Support NeoGAF

[Gowans]

The Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2018 list the top 1,000 universities in the world, making it our biggest international league table to date.

It is the only global university performance table to judge research-intensive universities across all of their core missions: teaching, research, knowledge transfer and international outlook. We use 13 carefully calibrated performance indicators to provide the most comprehensive and balanced comparisons, trusted by students, academics, university leaders, industry and governments.

Times Higher: Top 20 Global Universities

1: Oxford University
2: Cambridge University
3: California Institute of Technology
3: Stanford University
5: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
6: Harvard University
7: Princeton University
8: Imperial College London
9: University of Chicago
10: ETH Zurich - Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
10: University of Pennsylvania
12: Yale University
13: Johns Hopkins University
14: Columbia University
15: University of California, Los Angeles
16: University College London
17: Duke University
18: University of California, Berkeley
19: Cornell University
20: Northwestern University

Source: https://www.timeshighereducation.co...gth/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-41160914

 

[pirateluigi]

Michigan just missing the top 20 at 21.

 

[Seesaw15]

I may have gotten a worthless degree but I'm glad Stanford's in the top 3.

 

[perfectchaos007]

UCLA > Cal

that's an upset imo

 

[reKon]

Yay we're in the top 90

 

[SomedayTheFire]

DCU at 74 in young universities. Not bad.

 

[SomethingWitty]

Cal being lower than UCLA is absolute heresy.

Also, I averaged the rankings of this year's Time's, QS, and ARWU rankings (considered to be the 3 most prestigious according to wikipedia) and ordered the averages for the top 50 or so universities. I don't plan to Google Sheet/Excel/SQL three entire databases so this is the best I got. Some entries still need to be updated but I will do that later when I have time/I am not lazy.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1w5j3qWa9a3hEWaXSQ_SOIXq1YPqoKEfU8spJ7o0Zr1E/edit?usp=sharing

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Michigan just missing the top 20 at 21.

god fucking damnit.

we used to be neck and neck with UC Berkley. now behind Berkley AND UCLA? where did it all go wrong.

oh well, B1G is just Northwestern and Michigan anyway and has been for a long, long time. Nobody else matters.

 

[-COOLIO-]

Toronto just needs climb slightly higher.

 

[Vanillalite]

Ranking this shit is always weird.

It's usually the same/similar schools on all these top 100 lists, but the order can vary wildly from list to list and year to year. Variance is high.

 

[deli2000]

Damn, Sheffield slipping out of the top 100.

 

[Fancy Clown]

Michigan just missing the top 20 at 21.

;__;

 

[Kalentan]

Man I thought RIT would be higher up on that. It's far- far down.

University of Rochester is at least 153...

 

[Violence Jack]

Proud to be a Rambin' Wreck from Georgia Tech.

 

[Merchandise]

Always found the world rankings to be highly suspect honestly. Is *mid to low tier public school with high acceptance rate* really 100 spots better than *regarded as elite private school with low acceptance rate*?

(Not trying to claim that acceptance rate is everything)

 

[nabe_shogun]

My school is #126. Not even top 100

 

[Epsilon-delta]

Ranking this shit is always weird.

It's usually the same/similar schools on all these top 100 lists, but the order can vary wildly from list to list and year to year. Variance is high.

Yup.

I see it as one big advertisement for higher education; a product to sell that drives the standardized testing and tutoring industry.

And then we wonder why there is a stark difference in academic performance between students from different backgrounds or social classes.

Those who can afford the above have the advantage.

 

[cheermancy]

Didn't make top 1000

FeelsBadMan

 

[Couleurs]

Where is Trump University

 

[tmarg]

god fucking damnit.

we used to be neck and neck with UC Berkley. now behind Berkley AND UCLA? where did it all go wrong.

oh well, B1G is just Northwestern and Michigan anyway and has been for a long, long time. Nobody else matters.

We have always gone up and down in the rankings more than other schools based on whatever factors are being prioritized at the moment. There was another of these threads a few months ago where everyone complained we were too high. Don't worry about it.

 

[Stinkles]

My daughter's top two choices at 25 and 27 but mysteriously 26 is missing.

 

[bangbang i'm a timpani]

Ranking this shit is always weird.

It's usually the same/similar schools on all these top 100 lists, but the order can vary wildly from list to list and year to year. Variance is high.

they can't sell these lists if its the same every year, they have to come up with some bullshit to change them around

 

[uncleniccius]

Ranking this shit is always weird.

It's usually the same/similar schools on all these top 100 lists, but the order can vary wildly from list to list and year to year. Variance is high.

It is because of the way it is measured - plenty of schools in the US are excellent but have little research focus and this really hurts them.

 

[Pryce]

University of Arizona in two years has gone from 80-ish to 170-ish. Damn.

I don't understand these rankings. Like, once you get past the top twenty or thirty I don't know how the 75th best school and the 110th best school differ.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Yup.

I see it as one big advertisement for higher education; a product to sell that drives the standardized testing and tutoring industry.

And then we wonder why there is a stark difference in academic performance between students from different backgrounds or social classes.

Those who can afford the above have the advantage.

Basically. Also a source of elitism and dickwaving. And I saw that as a higher education professional.

 

[Deepwater]

Michigan just missing the top 20 at 21.

lots of intangibles missing from this ranking IMO

Spoiler

but I also go to michigan so

 

[jstripes]

My art school that somehow became a university isn't there. Terrible list.

