World University Rankings 2025

[Anonymous]

The universities in Singapore depend on drawing in (mostly ethnic/overseas Chinese) students from nearby countries to help their budget, which pulls them higher in this list.

The PRC funnels foreign students to Tsinghua U or Peking U, which again pulls those two higher in the list.

Different criteria or different weights will yield different lists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the hell happened to UVA?

These rankings are rigged.

All rankings are "rigged" in the sense that each uses different criteria.

UVa does not have a high enough % of non-US undergraduate students. This particular ranking, the "THE World Universities" list, factors that variable in.

Recall that the Commonwealth insists that VT, UVa, and W&M have VA residents for roughly 2/3 of total undergrads. That pushes all 3 schools down the list.

The same factor boosts many UK universities, because UK universities lose money on their UK undergrads and use numerous non-UK students (who pay much higher fees) to make their budgets balance.

QS has UVA at 295th in their rankings. Also embarrassingly low compared to the top three publics in this country, among many others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the average berkeley grad is very meh to me compare to an elite private grad.

The average elite private grad is very meh to me compared to the rest of the top 50.

Yeah, co-sign on that.

Glad you feel good about paying out of state tuition on an overpriced education.

Red herring. We are talking about the quality of the average grad, not about which schools are or are not worth the cost for our own kids.

[Anonymous]

^^^Actually it’s 297 with zero Nobel Prize winning graduates in its very long history. The world doesn’t care about Rhodes Scholarships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the hell happened to UVA?

These rankings are rigged.

All rankings are "rigged" in the sense that each uses different criteria.

UVa does not have a high enough % of non-US undergraduate students. This particular ranking, the "THE World Universities" list, factors that variable in.

Recall that the Commonwealth insists that VT, UVa, and W&M have VA residents for roughly 2/3 of total undergrads. That pushes all 3 schools down the list.

The same factor boosts many UK universities, because UK universities lose money on their UK undergrads and use numerous non-UK students (who pay much higher fees) to make their budgets balance.

Good try UVA supporter in explaining why UVA is ranked so low. If non VA residents is the reason why UVA is ranked low, then explain why UT Austin with its mandate for 90% of the school being in state. UT Austin much higher in rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the hell happened to UVA?

These rankings are rigged.

All rankings are "rigged" in the sense that each uses different criteria.

UVa does not have a high enough % of non-US undergraduate students. This particular ranking, the "THE World Universities" list, factors that variable in.

Recall that the Commonwealth insists that VT, UVa, and W&M have VA residents for roughly 2/3 of total undergrads. That pushes all 3 schools down the list.

The same factor boosts many UK universities, because UK universities lose money on their UK undergrads and use numerous non-UK students (who pay much higher fees) to make their budgets balance.

Good try UVA supporter in explaining why UVA is ranked so low. If non VA residents is the reason why UVA is ranked low, then explain why UT Austin with its mandate for 90% of the school being in state. UT Austin much higher in rankings.

NP- You seem oddly intent on proving UVA is an inferior institution. OK, UVA is ranked embarrassingly low and is an inferior institution. Not sure what point you are trying to make but rest assured these rankings do not detract from the quality of education and outcomes and the subsequent high demand for a spot there. UVA will continue to be just fine in spite of your obvious ire towards it. Have a pleasant day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the hell happened to UVA?

These rankings are rigged.

All rankings are "rigged" in the sense that each uses different criteria.

UVa does not have a high enough % of non-US undergraduate students. This particular ranking, the "THE World Universities" list, factors that variable in.

Recall that the Commonwealth insists that VT, UVa, and W&M have VA residents for roughly 2/3 of total undergrads. That pushes all 3 schools down the list.

The same factor boosts many UK universities, because UK universities lose money on their UK undergrads and use numerous non-UK students (who pay much higher fees) to make their budgets balance.

Good try UVA supporter in explaining why UVA is ranked so low. If non VA residents is the reason why UVA is ranked low, then explain why UT Austin with its mandate for 90% of the school being in state. UT Austin much higher in rankings.

