UK Universities Rise Up The World Rankings

[Sapphire]

And the nicest by far, at least scenically, is the University of Cambridge, UK.

...........


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7083292.stm?lsm

• "UK universities rise up rankings
  
  Oxford moves up to joint second
  Britain's performance in a league table of the world's top universities has improved, but the US still dominates.
  Four of the top 10 are British and the rest American. Harvard is top and Yale, Oxford and Cambridge joint second.
  
  University College London breaks into the top 10 for the first time and Imperial College London rises to fifth.
  
  The annual survey by the Times Higher Education Supplement and careers and education group QS ranks according to factors including academics' opinions.
  
  The biggest increase in ranking is by University College London, which rises from 25th position last year to ninth.
  
  The Massachusetts Institute of Technology was joint fourth last year but falls to 10th place, while Stanford falls from sixth position to 19th.
  
  Another US university which tumbles in the rankings is the University of California, Berkeley. It was rated eighth last year but drops to 22nd place this year.
  
  Asia
  
  The rankings are based on a number of factors including the opinions of academics and of companies employing graduates, international student and staff numbers, and research.
  
  The managing director of QS, Nunzio Quacquarelli, said the rankings recognised the quality of education that UK universities offer.
  
  He said: "In an environment of increasing student mobility, the UK is putting itself forward as a top choice for students worldwide.
  
  The world standing of UK higher education is at the very top
  
  Professor Rick Trainor
  Universities UK
  
  They are taking a closer look at the quality of faculty, international diversity and, of course, the education they will receive there."
  
  Asian universities improved their standing but European institutions outside of the UK fell back, the survey said.
  
  Last year there were 41 European universities in the top 100, but in this year's table there are 35.
  
  The president of Universities UK, Professor Rick Trainor, said: "As this table shows, the world standing of UK higher education is at the very top.
  
  "This is due to the high quality of our research and teaching.
  
  "Our competitors are increasingly marketing themselves more aggressively so it is vital that the UK remains among the foremost destinations for international students and staff."
  
  The Top 10 in full is:
  
  1 Harvard University (US)
  2 University of Cambridge (UK)
  2 University of Oxford (UK)
  2 Yale University (US)
  5 Imperial College London (UK)
  6 Princeton University (US)
  7 California Institute of Technology (US)
  7 University of Chicago (US)
  9 University College London (UK)
  10 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)"

Sapphire

[Ralph]

Cambridge is beautiful.

[DavidRoss]

All of the top ten either US or UK? CalTech, MIT, Chicago in the top 10? I cannot judge the British institutions, but there sure seem to be some peculiar biases afflicting these rankings.

[RebLem]

I clicked on the link, but unfortuanately, there is no link to the original report referenced. What we all want to know, in view of the lacrosse players' scandal, is how Duke University fared before and after.

[living_stradivarius]

Cambridge music students are among the brightest I've ever met.

Harvard's undergraduate program is a bit... overrated. It's the grad schools that do that job.

[slofstra]

This is rubbish.

The proof is in the pudding. See how well the fine American schools do in international competition:

http://icpc.baylor.edu/past/icpc2007/Fi ... s-2007.htm

http://www.imc-math.org.uk/imc2007/results2007teams.htm

And here is a more legitimate ranking:

www.arwu.org

[DavidRoss]

This is rubbish.

The proof is in the pudding. See how well the fine American schools do in international competition:

http://icpc.baylor.edu/past/icpc2007/Fi ... s-2007.htm

http://www.imc-math.org.uk/imc2007/results2007teams.htm

And here is a more legitimate ranking:

www.arwu.org

I fail to see what some self-selected student competitors in obscure games have to do with rating the quality of universities. However, at least among American universities, the "more legitimate ranking" you cite makes much more sense than the BBC's. Note that in this ranking--compiled by a presumably disinterested Chinese university--the top 19 universities are either American or British. The site also describes their criteria, which seem more appropriate for judging research institutions than those vaguely referenced in the article about the BBC rankings, but note that the Chinese criteria are consciously weighted in favor of technical and scientific excellence.

The top 20:
1- Harvard
2- Stanford
3- Cal
4- Cambridge
5- MIT
6- CalTech
7- Columbia
8- Princeton
9- Chicago
10-Oxford
11-Yale
12-Cornell
13-UCLA
14-UCSD
15-Penn
16-Washington
17-Wisconsin
18-UCSF
19-Johns Hopkins
20-Tokyo

[living_stradivarius]

It also depends on the characteristics of the University you look at. Stanford, in my opinion has really strong polisci, international relations, and public policy departments. Chemistry, on the other hand, gets the shaft (it's good, but needs more females). I'm surprised the Chinese ranking doesn't include Berkeley.

[Sapphire]

... However, at least among American universities, the "more legitimate ranking" you cite makes much more sense than the BBC's.

The BBC itself did not carry out this research. It is merely reporting on the latest research carried out annually by the Times Higher Education Supplement, which started these league tables in 2004.

The procedure involves a weighting together of a range of qualitative and quantitative criteria, each accounting for half the total score.

The qualitative aspects are based largely on a peer group review, based on the principle that people who know most about the quality of Universities are those who work in them or who are closely connected to them. For the study in 2006 (details are not yet published for 2007) they gathered data from over 3700 academics from around the world in all the main areas - science, medicine, technology, the social sciences or the arts and humanities – asking a variety of questions about performance. Another component of the qualitative assessment is the opinions of a panel of over 700 large graduate recruiters, who work internationally or on a substantial national scale, asking questions about which Universities they like to recruit from.

The main component of the quantities side of the assessment involves a variety of measures involving teaching and research, e.g. staff-to-student ratio, citations of academic papers. Various other measures were considered (e.g. employment take up) but comparable data around the world was not sufficiently reliable, so they didn't risk compromising the results by using any such dubious data.

