Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by boonkoh)
    For rankings of worldwide universities, go to: http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/ranking.htm and click view top 500 universities.

    Site is reputable. You can also find it by searching in google for "World ranking of universities" without the quite marks. It is the top listed search result, which says something about its reputation.

    BTW, Imperial ranks 17th on a world-wide scale... and just under the University of Washington in the US, which I'm sure most of you have never heard of.
    So, Site is reputable because you can find it on Google eh? lol I can make a site and get it listed on google, doesn't make my site reputable though does it.
    Many people have major problems with that site
    http://www.uk-learning.net/t24884.html
    and if you search on UKL you'll find other threads about it.
    Problems include the massive favouring of US unis, the strange omission of the LSE (hewins will rabbit on about this...ill leave that to him...although the omission is VERY weird), the addition of univ of sheffield(no.68!!), univ of leicster etc (they're decent unis, but no way in the top 350 lol) and even americans on this site have questioned some of the positionings.
    Only a fool would rely on one site anyway...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The site is reputable because it is the first listed search result out of 600,000. Let me explain how google generates serach results.

    Google roughly employs 2 criteria when ranking the order of search results. The first criteria is the click-through to the site. Google keeps track of what sites you click on after you submit a search. A site you click on usually means that the site has pertinent info to your search query. So.. a site that is clicked often using the same search words that you are searching for will appear higher.

    The second crtieria is the well-known-ess (is it a word?) of the site. Google measures this by finding out how many other sites link to that site. So a site with 10,000 links to it from other webpages will be considered by Google to be more credible than one with only 1 or 2 links to it. After all.. it makes sense.. if 10,000 other webmasters felt that this site was worth mentioning and linking to on their webpages, it must be a pretty good site then.

    It is true that these rankings are not comprehensive. They do not take into account quality of students going in, teaching quality, etc. But then, you will find that most other rankings are not comprehensive as well. The Guardian's and The Times are examples. Both use different criteria, but you can't say that these criteria cover everything. Rankings have to be used with other rankings, in order to get a bigger picture.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by boonkoh)
    The site is reputable because it is the first listed search result out of 600,000. Let me explain how google generates serach results.

    Google roughly employs 2 criteria when ranking the order of search results. The first criteria is the click-through to the site. Google keeps track of what sites you click on after you submit a search. A site you click on usually means that the site has pertinent info to your search query. So.. a site that is clicked often using the same search words that you are searching for will appear higher.

    The second crtieria is the well-known-ess (is it a word?) of the site. Google measures this by finding out how many other sites link to that site. So a site with 10,000 links to it from other webpages will be considered by Google to be more credible than one with only 1 or 2 links to it. After all.. it makes sense.. if 10,000 other webmasters felt that this site was worth mentioning and linking to on their webpages, it must be a pretty good site then.

    It is true that these rankings are not comprehensive. They do not take into account quality of students going in, teaching quality, etc. But then, you will find that most other rankings are not comprehensive as well. The Guardian's and The Times are examples. Both use different criteria, but you can't say that these criteria cover everything. Rankings have to be used with other rankings, in order to get a bigger picture.
    Well done kiddo, you can read about google and post about its search and ranking methods.
    This does not however, guarantee that the site is reputable. I think I'd better point some things out to your naive little mind.
    Firstly, in theory clicking on a site might indicate that the site is popular. But this may not go hand in hand with popularity. When searching for a result, a site I click on IS NOT ALWAYS pertinent to my enquries and a number of times I have found the site i have clicked on to be totally irrelevant. I click on the link to see what's IN the site, not neccessarily to use its content, until I've ascertained that it is actually relevant to me.
    Now, as for the second point....well done for reciting the google essence. But tbh it doesn't really hold here does it. The reason why this site probably ranks so highly here is because it seems to be one of the ONLY if not the only site that does actually rank world universities. This is quite telling, in that it shows that there haven't been any other massive studies to try and compare universities from different countries. Now this would explain why the site may qualify in the google essence test, because if this is the only site that has ranked universities world-wide (altho it may contain very dodgy criteria), obviously people will link to it, especially on forums such as UKL and other newsgroups.
    I think the problem we find here is lack of any other studies of world-wide universities which may actually use decent criteria, and so be more useful to people. In the process it (a site with better criteria) would become more linked to and kaboom, it would be above this site on google.
    Anyway, I would never link reputability with a google ranking. The current methods are probably the best around at the moment but I feel getting ranked at the top of google is more of an art form....
    More importantly than all of this though (before we get into a fight about googles methods...save that for the computer subforum lol)....you've clearly not read the link I gave you....I suggest you read it. It's felt that the holes in the criteria used here are so large that they render the site pretty much useless. Some of the rankings are ridiculous....
    If you've got any REAL evidence of reputability of this site, then please do tell me, because the google ranking one is laughable...
    Although the Guardian's and The Times might use dodgy criteria also, since we can compare them to each other(and to the Sunday Times) we can get the "bigger picture" that you are so keen to find. BUT you've just defeated your own point, by saying that "rankings have to be used with other rankings"...well what other world-wide university rankings do you have apart from the one? None I suspect, so you can't use this ranking set in conjunction with other rankings as they don't exist...you're just taking these rankings of the unis at face-value.
    So what can we conclude from all of this?
    You are one very naive person if you have been relying on this site to choose your uni. Would you choose the Uni of Leiscter over the LSE? I (in most circumstances)wouldn't that's for sure!

