World University Rankings

Watch
This discussion is closed.
W.A.S Hewins
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#61
Report 16 years ago
#61
(Original post by swallows)
Ah that's good then Hewins. We'll all sleep well tonight.
What is interesting is that he recognised the weaknesses in his methodology. Unfortunately, although he still publicly, and with reference to LSE, recognises these weaknesses, he has hardly changed the methodology in his latest version of the table. Perhaps he's frightened of losing face. Or maybe he likes the controversy when famous universities get dissed.

1/On his website he acknowledges that he has not found a way of evaluating specialist social science/humanities institutes.

2/The citation index he uses is very limited, and confines itself to counting the handful of very high scoring researchers, not the spread of research across each institution (ie the average performance for that college).

3/He still doesn't understand the Nobel system - he gives credit to the institution where the awardee was based when the prize was give, not where they were when the work was done, usually many years earlier. This is daft. You might have just arrived at an institution and get a Nobel for work you did 30 years before at three different unis, under the Shanghai system only the university where you didn't do the work gets the credit..The only safe and easily countable system would be to give credit to all the institutions the academic is associated with, including those who are credited simply because they have the clout to attract such people...

4/He doesn't really account for the fact that Nobel Prizes are awarded mainly in the sciences, so that there is an inherent bias towards science universities...

5/And so on...


6/This table is the snake oil of league tables...it's so crude it could have been knocked up by our very own snake oil salesperson - Pencil Queen (aka Biro Nerd)....
0
AATTMM
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#62
Report 16 years ago
#62
(Original post by frappucino)
just thought this might be interesting:

ed.sjtu.edu.cn/ranking.htm

it's a ranking of the top 500 universities in the world...i thought it contained some surprises, like UC Berkeley being 4th. check it out!
What's this based on? Seems HEAVILY biased towards USA.
0
Tajel
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#63
Report 16 years ago
#63
(Original post by W.A.S Hewins)
3/He still doesn't understand the Nobel system - he gives credit to the institution where the awardee was based when the prize was give, not where they were when the work was done....
I feel that your view needs modification; after all, the institution where s/he is currently working is the institution whose students will benefit from his/her tuition. Of course, you could equally well say that the original institution should be recognized for providing the framework for the award winning work in the first place. Both should be recognized.

Edit: grammar
0
W.A.S Hewins
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#64
Report 16 years ago
#64
(Original post by Tajel)
I feel that your view needs modified; after all, the institution where s/he is currently working is the institution whose students will benefit from his/her tuition. Of course, you could equally well say that the original institution should be recognized for providing the framework for the award winning work in the first place. Both should be recognized.

I agree. But the trouble with the incredibly naive Shanghai guy is that only the institution where the Prize winner was at the time of the award gets credit, even though most prizes are awarded for work done years before, elsewhere...the safest thing to do is to credit all the institutions at which the prize winner worked.
0
Tajel
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#65
Report 16 years ago
#65
(Original post by W.A.S Hewins)
I agree. But the trouble with the incredibly naive Shanghai guy is that only the institution where the Prize winner was at the time of the award gets credit, even though most prizes are awarded for work done years before, elsewhere...the safest thing to do is to credit all the institutions at which the prize winner worked.
Yes, he certainly is naive. I remember when this 'survey' originally appeared; I'm kinda amazed that it got people so stirred-up, and that it's still generating outrage. It is so obviously irrelevant and poorly researched. Why do people bother? Are so many people insecure about others' perceptions of their various colleges?

As a student and university employee I've seen excellent, average and poor students in differing academic environments, and guess what?

The student is responsible for his or her experience to a far greater extent than the institution.

Universities are, by their nature, virtually impossible to rank accurately. Yet so many seem to invest so much in the results. Better to concentrate on classes....
0
lotus_lee
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#66
Report 16 years ago
#66
I dunno how the hell LSE can be ranked between 202nd and 301th place in the world, while the uni I'm going to, King's College London, has been ranked 77th. I'm not trying to say that KCL is crap (because they ain't) but I'm surprised how much crapper they think LSE is. Clearly the people who compiled this have never been outside the USA before.
0
an Siarach
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#67
Report 16 years ago
#67
(Original post by lotus_lee)
I dunno how the hell LSE can be ranked between 202nd and 301th place in the world, while the uni I'm going to, King's College London, has been ranked 77th. I'm not trying to say that KCL is crap (because they ain't) but I'm surprised how much crapper they think LSE is. Clearly the people who compiled this have never been outside the USA before.
Yeah that just shows what a joke the tables are really.
0
Squishy
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#68
Report 16 years ago
#68
(Original post by lotus_lee)
I dunno how the hell LSE can be ranked between 202nd and 301th place in the world, while the uni I'm going to, King's College London, has been ranked 77th. I'm not trying to say that KCL is crap (because they ain't) but I'm surprised how much crapper they think LSE is. Clearly the people who compiled this have never been outside the USA before.
The people who compiled it were Chinese actually...

The reason LSE is not high up is because the ranking method they used is very biased towards science-heavy institutions.
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

Would you consider Adjustment if your grades were higher than you expected?

Yes, I'd look at higher ranking universities than my current choices (105)
43.75%
Yes, I'd look for a course or uni that is a better fit for me (39)
16.25%
No, I'd stick with my current uni choice (91)
37.92%
Something else (let us know in the thread below!) (5)
2.08%

Watched Threads

View All