Quote:
|
dude i'm against the THES, so by hammering me not only do you NOT hammer thru to the THES, but you're inevitably boosting its credibility
|
Oh Longbowmen, give it up. I was actually just being nice in my last post. What you wrote was pretty stupid and contradictory. And I'll just end this posting with this one.
My point was that rankings at the very least should have a transparent methodology that leads to predictable outcomes. You agreed with this, but also didn't agree with it -- and entirely contradicted yourself. That's what I pointed out.
Quote:
|
and Berkeley ranked 4th? no offence its a great school, but with a overcrowded campus, lack of funds, low selectivity, and an undergrad system thats plagued with huge class sizes and TAs, it arnt gonna convince anyone
|
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Berkeley's got all these huge problems. It's all really obvious -- until you actually compare it to several other top research universities and realize it's really not that different in terms of a lot of the things you mentioned. Yes, overall student selectivity is lower compared to the top echelon, but it's still got a big swath of Ivy League caliber students, yes it's big, etc.
The Shanghai rankings are really, really narrow and focused on things that are to a large degree not that important for college selection. That is the second time I have said that. Re-read it. I would agree that they focus on things probably overall very marginally relevant. But at least the ranking says what it ranks with a predictable outcome. And by its standards -- which focus on a narrow measure of overall (read graduate) academic output, the rankings fall as they stand.
I am done here. Fire away.
We've gone far afield from the OP's concerns.