2012 World University Rankings(timeshighereducation.co.uk)
timeshighereducation.co.uk
2012 World University Rankings
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2012-13/world-ranking
62 comments
Let's face it, the main purpose of such rankings is to provide a pecking order for wider society to latch onto. Rankings factor into prestige, which factors into graduates' signalling for employment, which helps determine how well they can compete for the more desired jobs in society. Sure, most of the top institutions provide excellent learning experiences in themselves, but I'd guess the signalling effect of a top school supplies a major portion of the grad's desirability as an employee (especially when the hirers are from elite schools' old boys clubs themselves).
Furthermore, prestigious universities with powerful alumni networks provide informational advantages, and alumni probably favor fellow alumni in business and recruitment. (That reminds me, maybe I should start reconnecting with college mates to look for a job...)
I don't think the above is cynical - I think it's just realistic.
Furthermore, prestigious universities with powerful alumni networks provide informational advantages, and alumni probably favor fellow alumni in business and recruitment. (That reminds me, maybe I should start reconnecting with college mates to look for a job...)
I don't think the above is cynical - I think it's just realistic.
Thus, by implication, if your career prospects rely partly on how others perceive you, instead of pure talent, they are pretty relevant.
Pretty much any single ranking is going to be fairly meaningless for a prospective student, given the large differences between various faculties at most universities, except at a very coarse level (e.g. universities near the top are probably a good bet generally, and those near the bottom are to be considered with caution). However that doesn't really add anything that isn't already pretty obvious to most people.
At best I suppose you could think of it as a kind of pat on the back for universities which do a good job generally. Give them a bit of kudos and publicity etc. That doesn't really do that much for the top-tier schools, but it might give some under-appreciated schools welcome attention.
At best I suppose you could think of it as a kind of pat on the back for universities which do a good job generally. Give them a bit of kudos and publicity etc. That doesn't really do that much for the top-tier schools, but it might give some under-appreciated schools welcome attention.
For me, it had a direct negative effect. My school (University of Western Australia - 190) prides itself on being one of the country's better schools. When it's rankings started to slip, it took active steps to try and improve them - a significant part being a higher focus on research, rather than undergraduate teaching (the list rewards academic achievement more highly than graduate satisfaction). The result of this, was the bottom 1/3 of my faculty (Mechanical/Chemical engineering), determined by research performance being fired. Some of these were awful, lazy teachers, sure, but others were that special kind of lecturer who resonates really well with students but produces limited academic work. In addition, those professors with tenure (often stereotyped as being lazy teachers) were not let go, compounding the problem.
Well, it is not always necessary to "resonate well with students", especialy in a tertiary education scenario. May be this is a requirement for primary or high-school level, but for university? I don't think so.
I did my undergrad from an insignificant public school in a third world country, but secured my masters (by research, no coursework) from one of the top 30 schools from that list and it was an enlightening experience.
To say the truth, I have learned most of the undergrad craps by myself (thanks to our local book markets teeming with pirated/photocopied books) -- in my case, the contribution from the so called "good teachers" is almost none. the "quality of teaching" is a very subtle concept and thers is no apparently good way to measure it. I think it is the "research" that should matter the most. Above all, no one is interested in average GPA of students.
I did my undergrad from an insignificant public school in a third world country, but secured my masters (by research, no coursework) from one of the top 30 schools from that list and it was an enlightening experience.
To say the truth, I have learned most of the undergrad craps by myself (thanks to our local book markets teeming with pirated/photocopied books) -- in my case, the contribution from the so called "good teachers" is almost none. the "quality of teaching" is a very subtle concept and thers is no apparently good way to measure it. I think it is the "research" that should matter the most. Above all, no one is interested in average GPA of students.
We...obviously have completely different philosophies on how universities should be run. A good lecturer is, in my opinion, paramount to learning. Too many of my classes had lecturers who were completely incompetent, and worse than that, didn't even make an effort to be good teachers, and I, like you, was forced to learn the content myself. Another, a man who is highly regarded (our school built him a lab just so he'd come here), used slides literally copied and pasted from Wikipedia.
