THES World University Ranking - 2010

Graduate School
1

<p>The newly released World University Rankings 2010-2011:</p>

<p>1 Harvard University
2 California Institute of Technology
3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
4 Stanford University
5 Princeton University
6 University of Cambridge
6 University of Oxford
8 University of California Berkeley
9 Imperial College London
10 Yale University
11 University of California Los Angeles
12 University of Chicago
13 Johns Hopkins University
14 Cornell University
15 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
15 University of Michigan
17 University of Toronto
18 Columbia University
19 University of Pennsylvania
20 Carnegie Mellon University</p>

<p>For a more comprehensive list:</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>

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

<p>Any comments on this ranking?</p>

2

<p>We now have 3 major world rankings: Shanghai-Jiaotong, QS, and THE. Honestly, I’m getting tired of it.</p>

<p>In a closer analysis though, this ranking is quite a lot of BS. I was quite stunned to find that 30% of the total score is based on teaching. Dissecting this, we have:</p>

<p>Reputational Survey 15%
PhD awards per academic year 6%
Undergraduates admitted per academic year 4.5%
Income Per Academic Year 2.25%
PhD awards/Bachelor’s Awards 2.25%</p>

<p>This makes absolutely no sense. How do any of these criteria besides the reputational survey measure teaching performance? It just lets really small schools have a distinct advantage. (And now you know why Caltech is #2.)</p>

<p>Oh, and industry-income innovation 2.5%… how much your university gets from corporations to do research for them. What?!? Who do you think is going to benefit the most from that? Well, engineering schools, obviously, and no one but engineering schools. (Another reason why Caltech and MIT come in at #2 and #3.)</p>

<p>And international mix of staff and students:</p>

<p>Ratio of international to domestic staff 3%
Ratio of international to domestic students 2%</p>

<p>Please explain to me why this matters.</p>

<p>In any case, all of the criteria mentioned above should be deleted permanently. They are clearly useless.</p>

<p>In other news, it is quite interesting how far THE is taking this. They’ve put on quite a show. “We believe we have created the gold standard in international university performance comparisons.” And their methodology page? <a href=“http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/analysis-methodology.html[/url]”>http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/analysis-methodology.html&lt;/a&gt; “Robust, transparent, and yours: The most exact and relevant world rankings yet devised.” I really hope THE stays unpopular or remains overwhelmed by Shanghai-Jaiotong, because these guys are just ridiculously pompous.</p>

3

<p>I think it’s interesting how some people on CC try to discredit every list of rankings that does not confirm their preconceptions of what is good and what isn’t. THES is not perfect, but nor is Shanghai-Jiaotong or any other niversity rankings. I don’t understand why people treat the ARWU as canon law, it has its failings too.</p>

4

<p>In my opinion, THES and ARWU are credible rankings. Of course not perfect, but trustworthy. Unlike the QS though; stanford & berkeley not in top 10, and UCL at number 4.</p>

<p>At least for the THES and ARWU, the top 10 universities are roughly the same but in different order. Probably it is better to rank universities into their corresponding groups. For international reputation:</p>

<p>Tier 1:
Harvard</p>

<p>Tier 2:
Oxbridge
MIT
Caltech
Stanford
Berkeley
Yale
Princeton</p>

<p>Tier 3:
Columbia
Chicago
Cornell
UCLA
UMich
UPenn
Imperial
LSE
Toronto
Melbourne</p>

<p>etc… so on</p>

<p>Interestingly in this THES ranking, each of the toppers for each criteria:</p>

<p>Teaching: Harvard
Research: UC Berkeley
Citation: MIT/Caltech/Princeton tie</p>

<p>Criteria of international mix of staff/student, I think, is relevant (diversity). At least its weighing is only 5%.</p>

5

<p>I found a lot of surprises on there. And why was Georgetown near the bottom when it’s probably considered a top 25 school here in the US?</p>

6

<p>UT Austin and Texas A&M are notable omissions from this “top 200”–particularly the former, which is anywhere between mid-30s and 70 according to other world rankings (e.g., ARWU, QS, US News). Indeed, it’s very surprising (and perhaps calls the credibility of these rankings into question) when the likes of Kent State, Drexel, and Hawaii are ranked above top 50 USNWR schools like UT Austin with $600 million/yr+ in research expenditures…</p>