    NB: Am not taking a dig at Leiscter students.

    NBB: Oh my....look how long this post is.... :eek:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BossLady)
    If you've got any REAL evidence of reputability of this site, then please do tell me, because the google ranking one is laughable...

    Well.. i know u r going to imperial so i dont think u will doubt imperial's judgement. Imperial website has a link to this site (Worlds top 500 unis) and it clearly shows that imperial consider this table to be genuine, if they didnt they would not put it on their website...

    i think that says it all for u that this table must have some creditibility for Imperial to put it on their live site.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BossLady)

    NB: Am not taking a dig at Leiscter students.

    NBB: Oh my....look how long this post is.... :eek:

    Look at this link to see what imperial has to say about the world uni league table

    http://www.imperial.ac.uk/P4887.htm

    And this is where imperial has a link to the site: (the first one)

    http://www.imperial.ac.uk/P4889.htm
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by integral_neo)
    i think that says it all for u that this table must have some creditibility for Imperial to put it on their live site.
    I've seen those links already...
    And as fr your last statement (quoted above)...no not at all.... Obviously Imperial and any other university ranked highly on it, would use this as a link on this site and endorse it, but tbh I didn't suddenly go on this site, think "oooooh look at Imperial's ranking, I want to go there because of it"...Did you? I certainly don't think that this site is the defintive rankings of world-wide universities, which boonkoh seems to think.

    The fact is...a university's site is obviously going to be biast isn't it? It's there to promote itself, not scare people away. It will use any resource available...
    For example: A university could claim that they "get a massive chunk of their students into work after graduation"....but may neglect to tell us that they all go and work in Maccy D's or the local supermarket. I doubt any decent uni does this (esp ICL), but the fact is you should never take things at face-value.
    Using stats, links, figures etc doesn't guarantee credibility , otherwise any LSE goer could easily say the opposite...ie this site is not credible because they don't use quote it in their prospectus/website.
    Btw I quite like Imperial's position on there...but boonkoh seems to have a problem with it...he seems to think that the fact that Washington Uni's position which is slightly higher than ICL, proves that ICL is slipping somehow, which I certainly don't agree with.
    I am pointing out that the rankings have major flaws in as it is, which might account for this and that popularity(hence googles listing of it highly) does not always equate to credibility when dealing with sites.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BossLady)
    I've seen those links already...
    And as fr your last statement (quoted above)...no not at all.... Obviously Imperial and any other university ranked highly on it, would use this as a link on this site and endorse it, but tbh I didn't suddenly go on this site, think "oooooh look at Imperial's ranking, I want to go there because of it"...Did you? I certainly don't think that this site is the defintive rankings of world-wide universities, which boonkoh seems to think.

