World University Rankings

Watch
This discussion is closed.
kosine90
Badges: 0
#21
Report 17 years ago
#21
hehe.. i suppose it's the method they use. they use the number of nobel laureates and number of citations, number of articles published. numbers are only numbers! it doesnt necessarily say how good the uni. is. the way they measure 'the academic performance per faculty' seems a bit hazy too...
0
musicbloke
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#22
Report 17 years ago
#22
(Original post by bono)
my dog could have compiled a more accurate table, and that isnt being sarcastic.
is he well trained?
0
Weirdo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#23
Report 17 years ago
#23
I don't understand how universities in different countries can be compared to eachother... the teaching methods, the academic requirements, the final exams, etc, are all very diverse... :confused:
0
mathematician
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#24
Report 17 years ago
#24
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
IS THIS A JOKE?
absoluter rubbish
where is york and LSE
york is 6 th best in uk and lse is top 5
and besides OXbridge will kick ne other countries ass.
cough cough, compiled by an american
0
ben2111
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 17 years ago
#25
(Original post by mathematician)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
IS THIS A JOKE?
absoluter rubbish
where is york and LSE
york is 6 th best in uk and lse is top 5
and besides OXbridge will kick ne other countries ass.
cough cough, compiled by an american
No, compiled by some chinese...
which doesnt make it better! I completely agree, this ranking is the most useless piece of paper ever. I analyzed a bit (together with some rankings from my homecountry which included the worldwide results) and couldnt stop wonedering why well-paid people in China waste their time with comparing which uni had more nobel laureates, publications per year etc... the dad of a friend who is a prof in munich told me the people in Harvard&Company have such a publication pressure that they hardly think prperly before they write, quantity counts!
And anyway, there are no criteria relevant for undergrad study, are there?
0
babyboo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#26
Report 17 years ago
#26
that table is the biggest pile of POO in the world!
0
atomic1125
Badges: 0
#27
Report 17 years ago
#27
This table is crap because there's NO WAY Berkeley is ranked lower then that junior college that was known as Stanford across the bay
0
fossilcwh
Badges: 0
#28
Report 17 years ago
#28
First of all, European Union accepted it.

" carefully made and independent"
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/h..._12_31_en.html


and economist journal: "paistaking ranking of best world universities.

plus
Many prestiguous universities supported it.

1)Oxford University's chancellor Chris Patten speech (9th in this ranking)
Oxford University's chancellor Chris Patten today addressed the parliamentary
and scientific committee at their annual lunch. This is the full text of his s
peech

What I worry far more about is the growing gap between America's universities
and our European ones. Shanghai Jiaotong University recently sought to rank th
e world's top 500 universities. The methodology looks fairly solid - Nobel lau
reates, highly cited researchers, articles published in "Nature" and "Science"
, articles in the Science Citation Index-expanded and Social Sciences Citation
Index, and academic performance per faculty. Maybe there was too much emphasi
s on the sciences; maybe too little on teaching compared with academic or rese
arch performance; maybe there is a linguistic bias in favour of work published
in English. Nevertheless, it looks like a pretty good stab at a fair comparis
on - a comparison which should make a European extremely worried.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publi...141757,00.html



2)U of Toronto president Robert Birgeneau called this "one of many indicators that suggests we are making progress in our ambitions to rank among the world's best public research universities."

3) University of british columbia
http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/medi.../mr-04-08.html

4) Imperial university
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/p4887.htm

5) ANU

ANU Vice-Chancellor Professor Ian Chubb said the findings capped a remarkable year for the ANU.

“ANU staff are very distinguished - it’s as simple as that; and this study is another welcome confirmation of their distinction,” Professor Chubb said.
http://info.anu.edu.au/MAC/Media/Med...210Ranking.asp

6) University of arizona

Associate Dean of the College of Science Gail Burd said, "The citation index shows how many times other scientists refer to our work when they write their own papers. Our high score means that the papers published from the UA have a high impact on other scientists."

"The rankings are completely based on research output and recognition of the faculty," Burd said. "The best research faculty need quality resources (salaries, space, equipment, institutional support, etc). These resources have been substantially below what our peers have been given in recent years. The UA was ranked quite high in spite of reduced resources for the faculty.

http://uanews.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects...ArticleID=8443


7) Lots more....... such as some prestiguous universities in France, germany and swiss.

