6 ms·

MIT overtakes Cambridge and Harvard to top spot in QS world university rankings

70 points by jordn 14y ago

jordn 14y ago
"QS selected the following indicators and weights. A much more detailed review of the methodology is available at http://www.iu.qs.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings http://www.iu.qs.com/university-rankings/world-university-ra.... - Academic Peer Review 40% - Global Employer Review 10% - Citations Per Faculty 20% - International Student Ratio 5% - International Faculty Ratio 5% - Faculty Student Ratio 20%"
- mdwe 14y ago
  98% as arbitrary as the "us news" weightings
- jval 14y ago
  Pretty sure 'Academic Peer Review' is just asking other academics what they think of the university. Which essentially makes this a marketing/branding game by the sounds of things. I have no idea why it is weighted so heavily. Presumably most students care about where employers hire from, and most researchers care about citations/research impact. Shrug.
lclarkmichalek 14y ago
I never realised UCL was so high up. Among some people, it's seen as where you go if you fail to get into Imperial.
- peteretep 14y ago
  I never realised Imperial was so high up. Among some people, it's seen as where you go if you fail to get in to Oxbridge. (are we done dick-waving now?)
  - EliRivers 14y ago
    You thought (some people think) it was where people went if they didn't make Oxbridge, but you didn't realise it was highly ranked? That makes little sense.
- GlennS 14y ago
  I turned down UCL and KCL to go to Bristol, which is lower rated than both on this year's list. I can see why you would want to go to a university as high up this list as possible, because you want your degree to be from an institution that potential employers will recognise. In the UK at least, having an Oxbridge degree will automatically doors to some opportunities that aren't otherwise easy to get into. But, if you're actually concerned about the quality of education that you get (hint: if you're spending 3+ years on it then you probably should be), then bear in mind that individual faculties and departments within universities vary a lot and a ranking system can't replace doing your own research.
f055 14y ago
More interestingly, Oxford overtook Cambridge in Computer Science :P
- lmm 14y ago
  I loved Cambridge but honestly the Computer Science course was pretty poor. It won't have helped that the best first-year lecturer, Arthur Norman, retired recently.
  - learc83 14y ago
    From what I've seen watching British TV, I gather Cambridge and Oxford are divided into semi-autonomous colleges. Do you share lecturers among colleges, or is there one college that all computer science majors attend?
    - petermk 14y ago
      In my college there were four computer scientists in my year. We had two lecturers in the college, who gave us tutorials. Then we join the rest of the computer scientists throughout the University for lectures. And the colleges are more than semi-automonus - they have their own academics, own money, and they do their own admissions.
    - ballooney 14y ago
      You're taught in faculties just like anywhere else. There is a Department of Computer Science or Department of History or whatever, and those are where everyone goes for lectures. You have 1-to-1 or 1-to-2 teaching sessions in your college (or at least, organized by your college), with some kind of relevant academic in the college (taught by a PhD student, PostDoc, professor, depending on who is availble, who the director of studies thinks is good, what level of undergrad etc). The analogy usually used for the benefit of American-tourists (not meant patronisingly, it's just empirically surprisingly effective) is that it's like Hogwarts. You have the colleges/houses (like gryffindor and hufflepuff) where you live (at least in 1st year) and eat and play sports for, but lectures and the degree in general (like potions class) are all done in faculties with people doing the same course but in other colleges. Most lecturers and professors will belong to a college too, but they'll still be lecturers in a faculty rather than a college. In Cambridge there is an academic rank called 'College Lecturer' but like most things that doesn't mean what it says, and is probably designed to confuse and intimidate foreign people, like everything else (for example May Week when all the college balls are held after exams, is in June, and the weeks start on Thursday and end on Wednesday). [Lest the po-faced take me seriously, it's not actually designed to confuse people, it's just there's a lot of vestigial baggage that it's not worth the effort of changing [like removing an appaendix when it's not causing you problems] when you've been around almost a millennium and where a switch to the Gregorian Calendar was more recent than when the desk in your study was built.]
yurylifshits 14y ago
Can't take it serious when Stanford is only #15
- petermk 14y ago
  Data presented. Doesn't conform to your pre-conceptions. Do you reject data, or pre-conceptions? Clearly a Sanford man does the former.
  - xtdx 14y ago
    Is it possible to reject just the interpretation of the data?