The result of this is I have a significant debt (though less than you get from a US college), and an education which is completely sub par.
The result of this is I have a significant debt (though less than you get from a US college), and an education which is completely sub par.
>> others were that special kind of lecturer who resonates really well with students but produces limited academic work.
Interesting. This is definitely in agreement with the point that many "[research]" universities exist for the research and not for learning/growth outcomes. If only a better solution existed...
Interesting. This is definitely in agreement with the point that many "[research]" universities exist for the research and not for learning/growth outcomes. If only a better solution existed...
Lists like these recognise in public University's that are good and gives all universities a reason to improve.
Whether this ranking is more relevant to researchers or students you'd have to look at the methodology but they are very closely related anyway.
The reason people hate rankings is most people(Bit above 50%)are below average intelligence or go to a below average university hence they hate it when it's pointed out to them.
Even smart people still suffer for thinking they are more intelligent than they are hence they too do not like being rated.
In summary, the truth is yes you are better off going to a higher rated university if external factors are equal. But most people can't handle the truth so it's up to you what you believe.
Whether this ranking is more relevant to researchers or students you'd have to look at the methodology but they are very closely related anyway.
The reason people hate rankings is most people(Bit above 50%)are below average intelligence or go to a below average university hence they hate it when it's pointed out to them.
Even smart people still suffer for thinking they are more intelligent than they are hence they too do not like being rated.
In summary, the truth is yes you are better off going to a higher rated university if external factors are equal. But most people can't handle the truth so it's up to you what you believe.
> The reason people hate rankings is most people(Bit above 50%)are below average intelligence or go to a below average university hence they hate it when it's pointed out to them.
Sorry, what? Presuming that "intelligence" is normally distributed, then exactly half of the population will be above average and half below. By your thinking the top 50% should love rankings.
I think the problem with rankings is that there's no foolproof metrics of comparison, so there will also be some grumbling.
Sorry, what? Presuming that "intelligence" is normally distributed, then exactly half of the population will be above average and half below. By your thinking the top 50% should love rankings.
I think the problem with rankings is that there's no foolproof metrics of comparison, so there will also be some grumbling.
>> Lists like these recognise in public University's that are good and gives all universities a reason to improve.
I very much hope universities aren't shallow and lacking of a reasonable vision and mission to the point of requiring some random generic ranking to motivate efforts to improve.
Many students might, however, be motivated by such things. That is, anyway, until they realize it's probably not a good strategy. Ie. If I want to become a lawyer or politician, I don't go to MIT; if I want to become a software engineer, I don't go to [insert random high ranking university without an engineering related program].
>> ...the truth is yes you are better off going to a higher rated university if external factors are equal.
I'm curious what you mean by "if external factors are equal"? What external factors? Do you mean "if all universities had the same mission and vision, same degree programs, same culture, are located in the same place, attract the same type of students, etc."? I can agree with you then. However, I believe the fact is that the "external factors" are actually very, very different (back to my original comment).
I very much hope universities aren't shallow and lacking of a reasonable vision and mission to the point of requiring some random generic ranking to motivate efforts to improve.
Many students might, however, be motivated by such things. That is, anyway, until they realize it's probably not a good strategy. Ie. If I want to become a lawyer or politician, I don't go to MIT; if I want to become a software engineer, I don't go to [insert random high ranking university without an engineering related program].
>> ...the truth is yes you are better off going to a higher rated university if external factors are equal.
I'm curious what you mean by "if external factors are equal"? What external factors? Do you mean "if all universities had the same mission and vision, same degree programs, same culture, are located in the same place, attract the same type of students, etc."? I can agree with you then. However, I believe the fact is that the "external factors" are actually very, very different (back to my original comment).
> If I want to become a lawyer or politician, I don't go to MIT
Actually, going to MIT is fine if you want to be a lawyer, as long as you get good grades at MIT and do well on the LSAT.
The LSAT part should be easy. For the kind of person that goes to MIT, the LSAT is a fun test.