    The fact is...a university's site is obviously going to be biast isn't it? It's there to promote itself, not scare people away. It will use any resource available...
    For example: A university could claim that they "get a massive chunk of their students into work after graduation"....but may neglect to tell us that they all go and work in Maccy D's or the local supermarket. I doubt any decent uni does this (esp ICL), but the fact is you should never take things at face-value.
    Using stats, links, figures etc doesn't guarantee credibility , otherwise any LSE goer could easily say the opposite...ie this site is not credible because they don't use quote it in their prospectus/website.
    Btw I quite like Imperial's position on there...but boonkoh seems to have a problem with it...he seems to think that the fact that Washington Uni's position which is slightly higher than ICL, proves that ICL is slipping somehow, which I certainly don't agree with.
    I am pointing out that the rankings have major flaws in as it is, which might account for this and that popularity(hence googles listing of it highly) does not always equate to credibility when dealing with sites.
    I never mentioned that this site poping on top in google has anything to do with its creditibility, it merely comes on top because it is the ONLY site which does that sort of thing (as u said) and also i agree about ur point that uni site is to promote itself so thats why it has the links on its site, however, another point to consider here is that you should also notice that if that ranking system is completely bogus/irrelevant then imperial displaying its link on its site might contribute towards bad reputation for imperial as it will be displaying a link which is renowned for being flawed, u know wot i mean...

    I personally think that table is completely useless and flawed, its biased towards US unis and giving harvard a perfect score (100/100) just shows that it has used harvard as a banchmark, hence biased. no league table will give a perfect score because there is no such thing as a perfect uni in this world which will score 100% in each and every field every uni has its weaknesses.

    Anyway, hope to see u soon at ICL
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by integral_neo)
    I never mentioned that this site poping on top in google has anything to do with its creditibility, it merely comes on top because it is the ONLY site which does that sort of thing (as u said) and also i agree about ur point that uni site is to promote itself so thats why it has the links on its site,
    I didn't imply that you were the one who said google rankings equate with credibility. I was trying to explain to you what my previous posts were trying to achieve in response boonkoh's points...perhaps I should have written "I am pointing out to boonkoh", but I assumed it was clear enough...

    (Original post by integral_neo)
    however, another point to consider here is that you should also notice that if that ranking system is completely bogus/irrelevant then imperial displaying its link on its site might contribute towards bad reputation for imperial as it will be displaying a link which is renowned for being flawed, u know wot i mean...
    This is indeed an possibility, but a large number of universities have displayed this link and endorsed the site, which unfortunatley has given it prominence. If many good unis endorse the site, the fact that its criteria is quite questionable tends to become irrelevant,and there isn't really a danger of any of the institutions being tarred with a bad brush as quite a few of them have linked to it, meaning they'd all be given neg reputation which is v unlikely to happen.
    The other thing that occured to me is that the Guardian league table tends to not be thought of as very useful when looking at UK uni rankings, and yet many unis still quote it. The reputation of the Guardian's table is not neccessarily bad just that it's less useful than other tables, but the guardian newspaper is prominent so the fact that the table may use dodgey criteria doesn't seme to matter. Maybe this also applies to the world-wide uni rankign site...ie one uni quotes it, it becomes more prominent and then they all use it..the fact that it's methods might be questionable gets a little lost.
    Just a few thoughts....this particular point is very interesting though....If most people agree that the site is quite flawed, then it is a surprise to see so many unis quoting it. Anyone got any other ideas why? Maybe some highly acclaimed academic has endorsed it or something?


    (Original post by integral_neo)
    I personally think that table is completely useless and flawed, its biased towards US unis and giving harvard a perfect score (100/100) just shows that it has used harvard as a banchmark, hence biased. no league table will give a perfect score because there is no such thing as a perfect uni in this world which will score 100% in each and every field every uni has its weaknesses.
    Agreed. :cool:


    (Original post by integral_neo)
    Anyway, hope to see u soon at ICL
    You too !
    Hey...I hear you've changed to maths and something else (not computing)?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by integral_neo)
    I personally think that table is completely useless and flawed, its biased towards US unis and giving harvard a perfect score (100/100) just shows that it has used harvard as a banchmark, hence biased. no league table will give a perfect score because there is no such thing as a perfect uni in this world which will score 100% in each and every field every uni has its weaknesses.
    OK.. about using the top uni as a benchmark, it is common practice in ranking methodology. The Guardian, The Times, and the USNEWS rankings all asign the top uni a score of 100, and then the 2nd, 3rd, etc are assigned a score lower than 100. The purpose of assigning the top uni a 100 is twofold:

    1st, it acts as a basic of comparison. If the next uni on the list is a 99.9, then you can safely assume that the standard of the two unis are almost equal based on their criteria. Thus, it is a system for comparison use. True, in the individual categories the uni might not score a perfect 100. The final score is adjusted so that the top uni is a 100, and all other uni scores are equally and fairly adjusted to this new scale.