7

<p>QS in my opinion is best international ranking system and US News the best for solely US Schools</p>

<p>LSE #67 are you kidding me?? and the thing about UT is a perfect example as well. Drexel and Hawaii are jokes comparatively no offense</p>

8

<p>QS Ranking:</p>

<p>UCL > MIT, Oxford
Imperial > Princeton
Chicago, Penn > Stanford (top 10 for every field)
Berkeley not in top 10 (but top 6 for every field)
LSE at #80, but top 10 in social science</p>

<p>brown14 are you saying that you think these are accurate?</p>

9

<p>It certainly is refreshing to see the THE consider 13 indicators this year compared to just 6 last year. QS’s rankings are less credible because the university’s reputation makes up 40% of the overall score, which means they are more subjective rather than objective. As what Ben Wildavsky said, “Reputation should be a factor, but one concern about weighting it heavily is that there could be a lag – a school could be ranked on a reputation that is no longer fully deserved”. Instead, more emphasis should be placed on research, teaching excellence and citations.</p>

<p>Nonetheless, I do feel that it doesn’t really matter if your school is ranked #5 or #50. Yes, the school environment plays a part, but at the end of the day, it’s still up to you to seize the opportunities out there and make the best out of your college education. Let’s just take these rankings with a pinch of salt!</p>

10

<p>Every time I see yet another school ranking, I throw up in my mouth. A school is good if it is well perceived by employers, not whether it’s 3 subjective notches above another school. Going to a good school also doesn’t mean you’re competent. It just means you got through.</p>

11

<p>

</p>

<p>Looking back at the THE list–any credibility of these THE rankings, at least for this year, has gone out the window. UMass and Yeshiva University ahead of KCL (and in the top 100)? Also, University of Utah in the top 100? Not saying these aren’t fine schools, but they’re not worthy of these placements, that’s for sure. “Reputation” may factor a bit too heavily into QS’s rankings, but at least their methodology doesn’t yield these sorts of outrageous results.</p>

<p>Perhaps this is just a rough transition year for THE as they try out a new methodology and perhaps do a sloppy job collecting information and/or compiling data. In any case, this year’s rankings are little more than a joke–a joke that surely few people will take seriously upon close examination.</p>

12

<p>^With all due respect to KCL, why can’t UMass and Yeshiva be ranked higher? Remember that two-thirds of each school’s rating is based on its research output: the impact of academic research as measured by citations, and its reputation for research as measured by peers. In 2009, UMass Amherst had research expenditures of $130 million, which is already more than the entire endowment of KCL. Yeshiva is a private research university and has an endowment of US$979 million, eight times that of KCL, and is able to invest heavily into its Albert Einstein College of Medicine. UK unis are simpy not allocating enough resources for research and that’s why they are lagging behind. UMass is a public research university and I’m not surprised that other research universities like Caltech, John Hopkins and MIT have also done well in this ranking. </p>

<p>How can you say that the THE rankings are a joke? I would say that QS rankings are more of a joke since QS bases its rankings more on the “reputation” of the university. So universities that have less history and smaller student bodies (less alumni = less publicity) will lose out in the QS rankings, which isn’t fair at all. Let’s not just focus too much on past heritage and reputation of the university and instead focus on what the university is doing now in building its future. One great way it can do so is by investing in its research capabilities, and I think that this is the message that the THE is trying to bring across.</p>

13

<p>Heres my 2 cents.</p>

<p>Both reputation and research are equally valid factors in ranking universities; it really depends on what you’re looking for. The research ranking (ARWU) would reflect the dominance of PhD programs, whereas THES would probable reflect more about its overall layman prestige/reputation.</p>

<p>The QS ranking is not credible for one reason: its criteria of international faculty/student, and student/faculty ratio - how is this related to the quality of a university?? If you look at the academic peer review or the employer review sections of the QS ranking, then it looks alot like the THES and ARWU with the usual suspects in top 10 (HYPSM+Berk+Caltech+Oxbridge).</p>

