Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

ARWU Ranking 2013


Replies to: ARWU Ranking 2013

  • CatriaCatria Registered User Posts: 11,349 Senior Member
    U Utah surprises me; IMO it shouldn't be in the top 100 (and replaced with either an Asian university or a Continental European one).

    But the three rankings seem to short-change undergraduate education. Undergraduate educational quality should be given some weight since:

    1) Many of those who use the rankings are shopping for undergraduate education

    2) Many of those who go to college are not advancing on to graduate school and, for this reason, poor undergraduate quality is going to hurt on the job market (or in grad school for those who do go on to grad school)

    My professors, some of which might have contributed to any one of the three, always complain about undergraduate education not being taken into account.
  • mike011xmike011x Registered User Posts: 167 Junior Member

    Could you post a link to your source that these three rankings do not give undergraduate education "some weight"? I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just really curious as to what methodology that they use.
  • simba9simba9 Registered User Posts: 3,253 Senior Member
    I always thought of the ARWU rankings as more about research and published papers than the quality of undergraduate teaching. That's why I'm not surprised to see some of the bigger state universities listed above universities like Rice or Carnegie-Mellon.
  • ClassOf2015HSClassOf2015HS Registered User Posts: 2,060 Senior Member
    It sure values Californian schools.
  • bclintonkbclintonk Registered User Posts: 7,649 Senior Member
    simba9 wrote:
    I always thought of the ARWU rankings as more about research and published papers than the quality of undergraduate teaching.

    There's no ranking, including US News, that's based on the quality of undergraduate teaching in any meaningful way. In my experience, having both studied and taught at both major public research universities and private research universities, there is no discernible difference in the quality of teaching at the top public versus the top private institutions. Their faculties are interchangeable, and in fact many people do go back and forth from one to the other over the course of their careers. There may be differences in class sizes, but in general there's a much bigger difference on that score between LACs and research universities (public and private) than there is between public and private research universities which are more alike than different, and equally research- and graduate-education focused. That's what makes them research universities.
  • CatriaCatria Registered User Posts: 11,349 Senior Member
    A ranking that would be primarily focused on undergraduate education would likely have publics and privates together at the top...

    Ranking Methodology of Academic Ranking of World Universities - 2013 - ARWU methodology

    QS World University Rankings Methodology | Top Universities - QS methodology

    The essential elements in our world-leading formula - Times Higher Education - Times Higher Education methodology

    Admittedly some of the indicators are flawed; there are research-less schools that can teach much better than schools with high grad students-to-undergraduates ratios...
  • Time2Time2 Registered User Posts: 708 Member
    Rankings help sell newspapers or magazines, but I wouldn't recommend using them to help decide which college to attend. There are an endless number of threads on here about the validity/or lack there of relating to the criteria being used.
  • simba9simba9 Registered User Posts: 3,253 Senior Member
    there is no discernible difference in the quality of teaching at the top public versus the top private institutions

    I totally agree, but different rankings look at different criteria. US News seems to focus heavily on the quantitative statistics of entering freshman classes, and that's what I was comparing the ARWU rankings with. (Although I guess it would have helped if I'd actually said it.)

    It's really a question of whether you believe in these types of rankings in the first place. While they're fun to look at, I don't put much faith in them.
  • NCXferNCXfer Registered User Posts: 328 Member
    UCSD, UCSF, etc higher than UNC Chapel Hill? UC Boulder being higher than UNC is a joke. I understand these UC's are quality, but I guess my main point is that UNC should be higher. I guess I can live with top 50 in the world though.
  • ucbalumnusucbalumnus Registered User Posts: 76,071 Senior Member
    simba9 wrote:
    US News seems to focus heavily on the quantitative statistics of entering freshman classes

    That also seems to correlate with typical notions of prestige -- the idea that the worst undergraduate student at a "top" university like Harvard is still pretty smart, much more so than the worst undergraduate student at some other university like Arizona State.

    However, that is not necessarily well correlated to research-based rankings, nor does it necessarily mean that a given major is stronger at the "top" university than at some other university. Also, someone looking for the best students may find that there are plenty of best students at Arizona State to look for, despite the large number of not-as-good students there.
  • ldavisldavis Registered User Posts: 672 Member
    I dont understand this comment. Why couldn't a public be better than a private?? not necessarily inflation...
  • Pat1120Pat1120 Registered User Posts: 605 Member
    UCSD and USF both above Umich? Hmmm...

    (no problem with UMich's ranking, just find that a bit peculiar)
  • goldenboy8784goldenboy8784 Registered User Posts: 1,698 Senior Member
    Why does JHU do so well in all of these international rankings compared to other schools like Duke, Northwestern, etc.?

    Also, there is no way in hell that Minny, Wisconsin, and UCSD have stronger faculties than Duke.
  • beyphybeyphy Registered User Posts: 2,237 Senior Member
    JHU routinely gets the most funding from the NIH:

    Top NIH grant funding by institutions, states for 2010 | MedCity News

    Currently has the best hospital out of thousands evaluated:

    Best Hospitals 2013-14: Overview and Honor Roll - US News and World Report

    Has been associated with 37 Nobel prize winners:

    Johns Hopkins University - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    And is quite possibly the only elite university to have the backing of a living billionaire:

    $1.1 Billion in Thanks From Bloomberg to Johns Hopkins

    In addition to this, historically, Northwestern and Duke have probably also been more pre-professionally oriented than JHU. Of the Nobel laureates that I mentioned earlier, 15 are JHU alumni; Duke only has 2 NL alumni, and Northwestern only has 3.

    List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    That said, JHU has its share of weaknesses. JHU's endowment ($2.59B) is much smaller than Northwestern ($7.1B) and Duke ($5.6B). It should be noted however that Duke and NU have over twice as many students as JHU does.
  • wondervawonderva Registered User Posts: 93 Junior Member
    Woot, go UCSD. Well deserved.
    Beyphy, do you also think UCLA is also a bit higher than it should be?
This discussion has been closed.