Aggregate Global ranking of North American Universities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These posts are so BORING!!!! Get a life and find something else to do. We all know how to use google to look up rankings!!!!!!! Go pay attention to your children. Every time I read these silly posts I am sad for the people who find this interesting.

Yet you took time to read the entire thread and to post a response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have responded more than once in this thread ("garbage in, garbage out").

Basing this ranking on 4 different rankings from around the world does not make sense because each rating & ranking system has its own categories--many of which are subjective including "academic reputation".

Rating & ranking schools is fine so long as the ranking system shares the methodology and the score for each rating category within that methodology. This allows readers and consumers to break out each category individually and rerank the schools based on a single rating factor. This way one can focus on the aspect--whether subjective or objective--that matters most to that consumer.

An objective factor that I find useful, but does not appear to be used by any of the four rankings system combined by bluesky, is a school's R&D (research & development) expenditures/budget for a particular year. The budget/expenditures is more important than publications because much research is done for private industry and, most likely, never published.

Yes and no. I think that the real problem with this ranking is the continued perception that there is such a thing as ranking. These are all great universities, and how one would decide between them and many other great schools depends on what you are trying to get out of it.
I agree with you that research is often under-prioritized, but total R&D expenditures distorts this in favor of the largest schools and those with medical schools since NIH funding makes up such a large proportion of R&D expenditures. In reality Princeton and Rice have researchers who are just as brilliant and productive as those at Michigan and Wisconsin, there are just many fewer of them since the schools are smaller. But, they are competitive when trying to recruit faculty against the larger schools. R& D expenditures only captures part of the picture of the quality of research at a University.

R&D expenditures are an objective measure. The 4 rankings systems that are used by bluesky are rife with subjective categories that are weighted heavily in the rating & ranking methods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a grade of the entire school.

20 percent of the Top 50 are Big Ten.

Huge research schools with huge resources.

Because they are huge. Not because they focus those resources on undergraduates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have responded more than once in this thread ("garbage in, garbage out").

Basing this ranking on 4 different rankings from around the world does not make sense because each rating & ranking system has its own categories--many of which are subjective including "academic reputation".

Rating & ranking schools is fine so long as the ranking system shares the methodology and the score for each rating category within that methodology. This allows readers and consumers to break out each category individually and rerank the schools based on a single rating factor. This way one can focus on the aspect--whether subjective or objective--that matters most to that consumer.

An objective factor that I find useful, but does not appear to be used by any of the four rankings system combined by bluesky, is a school's R&D (research & development) expenditures/budget for a particular year. The budget/expenditures is more important than publications because much research is done for private industry and, most likely, never published.

Yes and no. I think that the real problem with this ranking is the continued perception that there is such a thing as ranking. These are all great universities, and how one would decide between them and many other great schools depends on what you are trying to get out of it.
I agree with you that research is often under-prioritized, but total R&D expenditures distorts this in favor of the largest schools and those with medical schools since NIH funding makes up such a large proportion of R&D expenditures. In reality Princeton and Rice have researchers who are just as brilliant and productive as those at Michigan and Wisconsin, there are just many fewer of them since the schools are smaller. But, they are competitive when trying to recruit faculty against the larger schools. R& D expenditures only captures part of the picture of the quality of research at a University.

R&D expenditures are an objective measure. The 4 rankings systems that are used by bluesky are rife with subjective categories that are weighted heavily in the rating & ranking methods.

R&D quantity is a measure, but many of these lists are also trying to capture quality through citations, etc.

[Anonymous]

I don't think this ranking is bad in any way. US news undergrad ranking takes into account reputation which includes research. Thus its interesting that the world doesn't necessarily view a school like Rice how Americans see it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this ranking is bad in any way. US news undergrad ranking takes into account reputation which includes research. Thus its interesting that the world doesn't necessarily view a school like Rice how Americans see it.

How do Americans view Rice ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this ranking is bad in any way. US news undergrad ranking takes into account reputation which includes research. Thus its interesting that the world doesn't necessarily view a school like Rice how Americans see it.

How do Americans view Rice ?

Someone said it was Ivy level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this ranking is bad in any way. US news undergrad ranking takes into account reputation which includes research. Thus its interesting that the world doesn't necessarily view a school like Rice how Americans see it.

How do Americans view Rice ?

As a starchy side dish that goes well with chicken and beans.

[Anonymous]

where is Georgetown?

[Anonymous]

Only a DC fool would think this is a Global ranking

[Anonymous]

Why mix undergrad and grad rankings??

Most meaningless ever

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why mix undergrad and grad rankings??

Most meaningless ever

These are only grad rankings.

[Anonymous]

Graduate ranking
Yawn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Graduate ranking
Yawn

Do goergetiwn grads say this to make themselves feel better?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Graduate ranking
Yawn

Do goergetiwn grads say this to make themselves feel better?

You are posting a "to make 'ya feel better message" with errors in the middle of the work day...