The Student Room Group

Harvard tops the worldwide uni league chart

Top 20 Universities Worldwide:

According to a chinese institute, who carried out a 2 year research.

1. Harvard USA
2. Stanford USA
3. Caltech USA
4. California Berkley USA
5. Cambridge UK
6. MIT USA
7. Princeton USA
8. Yale USA
9. Oxford UK
10. Columbia USA
11. Chicago USA
12. Cornell USA
13. California Sans Francisco USA
14. California San Diego USA
15. California Los Angeles USA
16. Washington Seattle USA
17. Imperial UK
18. Pennsylvania USA
19. Tokyo Japan
20. UCL UK

Do you agree with this??

http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/ranking.htm

site for reference, where this list is obtained from.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
This doesn't have any meaning without a context and is just one more useless ranking table.
Reply 2
It's biased toward American universities, IMO.

For example, one of the criteria is the number of highly cited researchers. Chances are there will be more at American universities because of the resources and funding available.
Reply 3
i agree about the funding bit... but 2 years research cannot be just wasted
Reply 4
California....too much sunshine I guess.
Reply 5
how many times has this website been put on here now?! lol its a pile of crap!!!!
Reply 6
I agree with what you've said. Ranking's are only useful when put into context.
Reply 7
lol this has no context thou its so bias towards american institutes and doesnt even properly consider such unis as lse!!!!!!!!! the majority of rankings are crap!!!!!! gawd just people go to places that make em happy!!!!! thats my lil rant over!!!
babyboo
lol this has no context thou its so bias towards american institutes and doesnt even properly consider such unis as lse!!!!!!!!! the majority of rankings are crap!!!!!! gawd just people go to places that make em happy!!!!! thats my lil rant over!!!



This table has become a standing joke.

I emailed the man who did the table, about six months ago. He admits the methodology is flawed, and that he needs to re-organise it. He readily acknowledges that he has found no way of doing justice to specialist social science and humanities universities. The table is really a measurement of achievement in the sciences (which is what most Nobels are awarded for), and a dodgy one at that.

Most of his table is based on a crude, arithmetical count of Nobel Prizes-this is so naive it's almost unbelievable. He only credits the institution at which the recipient was based when the award was given-even though most Nobels are awarded for work done years before, often in different colleges!. For instance I pointed out that Tony Leggatt, who shared the physics Nobel last year, actually did the work 20 years ago when he was at Sussex, but according to the Shanghai man's criterion, this doesn't count- all that matters is the American uni he is now based at. However after a few emails he recognised the absurdity of this, and asked for advice, and I said he should use the Nobel websites, or International Who's Who (he hadn't heard of Who's Who), or the websites of the universities concerned to get full career details of the recipients, so that all their institutional affiliations could be credited.

He also uses a citations database which only counts the small handful of very highly cited researchers in an institution. Thus a mediocre college with three or four of these people, and hundreds of mediocrities, will do better than an outstanding one with hundreds of good researchers and none in the very top bracket-this is daft-the only sure way to proceed is to take the average of all researchers in a university.
Reply 9
This isn't a new league table - I've seen this months ago. There was also a previous thread about this wasn't there?

J.
Reply 10
this league table is REALLLLLYYY bad. . its like .. full of crap. And it takes into account things that are irrelevant to ranking a university teaching level.
Reply 11
W.A.S Hewins
This table has become a standing joke.

I emailed the man who did the table, about six months ago. He admits the methodology is flawed, and that he needs to re-organise it. He readily acknowledges that he has found no way of doing justice to specialist social science and humanities universities. The table is really a measurement of achievement in the sciences (which is what most Nobels are awarded for), and a dodgy one at that.

Most of his table is based on a crude, arithmetical count of Nobel Prizes-this is so naive it's almost unbelievable. He only credits the institution at which the recipient was based when the award was given-even though most Nobels are awarded for work done years before, often in different colleges!. For instance I pointed out that Tony Leggatt, who shared the physics Nobel last year, actually did the work 20 years ago when he was at Sussex, but according to the Shanghai man's criterion, this doesn't count- all that matters is the American uni he is now based at. However after a few emails he recognised the absurdity of this, and asked for advice, and I said he should use the Nobel websites, or International Who's Who (he hadn't heard of Who's Who), or the websites of the universities concerned to get full career details of the recipients, so that all their institutional affiliations could be credited.

He also uses a citations database which only counts the small handful of very highly cited researchers in an institution. Thus a mediocre college with three or four of these people, and hundreds of mediocrities, will do better than an outstanding one with hundreds of good researchers and none in the very top bracket-this is daft-the only sure way to proceed is to take the average of all researchers in a university.

