World's Top 500 Universities
Way Back Jack
Complete list:
http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2006/ARWU2006TOP500list.htm
_________
Top 25
Harvard Univ
Univ Cambridge
Stanford Univ
Univ California - Berkeley
Massachusetts Inst Tech (MIT)
California Inst Tech
Columbia Univ
Princeton Univ
Univ Chicago
Univ Oxford
Yale Univ
Cornell Univ
Univ California - San Diego
Univ California - Los Angeles
Univ Pennsylvania
Univ Wisconsin - Madison
Univ Washington - Seattle
Univ California - San Francisco
Tokyo Univ
Johns Hopkins Univ
Univ Michigan - Ann Arbor
Kyoto Univ
Imperial Coll London
Univ Toronto
Univ Illinois - Urbana Champaign
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Bob LeChevalier
>Complete list:
>
>http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2006/ARWU2006TOP500list.htm
Extremely weighted towards research universities in the sciences
(since most Nobels are in the sciences). Negligible weight for
actually educating kids
(Some plausible measures include percentages of enrolled students
obtaining degrees and advanced degrees, number of enrolled students,
student/faculty ratio (both undergraduate and graduate considered
separately), and to stress the international comparisons, a small
weighting for percentage of the country's professionals educated
domestically to a given degree level (an index that would apply to all
universities of a country, showing how well those universities serve
their populace), and another for number of degrees granted to
international students (which would be university-specific, again
considering graduate and undergraduate students separately), showing
how attractive that university is to the international community.
Finally, full-time tuition as a percentage of the average per-capita
annual income of the country, which rewards cost-effectiveness when
coupled with the other measures).
Not that I expect that anyone will actually do this kind of analysis.
lojbab
John Gilmer
> Extremely weighted towards research universities in the sciences
> (since most Nobels are in the sciences). Negligible weight for
> actually educating kids
Yep!
As an example, UC - Berkeley isn't all that different from most "commuter
schools" as far as most undergraduate education is concerned. As far as
undergrad work, it should not even be on the same page as MIT.
But to be fair, the rating is for Universities. And in universities, the
graduate programs are what counts.
Perhaps two lists are required: one for undergrad and MS/MA work (but not
MBA). And another for PhD and MBA degrees.
Pubkeybreaker
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> chillin'@home.net (Way Back Jack) wrote:
> >Complete list:
> >
> >http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2006/ARWU2006TOP500list.htm
>
> Extremely weighted towards research universities in the sciences
> (since most Nobels are in the sciences). Negligible weight for
> actually educating kids
Weighted toward research schools, yes.
However, at Harvard, (as elsewhere except at e.g. MIT, CalTech)
most of the school is devoted to activities OTHER than science.
Undergrads and grad students in science are a distinct minority.
At Harvard, so called social sciences and humanities rule, and not
physics, chemisty, biology and math.
Bob LeChevalier
>As an example, UC - Berkeley isn't all that different from most "commuter
>schools" as far as most undergraduate education is concerned. As far as
>undergrad work, it should not even be on the same page as MIT.
>
>But to be fair, the rating is for Universities. And in universities, the
>graduate programs are what counts.
Why should it count? For the undergraduates who vastly outnumber the
grad students, I suspect the undergraduate program is what counts.
>Perhaps two lists are required: one for undergrad and MS/MA work (but not
>MBA). And another for PhD and MBA degrees.
Perhaps.
lojbab