- rubbishioto 14y ago
  Sorry you chose to go to a mere #15 university, bro.
- archangel_one 14y ago
  Isn't that a bit partisan? There are some big names above it (Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford, Yale, ...) - coming behind some of those doesn't make it a bad university.
junioran 14y ago
Ah, new rankings are up.
arctangent 14y ago
I can't comment on the methodology used to rank the universities, but I think it's interesting that a specialised (as opposed to "fully comprehensive") university has come out on top. MIT would probably not be a great choice of university for someone looking to take an arts degree :-)
- ottbot 14y ago
  Indeed, Imperial College London is similar in this respect.
- pja 14y ago
  If the ranking is by perceived quality, then I guess this makes sense: it's much harder for an institution to be best in the world at many diverse subjects.
- rdl 14y ago
  While it's certainly not their focus, MIT does have some surprisingly good humanities programs.
  - brlewis 14y ago
    Agreed. If you want to learn to pronounce Spanish really well, take a class from this guy: http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/harris/ http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/harris/
- nessus42 14y ago
  MIT certainly doesn't have the humanities breadth of Harvard, for instance, but the humanities that MIT does have are remarkably good. Some of my fellow MIT students at the time went to MIT because they thought the extra-curricular music programs were better at MIT than at Harvard. I got my SB from MIT in Philosophy. MIT's Philosophy program is considered to be in the top few in the country, as is its Linguistics. I was taught creative writing by Joe Haldeman, photography in dark rooms that had been built by Minor White, psychology by Susan Carey, etc. Every MIT student is also required to take 8 classes in humanities, complete a humanities concentration in a particular field, and take a certain number of humanities that have a very significant writing requirement. MIT's business school is in the top few in the world. Also, I'm not sure that it is correct to say that science and engineering are more "specialized" in their entirety than liberal arts are. All of Harvard's engineering, for instance, is contained in a single department. Doesn't that make Harvard more "specialized" towards liberal arts?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
CJefferson 14y ago
Interesting how the UK manages to take 4 out of the top 6 places (yes, choosing 6 places does put the UK in the best light).
- nopinsight 14y ago
  It may have something to do with the fact that ranking organization is in the UK. The same thing happens with a few other 'academic' rankings I have seen.
- alexholehouse 14y ago
  I have two degrees from the UK, and am currently doing a PhD in the US. During the application process I visited 8-10 different graduate schools in the states, and honestly, I felt like any one of them would be comfortably in the top 5 in the UK. Maybe that's a totally superficial assessment, but in terms of the quality of facilities, research going on and the interaction I had with professors they were awesome. I don't think this is surprising though - the US is a lot bigger (and I visited a lot of the top universities) so you'd expect there to be more high quality institutions, because there are simply a lot more students/faculty. This is why I find the UK occupying a lot of the top ten to be someone dubious. No slight against the British academic world, but four out of the top six when adjusted for funds and population just seems ridiculous.
- learc83 14y ago
  As long as prestige factors heavily, Cambridge and Oxford are almost always going to be in the top 10; they're both almost 1000 years old.
cygwin98 14y ago
I find the rankings from ARWU (a Shanghai-based institute) makes more sense. http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2012.html http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2012.html The Top ten universities listed there are 1 Harvard University 2 Stanford University 3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 4 University of California, Berkeley 5 University of Cambridge 6 California Institute of Technology 7 Princeton University 8 Columbia University 9 University of Chicago 10 University of Oxford
- arethuza 14y ago
  Why does that make more sense? It's just different and equally as arbitrary a set of ranking criteria as the original article.
  - cygwin98 14y ago
    All ranks are biased. But I don't think four universities from UK can make into top 10. Cambridge and Oxford maybe, the other two not so much. Regarding the rankings from ARWU, I think Berkeley and Columbia is a bit too high on the list.
    - 001sky 14y ago
      Berkeley has a hudge breadth of top ranked Phd courses, so depending on how you account for that it matters greatly. It also has a surprisingly strong brand internationally, including in Asia. So, smart people think differently depending upon where you are getting the data from. (What USA tennie-boppers think is "prestigeous" doesn't always play well in other areas, etc).