Grades might be a problem, as MIT is not, I hear, the place to go for an easy A. However, if you can get good grades there, the MIT background should stand out with the law school admissions people, because they don't see a lot of applicants from MIT. Law touches nearly everything we do, and the top law schools recognize we need lawyers and judges with diverse backgrounds. That MIT degree will be a plus.
Amusing LSAT trivia: Physics and math majors are the highest scoring group on the LSAT, followed by philosophy and religion majors. The lowest scoring group is criminology majors, and second lowest is prelaw majors.
Actually, going to MIT is fine if you want to be a lawyer, as long as you get good grades at MIT and do well on the LSAT.
The LSAT part should be easy. For the kind of person that goes to MIT, the LSAT is a fun test.
Grades might be a problem, as MIT is not, I hear, the place to go for an easy A. However, if you can get good grades there, the MIT background should stand out with the law school admissions people, because they don't see a lot of applicants from MIT. Law touches nearly everything we do, and the top law schools recognize we need lawyers and judges with diverse backgrounds. That MIT degree will be a plus.
Amusing LSAT trivia: Physics and math majors are the highest scoring group on the LSAT, followed by philosophy and religion majors. The lowest scoring group is criminology majors, and second lowest is prelaw majors.
>> Amusing LSAT trivia: Physics and math majors are the highest scoring group on the LSAT, followed by philosophy and religion majors.
I think the only use of these rankings is prestige. I went to a university that ranks quite highly in that list. And when I tell people what university I went to, they are quite impressed.
However, my university's ranking is pulled up a lot because it's medical and languages schools are amongst the best in the world. In computer science (the subject I did) it is decent but definitely not as highly ranked. But I still benefit from the "brand" my university has
However, my university's ranking is pulled up a lot because it's medical and languages schools are amongst the best in the world. In computer science (the subject I did) it is decent but definitely not as highly ranked. But I still benefit from the "brand" my university has
I don't think they offer much. However, I'm still glad to see them.
The reason I like lots of different rankings using lots of different criteria and weighting is that the tend to dilute the impact of any one single ranking.
The reality is that people pay a lot of attention to rankings. Right now, US News and World Report does have an outsized impact on how people think of universities. And as a lot of people know, not a single public university shows up on their rankings.
For instance, UC schools tend to have very well regarded faculty and graduate programs. The undergraduate programs are good too, but these schools admit large numbers of in-state students. The downside is that admissions standards are lower as a result, the upside is that far more low income students get a crack at an education at a true research university.
US News rewards private research universities with very small undergraduate student bodies for the resulting "eliteness" of undergraduate admissions, which is actually ok. But does Berkeley or UCLA get any credit for enrolling more low income students than the entire ivy league each? No, not a bit, but they do get dinged for the impact on their numbers, which is how a university that is in the top 5 for almost every department still ends up outside the top 2.
Then you have the Washington Monthly rankings, which perhaps over-emphasize this (along with graduate programs in engineering and science) and are stacked with top public research universities - though it doesn't get anywhere close to the US News kind of attention. Honestly, it is a little silly to see Harvard ranked so low. But it underscores how different a conclusion you can reach with very reasonable measurements.
And then you have international rankings like this one, or the USNRC which tend to emphasize scholarship and research, and so forth.
I guess I'd say I'd prefer to see no numerical rankings, but if we have to have them, I'd like so many that it becomes clear that numerical rankings may be measuring very different things and that no single list has an outsized impact on the way people perceive universities.
The reason I like lots of different rankings using lots of different criteria and weighting is that the tend to dilute the impact of any one single ranking.
The reality is that people pay a lot of attention to rankings. Right now, US News and World Report does have an outsized impact on how people think of universities. And as a lot of people know, not a single public university shows up on their rankings.
For instance, UC schools tend to have very well regarded faculty and graduate programs. The undergraduate programs are good too, but these schools admit large numbers of in-state students. The downside is that admissions standards are lower as a result, the upside is that far more low income students get a crack at an education at a true research university.
