Columbia and UCLA.

This what I wrote:

OVERALL -- Global Prestige
Oxford/Cambridge = Stanford, Harvard, Yale, MIT, Berkeley
Imperial/LSE/St Andrews = Rice, CMU, USC, NYU
UCL/Durham/Warwick/Bristol = top 40 to 50 US schools

I would say Imperial is at the level of UIUC, University of Michigan and Carnegie Mellon in overall.

For postgrad education, UMich is a peer school of Chicago, Columbia and certainly, UCLA.

I think the misconception arises because Imperial is probably considered the third best after OxBridge in UK, and so it receives lots of attention in the Common Wealth Area for people who dont (cant) get into OxBridge.

Both Imperial and LSE are in top 25 in the best universities in the world.

Reply 22

Denny Crane

yes stanford may be better than lse and imperial but in no way is it better than harvard and yale, for some subjects yes but not overall which is what i went by.

Maybe Harvard is better than Stanford, overall, but NOT Yale. The only department where Yale is better than Stanford is Law. But even in that department, Stanford Law isn't that behind Yale's. In fact, Stanford Law was just ranked number 2 this year. But in the sciences, IT and engineering, Stanford would easily trump Yale in these areas. In the humanities, social sciences and undergrad, maybe their about equal, but overall, I would rank Stanford ahead of Yale. All international league tables would rank Stanford above Yale. I haven't seen any international ranking survey where Yale outperformed Stanford overall. It's Stanford that's always ahead of Yale.

Reply 23

Denny Crane

13

ILIGAN

UCL/Durham/Warwick/Bristol = top 40 to 50 US schools

You are not serious. This is such an American thing to write. Where do you get your information from?

Reply 24

Well, I am. Warwick, Durham and Bristol are all great unis, but they don't quite compare to many of the US' top schools. Not yet. Maybe they would be in the long run. I know that Warwick is a very progressive institution and it's getting better and better every year. But right now, it's not yet in the league of UCLAs or UMichs or CMUs. Maybe in time it will be. But right now, not yet.

UCL has a slightly better global appeal than have Warwick, Durham and Bristol. I believe it should have been ranked above the 3 in the international arena.

Manchester is another UK uni that should have ranked very well in international league tables due to its strong research output and great postgrad programs.

The thing is, UK unis are viewed differently outside of the UK. For example, Warwick and UCL are neck-and-neck in the UK. However, on international level, UCL is viewed ahead of Warwick.

Reply 25

ILIGAN

For postgrad, why not? Unless you're using breathe of programs as a criterion, I can't see why Imperial and LSE postgrad education (MS., MSc., MA, PhD.) can compete against Chicago, Columbia and UCLA.

Well, if you are really talking about international reputation on academic performance, Chicago, Columbia, and UCLA are well ahead of Imperial, where Chicago and Columbia are in the top 10 and UCLA in the top 15. However, Imperial is more like top 25.

http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2007/ARWU2007_Top100.htm

The above website, as far as I can find online, probably provides the best illustration of universities performance based on researches output on world renowned journals/conferences, and obviously the density of world renowned faculties winning nobel prizes and field medals and many others. The methodology is based on quantatitive data to measure academic performance, especially in sciences (social and natural).

And from my experience as an Asian, it's indeed that UCLA, Columbia, and Chicago are more highly regarded in the academia in Asia, than UMich or Imperial.

ILIGAN

Both Imperial and LSE are in top 25 in the best universities in the world.

Yes, I know, but I was stressing that based on international reputation in academic performance, Imperial and LSE fall much lower than OxBridge, than as Oxford to Cambridge. For example, although Oxford is behind Cambridge, both of them are still top 10, however Imperial falls immediately to top 25. But because Imperial is considered one of the best in UK, many people believe falsely that it's like close to OxBridge or something whereas it's really not the case. :tongue:

Reply 26

Casparma,

I think you need to understand that both Imperial and LSE are “specialist” schools. They're like Caltech and Chicago -- Caltech being similar to Imperial and Chicago being similar to LSE. Both Caltech and Chicago are mismatched compared to UMich or UCLA in terms of breathe of program offerings. But in terms of quality, they're both top-notched in their own right and can hold on its own against some of the giant American unis. Caltech being a powerhouse in engineering and hard sciences while Chicago being a powerhouse in social science, economics and languages. Caltech, like Imperial, does not offer languages and social sciences. Chicago, like LSE does not offer engineering and lacks certain breathes in hard science and IT.