      - geebee 14y ago
        I agree about Berkeley. Looking over the various departmental rankings, Berkeley and Stanford are the only universities that (at the PhD level) seem to be near the top in every discipline. I'd guess that the absence of a med school pulls down Berkeley's ranking somewhat. When you start comparing research funding and activity, the med schools play a huge role in pumping up the numbers.
alexholehouse 14y ago
Honestly, these rankings are [always] ridiculous. Clearly there is a need to capture certain metrics and display that as quantitative information, and the difference between, say, the top 10 and the 90-100 is probably relevant, but the difference within the top ~20 is so minimal its largely irrelevant. It really galls me when people make decisions about undergraduate or graduate schools (or, probably employees, although this is a position I'm yet to be in) based on these kinds of rankings. Clearly it should factor to some extent (i.e. Harvard vs. Jeremey's University of Rubishville[1]) but there are MANY much more important factors to consider. The irony is that the rankings are 50% opinion based, which basically amounts to identifying where people think are prestigious. I wonder what people use to identify which the prestigious universities are - they can't possible go and visit them all, but if only there were some kind of online ranking they could use to get an idea... [1] When I went to undergraduate, this was the fictional university my younger brother suggested he might end up going to.
- jonnathanson 14y ago
  The only ranking system that ever seems to matter is the generally assumed ranking within the public consciousness. It doesn't matter if John Doe University emerges from out of nowhere one year to unseat Harvard on some arbitrary list; the general public is still going to assume Harvard is a top school, and probably will not have heard of John Doe U. As for the distinctions among the generally assumed top tier -- be it Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT, Princeton, or what have you -- these seem pretty irrelevant in praxis. Go to the school that interests you the most and is the best fit for you. If you should be so talented and lucky as to get into all of the best schools, you're probably the kind of person whose life isn't going to take a dramatic turn for the worse because some ranking system suddenly places your alma mater at #2 or #3. The only two groups who place serious stock in the rankings are high schoolers and the chronically insecure.
ilamont 14y ago
In the 2010 Times Higher Education "top universities" list, Alexandria University in Egypt ranked ahead of Georgetown and Delft. It also beat out Harvard and Stanford in the subcategory that measured the impact of research (1). Here's what happened: Phil Baty, deputy editor of Times Higher Education, acknowledged that Alexandria’s surprising prominence was actually due to “the high output from one scholar in one journal” — soon identified on various blogs as Mohamed El Naschie, an Egyptian academic who published over 320 of his own articles in a scientific journal of which he was also the editor. In 2009, an administrator at Clemson University in the U.S. revealed that the college had "... manipulated class sizes, artificially boosted faculty salary data and gave rival schools low grades in the rankings' peer reputation survey" with the goal of improving its U.S. News & World Report college ranking. This helped the university rise from #38 to #22 over a seven-year period (2). A few weeks ago, Emory University admitted it had also manipulated data/lied over a period of more than 10 years in order to improve its U.S. News & World Report ranking (3). My takeaway from these incidents: Not only are university ranking systems imperfect to begin with, but it's also possible to game the system ... and it happens every year. 1. New York Times: "Questionable Science Behind Academic Rankings" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/education/15iht-educLede15.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/education/15iht-educLede15... 2. USA Today: "Clemson official: School manipulated rankings " http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-06-04-clemson-rankings_N.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-06-04-clemson-ra... 3. Reuters: "Emory gave incorrect data to publications that rank U.S. colleges" in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/17/usa-emory-ranking-idINL2E8JHNG320120817
- sb 14y ago
  Thanks so much for all the data! I was just about to write a "well, hopefully nobody on HN cares about these rankings" post, trying to remember some of the facts I read about, but your post summarizes these data so well, no need to post at all. Just for the record: I recently read (presumably on HN, too) about a ranking where somebody asked lawyers to rank schools according to their prestige. Penn-State always got ranked in the middle, even though it didn't have a law school at all. So, in a sense it doesn't even matter if administrators are cheating or not...
- flexie 14y ago