US News rewards private research universities with very small undergraduate student bodies for the resulting "eliteness" of undergraduate admissions, which is actually ok. But does Berkeley or UCLA get any credit for enrolling more low income students than the entire ivy league each? No, not a bit, but they do get dinged for the impact on their numbers, which is how a university that is in the top 5 for almost every department still ends up outside the top 2.
Then you have the Washington Monthly rankings, which perhaps over-emphasize this (along with graduate programs in engineering and science) and are stacked with top public research universities - though it doesn't get anywhere close to the US News kind of attention. Honestly, it is a little silly to see Harvard ranked so low. But it underscores how different a conclusion you can reach with very reasonable measurements.
And then you have international rankings like this one, or the USNRC which tend to emphasize scholarship and research, and so forth.
I guess I'd say I'd prefer to see no numerical rankings, but if we have to have them, I'd like so many that it becomes clear that numerical rankings may be measuring very different things and that no single list has an outsized impact on the way people perceive universities.
[deleted]
Good article on bias of rankings:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_...
Malcolm Gladwell isn't my favourite source of information, but there are some good points about the U.S. News University rankings.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_...
Malcolm Gladwell isn't my favourite source of information, but there are some good points about the U.S. News University rankings.
That list looks surprisingly good, so I looked at their methodology. Methodology looks great and makes sense to me, a lot better than the (widely criticized) methodology US News & Report uses. Of course nothing is perfect, but some things are better than others. Also kudos to them for featuring their methodology on a prominent and obvious tab rather than burying or hiding it. Very professional approach I would like to see adopted widely.
The idea that you can reduce an entire institution to a single number that is at all meaningful is pretty silly. I would hate to think that anyone uses these rankings for anything more important than idle bragging.
It may be silly, but if you wanna really know something, you have to measure it. Maybe the methodology is wrong, or maybe a true ranking should be multidimensional, but you have to start somewhere. Every endeavour in this direction must not be shut down, but encouraged, analyzed and constructively criticized.
That just sounds like a karma farming middle-of-the-road comment that no one actually believes because it's so obviously flawed.
What if you want to measure something obviously incapable of being boiled down to a single figure yet you do it anyway, in which case it's OK to create a valueless arbitrary scale and call it fact even though it's clearly balanced in favour of reflecting what you hoped it would? That isn't a valuable endeavour and to analyze and encourage it is just validating absurdity.
What if you want to measure something obviously incapable of being boiled down to a single figure yet you do it anyway, in which case it's OK to create a valueless arbitrary scale and call it fact even though it's clearly balanced in favour of reflecting what you hoped it would? That isn't a valuable endeavour and to analyze and encourage it is just validating absurdity.
No kidding. What was Socrates, Galileo or Kant's IQ? The hilarious part is that you can find IQ scores attributed to these people, despite the fact that they were smart long before the idea of a supposed measure of intelligence. Ranking universities is stupid.
What? ITT technical institute and University of Phoenix are not listed on there.
How come there isn't a single university in India listed?
The best Indian research institutions like IISc and TIFR don't teach undergraduates, and the best Indian undergraduate institutions (IITs) don't do much research.
Both research and undergrad teaching are required in the ranking. Honestly though, IISc is the best indian institution and will barely crack the top 100 research institutes in the world.
Both research and undergrad teaching are required in the ranking. Honestly though, IISc is the best indian institution and will barely crack the top 100 research institutes in the world.
The methodology states that 60% of the rank is based on research and citations. There just isn't as much research and papers being published in universities such as IIT as there are in other universities in the world. Few universities in India pride themselves on being research institutions.
[deleted]
You didn't read far enough ... clocking in at #235 - Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
[deleted]
Thumbs up to any ranking that has my alma mater above NYU, Brown, Peking University, BU, USC, Purdue and Monash - but I don't know how much most employers would agree.
These types of ranking speak more to the subjectivity of the author than to the repute of the universities.
One would think that Moscow State University being second largest in Europe and 250 years old would somehow get a mention. Also KTH of Sweden ranking 100 spots below EPFL of Switzerland is a bit of a WTF.
One would think that right up until they read the grading methodology.
What good is a methodology if the results are off.
