New World University Rankings

[Laura Corin]

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2013-14/world-ranking

 

L

[maize]

Thanks for posting this, Laura, it is very interesting. Different methodology than I see in most US rankings--I like the fact that selectivity was not a significant factor, I think that skews rankings over here. Not sure about the emphasis on research publications...research is important, in some areas more than others, but the volume of papers published at a school may not be the best indicator of the quality of undergraduate education.

[Laura Corin]

Thanks for posting this, Laura, it is very interesting. Different methodology than I see in most US rankings--I like the fact that selectivity was not a significant factor, I think that skews rankings over here. Not sure about the emphasis on research publications...research is important, in some areas more than others, but the volume of papers published at a school may not be the best indicator of the quality of undergraduate education.

 

The UK doesn't have the tradition of LACs - I think that all universities here are research institutions (but I might be wrong), so research is definitely valued as part of university life.  The assumption is that it matters to have active researchers teaching undergraduates, but I don't know if this is true.

 

L

[maize]

I also wondered if the emphasis on research publication was skewing results in favor of universities in English speaking countries.

 

Something else I wonder: how is it that the US fairs as poorly as it does in assessments of K-12 education, then smears the rest of the developed world in university rankings?

[Laura Corin]

Something else I wonder: how is it that the US fairs as poorly as it does in assessments of K-12 education, then smears the rest of the developed world in university rankings?

 

It's a really good question.  Money?  An extra year of study at the undergraduate level? Proportion of overseas students?  Large population supporting more great universities (the UK has 1/5th of the population of the US, for example) No idea.

 

 

L

[maize]

It's a really good question. Money? An extra year of study at the undergraduate level? Proportion of overseas students? Large population supporting more great universities (the UK has 1/5th of the population of the US, for example) No idea.

 

 

L

Large population and funds would explain single country-to-country comparisons, but to predominate over all other countries combined??? Makes me really wonder about the meaningfulness of the methodology used.

 

The US is unusual I guess in the percentage of students we send to university, other countries have more varied approaches to career training.

 

The UK has more than its share (by population) of top slots as well, which is why I wonder about an English language bias (possibly because of the predominant use of English in academic publications?)

[Laura Corin]

Large population and funds would explain single country-to-country comparisons, but to predominate over all other countries combined??? Makes me really wonder about the meaningfulness of the methodology used.

 

The US is unusual I guess in the percentage of students we send to university, other countries have more varied approaches to career training.

 

The UK has more than its share (by population) of top slots as well, which is why I wonder about an English language bias (possibly because of the predominant use of English in academic publications?)

 

I haven't been through and checked, but to reach the population of the US, you need to add together The UK, France, Ireland, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany and Italy.  I don't know how many universities you would end up with in the top tranche with that....

 

ETA: I checked: if you add those countries together, you get 31 in the top 100 as opposed to 50 in the top hundred in the US. So there's something else going on.....

 

L

[maize]

If I counted correctly, 46 out of the top 100 listed were in the US, and 67 of the top 100 are in English speaking countries (I counted Singapore among those but not Hong Kong University, though that may be English as well?)

 

That seems clearly disproportionate for worldwide rankings.

[maize]

Hmm, we cross posted, and maybe my count was off?

[maize]

This analysis is interesting http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2013-14/world-ranking/analysis/fresh-view-of-pale-blue-dot

[regentrude]

Something else I wonder: how is it that the US fairs as poorly as it does in assessments of K-12 education, then smears the rest of the developed world in university rankings?

 

We should be precise and rephrase it: The best institutions in the US fare this well in the rankings.

 

I think the main factor is that in the US the college system is a multi-tier system which creates a market where students and faculty can select and be selected. The system is extremely inhomogenous, allowing for educational institutions at every level, from community colleges that perform below the level of a college prep high school in other countries to top tier universities that can be extremely selective in their choice of students and faculty. If you can pick from the best, you can offer a better education/research environment and in turn will have even better applicants for both faulty positions and students.