.........
0
WhoReallyCares
Badges: 0
#29
Report 17 years ago
#29
(Original post by vavavoom)
Who else thinks these rankings are absolute bull? Leeds, Leister and Nottingham ranked BELOW University of Hawaii?!?!??!?! Omg, I feel like shooting whoever complied this info.
Actually if you look at the rankings only the top 101 are ranked numerically. Beyond this it falls into categories of fifty so Hawaii ranks between 102 - 152 as does Leeds and Leister and perhaps Nottingham. The listings for these fifty turn alphabetical and since H comes before L or N well you figure it out.
0
W.A.S Hewins
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#30
Report 17 years ago
#30
(Original post by fossilcwh)
First of all, European Union accepted it.

" carefully made and independent"
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/h..._12_31_en.html


and economist journal: "paistaking ranking of best world universities.

plus
Many prestiguous universities supported it.

1)Oxford University's chancellor Chris Patten speech (9th in this ranking)
Oxford University's chancellor Chris Patten today addressed the parliamentary
and scientific committee at their annual lunch. This is the full text of his s
peech

What I worry far more about is the growing gap between America's universities
and our European ones. Shanghai Jiaotong University recently sought to rank th
e world's top 500 universities. The methodology looks fairly solid - Nobel lau
reates, highly cited researchers, articles published in "Nature" and "Science"
, articles in the Science Citation Index-expanded and Social Sciences Citation
Index, and academic performance per faculty. Maybe there was too much emphasi
s on the sciences; maybe too little on teaching compared with academic or rese
arch performance; maybe there is a linguistic bias in favour of work published
in English. Nevertheless, it looks like a pretty good stab at a fair comparis
on - a comparison which should make a European extremely worried.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publi...141757,00.html



2)U of Toronto president Robert Birgeneau called this "one of many indicators that suggests we are making progress in our ambitions to rank among the world's best public research universities."

3) University of british columbia
http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/medi.../mr-04-08.html

4) Imperial university
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/p4887.htm

5) ANU

ANU Vice-Chancellor Professor Ian Chubb said the findings capped a remarkable year for the ANU.

“ANU staff are very distinguished - it’s as simple as that; and this study is another welcome confirmation of their distinction,” Professor Chubb said.
http://info.anu.edu.au/MAC/Media/Med...210Ranking.asp

6) University of arizona

Associate Dean of the College of Science Gail Burd said, "The citation index shows how many times other scientists refer to our work when they write their own papers. Our high score means that the papers published from the UA have a high impact on other scientists."

"The rankings are completely based on research output and recognition of the faculty," Burd said. "The best research faculty need quality resources (salaries, space, equipment, institutional support, etc). These resources have been substantially below what our peers have been given in recent years. The UA was ranked quite high in spite of reduced resources for the faculty.

http://uanews.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects...ArticleID=8443


7) Lots more....... such as some prestiguous universities in France, germany and swiss.

.........

As I pointed out when this table cropped up before I have the emails from the compiler in which he admitted it's full of methodological holes. For instance he acknowledges that 'LSE is one of the best universities in Europe or even the world'-despite placing it at position 450!

His method of counting Nobels is weird and his citation index only counts the very top researchers and does not take an average for each institution, and as he readily admits on his website it is heavily biassed towards science, technology and medicine-he has not yet found a way of doing justice to specialist humanities/social science institutions..


Of course people who do well in this table will not be inclined to look closely at its methodology. As it stands it's a masterpiece of unintended comedy...
0
Mysticmin
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#31
Report 17 years ago
#31
(Original post by mathematician)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
IS THIS A JOKE?
absoluter rubbish
where is york and LSE
york is 6 th best in uk and lse is top 5
and besides OXbridge will kick ne other countries ass.
cough cough, compiled by an american
I agree, LSE should be higher. But york should not, since when did york have an international reputation? It has no international influence.
0
WhoReallyCares
Badges: 0
#32
Report 17 years ago
#32
(Original post by wizard)
You can't be all that negative. Why can't Hawaii uni be ranked higher than Leicester?

I don't say that I agree with the methodology:
http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/methodology.htm#Criteria

but it can't be "bull".

Actually it's not. Whoever stated that did not understand the rankings. After the first 100 there are no specific rankings but groups of fifty and since Hawaii is listed under H (yes this is the American way while Brits seem to list any University of under U) then it naturally seems to be placed higher. It may be but Leeds might rank 102 while Hawaii might rank at 148. Who can say as they only ranked the top 100 numerically.
0
koalapiyo
Badges: 0
#33
Report 17 years ago
#33
interesting, but sadly, very flawed. nevertheless, as fossilcwh pointed out... chris patten did raise a very pertinent point that we are lagging behind.

being a british chinese, and an european, i am concerned about the brain drain to the US. lets face it, money attracts the best talent. weirdly, i'm also a big fan of american institutions - and i'm not surprised this ranking has so many of the big american schools in the top 20. u can't really touch the american schools for science research.

e.g. what they spend on science research from their GDP per capita is probably more than what the whole of europe spends (am i exaggerating here?).
0
ckwan16
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#34
Report 17 years ago
#34
Hawaii does get a lot of retired professors from other schools who eventually decide to continue to teach....