Furthermore, if you notice, International Ranking league tables have varying criteria and thus have different rankings of universities. The THES has place Imperial in the top 10. In the Shanghai table, it’s just number 23rd. But Asiaweek placed it at number 17, ahead of Cornell and Chicago.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3037881/site/newsweek/

1. Harvard University
2. Stanford University
3. Yale University
4. California Institute of Technology
5. University of California at Berkeley
6. University of Cambridge
7. Massachusetts Institute Technology
8. Oxford University
9. University of California at San Francisco
10. Columbia University
11. University of Michigan at Ann Arbor
12. University of California at Los Angeles
13. University of Pennsylvania
14. Duke University
15. Princeton Universitty
16. Tokyo University
17. Imperial College London
18. University of Toronto
19. Cornell University
20. University of Chicago

Reply 27

Again, as I said, the Shanghai Jiao Tong ranking is really talking about the ranking in terms of scientific achievement in overall. Just look at their measuring criteria more closely. Based on these criteria, I don't really see why Chicago and Columbia are not ahead of Imperial in terms of their education quality reflected by their achievements in sciences. Just look at Chicago, they have quite a few nobel winners recently. While right now, Imperial has virtually no Nobel faculty, and the last nobel winner associated with Imperial is like two or three decades ago. Of course, you don't just judge an university based on no. of nobel prize faculties, however, that Shang hai Jiao Tong also measures other thing such as research output in major/highly regarded conferences/journals, which demonstrate their impacts in academia.

So really, we are talking about ranking in terms of science, and for sure, Imperial is a science school. And I wouldn't rank Chicago's physics department as equal to Imperial's.

If you wanna look at the specialist ranking for engineering, it's here: http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/ARWU-FIELD2008/ENG2008.htm

Besides, if that THES ranking is really biased. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/andrew-oswald-theres-nothing-nobel-in-.htmliving-ourselves-764880.html
This article, written by an UK scholar, demonstrates why it's so.

Reply 28

dismal_laundry

Or rather, it is an explanation of his opinion.

Reply 29

Well, if you do some googling, you can see actually that THES has close affiliation with Imperial too. THES is manipulated in a way that favors UK universities (I mean, do you think it's possible for Imperial to improve its ranking from only top 20 to top 5 in one year or something? This is what happened in THES ranking), and therefore used to attract lots of students from Singapore.

Just see these facts between Imperial and THES: http://rankingwatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/bit-more-on-imperial-college-london.html

Furthermore, that THES ranking ranks Stanford like only top 25, which is definitely a complete bias.

Reply 30

Master Polhem

ILIGAN

NO WAY!

Stanford, the university, is so much ahead of Imperial and LSE. In fact, in many programs, Stanford is ahead of either Oxford or Cambridge, or even Harvard. For example, Stanford Engineering is so much better than Harvard's. Stanford is also ahead of Harvard in Education, Biological Sciences, Chemistry, Computer Science, Earth Sciences, Physics, Psychology and Sociology, and tied with Harvard in Business, Math, Economics and History.

What on earth does that mean in this context?

Reply 31

Master Polhem

casparma

I think the misconception arises because Imperial is probably considered the third best after OxBridge in UK, and so it receives lots of attention in the Common Wealth Area for people who dont (cant) get into OxBridge.

Naturally I am going to defend my university so my apologies now but I know 5 people who will be going to Imperial starting '08 who rejected Oxbridge. You have got to understand that we do not do general engineering and the engineering courses of Imperial are pretty much the flagship courses. Far more people reject Imperial for Oxbridge, naturally, but it goes the other way to.

Reply 32

DrAtomic

1

+1 to the above post.

I know a number of students at Chicago who rejected Ivy League schools to come here, myself included. The reverse happens more frequently, but Chicago is basically just as good as Ivy League schools so my guess is that students reject one for the other on a regular basis.

Re: equivalents of US universities. I don't really think this is an arguable topic. In my opinion, equivalents simply do not exist on any level other than prestige.

Reply 33

DrAtomic

+1 to the above post.