70 points by jordn 14y ago

jordn 14y ago

"QS selected the following indicators and weights. A much more detailed review of the methodology is available at http://www.iu.qs.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings http://www.iu.qs.com/university-rankings/world-university-ra.... - Academic Peer Review 40% - Global Employer Review 10% - Citations Per Faculty 20% - International Student Ratio 5% - International Faculty Ratio 5% - Faculty Student Ratio 20%"

mdwe 14y ago
98% as arbitrary as the "us news" weightings
jval 14y ago
Pretty sure 'Academic Peer Review' is just asking other academics what they think of the university. Which essentially makes this a marketing/branding game by the sounds of things. I have no idea why it is weighted so heavily. Presumably most students care about where employers hire from, and most researchers care about citations/research impact. Shrug.

lclarkmichalek 14y ago

I never realised UCL was so high up. Among some people, it's seen as where you go if you fail to get into Imperial.

peteretep 14y ago
I never realised Imperial was so high up. Among some people, it's seen as where you go if you fail to get in to Oxbridge. (are we done dick-waving now?)
- EliRivers 14y ago
  You thought (some people think) it was where people went if they didn't make Oxbridge, but you didn't realise it was highly ranked? That makes little sense.
GlennS 14y ago
I turned down UCL and KCL to go to Bristol, which is lower rated than both on this year's list. I can see why you would want to go to a university as high up this list as possible, because you want your degree to be from an institution that potential employers will recognise. In the UK at least, having an Oxbridge degree will automatically doors to some opportunities that aren't otherwise easy to get into. But, if you're actually concerned about the quality of education that you get (hint: if you're spending 3+ years on it then you probably should be), then bear in mind that individual faculties and departments within universities vary a lot and a ranking system can't replace doing your own research.

f055 14y ago

More interestingly, Oxford overtook Cambridge in Computer Science :P

lmm 14y ago
I loved Cambridge but honestly the Computer Science course was pretty poor. It won't have helped that the best first-year lecturer, Arthur Norman, retired recently.
- learc83 14y ago
  From what I've seen watching British TV, I gather Cambridge and Oxford are divided into semi-autonomous colleges. Do you share lecturers among colleges, or is there one college that all computer science majors attend?
  - petermk 14y ago
    In my college there were four computer scientists in my year. We had two lecturers in the college, who gave us tutorials. Then we join the rest of the computer scientists throughout the University for lectures. And the colleges are more than semi-automonus - they have their own academics, own money, and they do their own admissions.
  - ballooney 14y ago
    You're taught in faculties just like anywhere else. There is a Department of Computer Science or Department of History or whatever, and those are where everyone goes for lectures. You have 1-to-1 or 1-to-2 teaching sessions in your college (or at least, organized by your college), with some kind of relevant academic in the college (taught by a PhD student, PostDoc, professor, depending on who is availble, who the director of studies thinks is good, what level of undergrad etc). The analogy usually used for the benefit of American-tourists (not meant patronisingly, it's just empirically surprisingly effective) is that it's like Hogwarts. You have the colleges/houses (like gryffindor and hufflepuff) where you live (at least in 1st year) and eat and play sports for, but lectures and the degree in general (like potions class) are all done in faculties with people doing the same course but in other colleges. Most lecturers and professors will belong to a college too, but they'll still be lecturers in a faculty rather than a college. In Cambridge there is an academic rank called 'College Lecturer' but like most things that doesn't mean what it says, and is probably designed to confuse and intimidate foreign people, like everything else (for example May Week when all the college balls are held after exams, is in June, and the weeks start on Thursday and end on Wednesday). [Lest the po-faced take me seriously, it's not actually designed to confuse people, it's just there's a lot of vestigial baggage that it's not worth the effort of changing [like removing an appaendix when it's not causing you problems] when you've been around almost a millennium and where a switch to the Gregorian Calendar was more recent than when the desk in your study was built.]