 

THE biggest problem with the university system in Germany (which has an excellent k-12 education) is that there is no selectivity. With few exceptions for highly sought after majors, all universities must accept everybody who passes the college prep high school finals (Abitur), thus making it impossible for schools to develop a hierarchy.

 

So, the best universities in the US are truly stellar. Many universities are on par with universities elsewhere - solid, but not outstanding. And then there are universities that perform so badly that they would not deserve that name in other countries. It is a broad spectrum. What is compared here are just the top performers.

 

[Laura Corin]

We should be precise and rephrase it: The best institutions in the US fare this well in the rankings.

 

I think the main factor is that in the US the college system is a multi-tier system which creates a market where students and faculty can select and be selected. The system is extremely inhomogenous, allowing for educational institutions at every level, from community colleges that perform below the level of a college prep high school in other countries to top tier universities that can be extremely selective in their choice of students and faculty. If you can pick from the best, you can offer a better education/research environment and in turn will have even better applicants for both faulty positions and students.

 

THE biggest problem with the university system in Germany (which has an excellent k-12 education) is that there is no selectivity. With few exceptions for highly sought after majors, all universities must accept everybody who passes the college prep high school finals (Abitur), thus making it impossible for schools to develop a hierarchy.

 

So, the best universities in the US are truly stellar. Many universities are on par with universities elsewhere - solid, but not outstanding. And then there are universities that perform so badly that they would not deserve that name in other countries. It is a broad spectrum. What is compared here are just the top performers.

 

That makes sense.  The UK is also highly stratified - probably even more so than the US, because finances are less likely to be an issue.  

 

I'm not sure how bad the lowest level UK universities are though.  I think that they all require passes at A level for a standard-age student, so there is some kind of benchmark.  I checked studying English at Middlesex University (bottom of the Guardian rankings) and they require a pass at English A level (a little like AP) plus (the equivalent of) two other passes at A level.

 

L

[snowbeltmom]

Something else I wonder: how is it that the US fairs as poorly as it does in assessments of K-12 education, then smears the rest of the developed world in university rankings?

 

The universities have control over their programs.  They don't have to deal with the incompetent government educrats' mandates like the  K-12 public schools do.

 

[regentrude]

The universities have control over their programs.  They don't have to deal with the incompetent government educrats' mandates like the  K-12 public schools do.

 

 

Most importantly, universities have control over the students they admit.

In contrast, public K-12 schools MUST take all students.

Apples and oranges.

[snowbeltmom]

Most importantly, universities have control over the students they admit.

In contrast, public K-12 schools MUST take all students.

Apples and oranges.

 

But, don't K-12 public schools in every country have to admit all students?  Is there a country where all K-12 public schools can choose who attends?  (I know the US has a handful of public magnet schools, but for the most part, public schools in the US don't get to choose who attends.)

 

If there are countries where the K-12 public schools can select which students attend, it does not seem fair to compare those K-12 public schools to the US K-12 public schools - that seems like an apples to oranges comparison.

 

[maize]

I was rather pleased to see some less selective universities ranking quite well. University of Arizona came in #103, and it admits approximately 78% of applicants. The University of Utah was on the list and accepts over 80% of applicants. The tippy-top schools are of course highly selective, so there is a correlation, but there are plenty of good schools out there with higher acceptance rates.

 

​I do think Regentrude is right about the multi-tier system concentrating talent in certain schools.

[maize]

But, don't K-12 public schools in every country have to admit all students?  Is there a country where all K-12 public schools can choose who attends?  (I know the US has a handful of public magnet schools, but for the most part, public schools in the US don't get to choose who attends.)

 

If there are countries where the K-12 public schools can select which students attend, it does not seem fair to compare those K-12 public schools to the US K-12 public schools - that seems like an apples to oranges comparison.

 

 

 

Many countries have more stratification in their K-12 system, with only high achieving students being tracked towards university. 

 

But then, that means universities aren't really accepting everyone, are they? What percentage of students in Germany do end up taking the abitur rather than opting for a non-college-prep track? There is some selectivity built into the system, even if it is at the high school rather than college entrance level. Of course that isn't comparable to selecting out only the top 5-15% to attend schools such as Harvard, Stanford or Oxford.

