Go to first unread
Back
to top
World University Rankings
WatchThis discussion is closed.
Report
#41
I believe that the list is scewed.
Several listings surprised me. First, I was surprised with the number of universities were from the US(I live in the US state of Colorado by the way). I think that Stanford is unquestionably the best US university. It should be noted that the US ivy league universities are not comparable to the national universities that many countries have. These universities (like Toukyou University) are the unquestioned best university in their respective countries. So they should be higher in rankings.
I am ignorant towards the accomplishments of many universities, but the ones that I am most familiar with are in my state of Colorado. Amoung these universities I was surprised that Colorado State University, and The University of Colorado at Denver were ranked above the Colorado School of Mines.
From this I have determined that the size of the school is overly accentuated in by their ranking methods.
Several listings surprised me. First, I was surprised with the number of universities were from the US(I live in the US state of Colorado by the way). I think that Stanford is unquestionably the best US university. It should be noted that the US ivy league universities are not comparable to the national universities that many countries have. These universities (like Toukyou University) are the unquestioned best university in their respective countries. So they should be higher in rankings.
I am ignorant towards the accomplishments of many universities, but the ones that I am most familiar with are in my state of Colorado. Amoung these universities I was surprised that Colorado State University, and The University of Colorado at Denver were ranked above the Colorado School of Mines.
From this I have determined that the size of the school is overly accentuated in by their ranking methods.
0
Report
#42
(Original post by Dem0critus)
I believe that the list is scewed.
Several listings surprised me. First, I was surprised with the number of universities were from the US(I live in the US state of Colorado by the way). I think that Stanford is unquestionably the best US university. It should be noted that the US ivy league universities are not comparable to the national universities that many countries have. These universities (like Toukyou University) are the unquestioned best university in their respective countries. So they should be higher in rankings.
I am ignorant towards the accomplishments of many universities, but the ones that I am most familiar with are in my state of Colorado. Amoung these universities I was surprised that Colorado State University, and The University of Colorado at Denver were ranked above the Colorado School of Mines.
From this I have determined that the size of the school is overly accentuated in by their ranking methods.
I believe that the list is scewed.
Several listings surprised me. First, I was surprised with the number of universities were from the US(I live in the US state of Colorado by the way). I think that Stanford is unquestionably the best US university. It should be noted that the US ivy league universities are not comparable to the national universities that many countries have. These universities (like Toukyou University) are the unquestioned best university in their respective countries. So they should be higher in rankings.
I am ignorant towards the accomplishments of many universities, but the ones that I am most familiar with are in my state of Colorado. Amoung these universities I was surprised that Colorado State University, and The University of Colorado at Denver were ranked above the Colorado School of Mines.
From this I have determined that the size of the school is overly accentuated in by their ranking methods.
0
Report
#43
This site is kind of cool. I would find a better world university ranking site on google. LSE is in 451st place, that can't be right.
0
Report
#44
It is shocking how this Shanghai University can possibly come up with a ranking like this.
From my point of view it is extremely unaccurate and does not reflect reality.
Having done my BSc and MSc at the LSE, I am sure that it does not deserve that ranking it is given.
It is true that LSE cannot compete with the top universites in the world, but for it to be placed in the 400+ range simply amazes me.
The only impression that I get after reading this article is poor quality of research that is produced by this 'academic' institution in China.
From my point of view it is extremely unaccurate and does not reflect reality.
Having done my BSc and MSc at the LSE, I am sure that it does not deserve that ranking it is given.
It is true that LSE cannot compete with the top universites in the world, but for it to be placed in the 400+ range simply amazes me.
The only impression that I get after reading this article is poor quality of research that is produced by this 'academic' institution in China.
0
Report
#45
(Original post by SYN)
It is shocking how this Shanghai University can possibly come up with a ranking like this.
From my point of view it is extremely unaccurate and does not reflect reality.
Having done my BSc and MSc at the LSE, I am sure that it does not deserve that ranking it is given.
It is true that LSE cannot compete with the top universites in the world, but for it to be placed in the 400+ range simply amazes me.
The only impression that I get after reading this article is poor quality of research that is produced by this 'academic' institution in China.
It is shocking how this Shanghai University can possibly come up with a ranking like this.
From my point of view it is extremely unaccurate and does not reflect reality.
Having done my BSc and MSc at the LSE, I am sure that it does not deserve that ranking it is given.
It is true that LSE cannot compete with the top universites in the world, but for it to be placed in the 400+ range simply amazes me.
The only impression that I get after reading this article is poor quality of research that is produced by this 'academic' institution in China.