yurylifshits 14y ago

Can't take it serious when Stanford is only #15

petermk 14y ago
Data presented. Doesn't conform to your pre-conceptions. Do you reject data, or pre-conceptions? Clearly a Sanford man does the former.
- xtdx 14y ago
  Is it possible to reject just the interpretation of the data?
rubbishioto 14y ago
Sorry you chose to go to a mere #15 university, bro.
archangel_one 14y ago
Isn't that a bit partisan? There are some big names above it (Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford, Yale, ...) - coming behind some of those doesn't make it a bad university.

junioran 14y ago

Ah, new rankings are up.

arctangent 14y ago

I can't comment on the methodology used to rank the universities, but I think it's interesting that a specialised (as opposed to "fully comprehensive") university has come out on top. MIT would probably not be a great choice of university for someone looking to take an arts degree :-)

ottbot 14y ago
Indeed, Imperial College London is similar in this respect.
pja 14y ago
If the ranking is by perceived quality, then I guess this makes sense: it's much harder for an institution to be best in the world at many diverse subjects.
rdl 14y ago
While it's certainly not their focus, MIT does have some surprisingly good humanities programs.
- brlewis 14y ago
  Agreed. If you want to learn to pronounce Spanish really well, take a class from this guy: http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/harris/ http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/harris/
nessus42 14y ago
MIT certainly doesn't have the humanities breadth of Harvard, for instance, but the humanities that MIT does have are remarkably good. Some of my fellow MIT students at the time went to MIT because they thought the extra-curricular music programs were better at MIT than at Harvard. I got my SB from MIT in Philosophy. MIT's Philosophy program is considered to be in the top few in the country, as is its Linguistics. I was taught creative writing by Joe Haldeman, photography in dark rooms that had been built by Minor White, psychology by Susan Carey, etc. Every MIT student is also required to take 8 classes in humanities, complete a humanities concentration in a particular field, and take a certain number of humanities that have a very significant writing requirement. MIT's business school is in the top few in the world. Also, I'm not sure that it is correct to say that science and engineering are more "specialized" in their entirety than liberal arts are. All of Harvard's engineering, for instance, is contained in a single department. Doesn't that make Harvard more "specialized" towards liberal arts?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

CJefferson 14y ago

Interesting how the UK manages to take 4 out of the top 6 places (yes, choosing 6 places does put the UK in the best light).

nopinsight 14y ago
It may have something to do with the fact that ranking organization is in the UK. The same thing happens with a few other 'academic' rankings I have seen.
alexholehouse 14y ago
I have two degrees from the UK, and am currently doing a PhD in the US. During the application process I visited 8-10 different graduate schools in the states, and honestly, I felt like any one of them would be comfortably in the top 5 in the UK. Maybe that's a totally superficial assessment, but in terms of the quality of facilities, research going on and the interaction I had with professors they were awesome. I don't think this is surprising though - the US is a lot bigger (and I visited a lot of the top universities) so you'd expect there to be more high quality institutions, because there are simply a lot more students/faculty. This is why I find the UK occupying a lot of the top ten to be someone dubious. No slight against the British academic world, but four out of the top six when adjusted for funds and population just seems ridiculous.
learc83 14y ago
As long as prestige factors heavily, Cambridge and Oxford are almost always going to be in the top 10; they're both almost 1000 years old.

cygwin98 14y ago

I find the rankings from ARWU (a Shanghai-based institute) makes more sense. http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2012.html http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2012.html The Top ten universities listed there are 1 Harvard University 2 Stanford University 3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 4 University of California, Berkeley 5 University of Cambridge 6 California Institute of Technology 7 Princeton University 8 Columbia University 9 University of Chicago 10 University of Oxford

arethuza 14y ago
Why does that make more sense? It's just different and equally as arbitrary a set of ranking criteria as the original article.
- cygwin98 14y ago
  All ranks are biased. But I don't think four universities from UK can make into top 10. Cambridge and Oxford maybe, the other two not so much. Regarding the rankings from ARWU, I think Berkeley and Columbia is a bit too high on the list.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    Berkeley has a hudge breadth of top ranked Phd courses, so depending on how you account for that it matters greatly. It also has a surprisingly strong brand internationally, including in Asia. So, smart people think differently depending upon where you are getting the data from. (What USA tennie-boppers think is "prestigeous" doesn't always play well in other areas, etc).
    - geebee 14y ago
      I agree about Berkeley. Looking over the various departmental rankings, Berkeley and Stanford are the only universities that (at the PhD level) seem to be near the top in every discipline. I'd guess that the absence of a med school pulls down Berkeley's ranking somewhat. When you start comparing research funding and activity, the med schools play a huge role in pumping up the numbers.

