Harvard is killing it yet again at #1, with Berkeley coming in second.
Here are top 5:
1. Harvard
2. Berkeley
3. Stanford
4. MIT
5. Cambridge
Hit the link for the full ranking and methodology.
http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp
Trending Content
| +95 | Are you “less ambitious” for having long term goals outside of NYC | 24 | 16h | |
| +38 | Interviews Are So Fake | 25 | 11s | |
| +33 | 2024 UK Election - Tories finished? | 20 | 1d | |
| +29 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 20h | |
| +26 | Is my boss gaslighting me? | 3 | 6d | |
| +25 | Non-Competes Banned | 17 | 10h | |
| +23 | Sabotaging Peers to Get Ahead? | 34 | 4d | |
| +22 | Ideas for things to do with a free semester before starting ft? | 9 | 1d | |
| How do I become Sigma | 13 | 3s | ||
| +18 | Moelis has the cutest Analysts? | 4 | 17h |
Career Resources
list is bullshit. Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, etc >>> top research universities ranked much higher with weak undergrads
Hi ricochet,
it doesn't surprise me that you don't understand these rankings since, by taking into account your other contributions to this forum, you are a complete idiot.
you see, these rankings take into consideration the OVERALL quality of the University, not just its undergraduate degree. This is why state schools with relatively weaker undergraduate programs place highly on this ranking, b/c they have VERY strong graduate programs and produce VERY strong research. Williams, Amherst etc don't.
UVA 96
but
UCSD 14 (?!?!?!?!?) UMich 22 UCSB 32 Duke 35 UCD/UCI 46
I don't believe UVA is as strong research-wise as the other guys
I am sorry, but this ranking is complete bullshit. Like a lot of rankings are a little messed up, but this one is the mother of all cluster fucks. I would wipe my ass with it, but I don't want to insult my ass. Sorry guys, trying to be diplomatic with my review.
actually, this ranking and the times higher education university rankings are two of the best rankings published each year. just b/c it deviates from what you think and have been conditioned to think by USNWR, doesn't mean these are inaccurate rankings. these aren't the which universities are IB targets rankings ,these are concerned with which schools are the best overall universities- in terms of undergrad, grad, and research.
I haven't been conditioned to think about anything man. I looked over the list and looked at the names of schools not simply being slightly higher ranked than other schools, but blowing them away and based my conclusion off that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Ranking_of_World_Universities
Apparently I am not the only one who thinks the list is shit.
C'mon man, UC San Fran is a better university then Duke??? There is NO way in hell they put out better research.
Pitt beats out CMU?
The fact that UPenn is 15 is shocking since that place is completely dedicated to research.
who ranked those rankings top 2?
I don't agree with their research output metric, but I'd like to hear what problem people have with the ARWU's other ranking methodology.
UCSD 14 hahahahahah maybe because its down the street from Blacks Beach (www.blacksbeach.org more bewbs the better the ranking?)
Affirmative, I will agree with you that rankings are entirely subjective and if your school is top 100 you go to a very good school. With that said, I think both of these rankings suck balls.
Who exactly is using these to pick the school they go to? Weight placed on hard science and research? Who exactly does that benefit other than PhD's? I have been around a little bit and never once heard of these rankings. I am sorry, but they are complete ass.
I don't think you've been in the right "place" to have heard these rankings quoted often. What I mean by "place" is that you've done your undergrad in the USA, and you are getting an masters degree in the USA, and you are not planning on being an academic (I think). If you had studied in Europe, or if you were an aspiring academic, you would have certainly heard of these rankings. Believe me, researchers,PhD's, and university presidents know and care about these rankings.
Now, the ARWU rankings are usually quoted by grad students and PhD's, as they are more relevant to the hard sciences and research. A lot of people get annoyed with this ranking b/c the emphasis on hard sciences marginalizes a lot of otherwise great universities.
The Times Higher Education ranking, however, is hands down the most commonly used university ranking in the world. For example, when/if people in Europe want to see how global universities stack up against each other, they invariably refer to these rankings. Global employers and HR also refer to this ranking.
I'd also like to point out that the Times ranking is also very methodologically sound. Unlike the USNWR USA undergrad ranking, which places questionable emphasis on things like high school guidance counselors, the Times ranking takes a much more reasonable approach (academic peer review, employer review, faculty-student ratio, faculty citation).
Keep in mind that US News uses the Times ranking as its world university rankings as well: http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/worlds-best-universities/2010/…
Ok, I will give you that. I am entirely US centric with my education. I will also admit that the ARWU is probably tops for anyone looking to get a physics PhD or be in teaching.