It isn't automatically invalidated just because the results aren't in line with people's preconceptions.
I don't like the ratings. It says nothing about how good the university is for students. Only how many papers etc. the university publish.
It says nothing about how good the university is for students.
Actually, teaching is 30% of the score.
Actually, teaching is 30% of the score.
"I don't like these benchmarks. They say nothing about how cool my users find my program. Only how fast it runs"
You are free to dislike a metric that does not (or not 100%) correlate with what you find important, but that does not make it a meaningless metric.
You are free to dislike a metric that does not (or not 100%) correlate with what you find important, but that does not make it a meaningless metric.
Ofc you are right about that. I refrase, I don't like how the charts is being interpreted by the most of the people. Too many read too much into them.
Of course the first thing I did was to look for the French "grandes ecoles" (Polytechnique, HEC, ENA, mine-Sciences Po, etc…). But they're are not officially classed as universities, due to their highly selective process (French universities have a principle of non-selection) they are not included in this ranking. Which to anyone who knows about them is clearly preposterous, especially when far less illustrious French universities are listed in the top 100. Also really bizarre to see Warwick classed at #157 - it’s top for economics in the UK, and has very strong law, history and engineering departments.
Irrespective of their stated calibration criteria, I'm left feeling that "amount of money thrown at university by wealthy alumni" and "general reputation as measured by number of mentions in Hollywood films" are the strongest criteria here, not the level of education actually received.
Practical value is therefore marginal at best. A much more useful analysis would be by subject, across all institutions.
Irrespective of their stated calibration criteria, I'm left feeling that "amount of money thrown at university by wealthy alumni" and "general reputation as measured by number of mentions in Hollywood films" are the strongest criteria here, not the level of education actually received.
Practical value is therefore marginal at best. A much more useful analysis would be by subject, across all institutions.
In addition to the École Normale Supérieure, at 59, and the École Polytechnique at 62, the École Normale Supérieure de Lyon is at 170.
Lower ranking by the Grandes Écoles is likely to the the relatively poor showing of France in basic research.
Lower ranking by the Grandes Écoles is likely to the the relatively poor showing of France in basic research.
Highly depends on your criteria. It is pretty common to judge universities through their academic research performance, especially for the prestigious ones, and "grandes ecoles" are pretty terrible in that departement (except for 'ecoles normales', but those are pretty specific).
I also consider the level of education given at grandes ecoles to be pretty poor, especially in the prestigious ones. Once accepted in one, you are pretty much guaranteed to get the diploma, and in many of them, you can get out by cheating or studying a couple of hours before the exams. I doubt this changed since I was a student there 10 years ago.
In economical terms, GE are much more about signal than human capital.
I also consider the level of education given at grandes ecoles to be pretty poor, especially in the prestigious ones. Once accepted in one, you are pretty much guaranteed to get the diploma, and in many of them, you can get out by cheating or studying a couple of hours before the exams. I doubt this changed since I was a student there 10 years ago.
In economical terms, GE are much more about signal than human capital.
"level of education actually received"
And how would you measure that? You could base it on the entrance qualifications but I don't think that's a great idea as I know of courses by institutions in that list that are very difficult to get into but then the course itself is pretty shoddy - although the general reputation for the university and course in question is very good.
And how would you measure that? You could base it on the entrance qualifications but I don't think that's a great idea as I know of courses by institutions in that list that are very difficult to get into but then the course itself is pretty shoddy - although the general reputation for the university and course in question is very good.
I see École Normale Supérieure at 59 and École Polytechnique at 62.
Practical value is therefore marginal at best. A much more useful analysis would be by subject, across all institutions.
There are various collections of by-department rankings.
http://www.arwu.org/ -- this one can list by Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Computer Science, and Economics.
There are various collections of by-department rankings.
http://www.arwu.org/ -- this one can list by Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Computer Science, and Economics.
For the 76th largest country in the world by area, and 22nd by population, I'd say the UK is punching well above it's weight on this list.
Not just on this list, in reality. The UK attracts the best and brightest (and richest) students from all over the World because of the quality of their Universities. The only country that attracts more is the US.
