<p>^USNWR uses THE’s world ranking.</p>
<p>I am sorry but sometimes the spelling errors on this website are astounding, especially for college bound kids. The word is “legitimate”, not “legitiment” as you spelled it. Phonics did more damage to our nation than perhaps anything those kooky PhD’s and EdD’s cooked up who “manage the knowledge we learn” in schools in the last 40 years. </p>
<p>If you have a problem with spelling,then use spell checker. Thank you.</p>
<p>
UCB is strong acorss the board, not just in the sciences:</p>
<p>UCB graduate ranking according to USNWR:
Mathematics… #2
Computer Sci… #1
Biological Sci… #2
Chemistry… #1
Physics… #3
Earth Sci… #4
Engineering… #3</p>
<p>Economics… #6
Political Sci… #6
Public Affairs… #6
Psychology… #1
Sociology… #1
English… #1
History… #1
Education… #7
Business… #7
Law… #6</p>
<p>(Ref: NRC)
Classics… #2
French… #7
German… #1
Linguistics… #7
Art History… #3
Anthropology… #3
Philosophy… #4</p>
<p>p.s. btw, Brown is #17 in History</p>
<p>datalook, thanks for the info, but NONE of the 4 schools you mentioned have over 200 members</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>National Academy of sciences =
national academy of science
+national academy of engineering
+Institute of medicine.</p>
<p>HSBM each has more than 200 members. H and S each has more than 250 members.</p>
<p>I love this thread… ;)</p>
<p>datalook, wow, thanks </p>
<p>it is good to know that the **National Academy of Engineering ** is part of the National Academy of Sciences.</p>
<p>It is also good to know that the National Academy of Science is part of the National Academy of Sciences</p>
<p>would you be kind enough to please show us a link to where we can read up on this?</p>
<p>thanks again</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL ARWU makes no sense whatsoever to Americans who actually know about the colleges. I have no idea how ARWU ranks colleges; all I can say is that their list of good colleges is correct. Their rankings should not be taken into consideration. Usnews and Times make much more sense.</p>
<p>And what do you actually know about the colleges? That they are popular with HS kids or that the faculty is actually among the best in the world. Probably the former.</p>
<p>Rankings obsession is a disease.</p>
<p>Sorry, I made a mistake.</p>
<p>It should be</p>
<p>National Academies =
national academy of sciences (NAS)
+national academy of engineering (NAE)
+Institute of medicine (IOM).</p>
<p>HSBM each has more than 200 national academy members. H and S each has more than 250 members. </p>
<p>see [The</a> National Academies: Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine](<a href=“http://nas.edu/]The”>http://nas.edu/)
[National</a> Academy of Sciences:](<a href=“http://www.nasonline.org/site/Dir?sid=1011&view=basic&pg=srch]National”>http://www.nasonline.org/site/Dir?sid=1011&view=basic&pg=srch) for NAS member search
[Members</a> By Parent Institution](<a href=“http://www.nae.edu/nae/naepub.nsf/Members+By+Parent+InstitutionA?openview]Members”>http://www.nae.edu/nae/naepub.nsf/Members+By+Parent+InstitutionA?openview) for NAE member search
[IOM</a> Home - Institute of Medicine](<a href=“http://www.iom.edu/]IOM”>http://www.iom.edu/) for IOM member search</p>
<p>How do you know those universities in China shouldn’t rank that high?</p>
<p>Rankings from different country are all biased. I think ARWU is actually better, since they rank researches…</p>
<p>Go take a look US news, they rank by percentage of professors are full time, professor/ student ratio…, there are BS ranking…</p>
<p>The UK’s ranking version also rank european schools higher too.</p>
<p>I am just saying they are all biased, even the one in US.</p>
<p>Harvard tops Chinese university rankings for eighth year
By D’Arcy Doran (AFP) 4 hours ago</p>
<p>SHANGHAI Harvard topped a ranking of world universities published Friday by a Shanghai college for the eighth year running – a list dominated by US institutions and sharply criticised in Europe.</p>
<p>The University of California at Berkeley was second, followed by Stanford, according to the list of 500 institutions compiled by Jiaotong University’s Centre for World-Class Universities, available at [Academic</a> Ranking of World Universities (ARWU)](<a href=“http://www.arwu.org%5DAcademic”>http://www.arwu.org).</p>
<p>The rankings are focused almost entirely on a university’s achievements in scientific research, and do not cover the humanities – prompting concerns that they do not accurately reflect an institution’s overall performance.</p>
<p>Jiaotong uses criteria such as the number of Nobel prizes and Fields medals won by staff and alumni, the number of highly cited researchers on staff, and the number of articles by faculty published in Nature and Science magazines.</p>
<p>The rankings have come in for sharp criticism, notably in Europe, where officials say the criteria are biased against European schools.</p>
<p>The list was the first global ranking of universities when it made its debut in 2003. It was intended to benchmark the performance of Chinese universities, amid efforts by Beijing to create a set of world-class research institutions.</p>
<p>The highest-ranked non-US institutions this year were Britain’s Cambridge and Oxford universities, in fifth and 10th places respectively.</p>
<p>Also in the top 10 were Massachusetts Institute of Technology, California Institute of Technology (Caltech), Princeton, Columbia and the University of Chicago.</p>
<p>In 20th place, the University of Tokyo was the best rated in the Asia-Pacific region.</p>
<p>US schools accounted for 54 of the top 100 universities.</p>
