<p>I think this one is by The Times (UK), from what I have read. The rankings are based on academics’ peer assessment in their field of research. So it reflects what the academic staff in each university think of their peers in other universities. I am just a little surprised that they thought alot more of Berkeley than Stanford.</p>
<p>But of course, it is no business of mine what they think :)</p>
<p>I don’t agree with how they give so much more points for having more international students and faculty… most universities have tiny international student bodies at the undergrad level and intentionally keep it that way to put the needs of students in their own country first. Look at schools like Harvard, Caltech, UCBerkeley, and MIT… their international scores in both categories are less than 20’s! All the UK schools seem to benefit from this scoring system however. London university gets about a 150 point lead on the above mentioned US schools, Oxford/Cambridge both get a 50 point lead - is this possibly biased towards UK schools and those with large international student bodies?</p>
<p>calm down everyone, why would you be more informed than these guys. because you read usnews and heard so and so college was good from your neighbor? I’m not saying that these rankings are absolute, but obviously they have some base in their rankings.</p>
<p>When one university scores higher than another university in every category except international enrollment - and that other university wins anyways because they enroll a much larger proportion of international students, you know something is wrong with this ranking. A university who chooses to only admit a 5% international undergrad student body loses huge number of points to another university who chooses to enroll something like 40% internationals for undergrad. In this ranking I see many good universities bumped off the list for these ‘international’ schools, which are not necessarily any better.</p>
Well its been created by asking 1,300 odd academics which institutions they consider as leaders in their respective fields so i would consider it a pretty accurate as its basically been drawn up by those whos opinion matters.
The same thing can be seen when the UK rankings are compared to the international rankings. ‘lesser’ institutions can be found noticably higher in these international rankings than certain peers. </p>
<p>This table seems far superior to the previous one where the science/maths bias was hugely significant - for example the London School of Economics was 400th or so according to Shanghai, whereas here it is placed 11th, a position which far better reflects its quality. The School of Oriental and African Studies is another institution which makes a notable gain in this table whereas its arts/social science/language concentration left it severely disadvantaged in the shanghai table. I expect some of the American Universities have made similiar gains due to the fact this table takes all subjects into account.</p>
<p>Points for having tons of international students/faculty: 167 (60% of total points)</p>
<p>This one is ranked #32 worldwide, when just about every university ranked below it has better peer review/faculty/citation scores. The only reason they are up there is because they have a very large international student body. NOT because they are known better among academics or they have better faculties, etc… it’s all there in the report. So just because a university is ranked #20, does not mean it is better than one ranked #50 - look at the score reports to see what they actually included in the methodology.</p>
<p>Seems as though everyone hates the international portion of this ranking. Thats ok because I dont know if I agree with it either. Perhaps we are all bias against anything that doesnt have to do with the United States. Look at it this way, whenever someone says something good about a UC or any other public school people complain by saying they dont have enough students from out of state. Some people argue that in order for a school to be truly great, they need to have a student body with many more states represented than what public schools tend to have. Whoever thinks like this should have absolutely no problem with the way this rankings take international students into consideration. After all, we are ranking WORLD universities here. </p>
<p>I personally dont totally agree with this ranking but it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I like it because it gives another perspective on University rankings. This ranking may be flawed but it is no more flawed than US News ranking. Keep in mind people that US News is not the Bible!</p>
<p>Numerical ranking is bad. It is unlike Super Bowl that two schools actual play and compete against each other. Can only one tell me what or why the # 1 in any ranking is better than the # 2 school? The # 1 School doesnt win in all criteria if you can even call it a winner in some highly subjective measurements. Just remember that what is good for one student is not necessary good for another student. </p>
<p>The ranking is worst! Harvard is 1000 points, almost 2 times better than Yale or 3 time better than Columbia. Give me a break. I wonder if any school gets 1000 in this ranking?</p>