Times Hgher Education Top 50 Universities in the World

[Anonymous]

I’m not from a particularly well-off family and my parents realLy didn’t emphasize academic excellence. I have a lot of siblings (8). My dad barely graduated from high school and only got into college because of the GI bill. My mom is very intelligent, read to us a lot, let us watch Sesame Street, bought a lot of books, etc, but she wasn’t over the top about it.

4 of us went to 4 different schools on this list. 3 ivies and one private. We did all get recruited because of sports. But still, seeing how competitive it is now just to get into a school like GMU, I cannot believe that half of the kids in my family went to these...prestigious...schools. We’re all doing well. Only one of my siblings didn’t go to college, but he is a contractor and does well financially. I’m not sure why I’m posting here, I guess I’m just astonished at how well we all did academically when it just simply was NOT emphasized at all in my home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what is the metric? I doubt its devised by The Times newspaper, they're just reporting it. And obviously they have nothing to gain from promoting any university. Its not like they get a cut of the profits, because there are none in the UK. I think there's one for-profit university in the whole country, Buckinghamshire. And its not on anyone's list, for good reason.

It was created by the Times Higher Education unit. They created the criteria. The management of the Times has had significant Oxford representation.

As does the BBC / The Economist / Parliament.

Most high end institutions within the UK have strong Oxford and Cambridge links. Cambridge isn't top of the list. Therefore defeating your silly stance completely.

So your argument is that other UK institutions may also be biased in favor of Oxford and/or Cambridge as well in a global rankings, therefore we should pay no attention to possible bias at the Times (which has more Oxford management)? And whose observation is silly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what is the metric? I doubt its devised by The Times newspaper, they're just reporting it. And obviously they have nothing to gain from promoting any university. Its not like they get a cut of the profits, because there are none in the UK. I think there's one for-profit university in the whole country, Buckinghamshire. And its not on anyone's list, for good reason.

It was created by the Times Higher Education unit. They created the criteria. The management of the Times has had significant Oxford representation.

As does the BBC / The Economist / Parliament.

Most high end institutions within the UK have strong Oxford and Cambridge links. Cambridge isn't top of the list. Therefore defeating your silly stance completely.

So your argument is that other UK institutions may also be biased in favor of Oxford and/or Cambridge as well in a global rankings, therefore we should pay no attention to possible bias at the Times (which has more Oxford management)? And whose observation is silly?

NP: THE has Oxford as 1st; QS has them as 4th; and USNWR has them as 5th. I think the consensus is fairly clear that Oxford is a top international university. I'm really not going to quibble between 1st and 5th in the whole world, are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what is the metric? I doubt its devised by The Times newspaper, they're just reporting it. And obviously they have nothing to gain from promoting any university. Its not like they get a cut of the profits, because there are none in the UK. I think there's one for-profit university in the whole country, Buckinghamshire. And its not on anyone's list, for good reason.

It was created by the Times Higher Education unit. They created the criteria. The management of the Times has had significant Oxford representation.

As does the BBC / The Economist / Parliament.

Most high end institutions within the UK have strong Oxford and Cambridge links. Cambridge isn't top of the list. Therefore defeating your silly stance completely.

So your argument is that other UK institutions may also be biased in favor of Oxford and/or Cambridge as well in a global rankings, therefore we should pay no attention to possible bias at the Times (which has more Oxford management)? And whose observation is silly?

NP: THE has Oxford as 1st; QS has them as 4th; and USNWR has them as 5th. I think the consensus is fairly clear that Oxford is a top international university. I'm really not going to quibble between 1st and 5th in the whole world, are you?

Not quibbling that Oxford is a top school. Just pointing out why I think it is #1 in THE ranking.

[Anonymous]

Here are other rankings:

QS Top Universities

1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
2 Stanford University
3 Harvard University
4 California Institute of Technology (Caltech)
5 University of Oxford
6 ETH Zurich - Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
7 University of Cambridge
8 Imperial College London
9 University of Chicago
10 UCL

Academic Ranking of World Universities

1 Harvard University
2 Stanford University
3 University of Cambridge
4 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
5 University of California, Berkeley
6 Princeton University
7 Columbia University
8 California Institute of Technology (Caltech)
9 University of Oxford
10 University of Chicago

USNWR

1 Harvard University
2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
3 Stanford University
4 University of California, Berkeley
5 University of Oxford
6 California Institute of Technology (Caltech)
7 Columbia
8 Princeton
9 University of Cambridge
10 University of Washington

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And another approach:

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020college-guide

Welcome to the Washington Monthly’s annual College Guide and Rankings, where we rate schools based on what they do for the country. It’s our answer to U.S. News & World Report, which relies on crude and easily manipulated measures of wealth, exclusivity, and prestige.