Still the UK has a lower GDP/capita than Germany. You've got to wonder why.
Because the UK makes very little attempt to actually employ or utilize its best and brightest -- only to filter them out of the general population. America has a less-severe form of the same problem.
No Harvey Mudd? Some criteria had to have disqualified it. That school is exceptionally good.
Probably not enough publications. One of the criteria is 200 publications per year. If the Claremont colleges were treated as one school they would probably be in there, but when looked at separately Mudd doesn't have enough research and the Claremont graduate school is eliminated because another criteria is that the school teaches undergraduates.
Anyone have a few spare grains of salt?
Top universities and almost exclusively dominated by the US. Well done!
You see, that's the real indicator of innovation, IMHO. I'm not saying that all innovation/research takes place or has to happen in the universities, but there is something to be said about the American ethic of obsession with creating something out of nothing - they are so in love with the idea of potential, they're so enamoured by the promise of "could be" that they spend top dollar educating their younger generation in institutions that echo their values. It's veritably sickening! ;-)
As long as this list continues to show US domination, the Apples will always be invented in the US and manufactured elsewhere.
Symptom of a society.
Good list.
You see, that's the real indicator of innovation, IMHO. I'm not saying that all innovation/research takes place or has to happen in the universities, but there is something to be said about the American ethic of obsession with creating something out of nothing - they are so in love with the idea of potential, they're so enamoured by the promise of "could be" that they spend top dollar educating their younger generation in institutions that echo their values. It's veritably sickening! ;-)
As long as this list continues to show US domination, the Apples will always be invented in the US and manufactured elsewhere.
Symptom of a society.
Good list.
You see, that's the real indicator of innovation, IMHO. I'm not saying that all innovation/research takes place or has to happen in the universities, but there is something to be said about the American ethic of obsession with creating something out of nothing - they are so in love with the idea of potential, they're so enamoured by the promise of "could be" that they spend top dollar educating their younger generation in institutions that echo their values. It's veritably sickening! ;-)
Great, but how many of the undergrad students are American-born, how many of the grad-students, and how many post-docs and faculty?
In my experience of American academia, most of the undergrads and the older professors are American, but as full-time academic positions have dried up, more and more of the grad-students, post-docs and faculty are foreigners. The reason is simple: it has stopped being a good career move for a young American to aspire to work in academia, whereas even with the slim odds we have nowadays, it remains an excellent career move for someone from, say, India or China. After all, even if you don't get a faculty position in America, your American training will let you walk right into one "back home".
Great, but how many of the undergrad students are American-born, how many of the grad-students, and how many post-docs and faculty?
In my experience of American academia, most of the undergrads and the older professors are American, but as full-time academic positions have dried up, more and more of the grad-students, post-docs and faculty are foreigners. The reason is simple: it has stopped being a good career move for a young American to aspire to work in academia, whereas even with the slim odds we have nowadays, it remains an excellent career move for someone from, say, India or China. After all, even if you don't get a faculty position in America, your American training will let you walk right into one "back home".
Point taken. But does it really matter that the students are not "American-born"?
How many expat students really return to their native countries? I think the investments in education ultimately stays closer to the institutions.
How many expat students really return to their native countries? I think the investments in education ultimately stays closer to the institutions.
But does it really matter that the students are not "American-born"?
If you're trying to talk about the impact of American universities on America's innovative capacity and America's economy, then yes, it matters how many students and graduates are American-born -- because only an extreme few of those immigrant students are getting Green Cards. It also matters to consider American-born students rather than all citizens and prospective citizens because we're trying to get an indication of what people think about the American labor market. The best way to measure that is to look at people who are confined to the American labor market.
If we had a "points-based" immigration system like Canada, say, I would be asking how many graduates are American citizens. But we don't. Most international students I met were planning on either going "back home" or rising through further academic degrees (ie: grad-school) in order to continue their visas long enough to at least try for a Green Card and/or American citizenship. The economic impact of the latter is limited to academia.... which gets us back to the very problem I've been trying to articulate: that academia (in the sense of teaching and research, not just university incomes or spending) has been killed off as a major economic engine in America.
http://infoproc.blogspot.co.il/2008/05/dont-become-scientist... -- here is our problem, described twice. American STEM innovation/research is a bad career path. That's the core problem, but people keep trying to fix it by... futzing around with the immigration laws so that America can exploit foreign labor and foreign investments in education and research training rather than having to pay for the innovators it supposedly wants.
