7 ms·
2012 World University Rankings
- SkyMarshal 14y agoMethodology: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2012-13/world-ranking/methodology http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-ranki...
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- robocat 14y agoGood article on bias of rankings: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_... Malcolm Gladwell isn't my favourite source of information, but there are some good points about the U.S. News University rankings.
- droithomme 14y agoThat list looks surprisingly good, so I looked at their methodology. Methodology looks great and makes sense to me, a lot better than the (widely criticized) methodology US News & Report uses. Of course nothing is perfect, but some things are better than others. Also kudos to them for featuring their methodology on a prominent and obvious tab rather than burying or hiding it. Very professional approach I would like to see adopted widely.
- neilc 14y agoThe idea that you can reduce an entire institution to a single number that is at all meaningful is pretty silly. I would hate to think that anyone uses these rankings for anything more important than idle bragging.
- gosub 14y agoIt may be silly, but if you wanna really know something, you have to measure it. Maybe the methodology is wrong, or maybe a true ranking should be multidimensional, but you have to start somewhere. Every endeavour in this direction must not be shut down, but encouraged, analyzed and constructively criticized.
- weego 14y agoThat just sounds like a karma farming middle-of-the-road comment that no one actually believes because it's so obviously flawed. What if you want to measure something obviously incapable of being boiled down to a single figure yet you do it anyway, in which case it's OK to create a valueless arbitrary scale and call it fact even though it's clearly balanced in favour of reflecting what you hoped it would? That isn't a valuable endeavour and to analyze and encourage it is just validating absurdity.
- MikeAmelung 14y agoNo kidding. What was Socrates, Galileo or Kant's IQ? The hilarious part is that you can find IQ scores attributed to these people, despite the fact that they were smart long before the idea of a supposed measure of intelligence. Ranking universities is stupid.
- aik 14y agoHonest question: What value do these rankings provide to society? [1] Ie. Practically what am I supposed to gather by the fact that Caltech is rated #1? Or Stockholm University #117? Should that mean I would benefit from attending Caltech over Stockholm U? Or do these rankings just help see what countries/states are research university superpowers (whatever benefit that brings -- e.g. increased international competition?)? I'm sure universities love to see themselves ranked well as it could bring them more prestige and attract better/more students. However it's extremely confusing how universities that have extremely varied missions can be measured on the exact same metrics in the exact same way, and from that form a valuable "ranking" that actually has worth. My understanding of the purpose of measuring is largely to increase feedback to stimulate growth and learning. Do these rankings help with this? I'm not sure. Perhaps I would be more comfortable if they would rename their ranking or define it less generally. One step forward would be to possibly form categories (or acknowledge existing categories) for universities and have one ranking table per category. [1] I found this in one of the articles on the site: "The world of higher education is changing, and the rankings help us to make sense of what is happening. These rankings were conceived to be much more than an annual beauty parade or marketing gimmick for university recruitment offices. We are delighted to continue to deliver what we promised we would." http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2012-13/world-ranking/analysis/great-responsibility http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-ranki...
- creamyhorror 14y agoLet's face it, the main purpose of such rankings is to provide a pecking order for wider society to latch onto. Rankings factor into prestige, which factors into graduates' signalling for employment, which helps determine how well they can compete for the more desired jobs in society. Sure, most of the top institutions provide excellent learning experiences in themselves, but I'd guess the signalling effect of a top school supplies a major portion of the grad's desirability as an employee (especially when the hirers are from elite schools' old boys clubs themselves). Furthermore, prestigious universities with powerful alumni networks provide informational advantages, and alumni probably favor fellow alumni in business and recruitment. (That reminds me, maybe I should start reconnecting with college mates to look for a job...) I don't think the above is cynical - I think it's just realistic.
- sixQuarks 14y agoWhat? ITT technical institute and University of Phoenix are not listed on there.
- gzavitz 14y agoHow come there isn't a single university in India listed?
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- zmmmmm 14y agoYou didn't read far enough ... clocking in at #235 - Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
- narsil 14y agoThe methodology states that 60% of the rank is based on research and citations. There just isn't as much research and papers being published in universities such as IIT as there are in other universities in the world. Few universities in India pride themselves on being research institutions.
- pessimist 14y agoThe best Indian research institutions like IISc and TIFR don't teach undergraduates, and the best Indian undergraduate institutions (IITs) don't do much research. Both research and undergrad teaching are required in the ranking. Honestly though, IISc is the best indian institution and will barely crack the top 100 research institutes in the world.
- wilfra 14y agoThumbs up to any ranking that has my alma mater above NYU, Brown, Peking University, BU, USC, Purdue and Monash - but I don't know how much most employers would agree.
- greenranger 14y agoWhere's Hollywood Upstairs Medical College?!
- philip1209 14y agoThese types of ranking speak more to the subjectivity of the author than to the repute of the universities.
- eps 14y agoOne would think that Moscow State University being second largest in Europe and 250 years old would somehow get a mention. Also KTH of Sweden ranking 100 spots below EPFL of Switzerland is a bit of a WTF.
- peteretep 14y agoOne would think that right up until they read the grading methodology.
- huhtenberg 14y agoWhat good is a methodology if the results are off.
- archangel_one 14y agoIt isn't automatically invalidated just because the results aren't in line with people's preconceptions.
- mjwalshe 14y agoAnd ENA not in the top 50 ?
- Gojja 14y agoI don't like the ratings. It says nothing about how good the university is for students. Only how many papers etc. the university publish.
- Someone 14y ago"I don't like these benchmarks. They say nothing about how cool my users find my program. Only how fast it runs" You are free to dislike a metric that does not (or not 100%) correlate with what you find important, but that does not make it a meaningless metric.