NP- You seem oddly intent on proving UVA is an inferior institution. OK, UVA is ranked embarrassingly low and is an inferior institution. Not sure what point you are trying to make but rest assured these rankings do not detract from the quality of education and outcomes and the subsequent high demand for a spot there. UVA will continue to be just fine in spite of your obvious ire towards it. Have a pleasant day.

Ha! No ire towards UVA at all. DCs accepted to UVA. I actually believe the rankings are all kind of stupid and these schools don’t define your life’s path. I was trying to have a healthy debate with someone who clearly is grasping for why UVA is ranked low. As you said, UVA will be just fine with its low ranking and it really means nothing. Not sure why you’re so touchy about someone pointing out a flaw to the argument and needing to turn it personal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the hell happened to UVA?

These rankings are rigged.

All rankings are "rigged" in the sense that each uses different criteria.

UVa does not have a high enough % of non-US undergraduate students. This particular ranking, the "THE World Universities" list, factors that variable in.

Recall that the Commonwealth insists that VT, UVa, and W&M have VA residents for roughly 2/3 of total undergrads. That pushes all 3 schools down the list.

The same factor boosts many UK universities, because UK universities lose money on their UK undergrads and use numerous non-UK students (who pay much higher fees) to make their budgets balance.

Good try UVA supporter in explaining why UVA is ranked so low. If non VA residents is the reason why UVA is ranked low, then explain why UT Austin with its mandate for 90% of the school being in state. UT Austin much higher in rankings.

NP- You seem oddly intent on proving UVA is an inferior institution. OK, UVA is ranked embarrassingly low and is an inferior institution. Not sure what point you are trying to make but rest assured these rankings do not detract from the quality of education and outcomes and the subsequent high demand for a spot there. UVA will continue to be just fine in spite of your obvious ire towards it. Have a pleasant day.

Ha! No ire towards UVA at all. DCs accepted to UVA. I actually believe the rankings are all kind of stupid and these schools don’t define your life’s path. I was trying to have a healthy debate with someone who clearly is grasping for why UVA is ranked low. As you said, UVA will be just fine with its low ranking and it really means nothing. Not sure why you’re so touchy about someone pointing out a flaw to the argument and needing to turn it personal

Didn't turn it personal, just pointing out the obvious tone. When you start a comment with "good try UVA supporter" it's only logical to infer a negative tone and purpose for the message to follow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the hell happened to UVA?

These rankings are rigged.

All rankings are "rigged" in the sense that each uses different criteria.

UVa does not have a high enough % of non-US undergraduate students. This particular ranking, the "THE World Universities" list, factors that variable in.

Recall that the Commonwealth insists that VT, UVa, and W&M have VA residents for roughly 2/3 of total undergrads. That pushes all 3 schools down the list.

The same factor boosts many UK universities, because UK universities lose money on their UK undergrads and use numerous non-UK students (who pay much higher fees) to make their budgets balance.

Good try UVA supporter in explaining why UVA is ranked so low. If non VA residents is the reason why UVA is ranked low, then explain why UT Austin with its mandate for 90% of the school being in state. UT Austin much higher in rankings.

NP- You seem oddly intent on proving UVA is an inferior institution. OK, UVA is ranked embarrassingly low and is an inferior institution. Not sure what point you are trying to make but rest assured these rankings do not detract from the quality of education and outcomes and the subsequent high demand for a spot there. UVA will continue to be just fine in spite of your obvious ire towards it. Have a pleasant day.

UVA sucks for STEM/CS majors. Plenty who graduate and can't find jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the hell happened to UVA?

These rankings are rigged.

All rankings are "rigged" in the sense that each uses different criteria.

UVa does not have a high enough % of non-US undergraduate students. This particular ranking, the "THE World Universities" list, factors that variable in.

Recall that the Commonwealth insists that VT, UVa, and W&M have VA residents for roughly 2/3 of total undergrads. That pushes all 3 schools down the list.

The same factor boosts many UK universities, because UK universities lose money on their UK undergrads and use numerous non-UK students (who pay much higher fees) to make their budgets balance.

