Join for FREE,
and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions,
Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky
welcome messages (like this one!)
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, 15are JHU alumni; Duke only has 2 NL alumni, and Northwestern only has 3.
Also, there is no way in hell that Minny, Wisconsin, and UCSD have stronger faculties than Duke.
As you can see in the methodology, there's no criteria for 'Rhodes, Marshall, Gates Cambridge,' etc. I'm also unfamiliar with any international ranking that does include them in its methodology.
Quality of Education = ALUMNI of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals [REALLY????]
Quality of Education = STUDENTS of an institution winning Rhodes + Marshall + Gates Cambridge, etc.
The ARWU ranking is deeply flawed. It gives bigger universities an undue advantage over their smaller peers. This explains why schools like Cornell and UCLA are ranked in the top 15. It also explains why schools like Brown, Dartmouth and even Duke are very underrated. A ranking that focuses on the quality of research being produced at a university would be preferable to this one.
Here are the current US News graduate program rankings.
Physics: UCSD #14, Wisconsin #17, Minnesota #26, Duke #40
Public Policy: Wisconsin #12, Minnesota #16, Duke #16, UCSD N/A
It is notably weaker than the other three schools in chemistry (#45), physics (#40), and earth science (#45).
It's close enough that by the time you added in all the disciplines not represented here--for example, agricultural sciences and natural resources where Wisconsin and Minnesota are globally renowned powerhouses--the relative rankings could change.