# world's TOP 500 universities



## Mr_Dru (Dec 15, 2008)

I'm suprised the Dutch Universities are mention a lot in the top 200. Because we have one of the worst education system in Western Europe!


----------



## Botswana (Aug 29, 2009)

Surprised how high U of A is. I'm going there next year. Hopefully it's better than the shitty school I go to now. hno:


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Well, my schools are frankly over-rated (both in top 10). As City mentions UCSF isn't a university at all and Michigan is better than Wisconsin. But the list has so many absurdities that it is painful. US News and some others at least try to find relevant admissions criteria to use in their rankings, although no method is going to be perfect.


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

Newropean said:


> Indeed, most of these lists measure the research done by publications in _english_, which gives of course a big advantage to english-speaking countries. That's why the non-english universities are ranked further down the list.
> 
> (Still, it sounds good to say "My university is in the top 50." :lol


Don't non english universities publish in english as well? The vast majority of scientific journals are in english and it is no problem to translate some paper before handing it in. And even traditionally non-english journals have an english version, don't they?


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

goschio said:


> Don't non english universities publish in english as well? The vast majority of scientific journals are in english and it is no problem to translate some paper before handing it in. And even traditionally non-english journals have an english version, don't they?


No. You'd be surprised at how much is published in other languages. All too often have I found the "perfect" paper for my research only to find it's in another language. =/


----------



## inside_us (Aug 3, 2006)

wow.....one of 20 the best univeristy is in Japan... nice to here....even im not the japanese

where's chines ?????


----------



## Bartje83 (Aug 9, 2008)

Mr_Dru said:


> I'm suprised the Dutch Universities are mention a lot in the top 200. Because we have one of the worst education system in Western Europe!


That's nonsense. Dutch universities are (as this list shows) very well respected in the world.


----------



## bajanssen (Feb 20, 2009)

Still, I'm missing 1 Dutch university that's, as far as I know, one of the best in the country in Economics and law: Tilburg university


----------



## nanizinha (Mar 18, 2009)

Ridiculous ranking..


----------



## tony64 (Nov 2, 2008)

link for the source


----------



## Woozle (Mar 30, 2008)

Those lists are stupid. If you need education for your career, you should be looking at lists such as this:

Percentage of class and raw numbers of class placed reported Vault 100 firms.

4 Columbia 80.2%
3 Harvard 74.1%
6 Chicago 71.4%
1 Yale 68.8%
2 Stanford 65.9%
4 NYU 61.2%
11 Duke 55.8%
12 Northwestern 53.1%
7 Penn 49.4%
13 Cornell 43.0%
8 Virginia 41.4%
8 Michigan 41.3%
14 Georgetown 34.4%
16 Texas 28.7%
8 Boalt 27.7%
15 UCLA 19.9%
27 Illinois 19.1%
17 Vanderbilt 19.0%
17 USC 18.4%
22 Notre Dame 18.3%
32 Fordham 15.3%
18 GWU 12.5%
70 Houston 11.9%
TTT Howard 11.9%
22 Boston U 11.6%
27 Boston College 11.3%
39 Wake Forest 11.0%
34 BYU 10.5%

Percentage of law school graduates who went to work for one of the top 100 law firms in the country. 

There are similar (if limited in scope) lists for undergraduate institutions by placement at top graduate programs.

All of the other lists for career-oriented people are pure fluff.


----------



## ejd03 (Oct 23, 2003)

Well, i don't understand why this list is related to city issue..

but anyway..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_ranking

read this please..

ARWU and News Week rankings are most respected sources out there and The times is not..

" However, the Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings have been criticised by many more[20] for placing too much emphasis on peer review, which receives 40 per cent of the overall score."

it means The Times' ranking is too subjective.. if 100 professors say the university is good, then it is good on that ranking.. you will see a huge variation in that ranking every year.. (For ex, one university might be ranked in top 10 in 2009 according to the times but was not in top 20 in 2008.) 


ARWU is cited by Economist and the Times ranking has never been cited by any academic or professional publications.. you will see why

I am sorry, but whoever says The Times ranking is correct is completely wrong.. you won't disagree with me

The argument here is that if university wants to be truly respected, the university's ranking should be always high enough however different methodologies applied.. 