Good try UVA supporter in explaining why UVA is ranked so low. If non VA residents is the reason why UVA is ranked low, then explain why UT Austin with its mandate for 90% of the school being in state. UT Austin much higher in rankings.

NP- You seem oddly intent on proving UVA is an inferior institution. OK, UVA is ranked embarrassingly low and is an inferior institution. Not sure what point you are trying to make but rest assured these rankings do not detract from the quality of education and outcomes and the subsequent high demand for a spot there. UVA will continue to be just fine in spite of your obvious ire towards it. Have a pleasant day.

UVA sucks for STEM/CS majors. Plenty who graduate and can't find jobs.

Maybe you just sucked as a student and don't interview well? Can't fix stupid and lazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many of those unknown slacs will close within the next 20 years.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience),[/b] the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

False. I have had one graduate ivy and one more than half through a t10private. Both provide the bold in spades. None of their high school classmates from fancy dc private have had anywhere near the same extent as the bolded , at UCLA and michigan. Big classes, no ability to get into labs or school-year internships early, no pay for said opportunities for the few who get them, too many competing to curry favor with the same professors in large first yr classes.

DP

Describe the application profile for your two kids, please. How well-rounded are they? ECs?

Unhooked white kids with 1520 and 1560, took the hardest APs the school offered, almost entirely 5s: I have listed the non-EC because that matters first and foremost. ECs : each had a different art activity they did for over a decade with awards regional/state, each had impactful volunteering outside of school, each had at least one club president, one had substantial school and statewide academic awards, one had local/school academic honors(rare at their school). Both had LOR that they were shown later that indicated best in the year or on one case best in many years. Most of the unhooked peers at their colleges have similar resumes, some a little less, and several friends there are even more impressive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience),[/b] the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

False. I have had one graduate ivy and one more than half through a t10private. Both provide the bold in spades. None of their high school classmates from fancy dc private have had anywhere near the same extent as the bolded , at UCLA and michigan. Big classes, no ability to get into labs or school-year internships early, no pay for said opportunities for the few who get them, too many competing to curry favor with the same professors in large first yr classes.

This has already been debated many times. Privates and Ivy don’t guarantee small class size. Example- Cornell Intro to Psych has 800 students typically.

Source: https://ezramagazine.cornell.edu/winter15/CoverStorySidebar5.html#:~:text=Cornell's%20largest%20course%20for%20years,as%20laughter%2C%20memory%20and%20sex.

Yes, but on average, class sizes are far smaller at privates while research opportunities are more per student

+++ yes precisely. one has to have a kid at one of these and a kid at a top public to see the differences

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience),[/b] the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

False. I have had one graduate ivy and one more than half through a t10private. Both provide the bold in spades. None of their high school classmates from fancy dc private have had anywhere near the same extent as the bolded , at UCLA and michigan. Big classes, no ability to get into labs or school-year internships early, no pay for said opportunities for the few who get them, too many competing to curry favor with the same professors in large first yr classes.

DP

Describe the application profile for your two kids, please. How well-rounded are they? ECs?

Unhooked white kids with 1520 and 1560, took the hardest APs the school offered, almost entirely 5s: I have listed the non-EC because that matters first and foremost. ECs : each had a different art activity they did for over a decade with awards regional/state, each had impactful volunteering outside of school, each had at least one club president, one had substantial school and statewide academic awards, one had local/school academic honors(rare at their school). Both had LOR that they were shown later that indicated best in the year or on one case best in many years. Most of the unhooked peers at their colleges have similar resumes, some a little less, and several friends there are even more impressive.

Thank you for this response. I see the disconnect now.

I will reply later with my kid’s profile, and you’ll understand (as I now do) why we have different views of the top UCs and how they are a great fit for kids like mine, and why the Ivy and other Top 10 private are a great fit for your kids.

[Anonymous]

aren't these really just based on things like patents and citations. UVa is pretty weak in graduate level science research. this why places like pitt crush it.