 

ETA: actually the selectivity for the top schools is much higher than that, as those numbers represent acceptances of those who apply, and the majority of students don't apply to such schools.

[hornblower]

My alma mater is in the top 40 though there is much hand wringing over the fact it dropped to 32 from 22.

 

But the really funny thing is that I live a few mins away from another Vancoucer uni which is somewhere in the 200's

 

I can confidently say that it's a very good school for undergrad teaching. It actually has IMO a much nicer student experience, because the campus is more compact (& I spent 2 yrs there myself)

 

And when dh used to hire people for his prev job, he'd never say oh, "your degree from this school is worth so much more than your degree from that school!" I really think unless you're sure you're planning on going straight through to a masters &/or pursuing an academic career, that these rankings are not worth that much. And even then, depends on your field.

 

The school in 200's has one of the world's leading primatologists on faculty. If that's your thing, might better to be at at that school then the one at 32...

[Laura Corin]

But, don't K-12 public schools in every country have to admit all students?  Is there a country where all K-12 public schools can choose who attends?  (I know the US has a handful of public magnet schools, but for the most part, public schools in the US don't get to choose who attends.)

 

If there are countries where the K-12 public schools can select which students attend, it does not seem fair to compare those K-12 public schools to the US K-12 public schools - that seems like an apples to oranges comparison.

 

 

Some countries have different public schools for different levels/aptitudes of students, which allows differentiation.  There are problems with this but also advantages.  Here is France.  

 

England used to have a system of Secondary Modern and Grammar Schools (the latter were selective) but only a small number survive.  Here's one.  Apparently the PISA group (not the UK government) chose what schools to include in the comparison.

 

L

[Laura Corin]

When I worked at Paris University, selection seemed to be by stamina.  At the beginning of the year, there were twice as many students as seats in the language lab because it was open entry for all who had passed their Bac.  It was really chaotic.  A few weeks later, many had fallen away....

 

L

[snowbeltmom]

So if there is "selectivity" at the K-12 level in other countries, are only the "most selective" K-12 schools participating in these international tests upon which the rankings are based?

[Laura Corin]

So if there is "selectivity" at the K-12 level in other countries, are only the "most selective" K-12 schools participating in these international tests upon which the rankings are based?

 

As I linked in my previous post, the PISA people choose from all kinds of schools and randomly within those schools.

 

L

[maize]

So if there is "selectivity" at the K-12 level in other countries, are only the "most selective" K-12 schools participating in these international tests upon which the rankings are based?

 

There is some of that going on, at least for countries where not everyone attends "high school".

 

But we don't do well comparatively on tests at the 8th grade level either, and I think there is less selectivity at play there.

[MarkT]

after 200 the universities are listed as "withheld data" so incomplete FYI

[regentrude]

But, don't K-12 public schools in every country have to admit all students?  Is there a country where all K-12 public schools can choose who attends?  (I know the US has a handful of public magnet schools, but for the most part, public schools in the US don't get to choose who attends.)

 

If there are countries where the K-12 public schools can select which students attend, it does not seem fair to compare those K-12 public schools to the US K-12 public schools - that seems like an apples to oranges comparison.

 

 

In Germany, there is tracking beginning in 5th grade into two different branches. The college prep track is more rigorous and goes through grade 12. The non-college prep track is less rigorous and ends with a diploma after grade 10; students are then continuing their education in vocational training or apprentice ships. There are opportunities for "late bloomers" etc to switch between tracks, so the fate of a child is NOT decided at age 10 (as is sometimes claimed). A student who graduates form grade 10 can add a three year program to get the diploma needed to attend university, or can even pursue this course of study as an adult with night classes.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

It is interesting that it completely discounts the US colleges.  There are many of those that would certainly rank higher than some of the US universities listed despite their potentially more limited academic selections.

 

 

[Laura Corin]

It is interesting that it completely discounts the US colleges.  There are many of those that would certainly rank higher than some of the US universities listed despite their potentially more limited academic selections.