If you're trying to talk about the impact of American universities on America's innovative capacity and America's economy, then yes, it matters how many students and graduates are American-born -- because only an extreme few of those immigrant students are getting Green Cards. It also matters to consider American-born students rather than all citizens and prospective citizens because we're trying to get an indication of what people think about the American labor market. The best way to measure that is to look at people who are confined to the American labor market.
If we had a "points-based" immigration system like Canada, say, I would be asking how many graduates are American citizens. But we don't. Most international students I met were planning on either going "back home" or rising through further academic degrees (ie: grad-school) in order to continue their visas long enough to at least try for a Green Card and/or American citizenship. The economic impact of the latter is limited to academia.... which gets us back to the very problem I've been trying to articulate: that academia (in the sense of teaching and research, not just university incomes or spending) has been killed off as a major economic engine in America.
http://infoproc.blogspot.co.il/2008/05/dont-become-scientist... -- here is our problem, described twice. American STEM innovation/research is a bad career path. That's the core problem, but people keep trying to fix it by... futzing around with the immigration laws so that America can exploit foreign labor and foreign investments in education and research training rather than having to pay for the innovators it supposedly wants.
I'm wondering how we can be #15 in Computer Science on the ARWU rankings and #193 on the Times Higher Education supplement. Holy crap, are our other departments really that awful?
That's a pessimistic way to look at it. You could also look at it as your other departments are average, but your CS department is outstanding. There are a LOT of universities on the list. 193 is not awful.
Also, different lists weight things different. On AWRU outside of CS, your school is in the middle of the top 100, providing more cadence to the not awful theory--just a bad fit for the Times criteria.
Also, different lists weight things different. On AWRU outside of CS, your school is in the middle of the top 100, providing more cadence to the not awful theory--just a bad fit for the Times criteria.
Yeah, once I looked at the numbers a bit I figured it out. There's also the fact that the Times grades 7.5% of their rankings on international scholarship... which instantly docks most of 7.5% from almost all state and national universities :-( while rewarding those few institutions with the name-brand cachet to attract massive international attention.
I do feel that what's actually bad about that criteria is that it rewards universities for attracting international students who pay the full sticker price at the cost of local students who receive subsidies and scholarships. Spending my undergrad watching UMass Amherst do more and more to get out-of-state and international students just for the money did not feel that great.
I do feel that what's actually bad about that criteria is that it rewards universities for attracting international students who pay the full sticker price at the cost of local students who receive subsidies and scholarships. Spending my undergrad watching UMass Amherst do more and more to get out-of-state and international students just for the money did not feel that great.
Ie. Practically what am I supposed to gather by the fact that Caltech is rated #1? Or Stockholm University #117? Should that mean I would benefit from attending Caltech over Stockholm U? Or do these rankings just help see what countries/states are research university superpowers (whatever benefit that brings -- e.g. increased international competition?)?
I'm sure universities love to see themselves ranked well as it could bring them more prestige and attract better/more students. However it's extremely confusing how universities that have extremely varied missions can be measured on the exact same metrics in the exact same way, and from that form a valuable "ranking" that actually has worth.
My understanding of the purpose of measuring is largely to increase feedback to stimulate growth and learning. Do these rankings help with this? I'm not sure.
Perhaps I would be more comfortable if they would rename their ranking or define it less generally. One step forward would be to possibly form categories (or acknowledge existing categories) for universities and have one ranking table per category.
[1] I found this in one of the articles on the site: "The world of higher education is changing, and the rankings help us to make sense of what is happening. These rankings were conceived to be much more than an annual beauty parade or marketing gimmick for university recruitment offices. We are delighted to continue to deliver what we promised we would."
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-ranki...