- Gojja 14y agoOfc you are right about that. I refrase, I don't like how the charts is being interpreted by the most of the people. Too many read too much into them.
- gmac 14y agoIt says nothing about how good the university is for students. Actually, teaching is 30% of the score.
- Spearchucker 14y agoOf course the first thing I did was to look for the French "grandes ecoles" (Polytechnique, HEC, ENA, mine-Sciences Po, etc…). But they're are not officially classed as universities, due to their highly selective process (French universities have a principle of non-selection) they are not included in this ranking. Which to anyone who knows about them is clearly preposterous, especially when far less illustrious French universities are listed in the top 100. Also really bizarre to see Warwick classed at #157 - it’s top for economics in the UK, and has very strong law, history and engineering departments. Irrespective of their stated calibration criteria, I'm left feeling that "amount of money thrown at university by wealthy alumni" and "general reputation as measured by number of mentions in Hollywood films" are the strongest criteria here, not the level of education actually received. Practical value is therefore marginal at best. A much more useful analysis would be by subject, across all institutions.
- cdavid 14y agoHighly depends on your criteria. It is pretty common to judge universities through their academic research performance, especially for the prestigious ones, and "grandes ecoles" are pretty terrible in that departement (except for 'ecoles normales', but those are pretty specific). I also consider the level of education given at grandes ecoles to be pretty poor, especially in the prestigious ones. Once accepted in one, you are pretty much guaranteed to get the diploma, and in many of them, you can get out by cheating or studying a couple of hours before the exams. I doubt this changed since I was a student there 10 years ago. In economical terms, GE are much more about signal than human capital.
- anateus 14y agoI see École Normale Supérieure at 59 and École Polytechnique at 62.
- arethuza 14y ago"level of education actually received" And how would you measure that? You could base it on the entrance qualifications but I don't think that's a great idea as I know of courses by institutions in that list that are very difficult to get into but then the course itself is pretty shoddy - although the general reputation for the university and course in question is very good.
- tomelders 14y agoFor the 76th largest country in the world by area, and 22nd by population, I'd say the UK is punching well above it's weight on this list.
- wilfra 14y agoNot just on this list, in reality. The UK attracts the best and brightest (and richest) students from all over the World because of the quality of their Universities. The only country that attracts more is the US.
- maigret 14y agoStill the UK has a lower GDP/capita than Germany. You've got to wonder why.
- eli_gottlieb 14y agoBecause the UK makes very little attempt to actually employ or utilize its best and brightest -- only to filter them out of the general population. America has a less-severe form of the same problem.
- ziziyO 14y agoNo Harvey Mudd? Some criteria had to have disqualified it. That school is exceptionally good.
- tzs 14y agoProbably not enough publications. One of the criteria is 200 publications per year. If the Claremont colleges were treated as one school they would probably be in there, but when looked at separately Mudd doesn't have enough research and the Claremont graduate school is eliminated because another criteria is that the school teaches undergraduates.
- kenster07 14y agoAnyone have a few spare grains of salt?
- ak39 14y agoTop universities and almost exclusively dominated by the US. Well done! You see, that's the real indicator of innovation, IMHO. I'm not saying that all innovation/research takes place or has to happen in the universities, but there is something to be said about the American ethic of obsession with creating something out of nothing - they are so in love with the idea of potential, they're so enamoured by the promise of "could be" that they spend top dollar educating their younger generation in institutions that echo their values. It's veritably sickening! ;-) As long as this list continues to show US domination, the Apples will always be invented in the US and manufactured elsewhere. Symptom of a society. Good list.
- eli_gottlieb 14y agoYou see, that's the real indicator of innovation, IMHO. I'm not saying that all innovation/research takes place or has to happen in the universities, but there is something to be said about the American ethic of obsession with creating something out of nothing - they are so in love with the idea of potential, they're so enamoured by the promise of "could be" that they spend top dollar educating their younger generation in institutions that echo their values. It's veritably sickening! ;-) Great, but how many of the undergrad students are American-born, how many of the grad-students, and how many post-docs and faculty? In my experience of American academia, most of the undergrads and the older professors are American, but as full-time academic positions have dried up, more and more of the grad-students, post-docs and faculty are foreigners. The reason is simple: it has stopped being a good career move for a young American to aspire to work in academia, whereas even with the slim odds we have nowadays, it remains an excellent career move for someone from, say, India or China. After all, even if you don't get a faculty position in America, your American training will let you walk right into one "back home".
- ak39 14y agoPoint taken. But does it really matter that the students are not "American-born"? How many expat students really return to their native countries? I think the investments in education ultimately stays closer to the institutions.
- eli_gottlieb 14y agoI'm wondering how we can be #15 in Computer Science on the ARWU rankings and #193 on the Times Higher Education supplement. Holy crap, are our other departments really that awful?
- tzs 14y agoThat's a pessimistic way to look at it. You could also look at it as your other departments are average, but your CS department is outstanding. There are a LOT of universities on the list. 193 is not awful. Also, different lists weight things different. On AWRU outside of CS, your school is in the middle of the top 100, providing more cadence to the not awful theory--just a bad fit for the Times criteria.
- eli_gottlieb 14y agoYeah, once I looked at the numbers a bit I figured it out. There's also the fact that the Times grades 7.5% of their rankings on international scholarship... which instantly docks most of 7.5% from almost all state and national universities :-( while rewarding those few institutions with the name-brand cachet to attract massive international attention. I do feel that what's actually bad about that criteria is that it rewards universities for attracting international students who pay the full sticker price at the cost of local students who receive subsidies and scholarships. Spending my undergrad watching UMass Amherst do more and more to get out-of-state and international students just for the money did not feel that great.