Yeah, I also found these points very annoying. But anyway, what is that all use for? I mean we are all undergrads or prospective undergrads, and e.g. where I complete my Ma Physics should not be determined by the number of nobel leaureates! I mean hello, what does it benefit me that there is a huge table at the main entrance listing all teh famous brains? I need a uni with good teaching quality, good student/stafff ratio and a reasonable reputation.
The entire table is crap. Everyone knows Berkeley is #1. But then perhaps I'm somewhat biased.
Reply 13
The truth is, there are no reliable rankings out there, you Brits think that your college ranking is really all that great? Think again, I'll bet money that Oxford/Cambridge are almost constantly ranked 1-2 mostly because of their prestige...

I'm glad Berkeley is ranked so high, Being ranked 21st by US News and world Report doesn't do it justice.

And before u Brits bitch about this list being completely BS (which i agree to a certain extend), and how it's completely US bias, all of u should really go read this one article from the Economist a few weeks back, I was shocked to learn that Oxbridge's combine funding was 4 billion, while the rest of UK's system only has 1.7 billion in funding.... (british lb)

Harvard alone have twice Britain's total... Let's not even start talking about Berkeley, which manages all nuclear research of the United States and all its gradurate programs are ranked top 10 in the US, if not the world. Education is like business, having money counts, money allows Berkeley to have the largest acedemic liberary in the nation, the largest acedemic building in the nation (VLSB). Money attracts star professors, allow students to publish and do research, and create incentives for both students and professors to perform.

BTW, UCSF is a gradurate medical school only... I donno how they ranked that with other comprehensive research institutions...

I've known professors who've taught at both berkeley and Stanford, and I've also known students that have taken classes at both universities, all of them argreed that acedemically speaking, there are absolutely no difference in the quality of the education. (Keep this in mind, and go look up the latest ranking of top US colleges at US News and World Report)

I've rant enough, I've got a midterm tomorrow I need to hit.

-Atomic1125
4th year UC Berkeley Undergraduate, BA Political Science/European Studies
Reply 14
even if the methods by which this table was compiled are flawed. it is still a reasonably accurate portrayal of how things stand.

im interested, why do so many people thinks its BS?
Reply 15
atomic1125
The truth is, there are no reliable rankings out there, you Brits think that your college ranking is really all that great? Think again, I'll bet money that Oxford/Cambridge are almost constantly ranked 1-2 mostly because of their prestige...

I'm glad Berkeley is ranked so high, Being ranked 21st by US News and world Report doesn't do it justice.

And before u Brits bitch about this list being completely BS (which i agree to a certain extend), and how it's completely US bias, all of u should really go read this one article from the Economist a few weeks back, I was shocked to learn that Oxbridge's combine funding was 4 billion, while the rest of UK's system only has 1.7 billion in funding.... (british lb)

Harvard alone have twice Britain's total... Let's not even start talking about Berkeley, which manages all nuclear research of the United States and all its gradurate programs are ranked top 10 in the US, if not the world. Education is like business, having money counts, money allows Berkeley to have the largest acedemic liberary in the nation, the largest acedemic building in the nation (VLSB). Money attracts star professors, allow students to publish and do research, and create incentives for both students and professors to perform.

BTW, UCSF is a gradurate medical school only... I donno how they ranked that with other comprehensive research institutions...

I've known professors who've taught at both berkeley and Stanford, and I've also known students that have taken classes at both universities, all of them argreed that acedemically speaking, there are absolutely no difference in the quality of the education. (Keep this in mind, and go look up the latest ranking of top US colleges at US News and World Report)

I've rant enough, I've got a midterm tomorrow I need to hit.

-Atomic1125
4th year UC Berkeley Undergraduate, BA Political Science/European Studies


a sad truth.
Reply 16
Ok, you're on the greatest school out there, congratulations!

It has to be a hell of an experience to have nuclear research at your university, especially for a political science student.

BTW, people are going to be really impressed by the subject you study and the university you're going to!
Reply 17
I have a Berkeley tshirt
Reply 18
vienna95
even if the methods by which this table was compiled are flawed. it is still a reasonably accurate portrayal of how things stand.

im interested, why do so many people thinks its BS?


I think Mr.Hewins explained the problems with the table pretty clearly...
Reply 19
atomic1125
And before u Brits bitch about this list being completely BS (which i agree to a certain extend), and how it's completely US bias, all of u should really go read this one article from the Economist a few weeks back, I was shocked to learn that Oxbridge's combine funding was 4 billion, while the rest of UK's system only has 1.7 billion in funding.... (british lb)

Harvard alone have twice Britain's total... Let's not even start talking about Berkeley, which manages all nuclear research of the United States and all its gradurate programs are ranked top 10 in the US, if not the world. Education is like business, having money counts, money allows Berkeley to have the largest acedemic liberary in the nation, the largest acedemic building in the nation (VLSB). Money attracts star professors, allow students to publish and do research, and create incentives for both students and professors to perform.


Fair enough, but the thought of being taught by TA's for the duration of your undergrad degree doesn't appeal to a lot of people...

Latest