oxford vs stanford

[sefago]

<p>Interesting, he basically said exactly the same thing I have been saying. </p>

<p>

Although Oxford is strong in the arts and humanities, Dr Charlton notes that these are culture-specific and harder to measure objectively.</p>

<p>“Since a university can only prove its superiority in science, science is what is used to measure status,” he said. “And in terms of science, Oxford is no longer especially distinguished - neither in volume nor in quality.”

</p>

<p>I said this in a previous thread:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/95914-stanford-v-oxford-prestige-6.html#post1065744849[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/95914-stanford-v-oxford-prestige-6.html#post1065744849&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

First of all, I was pointing out that humanities does not give a clear cut idea of quality across board because of its subjectivity and biases. So more appropriate ways of considering universities would be focused on their research prowess in science and engineering. I know enough about humanities, having read lots of humanities publications to form my own opinions about it (a very generalised opinion I know). Nevertheless, Politics is different everywhere, literature is different everywhere, sociology is different everywhere. For example how would you compare Stanford law (American law) with Oxford law (British common law).

</p>

<p>Dionysus accused me of reinforcing anti-european (LOL) perceptions. I was not criticising the body of humanities but pointing to cultural issues based on research in humanities. Why should European history as taught in Europe or American history as taught at Any US school place precedence over the history of other nations. </p>

<p>I said once that British schools lagged even compared to their other european counterparts in research.** Most people would point at “international league tables” but if you cut the international league tables and isolate data that only account for research quality such as publication quantity (which is very very inaccurate) and citation impacts a lot of schools dont match up to their reputation **. </p>

<p>Research citation is the crudest but best parameter for research excellence. Cambridge is the highest ranked british school at (36) citation per faculty. Oxford gasps for air at (52). While some people ignorantly claim that world class research is not going on at Dartmouth and Brown, these schools outperform Oxbridge on citation per faculty as opposed to total citations which is based on university size.</p>

<p>[QS</a> World University Rankings 2010 - Citations per Faculty (Index) | Top Universities](<a href=“http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2010/indicator-rankings/citations-per-faculty]QS”>http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2010/indicator-rankings/citations-per-faculty) </p>

<p>Even Rice University rates higher than Oxford/Cambridge in all research citations. This is not surprising- a large majority of ignorant people on CC talk a lot about Rice being low not knowing that its quality of research is just a notch below HYP. Talk to every Ivy league professor and you will be shocked how many did post-docs or have research links at Rice.</p>

<p>[Top</a> 200 - The Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2010-2011](<a href=“http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/top-200.html]Top”>World University Rankings 2010-11 | Times Higher Education (THE))</p>