

2012 World University Rankings - SkyMarshal
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2012-13/world-ranking

======
aik
Honest question: What value do these rankings provide to society? [1]

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...](http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-
rankings/2012-13/world-ranking/analysis/great-responsibility)

~~~
batiudrami
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.

~~~
ramgorur
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.

~~~
batiudrami
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.

------
Spearchucker
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.

~~~
pcrh
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.

------
droithomme
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.

~~~
neilc
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.

~~~
gosub
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.

~~~
weego
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.

~~~
MikeAmelung
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.

------
robocat
Good article on bias of rankings:

[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all)

Malcolm Gladwell isn't my favourite source of information, but there are some
good points about the U.S. News University rankings.

------
SkyMarshal
Methodology: [http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-
ranki...](http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-
rankings/2012-13/world-ranking/methodology)

------
eps
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.

~~~
peteretep
One would think that right up until they read the grading methodology.

~~~
huhtenberg
What good is a methodology if the results are off.

~~~
archangel_one
It isn't automatically invalidated just because the results aren't in line
with people's preconceptions.

------
gzavitz
How come there isn't a single university in India listed?

~~~
pessimist
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.

------
philip1209
These types of ranking speak more to the subjectivity of the author than to
the repute of the universities.

------
ziziyO
No Harvey Mudd? Some criteria had to have disqualified it. That school is
exceptionally good.

~~~
tzs
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.

------
tomelders
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.

~~~
wilfra
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.

~~~
maigret
Still the UK has a lower GDP/capita than Germany. You've got to wonder why.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
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.

------
ak39
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.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
_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".

~~~
ak39
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.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
_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...](http://infoproc.blogspot.co.il/2008/05/dont-become-scientist-
philip-greenspun.html) \-- 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.

------
Gojja
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.

~~~
Someone
"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.

~~~
Gojja
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.

------
kenster07
Anyone have a few spare grains of salt?

------
sixQuarks
What? ITT technical institute and University of Phoenix are not listed on
there.

------
eli_gottlieb
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?

~~~
tzs
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.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
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.

------
wilfra
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.