    2nd, in the guide's opinion, the university at the top means that it should be the best uni around (this is not my opinion, but a guide that puts a uni in rank 1 implies that it believes that uni is the best). Therefore, assigning the uni as 100 and comparing all the other unis to it seems reasonable. After all, mankind (and womankind, if you're feminist) has always compared things to the best.

    Finally, your reason for the rankings being biased is totally unsupported. Just because the rankings put Harvard at the top does not mean that the rankings are biased to US unis. At best, you can state that maybe the rankings are biased to Harvard. But then, I think that many of you will agree when I say that it should be not surprising if Harvard tops the list of ANY world ranking, comprehensive or not.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    OK BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POST! pkonline or anyone else at IC, should I bring ANY kitchen stuff when coming to IC or should I wait? I'm going for self-catered but I don't know whether that is what I'll get or not! What did you bring? I have read the posts about what to bring in general, but this is specific to IC!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by integral_neo)
    I never mentioned that this site poping on top in google has anything to do with its creditibility, it merely comes on top because it is the ONLY site which does that sort of thing (as u said) and also i agree about ur point that uni site is to promote itself so thats why it has the links on its site, however, another point to consider here is that you should also notice that if that ranking system is completely bogus/irrelevant then imperial displaying its link on its site might contribute towards bad reputation for imperial as it will be displaying a link which is renowned for being flawed, u know wot i mean...

    I personally think that table is completely useless and flawed, its biased towards US unis and giving harvard a perfect score (100/100) just shows that it has used harvard as a banchmark, hence biased. no league table will give a perfect score because there is no such thing as a perfect uni in this world which will score 100% in each and every field every uni has its weaknesses.

    Anyway, hope to see u soon at ICL
    aha another ICL victim. u doing maths i hear.... same as me
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pushupbra)
    OK BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POST! pkonline or anyone else at IC, should I bring ANY kitchen stuff when coming to IC or should I wait? I'm going for self-catered but I don't know whether that is what I'll get or not! What did you bring? I have read the posts about what to bring in general, but this is specific to IC!
    Yeh if you're self catered bring cutlery, crockery, pots and pans etc... There'll prob be a kettle and toaster there in the kitchens.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BossLady)
    You too !
    Hey...I hear you've changed to maths and something else (not computing)?

    Well I asked Emma (the admission tutor) to change it to Maths with Management but she said she will let me know after the results come out if ther is any space left on management programme, so i am waiting to hear their decision. I might stick to math and computing at the end but i am not sure now. :confused:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What's it like sharing a room with someone?
    Do you get to choose who you're staying with if you want - for example if a friend from school is going as well?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hitchhiker_13)
    What's it like sharing a room with someone?
    Do you get to choose who you're staying with if you want - for example if a friend from school is going as well?
    I've been sharing a room with 3 other people in my boarding school for the past 3 years, so I think I'm qualified to answer your question.

    Sharing a room has its pros and cons. The cons are obvious: lack of privacy (e.g. you want quiet time but your roommates wanna chat/listen to music), things are shared, and roommates have a tendency to borrow things, and sometimes you get a really messy and untidy roommate.

    The pros are that you get company 24/7 (although if you don't really like that, it could be a nightmare). You have other people at your disposal to help you (especially if they're a physics major and you need to pass a physics test the next morning).

    Sure, there are sacrifices to make when sharing a room, but overall the experience is good if you are able to iron out your differences and be friendly with one another.

    I think Imperial doesn't allow you to specify which roommate you want. Something about "diversity" and making you want to meet new people.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    That's right, you don't get to chose who you share with. Sometimes it can be great fun sharing, others not so great, it really depends who you get paired with. My roommate pretty much kept outa my way so I didn't think it was a bad thing at all - especially as the rent was hugely less than a single room .
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.