<p>Its international faculty/studio criteria allow british univerisites (most notably UCL and Imperial) to rank so highly; because they have much more international students than other US universities.</p>

14

<p>Like jr1038, I’m pretty shocked that UT or A&M didn’t land among the Top 200. Shockingly, as I downloaded the iPhone app to see the rest of the 400, Texas didn’t land among there either.</p>

<p>Other than that though, I like the criteria and think it’s really much better than its previous rankings.</p>

15

<p>

</p>

<p>To bring up my point before–how is UT Austin, which had $640 million in research expenditures in 2009, has an endowment of around $6 billion (highest of any public university), has several top ten programs in science and engineering, is one of the most highly cited institutions in engineering, computer science, etc., not included in the top 200 (or, as pointed out, the top 400)? One could perhaps argue one way or the other for KCL, but there’s simply no solid argument for UMass or Yeshiva (or Utah, Drexel, etc., etc.) being ahead of UT.</p>

<p>You ask why these rankings are a joke? This is the shining example among many others (e.g., Texas A&M), at least beyond the top schools. Even if this was not a methodology issue (perhaps both UT and A&M were dropped from the list for some reason, or somehow did not participate if that’s possible), it’s still a shocking omission particularly as UT was in the top 50 according to this publication just a few years ago.</p>

16

<p>Yeah, PhD awards have more to do with the mentoring and resources than teaching. After 4 years of undergrad (and sometimes 2 years of an MA) it’s relatively easy to move through the coursework in the PhD program - that’s not what stops us from finishing the degree. Also, it shouldn’t be the sheer number of awards, because that just favors the large universities. It should be the ratio of the number of PhD students who finish to the number of PhD students who started.</p>

<p>I also find it funny how they broadcast far and wide that this is less based on reputation than past years. No, they just found a way to sneak reputation in there without calling it that.</p>

<p>But I’m not surprised by the high placement of Yeshiva. Albert Einstein is a fine place to do research as a biomedical or sociomedical researcher. I am surprised that Austin didn’t make the list, though; it’s one of the best schools in my field and in many fields. I don’t know anything about KCL but I definitely know that in terms of research output, UT-Austin is a better known school than Yeshiva and Drexel.</p>

<p>I don’t know - I think there’s something inherently silly about quantitative ranks (instead of placing universities in groups of 10 or 20) but at the same time, you have to go for the rankings that are going to give you what you need. Want a prominent Wall Street or political/NGO job? Go for the QS rankings because you’re going to need the reputation. Want to go to a school known for its research? THES may be the one for you. And the intelligent graduate student will also gauge opinion within his or her field.</p>

17

<p>Perhaps THE should totally take out the “international mix” category next year. After all, how is this a measure of the quality of the university? That being said, I would definitely like to see more emphasis on “industry income” because that really shows how much the university is having an impact on society. </p>

<p>I’m still not convinced why college rankings continue to give weightage to “reputation”. After all, as one person commented, “It’s like having a running race and giving the gold medal to the most famous runner. He might be famous for being really fast, but if that’s how we’re judging them, why hold the race at all?”</p>

18

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, if you’re gonna call out QS for the international student/faculty ratio, then you may have to call THE out as well as being less credible. Afterall, that criteria does have a weight of 10%. Similar to that of QS.</p>

19

<p>kwaldner, you have to realise that UK universities do not depend on endowment. KCL is one of the Univerisities in the Golden Triangle. The universities in the Golden Triangle (Cambridge, Oxford, UCL, Imperial, LSE and KCL) take a large chunk of government research grant.</p>

<p>Last year, KCL was awarded £135m in research grant by the UK government. That in pounds is already more than UMass expenditure. If converted to dollars, it would be far more. </p>

<p>KCL’s endowment is £103m (rougly $163m), but KCL has access to public funds which Yeshiva does not. The income of its endowment can not match KCL’s access to public funds. </p>

<p>The top UK universities are reasonably well funded.</p>

20

<p>[Top</a> Universities in North America 2011-2012](<a href=“http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/north-america.html]Top”>World University Rankings 2011-12 | Times Higher Education (THE))
2011-2012 rankings</p>