We rank four-year schools (national universities, liberal arts colleges, baccalaureate colleges, and master’s universities) based on their contribution to the public good in three broad categories: social mobility, research, and providing opportunities for public service. We also rank Best Bang for the Buck colleges, which help non-wealthy students obtain marketable degrees at affordable prices.

But it’s only US. Nothing international. There is more to the world of education than these borders. Indeed, the OP posted the top 50 worldwide. Impressive list. Not everything needs to be American or in America to be great, you know?!

Your have the writing skills of a very average eight year old.

You have small hands syndrome.

[Anonymous]

World rankings are more relevant than US only rankings now days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not from a particularly well-off family and my parents realLy didn’t emphasize academic excellence. I have a lot of siblings (8). My dad barely graduated from high school and only got into college because of the GI bill. My mom is very intelligent, read to us a lot, let us watch Sesame Street, bought a lot of books, etc, but she wasn’t over the top about it.

4 of us went to 4 different schools on this list. 3 ivies and one private. We did all get recruited because of sports. But still, seeing how competitive it is now just to get into a school like GMU, I cannot believe that half of the kids in my family went to these...prestigious...schools. We’re all doing well. Only one of my siblings didn’t go to college, but he is a contractor and does well financially. I’m not sure why I’m posting here, I guess I’m just astonished at how well we all did academically when it just simply was NOT emphasized at all in my home.

Count your blessings. You did well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what is the metric? I doubt its devised by The Times newspaper, they're just reporting it. And obviously they have nothing to gain from promoting any university. Its not like they get a cut of the profits, because there are none in the UK. I think there's one for-profit university in the whole country, Buckinghamshire. And its not on anyone's list, for good reason.

It was created by the Times Higher Education unit. They created the criteria. The management of the Times has had significant Oxford representation.

As does the BBC / The Economist / Parliament.

Most high end institutions within the UK have strong Oxford and Cambridge links. Cambridge isn't top of the list. Therefore defeating your silly stance completely.

So your argument is that other UK institutions may also be biased in favor of Oxford and/or Cambridge as well in a global rankings, therefore we should pay no attention to possible bias at the Times (which has more Oxford management)? And whose observation is silly?

NP: THE has Oxford as 1st; QS has them as 4th; and USNWR has them as 5th. I think the consensus is fairly clear that Oxford is a top international university. I'm really not going to quibble between 1st and 5th in the whole world, are you?

Not quibbling that Oxford is a top school. Just pointing out why I think it is #1 in THE ranking.

Sounds like a bad case of sour grapes from a UMD grad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And another approach:

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020college-guide

Welcome to the Washington Monthly’s annual College Guide and Rankings, where we rate schools based on what they do for the country. It’s our answer to U.S. News & World Report, which relies on crude and easily manipulated measures of wealth, exclusivity, and prestige.

We rank four-year schools (national universities, liberal arts colleges, baccalaureate colleges, and master’s universities) based on their contribution to the public good in three broad categories: social mobility, research, and providing opportunities for public service. We also rank Best Bang for the Buck colleges, which help non-wealthy students obtain marketable degrees at affordable prices.

Washington monthly is a good left-leaning publication so it’s gonna see universities differently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what is the metric? I doubt its devised by The Times newspaper, they're just reporting it. And obviously they have nothing to gain from promoting any university. Its not like they get a cut of the profits, because there are none in the UK. I think there's one for-profit university in the whole country, Buckinghamshire. And its not on anyone's list, for good reason.

It was created by the Times Higher Education unit. They created the criteria. The management of the Times has had significant Oxford representation.

As does the BBC / The Economist / Parliament.

Most high end institutions within the UK have strong Oxford and Cambridge links. Cambridge isn't top of the list. Therefore defeating your silly stance completely.

So your argument is that other UK institutions may also be biased in favor of Oxford and/or Cambridge as well in a global rankings, therefore we should pay no attention to possible bias at the Times (which has more Oxford management)? And whose observation is silly?

NP: THE has Oxford as 1st; QS has them as 4th; and USNWR has them as 5th. I think the consensus is fairly clear that Oxford is a top international university. I'm really not going to quibble between 1st and 5th in the whole world, are you?

Not quibbling that Oxford is a top school. Just pointing out why I think it is #1 in THE ranking.