For instance, Harvard or Cambridge is alway on top 10 list no matter what.. (In News Week, The Times, ARWU) 

Also for Asian univeristies, only University of Tokyo and other Japanese universities are "consistent" in 3 rankings.. (they are always in top 100 whereas Peking university is out of top 100 in News Week and ARWU, but only in top 20 in THe Times, I am not Japanese BTW)

So, if a university is in top 20 in the times but can't make top 100 in ARWU or News Week, I am sorry but that university is not truly top 100 in the world.

Lastly, there is a list of "average postions of 3 different cites".. maybe considering that list is even more accurate than sticking to one cite..


----------



## Jeremyy (Feb 26, 2010)

hmm 24, not bad


----------



## ale26 (Sep 9, 2005)

Jeremyy said:


> hmm 24, not bad


Same! I love U of T


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

Why are Australian Private Universities never ranked. :/


----------



## Looking/Up (Feb 28, 2008)

ale26 said:


> Same! I love U of T


+1.

North America really dominates in higher-level education.


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

Svartmetall said:


> No. You'd be surprised at how much is published in other languages. All too often have I found the "perfect" paper for my research only to find it's in another language. =/


You are right I guess. Especially in in topics such as law which mostly targets a national audience. 

Then I wonder why they only count english publications? Perhaps anglo saxon agenda for world domination. hno:


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

I don't get what the score is based on?


----------



## tigerboy (Jun 7, 2006)

Chrissib said:


> Maybe because there are 400 million anglos in the world, 40% of the developed world.



With much of the highest level work in the other 60% conducted in English which is now the de facto lingua franca of academe globally.


----------



## 645577 (Jun 22, 2010)

crap, buenos aires university is the best in Southamerica, why so down on the list ==


----------



## NorthWesternGuy (Aug 25, 2005)

^^Can't you imagine?

Maybe South American colleges aren't as good as you think.


----------



## atmada (Jan 9, 2008)

no source link = hoax :lol:


----------



## mWoods (Dec 11, 2009)

Congrats to Indiana University for making the top 152. Definitely one of the better universities in central Indiana.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

Notice how all the top US & UK schools are all elite {best degree money can buy} which is typical of both country's mentalities on education and social equity. 
In Canada we have, at least a better guide, to universities which includes useless little things like prof to student ration, library facilities, research, student life, social supports, and size of the school. How can you possibly compare a school with 2,000 students up against one with 100,000?. Also In Canada you cannot buy a "better" education as all schools have the same fees as set out by the province. We don't have schools {except some small theological ones} where the rich are at the top of the heap. All schools in Canada cost between $3,000 and $6000 a year again depending on the province.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

Notice how all the top US & UK schools are all elite {best degree money can buy} which is typical of both country's mentalities on education and social equity. 
In Canada we have, at least a better guide, to universities which includes useless little things like prof to student ration, library facilities, research, student life, social supports, and size of the school. How can you possibly compare a school with 2,000 students up against one with 100,000?. Also In Canada you cannot buy a "better" education as all schools have the same fees as set out by the province. We don't have schools {except some small theological ones} where the rich are at the top of the heap. All schools in Canada cost between $3,000 and $6000 a year again depending on the province.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

ssiguy2: just a couple of clarifications. 

First, the term "best universities" implies elite--that's what "elite" means. True to this approach, virtually all US and UK top universities admit the best students and provide scholarships for qualified students who can't afford to go (myself included).

You seem to be using "elite" to mean "rich" or "old-money white". Please also note the number of state schools in the top group (UCB, UCLA, UCSD, etc.). These are not only not "elite" they have admissions processes that favor minorities, by legally requiring that the top students at each state high school will be guaranteed admission. None in California is majority white and few are even plurality white, so the idea of "elite" seems misplaced.

The Canadian approach you set forth is actually regressive: the rich pay the same as the poor, which means they are effectively subsidized by the middle class. The talented poor in the US pay nothing (I didn't pay a penny undergrad and was half scholarships, half loans in grad school) and the rich pay full load.


----------