As far as the Times ranking goes, I just did a search using only US schools and it isn't that bad. The only problem is when you have schools being ranked on research or PhD programs you omit a lot of teaching universities or schools without the PhD (often one in the same). This might be ideal for global students, but I think it omits way to many good schools for it to be useful.
I still disagree, but you have tempered my distaste for the times ranking at least.
I go to a Canadian target but it's not top100 in either rankings lol.
i wouldnt worry about
as long as it's a target you are good to go
lot of target schools for IB that don't make it on there- HEC, Bocconi, St. Gallen in Europe aren't listed b/c they are just good for economics and business.
People target Canadians?
God, I want to tell you to shut up, but I feel the need to argue with you.
The rankings suck. They still suck. Affirmative enlightened me that they are centered around research and PhD's and I gave him that. Where do you see me 180 degree changing my opinion. I gave in on one point. These rankings are good for a small subset of people. The mentioning of both of these rankings was not under the pretense of a PhD or research outlook. They were presented as if they were superior to the US News, WSJ, FT, etc. They clearly are not. They are very research focused and the other rankings are specifically focused on a small, select group.
The Wiki link I posted talks about pros and cons. The pros reiterate the research aim of the ranking. I thought the premise of this post was to say that these rankings were broad based and superior to the more familiar rankings we are all used to. I posted the link to show how research focused they were and how they were not relevant for UG students, MBA's, etc. Affirmative corrected me and gave me some more information. I softened my view thanks to him and that was that.
I did not enter this debate ignorant, I entered it without being provided the correct context. Once that was provided and more information was provided I altered my position like an open minded person would. That is the beauty of debate. People can be swayed by strong arguments. In the end I still stand by my assertion that outside of research and PhD focused groups these rankings are worthless, but I gave Affirmative a few points.
Nikki, thanks for the wonderful post. How about you weigh into the discussion and give us your opinion instead of sweating me so hard. I post a lot and know many of affirmatives posts and the whole rankings thing has been a continual topic.
I can give you that the ARWU rankings are good for a relatively small subset of people (academics/scientists) but I don't understand why you won't recognize the validity of the Times ranking. After all, US News unabashedly copies the Times ranking for its own ranking of world universities. The Times ranking is hands down the best and most widely recognized university ranking there is, second to none.
No doubt - I think you post a lot of good content as well, so I'm not taking away from you in that realm.
That being said, I think you took a strong and unjustified stance from the outset without sufficient background knowledge. I expressed some hesitance in their use of the research output metric, since it constrains the rankings to hard sciences, but otherwise have few problems with their sampling/analysis methodology (as noted in earlier posts).
I never insinuated that these rankings are in any way superior to currently established rankings.
Oh you posted haha, sorry. The thread became the Anthony and Affirmative show real fast.
Yeah, I did not have the full picture when I 1st posted. That being said, the post was framed in a way as if this ranking was a general ranking. Only a little later, once the argument got going, did it come out that these were really based on research and PhD. If the title of the thread was "Best ranking for PhD's based on research" or "Globally focused ranking with a strong leaning towards grads and academic research" my response would have been different. It was posted without much to it and that lead me to believe this was contradicting the more traditional rankings. As the argument developed I tempered my stance.
Weak sauce doesn't fly to well on this board lol.
I wouldn't categorize the Times ranking as PhD/research focused. I'd say it evaluates universities on a holistic basis (undergrad-grad-PhD) giving fair weightings to academic peer reviews, employer reviews, faculty qualifications etc. That's why high research universities like Wisconsin/Washington, that were ranked in the top 20 on the ARWU, are more reasonably ranked 61st and 80th on the Times list.
Welcome back Affirmative lol
Deleniti ut voluptas qui in. Est doloremque quia expedita repellat quia. Ut error distinctio fugit sed rerum. Modi quo doloribus enim quasi.
Ea mollitia labore corrupti. Voluptas incidunt placeat laboriosam nobis odio enim culpa. Placeat officiis quam aut doloremque illo eos voluptatem. Qui numquam consequatur quisquam voluptatem quos est quis in. Aspernatur rerum molestiae inventore ut.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Hic quis pariatur sed provident. Cumque voluptas rem aut voluptatum. Id ullam quisquam ratione sunt tenetur qui qui sequi.
Ipsum ullam sed aut iusto velit incidunt consequatur est. Aut fugit optio quis ipsa aperiam rerum. Quia placeat explicabo voluptate temporibus et veniam.
Sed quibusdam incidunt minus ipsa illo minus. Ut odio fugit dolorem soluta iusto. Illum magni consequatur velit necessitatibus earum. Eligendi eum vero et aliquam explicabo. Labore qui cumque quaerat nihil error dolore est.