Don't agree with this whole world ranking garbage....but at least they got one thing right by ranking UC Davis higher than USC....

As long as you know that in the end your university is ranked higher and is more well known than the university (Jiao Tung) that compiled this stupid list, you should be pretty happy....

And LSE got snubbed in the "world rankings"....JFK would be rolling in his grave.

University of California system kicks ass....Stanford and USC lick ass
0
W.A.S Hewins
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#35
Report 17 years ago
#35
(Original post by koalapiyo)
interesting, but sadly, very flawed. nevertheless, as fossilcwh pointed out... chris patten did raise a very pertinent point that we are lagging behind.

being a british chinese, and an european, i am concerned about the brain drain to the US. lets face it, money attracts the best talent. weirdly, i'm also a big fan of american institutions - and i'm not surprised this ranking has so many of the big american schools in the top 20. u can't really touch the american schools for science research.

e.g. what they spend on science research from their GDP per capita is probably more than what the whole of europe spends (am i exaggerating here?).
The table has limited validity as a crude index of the relative merits of universities that do science and technology. But even there the results are often farcical.

For instance Tony Leggatt won the Physics Nobel last year for work which he acknowledges he did largely at Sussex University in the eighties. Yet because of the weird methodology Sussex cannot get credit for this-all that matters in the table is the place Leggatt was at when the prize was awarded-a relatively obscure American university! Talk about hopeless!

Most Nobels are awarded years after the main work was done, and Nobel level scientists tend to be in demand and to move on, so you can imagine how this can skew the results, especially as US universities have plenty of money to offer.

Incidentally, I think Frappucino keeps resurrecting this thread because it shows Imperial in a good light, and he's also somehow edited out a lot of the replies to his contributions-I made these and similar points before on this thread...
0
Tednol
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#36
Report 17 years ago
#36
(Original post by mathematician)
Besides OXbridge will kick ne other countries ass.
Hmm... slight over simplification.
0
Tednol
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#37
Report 17 years ago
#37
(Original post by MuvverRussia)
I've seen this table before, it only takes into account sciences or something. Someone emailed the guys that did it and were told that it's not completely accurate (this was on unofficial guides about 1 year ago), so I wouldn't bother using it as a reference.

'8. Why institutions specialized in humanities and social sciences have low ranks?

We tried really hard but were not successful in finding special criteria and internationally comparable data for social sciences and humanities. Many well-known institutions specialized in humanities and social sciences are missing from our list, or their ranks are relatively low.'

If anything, this is one of the most biased tables I've ever seen- it just proves how statistics can be used to manipulate data. Put it this way, that table says that LSE is one of the worst institutions in the world and that Warwick and York aren't that much better.
Why are UMIST so low if only science is taken into account? For sciences, UMIST gives anywhere a run for their money.
0
username9816
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#38
Report 17 years ago
#38
(Original post by musicboy)
is he well trained?
Definitely not, although placing the Uni's in random order would give a more accurate and true reflection of how uni's should be ranked globally, in comparison to that table. :rolleyes:
0
username9816
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#39
Report 17 years ago
#39
(Original post by Tednol)
if only science is taken into account
LOL, wow, seems like they made their best efforts to compile an accurate table then...:rolleyes:
0
Tednol
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#40
Report 17 years ago
#40
(Original post by bono)
LOL, wow, seems like they made their best efforts to compile an accurate table then...:rolleyes:
Don't know whether they did only include sciences. But someone in an earlier thread suggested so.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What factors affect your mental health the most right now?

Anxiousness about lockdown easing (126)
4.92%
Uncertainty around my education (379)
14.8%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (283)
11.05%
Lack of purpose or motivation (361)
14.1%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (119)
4.65%
Impact of lockdown on physical health (155)
6.05%
Loneliness (218)
8.51%
Financial worries (94)
3.67%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (106)
4.14%
Exposure to negative news/social media (120)
4.69%
Lack of real life entertainment (135)
5.27%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (224)
8.75%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (241)
9.41%

Watched Threads

View All