I know a number of students at Chicago who rejected Ivy League schools to come here, myself included. The reverse happens more frequently, but Chicago is basically just as good as Ivy League schools so my guess is that students reject one for the other on a regular basis.

Well, that's because U of C is as good if not better than half of the Ivy schools. In terms of academic prestige, UofC would rank higher than Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell and possibly even Columbia and UPenn (but I would rank them in the same tier, but definitely above D B and C.) Again, in terms of academic prestige, five schools are clearly ahead of Chicago and they are HYPSM. Thought I've explained that a thousand times already. :biggrin:

Reply 34

Master Polhem

Naturally I am going to defend my university so my apologies now but I know 5 people who will be going to Imperial starting '08 who rejected Oxbridge. You have got to understand that we do not do general engineering and the engineering courses of Imperial are pretty much the flagship courses. Far more people reject Imperial for Oxbridge, naturally, but it goes the other way to.

Well, I am talking more about INTERNATIONALLY. Yes, internationally, top students, if only applying to UK, will consider OxBridge ahead of Imperial. Furthermore, international admission into OxBridge is indeed by far fiercer than that of Imperial.

Same thing applies to Ivy League VS Chicago. However, of course, an international might choose Chicago over UPenn because UPenn is a sort of lower ivy.

Any way, in the end it all depends how you do in any of these schools. Not like professionals really care about which school you attend in the long run.

Reply 35

Master Polhem

casparma

Well, I am talking more about INTERNATIONALLY. Yes, internationally, top students, if only applying to UK, will consider OxBridge ahead of Imperial. Furthermore, international admission into OxBridge is indeed by far fiercer than that of Imperial.

Same thing applies to Ivy League VS Chicago. However, of course, an international might choose Chicago over UPenn because UPenn is a sort of lower ivy.

Any way, in the end it all depends how you do in any of these schools. Not like professionals really care about which school you attend in the long run.

Know nothing of International applications, thus cannot comment.

Reply 36

casparma

Again, as I said, the Shanghai Jiao Tong ranking is really talking about the ranking in terms of scientific achievement in overall. Just look at their measuring criteria more closely. Based on these criteria, I don't really see why Chicago and Columbia are not ahead of Imperial in terms of their education quality reflected by their achievements in sciences. Just look at Chicago, they have quite a few nobel winners recently. While right now, Imperial has virtually no Nobel faculty, and the last nobel winner associated with Imperial is like two or three decades ago. Of course, you don't just judge an university based on no. of nobel prize faculties, however, that Shang hai Jiao Tong also measures other thing such as research output in major/highly regarded conferences/journals, which demonstrate their impacts in academia.

So really, we are talking about ranking in terms of science, and for sure, Imperial is a science school. And I wouldn't rank Chicago's physics department as equal to Imperial's.

If you wanna look at the specialist ranking for engineering, it's here: http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/ARWU-FIELD2008/ENG2008.htm

Besides, if that THES ranking is really biased. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/andrew-oswald-theres-nothing-nobel-in-.htmliving-ourselves-764880.html
This article, written by an UK scholar, demonstrates why it's so.

First of all, Imperial is a powerhouse in Engineering. It is its forte, not hard core science like you think, although it is also strong in that area.

Second, the Shanghai ranking is not solely a measure of postgrad education although it indicates that it strongly places research output as a criterion. But there are other measures to assess an excellent postgrad schools or schools that offer excellent postgrad education.

Third, I think you're underestimating Imperial and LSE's caliber as academic institutions and as providers of postgrad education. They're probably not that highly regarded in the US’ mainstream but they are certainly prestigious academic institutions in many parts of the world especially in Commonwealth countries. Their graduates (alumni) are world leaders, movers and shakers of world economies, think tanks and professors of top universities in many parts of the world.

Fourth, both Chicago and Columbia are great schools with global appeal. But so are Imperial and LSE. For undergrad education, Chicago and Columbia are better (review the table that I posted), but for postgrad, they are peer schools. I cannot imagine LSE's postgrad Social Science is sub par to Columbia's. Maybe it is when compared to Chicago's but I don't think the difference in academic prestige would be that big as LSE is as a magnet of great students from all parts of the world as is Chicago or Columbia. In academic quality, I cannot comment anything about that.

Reply 37