Sounds like a bad case of sour grapes from a UMD grad.

You are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what is the metric? I doubt its devised by The Times newspaper, they're just reporting it. And obviously they have nothing to gain from promoting any university. Its not like they get a cut of the profits, because there are none in the UK. I think there's one for-profit university in the whole country, Buckinghamshire. And its not on anyone's list, for good reason.

It was created by the Times Higher Education unit. They created the criteria. The management of the Times has had significant Oxford representation.

As does the BBC / The Economist / Parliament.

Most high end institutions within the UK have strong Oxford and Cambridge links. Cambridge isn't top of the list. Therefore defeating your silly stance completely.

So your argument is that other UK institutions may also be biased in favor of Oxford and/or Cambridge as well in a global rankings, therefore we should pay no attention to possible bias at the Times (which has more Oxford management)? And whose observation is silly?

NP: THE has Oxford as 1st; QS has them as 4th; and USNWR has them as 5th. I think the consensus is fairly clear that Oxford is a top international university. I'm really not going to quibble between 1st and 5th in the whole world, are you?

Not quibbling that Oxford is a top school. Just pointing out why I think it is #1 in THE ranking.

Sounds like a bad case of sour grapes from a UMD grad.

You are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

No one is interested in your pegs or your holes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what is the metric? I doubt its devised by The Times newspaper, they're just reporting it. And obviously they have nothing to gain from promoting any university. Its not like they get a cut of the profits, because there are none in the UK. I think there's one for-profit university in the whole country, Buckinghamshire. And its not on anyone's list, for good reason.

It was created by the Times Higher Education unit. They created the criteria. The management of the Times has had significant Oxford representation.

As does the BBC / The Economist / Parliament.

Most high end institutions within the UK have strong Oxford and Cambridge links. Cambridge isn't top of the list. Therefore defeating your silly stance completely.

So your argument is that other UK institutions may also be biased in favor of Oxford and/or Cambridge as well in a global rankings, therefore we should pay no attention to possible bias at the Times (which has more Oxford management)? And whose observation is silly?

NP: THE has Oxford as 1st; QS has them as 4th; and USNWR has them as 5th. I think the consensus is fairly clear that Oxford is a top international university. I'm really not going to quibble between 1st and 5th in the whole world, are you?

Not quibbling that Oxford is a top school. Just pointing out why I think it is #1 in THE ranking.

Sounds like a bad case of sour grapes from a UMD grad.

You are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

No one is interested in your pegs or your holes.

Neither of you have an alma mater that is ranked globally. Full stop.

[Anonymous]

Let me correct your lists:

Anonymous wrote:Here are other rankings:

QS Top Universities

1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
2 Stanford University
3 Harvard University
4 California Institute of Technology (Caltech)
5 University of Oxford
6 ETH Zurich - Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
7 University of Cambridge
8 Imperial College London
9 University of Chicago
10 UCL
152 University of Maryland
247 University of Virginia

Academic Ranking of World Universities

1 Harvard University
2 Stanford University
3 University of Cambridge
4 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
5 University of California, Berkeley
6 Princeton University
7 Columbia University
8 California Institute of Technology (Caltech)
9 University of Oxford
10 University of Chicago
53 University of Maryland
151-200 University of Virginia

USNWR

1 Harvard University
2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
3 Stanford University
4 University of California, Berkeley
5 University of Oxford
6 California Institute of Technology (Caltech)
7 Columbia
8 Princeton
9 University of Cambridge
10 University of Washington
51 University of Maryland
107 University of Virginia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let me correct your lists:

Anonymous wrote:Here are other rankings:

QS Top Universities

1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
2 Stanford University
3 Harvard University
4 California Institute of Technology (Caltech)
5 University of Oxford
6 ETH Zurich - Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
7 University of Cambridge
8 Imperial College London
9 University of Chicago
10 UCL
152 University of Maryland
247 University of Virginia

Academic Ranking of World Universities

1 Harvard University
2 Stanford University
3 University of Cambridge
4 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
5 University of California, Berkeley
6 Princeton University
7 Columbia University
8 California Institute of Technology (Caltech)
9 University of Oxford
10 University of Chicago
53 University of Maryland
151-200 University of Virginia

USNWR

1 Harvard University
2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
3 Stanford University
4 University of California, Berkeley
5 University of Oxford
6 California Institute of Technology (Caltech)
7 Columbia
8 Princeton
9 University of Cambridge
10 University of Washington
51 University of Maryland
107 University of Virginia

No one cares about UVA outside of Virginia.