You will notice the obvious advantage given to technically minded institutions and the harsh way that most social science institutes have been ranked simply because they are unable to comply determining factors that the rankings are based on. If you look at Britsish universities you will see that to be well ranked you must be (a) well funded, (b) research focused and (c) strong in the sciences. This means that places like IC, Edinburgh, Manchester, Bristol are given a serious advantage over the likes of LSE and KCL. I would not read too much into these or any other rankings that you see, in my opinion they are simply a method by which already privilidged university student try to make there degree seem "better" or make themselves fel superior in some way. There is as of yet no good way of quantifying the quality of an institution and this means that the easiest way to decide on somewhere's quality is to actually visit etc... as opposed to reading biased crap such as this. As a former student of the LSE you know how good it is, you know that the education you recieved was 2nd to none and that is worth more than any random league table such as this!!! 
0
Report
#46
Last autumn I emailed the man in Shanghai who produced this thing. In his reply he admitted the tables were flawed. He has trouble finding quantifiable data for social science
He acknowledged that the tables favoured natural science/multi faculty universities, and were particularly biased against specialist social science/humanities institutions.
In his email he said that he recognised that 'LSE is one of the best universites in Europe and probably the world'. I still have the email somewhere and can probably dig it out if asked.
He acknowledged that the tables favoured natural science/multi faculty universities, and were particularly biased against specialist social science/humanities institutions.
In his email he said that he recognised that 'LSE is one of the best universites in Europe and probably the world'. I still have the email somewhere and can probably dig it out if asked.
0
Report
#48
In his email he said that he recognised that 'LSE is one of the best universites in Europe and probably the world'. I still have the email somewhere and can probably dig it out if asked.
0
Report
#49
How can the university of Bangor and Keele uni be there when Durham isn't mentioned, despite its being brilliant for physics? 
0
Report
#50
(Original post by serendipity)
How can the university of Bangor and Keele uni be there when Durham isn't mentioned, despite its being brilliant for physics?
How can the university of Bangor and Keele uni be there when Durham isn't mentioned, despite its being brilliant for physics?
0
Report
#52
(Original post by serendipity)
...isn't everything
...isn't everything
0
Report
#53
(Original post by Leekey)
I think you kinda missed my point....according to these tables, research IS everything (hence they are rubbish tables) and that is why Durham performs worse than it should.
I think you kinda missed my point....according to these tables, research IS everything (hence they are rubbish tables) and that is why Durham performs worse than it should.
Top-rated research departments Chemistry, applied maths, geography, law, English language and literature and history are top, all getting 5* in the 2001 RAE.
Clearly Durham isn't as poor for research as it first appears.
0
Report
#54
(Original post by serendipity)
If Durham is meant to be so poor for research, why this:
Top-rated research departments Chemistry, applied maths, geography, law, English language and literature and history are top, all getting 5* in the 2001 RAE.
Clearly Durham isn't as poor for research as it first appears.
If Durham is meant to be so poor for research, why this:
Top-rated research departments Chemistry, applied maths, geography, law, English language and literature and history are top, all getting 5* in the 2001 RAE.
Clearly Durham isn't as poor for research as it first appears.
0
Report
#56
(Original post by mg84)
Research League Table: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/grap...GCM5OAVCBQUJVC
Research League Table: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/grap...GCM5OAVCBQUJVC
0
Report
#57
These tables are fundamentally flawed in that their weightings of 20% for some irrelevant categories does not involve any measurement of the quality of the students coming out on average. Of course American Universities will get lots more people writing in different journals and magazines - there are many more of them in America to write in.
I declined Stanford and am going to Oxford. I am very sure I didn't make the wrong decision.
I declined Stanford and am going to Oxford. I am very sure I didn't make the wrong decision.
0
Report
#60
(Original post by Dem0critus)
It should be noted that the US ivy league universities are not comparable to the national universities that many countries have.
It should be noted that the US ivy league universities are not comparable to the national universities that many countries have.
Or how about:
"It should be noted that the US ivy league universities are better than the national universities that many countries have."
See?
Why might your sentence be correct and my (perhaps facetious) one be incorrect? I offered no more evidence that you did.
Thankfully, there are those who have posted valid objections to this table's methodology instead of vague unsupported statements like the one I quoted.
The table is obviously flawed: want to study medieval philosophy? Well, you can't at CalTech, the third best university in the world according to the table. Want to study Computer Science? Well, you're better off at Berkeley than at MIT - where the subject was effectively invented.
There are doubtless endless inconsistencies like the two I mention. Equally, the table pays no heed to the myriad intangibles that should be taken into account when choosing a university. I considered location, architecture, cost, and a host of other things before applying.
I think that, while it might be interesting to come up with a set of tables that rated universities according to various other criteria: social sciences, law, art, and so on, such a set of tables would be misleading in its own way. Nor would it take into account the intangibles already mentioned.
Bottom line? In my opinion, there is no effective way to rate the world's universities other than by using a fairly wide classification. Thus, the top band would comprise research-led institutions with worldwide reputations, a certain breadth of course offerings, a certain level of faculty based on publications and research, a certain minimum level of facilities, a minimum level of graduate education and so on.
0
X
new posts