<p>The European continent’s top-rated institute was the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, at 23rd, while Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris was the highest-ranked French school in 39th position.</p>
<p>The top Chinese schools were Peking University and Tsinghua University, which were in the tranche of institutions ranked 151st to 200th.</p>
<p>France – keen to improve its results in Jiaotong’s rankings, which favour larger universities – is investing five billion euros (6.5 billion dollars) in “Operation Campus” to group universities into larger research centres.</p>
<p>France’s minister for higher education, Valerie Pecresse, visited Jiaotong last month to promote the campus campaign and lobby for French universities.</p>
<p>A Norwegian minister also visited Jiaotong last year and Denmark’s science and innovation minister is due to come next month to discuss the rankings, the Shanghai university said.</p>
<p>However, experts have argued the rankings may have limited value for universities outside China.</p>
<p>Michaela Saisana, an analyst for the European Commission, has studied the rankings’ methodology and believes it fails to account for the specific strengths or missions of the world’s top schools.</p>
<p>“They’re fine for explaining how close the Chinese are to the rest, such as Europe or the US, but not for comparisons amongst universities,” she said.</p>
<p>The European Union plans to issue its own rankings by next year – offering ratings by academic discipline in map form, as a way to help students with the application process.</p>
<p>Copyright © 2010 AFP. All rights reserved.</p>
<p>Source: [AFP:</a> Harvard tops Chinese university rankings for eighth year](<a href=“http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hm9kN-Zi1UIvPndoBkD8yD_2AzGw]AFP:”>http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hm9kN-Zi1UIvPndoBkD8yD_2AzGw)</p>
<p>It’s not at all surprising that Berkeley comes to the Second in Academic and Research. Just take a look at how many National Academy of Science and Engineering works there, you will know this “Academic” ranking is accurate.</p>
<p>Harvard has the most National Academy of Science while MIT has the most National Academy of Engineering. But Berkeley has second most National Academy of both. </p>
<p>If Harvard is super strong at everything except its engineering, then Berkeley is super strong in Every Field among science, engineering, humanism, and business. I never know a university which is ranked all Top 10 overall except Berkeley and Stanford.</p>
<p>It’s actually one of the very few rankings that Boards of trustees, Presidents, and Deans of research actually look at to track and objectively compare their institutions performance on a global level.</p>
<p>The renown and respected US academic journal, the** Chronicle of Higher Education says that the ARWU “is considered the most influential international ranking.”**</p>
<p>The methodology in any of these rankings is crucial and this methodology has two pretty much fundamental drawbacks.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>100% of the weighted score is for categories that are open only to science and social science. Just one of six categories is refocused in the case of universities that “specialize in humanities and social sciences”. For the great majority of universities which have a comprehensive coverage the humanities are ignored altogether.</p></li>
<li><p>30% of the weighted score is based on alumni or staff who are Nobel (excluding Literature and Peace) or Field prize winners. I.e. 30% of the score is based on the whereabouts of perhaps 200 people.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Come one, Americans, dont be fooled. The Annual Ranking of World Universities is a ridiculous ranking for several reasons, including the following:
- Shanghai Jiao is a state-controlled arm of a totalitarian Communist regime that has absolutely no understanding of how Americans rate their universities. We might as well rely on the University of Havana or Hanoi University to rate us. Shanghai and its Communist academics are simply incompetent to opine as to the value of American (and European) education and its institutions.
- Shanghai, knowing absolutely nothing about how Americans perceive themselves, engages in a simple exercise of counting all of the Nobel winners each school has had since 1901 (!) to assign 30 percent of the ranking score; what a joke, as if schools never change. BTW, their ranking cannot be replicated using their raw data, which exposes that the emperor has no clothes, no pun intended.
- The ARWU is based upon the post-Ming Dynasty Confucianism philosophy of filial piety ancestor worship – which simply means they worship the number of Nobels and publications faculty have achieved since the beginning of the last century to rank schools. The ranking is based on the premise that once an institution has achieved a certain plateau (e.g., Nobels), it has achieved nirvana and should be worshipped. ARWU does not take into account how an institutions selectivity and academic peer review changes over time, which exposes Chinas fundamental misapprehension of American culture and American (and European) universities. Americans do not engage in the functional equivalent of ancestor worship of its institutions. Inter-academic rivalry and competition are ingrained in the American psyche, something as foreign to Shanghai as Shanghai is to most Americans.
- The likely reason the web site crashed when the ARWU first came out is because there are a billion Chinese who probably wanted to see how Shanghai guessed about how American schools should be ranked. What a joke.</p>