One additional possible indicator, which the Times did not use but might have considered, is the degree of competition for teaching posts. I guess it is the same problem of obtaining a suitable quantitative indicator and securing international comparability. However, from many of my contacts, I know how incredibly difficult it is to get any kind of teaching post at Cambridge, UK. The various faculties have the pick of the world's best, and turn lots away whenever any vacancy crops up. Many top staff at other top-notch UK universities see Cambridge as among the most difficult (almost impossible) place to get into.

Clearly, any such research is prone to severe problems of measurement, but as far as I can see, the Times work hardly merits the description of "rubbish", as one normally moderate and quite sane member has deemed fit to say, especially in the light of some of his risible references.

Taking account of the rankings from the Chinese study, it looks as though the UK comes out very well indeed in respect of top universities, especially on a GDP per capita basis.



Sapphire

[DavidRoss]

It also depends on the characteristics of the University you look at. Stanford, in my opinion has really strong polisci, international relations, and public policy departments. Chemistry, on the other hand, gets the shaft (it's good, but needs more females). I'm surprised the Chinese ranking doesn't include Berkeley.

Look again. Number 3, right after The Farm.

According to US News & World Report's 2007 ranking of top graduate schools in Chemistry, Stanford, Cal, MIT, & Caltech are tied for #1.

To me the most striking characteristic of Stanford is its excellence in virtually all academic fields--rivaled by only a handful of institutions--together with an unrivaled commitment to athletic excellence and a commitment to undergraduate education more commonly found in small liberal arts colleges than at major universities.

So, dude...what's yer major?

[living_stradivarius]

Double in Human Biology and International Relations.

Re: Stanford Chem, I'm referring to undergrad dedication to education in Chemistry.
In my opinion, the quality of undergraduate education varies for different types of people. Liking Stanford undergrad requires an attitude and approach that is quite different from liking Harvard undergrad.

[DavidRoss]

Double in Human Biology and International Relations.

Re: Stanford Chem, I'm referring to undergrad dedication to education in Chemistry.
In my opinion, the quality of undergraduate education varies for different types of people. Liking Stanford undergrad requires an attitude and approach that is quite different from liking Harvard undergrad.

Is Hum Bio still the predominant pre-med major? Are these intellectual interests for you or vocational training? Could you be judging undergrad attitudes toward Chemistry largely by classmates whose interest is solely in jumping through the hoops required to get into med school?

[living_stradivarius]

Yes, HumBio still is. I was a pre-med, but found myself more interested in policy, diplomacy, and sociology. My opinion of undergrad Chem does come largely from pre-med experience and peers, so there is a bias due to the lesser extent to which pre-meds explore Chem classes. Of course, that's wholly separate from the quality of research that is performed here (or even inversely related to it).

Dr. Philip Lee, who came here as an undergrad and for Med school (he has several siblings who did the same ), advised me not to spend my undergraduate career fulfilling pre-med requirements because of the higher quality of non Chem/Bio courses for undergrads. I think he's right. Stanford, in my opinion, isn't conducive to pre-med students who are constantly distracted by sexy guest lecturers in international relations

[slofstra]

The questions related to Stanford and chemistry and so on point up the difficulty of providing any kind of ranking in aggregate, across all disciplines. US News & World Report does provide very useful rankings by discipline.

Regarding the Times survey I fail to see how a school can drop from 4th to 22nd unless the point system and weightings are so arbitrary that they produce chaotic changes from year to year.

As far as math and computing competitions; they are of some use in assessing the schools. The best schools try to attract students who can win these competitions for them. This is mutually symbiotic; the top students receive scholarships to the best schools and in turn they help to "build the brand". The same applies in research, papers and other prizes.
What these competitions do point up is that while the top universities are located in the U.S. and UK and to some extend in Canada (5 schools in the top 100), the best students do not come from those countries. The best students in these schools are generally foreign and international students; and the top faculty and researchers in turn also. I don't have statistics to back this up, but this is my surmise based on what I hear.

[living_stradivarius]

I recall USN&WR's rankings distinguished the top 5 universities largely on their alumni donation rate. Apparently Stanford alum tend to be more frugal (but it doesn't account for absolute $ donated, which is probably greater here given our proximity to Silicon Valley relative to the Ivies).

Another example of the disparities in ranking is Johns Hopkins. While their hospital is consistently #1, research takes a hit.


Usually, "the best" students who come from abroad are those who specialize in technical or math-based skills. The statistics are out there somewhere... but you can see it simply by stepping into a university's engineering/math/econ building.

[slofstra]

Usually, "the best" students who come from abroad are those who specialize in technical or math-based skills. The statistics are out there somewhere... but you can see it simply by stepping into a university's engineering/math/econ building.

Although I have a degree in English, I daresay the other stuff (non technical) doesn't really matter on the international stage. Humanities do 'matter', but whether one has the best school in the humanities matters not a whit.
As far as 'seeing it' I think you are referring to visible minorities but this can be deceptive. At Berkeley over half of the students (don't quote me on the ratio but it is very high) are of Asian extraction, but the lion's share are second, third generation or longer, American citizens. What I mean is something quite different; the top students at the top schools are often international students on scholarship. These are a small percentage of the student body. They are there in order to become the top professors and researchers that the American schools need to stay at the top.

[living_stradivarius]

Berkeley can be confusing because of the masses of second and third generation Asian Americans there.

A lot of the TAs in Stanford's Math, Chem, Physics and Econ departments are international students on scholarship. I suppose I'm referring to "audible" as opposed to "visible" minorities, since the prevalence of the use foreign languages in these departments isn't as deceptive as race by itself.

While the humanities are largely ignored in this regard, a lot of philosophy grad students seem to be from abroad as well.