 

[[KoRp]Jazzman]

My University 600-800 range somehow seems right where it should be. Loved it though, and have done well for myself so I really don't care where it ends up.

 

[shira]

Where is Trump University

Right next to Bovine University

 

[ClosingADoor]

My old one at 59, not bad. Lot of American and British ones in these lists as always.

 

[Budi]

Seems rigged!

 

[Pandacon]

Hmmm, I've been thinking about going to San Francisco State, but I don't even see it on this list....

 

[yunbuns]

Eh this doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things but it's nice to see my school is in the 350-400. Not bad GSU, not bad.

 

[Cocaloch]

Eh, all of these are pretty bad, but the US News and World Rankings one is better at least. Frankly I think we should get rid of these, they do far more harm than good.

My daughter's top two choices at 25 and 27 but mysteriously 26 is missing.

There was a tie for 25. Also both of those, assuming you meant LSE for 25, should be higher for sure.

 

[Velcro Fly]

Purdue at 60? Feels good.

Too bad my degree isn't in anything that they are known for.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

Eh, all of these are pretty bad, but the US News and World Rankings one is better at least. Frankly I think we should get rid of these, they do far more harm than good.

What harm?

 

[kimbaka]

601-800, hell yeah.

 

[Cocaloch]

What harm?

Universities direct money and enact policies in ways that increase their ranking over helping their students or faculty. Then there's other issues that are less important like homogenizing university cultures, although I'm not so sure this is as benign as it appears given what they seem to be homogenizing too, and incentivizing students to merely go to whatever top 10 school they got into over actually think about the process.

The lists were better before they were "holisitc" and were just essentially compiled lists of Professor's rankings of the quality of schools.

 

[Oblivion]

UCLA represent!

Spoiler

I didn't graduate from UCLA, but I did get accepted. Twice. Technically that means I can claim credit, right?

 

[alazz]

I think rankings get pretty arbitrary for undergrad pretty quickly unless you're making some sweeping generalizations (like yeah Stanford is a more respected school than UC Merced) and don't necessarily indicate the quality of education, but as a recent graduate

UCLA > Cal

that's an upset imo

fuck yea we deserve it.

The only thing I don't like is Westwood itself. Would've had more fun commuting to Davis.

 

[Brock Reiher]

Can't take these things seriously after that Adam Ruins Everything.

What harm?

They're super arbitrary and basically reward schools for wasting money instead of actually improving their education programs. Not a good thing in a world where tuition is already out of control. Like think of how much money a school will spend on its new Freshman dorm vs how much they spend on good professors.

 

[Cocaloch]

They're super arbitrary and basically reward schools for wasting money instead of actually improving their education programs. Not a good thing in a world where tuition is already out of control.

Well they basically have to be arbitrary at some level. The problem is the way in which they are arbitrary. You're dead on with the rest though.

 

[Lunaray]

Never understood these general rankings. The basket of metrics used to produce these rankings usually don't matter once you start specializing.

 

[MasterCheeze]

I may have gotten a worthless degree but I'm glad Stanford's in the top 3.

What was your degree in? Rhyming?

 

[Brock Reiher]

Well they basically have to be arbitrary at some level. The problem is the way in which they are arbitrary. You're dead on with the rest though.

Yeah! Although based on that fact alone I'd question how much value an overall college ranking list could ever have, as opposed to something like comparative stat lists.

I guess we love lists as humans.

 

[perfectchaos007]

I think rankings get pretty arbitrary for undergrad pretty quickly unless you're making some sweeping generalizations (like yeah Stanford is a more respected school than UC Merced) and don't necessarily indicate the quality of education, but as a recent graduate



fuck yea we deserve it.

The only thing I don't like is Westwood itself. Would've had more fun commuting to Davis.

Cal has been so busy protesting controversial speakers, that they slipped a little on academics.

 

[Cocaloch]

Never understood these general rankings. The basket of metrics used to produce these rankings usually don't matter once you start specializing.

I mean there is a pretty clear set of tiers for university and the difference do matter at the general education, cultural, and pedagogic level. The difference within that tier isn't necessarily very meaningful though. So while its fine to ask what's the difference between rank 40 and 45 there is clearly a massive difference between 1 and 99, even though Oxford absolutely shouldn't be number one.

I'd actually argue department rankings aren't that relevant to undergrads in general with the exceptions of instances where there is a massive disparity between the quality of the university in general and department in particular.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

#9 represent represent.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I may have gotten a worthless degree but I'm glad Stanford's in the top 3.

Degree in poetry?

 

[Cocaloch]

Yeah! Although based on that fact alone I'd question how much value an overall college ranking list could ever have, as opposed to something like comparative stat lists.

I guess we love lists as humans.

Well I think the old lists, while still arbitrary, are clearly much better. We should be ranking universities on quality of the education and faculty and its faculty that is most equipped to do this.

I'd also argue this is a feature of late American capitalism. Homo ecconomicus brought to a ridiculous extreme. It's certainly a new development. No one cared about rankings 30 years ago. Now administrations are totally obsessed with them. I'd wager Stanford, MIT, and Cal Tec being so high show there's some big issue here relating to technology. Oxford being higher than Cambridge is a travesty, but I'd have to dig into the methodology to figure out what's going on there.

#9 represent represent.

#9 is too low I think.