 

Is that because research publications are considered?  The list doesn't claim (as far as I've seen) to be 'best for undergraduates' but 'best overall', so it takes research into consideration.

 

L

It is interesting that it completely discounts the US colleges.  There are many of those that would certainly rank higher than some of the US universities listed despite their potentially more limited academic selections.

 

 

????

 

The top ranked school is Cal-Tech, which isn't exactly known for it's broad range of majors.

 

I'm not sure what the utility of such a list is.  I suppose it is fun to look at the rankings, but is any student realistically going to think "I was accepted to both Oxford and Cal Tech, but Cal Tech is rated higher, so I'm going to go there".?

[maize]

Research/publications account for a huge percentage of the score. Research universities are obviously the target of this particular ranking list, LAC'S are just a different type of school altogether. And maybe a type unique to the US?

[regentrude]

It is interesting that it completely discounts the US colleges.  There are many of those that would certainly rank higher than some of the US universities listed despite their potentially more limited academic selections.

 

Research counts 30% of the ranking, and citations - which again, are based on research - counts another 30%.

So, only actual research institutions will receive a ranking on this list. It has nothing to do with "discounting" colleges; the criteria based on which the ranking is awarded simply do not apply to most of them.

 

So, these rankings may not be relevant to a student who is looking where to do his undergraduate education, but they may be highly relevant to a student selecting a graduate school, a grad student looking for a postdoc, or a researcher looking for a position.

 

 

[creekland]

FWIW, many profs at some LACs do research.  There's not the huge variety that exists at dedicated research Us, but there's definitely "real" research going on - or at least - there was at both of the LACs my two LAC guys chose.  

 

Oldest wasn't interested in it.  Youngest is already involved.  Middle (at a research U) has the largest number of options (and has been involved with more than one), but none of those would have fit youngest's interests the way his LAC does.

 

Fit, fit, fit.

 

 

So, these rankings may not be relevant to a student who is looking where to do his undergraduate education, but they may be highly relevant to a student selecting a graduate school, a grad student looking for a postdoc, or a researcher looking for a position.

 

Isn't the department ranking, or even a particular professor to work with much more important in those cases?  If I'm looking to get a PhD in, say, Classics, the fact that Cal Tech is number one on this list isn't really relevant.

[regentrude]

Isn't the department ranking, or even a particular professor to work with much more important in those cases?  If I'm looking to get a PhD in, say, Classics, the fact that Cal Tech is number one on this list isn't really relevant.

Absolutely! The department ranking would trump the ranking of a particular school, because in some instances, a particular department may be much better than the overall quality of the school would suggest.

I was just trying to come up with an example who might want to look at these rankings - and that it is not necessarily the deciding factor for undergraduate work.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Research counts 30% of the ranking, and citations - which again, are based on research - counts another 30%.

So, only actual research institutions will receive a ranking on this list. It has nothing to do with "discounting" colleges; the criteria based on which the ranking is awarded simply do not apply to most of them.

 

So, these rankings may not be relevant to a student who is looking where to do his undergraduate education, but they may be highly relevant to a student selecting a graduate school, a grad student looking for a postdoc, or a researcher looking for a position.

 

That does make sense if research and publication counts for so much.

 

And yes, I do think people chooses colleges, sometimes not making the "best fit" choice based on rankings.  They also choose where to apply based on rankings. 

[regentrude]

And yes, I do think people chooses colleges, sometimes not making the "best fit" choice based on rankings.  They also choose where to apply based on rankings. 

 

Yes to the bolded - and that can be prudent, if the criteria used in the ranking are criteria that are relevant to the college search for this particular student.

One way to use rankings to make such a choice would be to look at department specific rankings.

One important reason my DD applied to the school at which she is attending is definitely  that schools' ranking in the discipline she wants to major in, and the stellar research track record - because these are the criteria that are decisive for her college selection.

 

For other families and students, other factors may be more important.

Not all rankings use the same criteria, so it is important to look carefully how the ranking is constructed.

[Laura in CA]

Fit, fit, fit.