alexholehouse 14y ago

Honestly, these rankings are [always] ridiculous. Clearly there is a need to capture certain metrics and display that as quantitative information, and the difference between, say, the top 10 and the 90-100 is probably relevant, but the difference within the top ~20 is so minimal its largely irrelevant. It really galls me when people make decisions about undergraduate or graduate schools (or, probably employees, although this is a position I'm yet to be in) based on these kinds of rankings. Clearly it should factor to some extent (i.e. Harvard vs. Jeremey's University of Rubishville[1]) but there are MANY much more important factors to consider. The irony is that the rankings are 50% opinion based, which basically amounts to identifying where people think are prestigious. I wonder what people use to identify which the prestigious universities are - they can't possible go and visit them all, but if only there were some kind of online ranking they could use to get an idea... [1] When I went to undergraduate, this was the fictional university my younger brother suggested he might end up going to.

jonnathanson 14y ago
The only ranking system that ever seems to matter is the generally assumed ranking within the public consciousness. It doesn't matter if John Doe University emerges from out of nowhere one year to unseat Harvard on some arbitrary list; the general public is still going to assume Harvard is a top school, and probably will not have heard of John Doe U. As for the distinctions among the generally assumed top tier -- be it Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT, Princeton, or what have you -- these seem pretty irrelevant in praxis. Go to the school that interests you the most and is the best fit for you. If you should be so talented and lucky as to get into all of the best schools, you're probably the kind of person whose life isn't going to take a dramatic turn for the worse because some ranking system suddenly places your alma mater at #2 or #3. The only two groups who place serious stock in the rankings are high schoolers and the chronically insecure.

ilamont 14y ago

In the 2010 Times Higher Education "top universities" list, Alexandria University in Egypt ranked ahead of Georgetown and Delft. It also beat out Harvard and Stanford in the subcategory that measured the impact of research (1). Here's what happened: Phil Baty, deputy editor of Times Higher Education, acknowledged that Alexandria’s surprising prominence was actually due to “the high output from one scholar in one journal” — soon identified on various blogs as Mohamed El Naschie, an Egyptian academic who published over 320 of his own articles in a scientific journal of which he was also the editor. In 2009, an administrator at Clemson University in the U.S. revealed that the college had "... manipulated class sizes, artificially boosted faculty salary data and gave rival schools low grades in the rankings' peer reputation survey" with the goal of improving its U.S. News & World Report college ranking. This helped the university rise from #38 to #22 over a seven-year period (2). A few weeks ago, Emory University admitted it had also manipulated data/lied over a period of more than 10 years in order to improve its U.S. News & World Report ranking (3). My takeaway from these incidents: Not only are university ranking systems imperfect to begin with, but it's also possible to game the system ... and it happens every year. 1. New York Times: "Questionable Science Behind Academic Rankings" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/education/15iht-educLede15.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/education/15iht-educLede15... 2. USA Today: "Clemson official: School manipulated rankings " http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-06-04-clemson-rankings_N.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-06-04-clemson-ra... 3. Reuters: "Emory gave incorrect data to publications that rank U.S. colleges" in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/17/usa-emory-ranking-idINL2E8JHNG320120817

sb 14y ago
Thanks so much for all the data! I was just about to write a "well, hopefully nobody on HN cares about these rankings" post, trying to remember some of the facts I read about, but your post summarizes these data so well, no need to post at all. Just for the record: I recently read (presumably on HN, too) about a ranking where somebody asked lawyers to rank schools according to their prestige. Penn-State always got ranked in the middle, even though it didn't have a law school at all. So, in a sense it doesn't even matter if administrators are cheating or not...
flexie 14y ago