Top 10 UK Universities

how absurd lol. Two manchesters in your 'Group 3'?

Why do we have to go back to its 2005 ranking when it already has published a newer one?

Ditto. I don't see jy9626's point.

Sorry; that was supposed to be Birmingham.

Why do we have to go back to its 2005 ranking when it already has published a newer one?

Read what i've written for ScholarsInk. THES used to reflect the world views imao, quite rightly.

Even for this year's edition, I really think the only crucial mistake they made was LSE's position and possibly, Stanford's position. Other than that, it's fine. Well sadly, the majority of people in the world perceive it as fairly rational. so what can we do about it?

The majority of people perceive Imperial and UCL as being better than MIT, Chicago, Columbia, Princeton and Penn?

Right...

Jesus... On the 2005 and 2006 editions, which I consider are a bit more accurate than the recent ones, MIT, Chicago, etc are ranked much higher than Imperial than UCL. So shut up.
THES made some mistakes with this year's. But I still think the only crucial mistake they made was placing LSE 60~70, while placing Imperial under top 10.

If there is a methodology, then you must stick to it. Whatever THES used, thats where it places LSE and Imperial, deal with it. If they were to change the methodology to favour the LSE and move them up, then no doubt you'd be cheesed that someone else was out of position. What you are basically saying is, you want a table that agrees with the views in your head of where Universities should be ranked.

There you go again. You're claiming that the only grave mistake this year is the LSE/Imperial placement.

Rankings change every year like league tables do, depending on universities' performances. So just don't read them, if you hate them so much.

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/oswald/worldclassoct05.pdf
Enjoy.
This too. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/oswald/worldunis04.pdf

Yes. Completely depending on universities' performances...

Let's ignore the 2007 change in methodology, shall we...

?
But seriously, have you even looked at 2005 and 2006 rankings by THES? No one can criticize THES so harshly after looking at those.
I suppose you're already at a university. So easy, just don't look at them if you don't like them.

Why can't we? Can we not criticise they way the table is compiled? Why are these tables so good but the subsequent ones not? Because they happen to agree with where YOU think Universities should be ranked? Oh, right.

Criticize it. do whatever.
But you can change the fact that vast number of people look at them.
Well, if you read lots of comments about how wrong THES this year is. You'll find loads of complaints about positions of LSE, Stanford, Berkeley, UCL and Imperial, which I agree with. By taking those complaints into account, one could conclude that previous 2005 and 2006 rankings were fairly accurate in reflecting the majority's view. Thus, THES isn't complety foolish.

Jesus... On the 2005 and 2006 editions, which I consider are a bit more accurate than the recent ones, MIT, Chicago, etc are ranked much higher than Imperial than UCL. So shut up.
THES made some mistakes with this year's. But I still think the only crucial mistake they made was placing LSE 60~70, while placing Imperial under top 10.