 

:iagree:

 

This is just one (interesting) piece of the puzzle. Penn State is ranked (slightly) higher than Brown?! That won't make any difference to the kids (and parents) who are blinded by "prestige." And as Regentrude says, it's the student's major department's ranking that will affect the student more than the uni's overall ranking.

 

It would be very interesting to see tuition included in this chart, esp. when comparing schools such as Berkeley (no. 8), Penn State (49th), and Brown (52nd). In-state tuition at Berkeley is around $12-$13,000 (and I imagine Penn State's is similar), while Brown's must be several multiples of that.

[creekland]

 

This is just one (interesting) piece of the puzzle. Penn State is ranked (slightly) higher than Brown?! That won't make any difference to the kids (and parents) who are blinded by "prestige." And as Regentrude says, it's the student's major department's ranking that will affect the student more than the uni's overall ranking.

 

It would be very interesting to see tuition included in this chart, esp. when comparing schools such as Berkeley (no. 8), Penn State (49th), and Brown (52nd). In-state tuition at Berkeley is around $12-$13,000 (and I imagine Penn State's is similar), while Brown's must be several multiples of that.

 

Penn St is actually between $16,500 and $21,400 pending year and major (for in state students).  Our state doesn't offer much in need based aid and Penn St has some, but not much, merit aid.

 

High stat non-need students do better financially at Penn St (better yet at Pittsburgh) or privates with merit aid.  High need, high stat students who can get in often do better at private schools period.  There are many top schools that are simply quite good with need based aid.

 

However, whenever I read about new hires at local engineering firms, they are almost always graduates of Penn St, and if you ask the "man on the street" what the best school/university is, chances are they will say Penn St.  Many wouldn't recognize Brown to be honest.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

I think careful use of the various ranking and rating systems for universities can be helpful in selecting an undergraduate or graduate school.  I think they are often used in this fashion by savvy consumers who want the most bang for the buck from the education market.  I also think that people check who is ranked the highest and apply based on that information and then choose from among their acceptances based on that same criteria alone.  The latter system may not produce the best fit for an individual student but those universities at the top of the list wish to keep their status barbecue it does bring them money, top students, lots of applications and public relations  buzz.  That is not to say that these highly ranked institutions aren't actually wonderful or provide great opportunities but rather an observation about how these things play out in the admissions game.

 

***ETA--I have no idea how spell check/auto-correct/whatever came to decide on barbecue as the best word there (bolded), it should actually say "because".  I felt compelled to leave it since it struck me as so gosh darn funny. 

 

 

[Laura Corin]

It would be very interesting to see tuition included in this chart, esp. when comparing schools such as Berkeley (no. 8), Penn State (49th), and Brown (52nd). In-state tuition at Berkeley is around $12-$13,000 (and I imagine Penn State's is similar), while Brown's must be several multiples of that.

 

I think it would get too complicated because of variable charging.  St Andrews costs zero if you are a Scottish resident or from a country in the EU outside of the UK; £9,000 if you are from England, Wales or Northern Ireland, and over £16,000 if you come from elsewhere in the world.

 

L

[Teachin'Mine]

I know I'm not alone in wishing that one of the major college rankings would start providing information on undergraduate majors at each of the universities and colleges.  The rankings on major provided now are for graduate programs.  Would love to have one all inclusive for undergraduate programs. 

[Laura Corin]

There are good undergraduate rankings by subject in the UK. It really doesn't exist in the US?  Why not do you think?

[Teachin'Mine]

Laura if it does exist it's a well kept secret lol   Why?  I don't know.   US News ranks graduate programs, but not undergraduate.  And while it would seem that the strength of a graduate program should indicate a good undergraduate program, from what I hear that's not always true.  Some universities really gear their research opportunities towards the graduate students and the undergraduates aren't given nearly the attention.  But this would vary by major even within a university.  So unless you know the questions to ask and have spoken with the dept chair or someone else knowledgeable, it's hard to compare undergraduate programs.  All of the researching would also be very time consuming.  While some consider rankings little more than trivia, I think they make it easier as a place from which to start the search.

[Laura Corin]

I certainly valued them when C started looking. It is odd that you do not have them.