THES World University Rankings 2009

October 8, 2009 2:19 AM

The Times Higher Education Supplement's World University Rankings for 2009 are out.
posted by louigi (78 comments total)

146 Represent!
posted by PenDevil at 2:25 AM on October 8, 2009

Whoo, 5!
posted by atrazine at 2:35 AM on October 8, 2009

Awesome, Melbourne's 36th worldwide and 2nd in Australia. Not bad at all. B)
posted by Xany at 2:39 AM on October 8, 2009

Good to see this on the Blue! The Times Higher Education coordinated the launch of this year's rankings with a project I'm involved in: the University Lives Collection.

Kris Olds and Susan Watson at Global Higher Ed think that this year's rankings show Times Higher Education on the decline:

"Times Higher has decided to allocate most of its efforts to promoting the creation and propagation of this global ranking scheme in contrast to providing detailed, analytical, and critical coverage of issues in the UK, let alone in the European Higher Education Area"

On the other hand, Jamil Salmi and Roberta Malee Bassett write in the THE that measurement drives improvement in universities, and that rankings are an essential to that process. In this view, increased focus on rankings means that the THE is engaging even more critically into the real work and important debates in higher education.

More about rankings:

* "Academic Ranking of World Universities – Methodologies and Problems" (2005)
* The Institute for Higher Education Policy warns against basing policy on rankings

(Most of the indicators used in the construction of college rankings have little to do with policy goals relating to access and equity; they create uniform notions of educational quality and overlook important distinctions in educational preparation, personal experiences, and historical treatment of various student populations in higher education. Policy-makers and the public are ill-served by rankings that rely on data indicators that by their nature are exclusionary.)

Other University Rankings:

* US News Best Colleges report
* Academic Ranking of World Universities (Shanghai Jiao Tong University)
* The Professional Ranking of World Universities, which ranks solely on the basis of the seniority of positions in Fortune 500 companies held by graduates
posted by honest knave at 2:43 AM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

*scans list for alma mater*

*sees it, breathes sigh of relief*

*sees that it's dropped 7 spots since last year*

*cries*
posted by the littlest brussels sprout at 2:44 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

The fact that only 4 French and 10 German universities make the list, while 30 UK ones do fills me with suspicions of bias.
posted by nangua at 2:44 AM on October 8, 2009 [7 favorites]

The embarrassment of the University of Twente at coming in at number 200 is nothing compared to the Hunan College of Traditional Chinese Medicine coming in at 6000 in other world university rankings.
posted by twoleftfeet at 2:48 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

Wow - this has a "bogus" tag already?
posted by MuffinMan at 2:49 AM on October 8, 2009

Other than the order (which will get my current home town thumbing it's nose) do the first six places really surprise anyone?

Kind of surprised to see my Uni (Leicester) on the list but not the OU. Leicester is well respected for Engineering, Physics and Medicine, but the OU is well respected for everything. Maybe the no-campus side of it counted against it...

The snob in me is quite pleased to see that the UK entries are all old Unis not old Polys.
posted by twine42 at 2:51 AM on October 8, 2009

twoleftfeet: If it makes you feel better I studied at Twente as well and it's CS dept is LIGHT YEARS ahead of my alma mater.
posted by PenDevil at 2:54 AM on October 8, 2009

Has anyone found where they explain where their figures come from?
posted by twine42 at 2:56 AM on October 8, 2009

twine42: QS has posted their methodology, although the site is creaking under massive traffic.

InsideHigherEd has a brief discussion of the methodology.
posted by honest knave at 3:01 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Ahh, the QS methodology page has moved. It's now here.
posted by honest knave at 3:04 AM on October 8, 2009

nangua:The fact that only 4 French and 10 German universities make the list, while 30 UK ones do fills me with suspicions of bias.


Not me. British universities and American universities tend to have insane funding. This correlates with quantity of research, quality of talent, and number of publications. These lists are fun, but there's a certain amount of arbitrariness involved inevitably. I treat their results as being 'rough grain'.
posted by molecicco at 3:05 AM on October 8, 2009

Number 29? Not bad, not bad, and a 12-spot jump from last year!

The place where I did my undergrad doesn't even rank, but they're #387 on that Webometrics link. Then again, the president has been a dingleberry lately, so I'm not surprised.
posted by Schlimmbesserung at 3:07 AM on October 8, 2009

Schooool 54 where are yoooouuuuuuu!????
posted by robocop is bleeding at 3:10 AM on October 8, 2009

The fact that only 4 French and 10 German universities make the list, while 30 UK ones do fills me with suspicions of bias.

The average tuition fees in the UK are £3000 (€3250). In Germany it's €1000, in France €165 for public universities (the grandes écoles charge more, but there are far fewer of them).
posted by creeky at 3:12 AM on October 8, 2009

Two universities placed in the top 5 across all five areas of expertise: University of Cambridge and UC Berkeley. But in the final rankings, University of Cambridge comes in second and Berkeley comes in 39th? No.

(I'll read their methodology if the page ever loads.)
posted by ryanrs at 3:14 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

Man, that's an impressive turnout from Australia in the top 50 for biomedicine.
posted by steerpike at 3:14 AM on October 8, 2009

Mostly what this proves is something we already knew: prestige builds on prestige. It doesn't matter how good the work that comes out of Harvard actually is, because it has "Harvard" stamped on it, and so people cite to it to gain authority for their own work.
posted by 1adam12 at 3:16 AM on October 8, 2009

The Times Higher Education Supplement's World University Rankings

I misread that as "The Higher Times Education Supplement's World University Rankings" and was much more interested in reading about it. Dude.
posted by rokusan at 3:21 AM on October 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

One of their primary criteria includes an "International Staff Score" and "International Student Score", which comprises 10% of their total. This has more bearing on the geopolitics/immigration-policy of the country in which the university resides. They're not scoring the quality of the university, they're scoring for diversity — which has only indirect benefits. I strongly suspect that this was designed to create a slight bias towards European universities, as their diversity scores are much higher, making me speculate that it's entirely possible that a French student in an English university increases the diversity score. This would certainly penalize American and other universities in large nations.
posted by amuseDetachment at 3:27 AM on October 8, 2009

If Harvard is so good how do they explain Christmas Vacation 2: Cousin Eddie's Island Adventure?
posted by turgid dahlia at 3:30 AM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

Apparently the faculty/student ratio is the only thing separating #39 Berkeley and #1 Harvard (that, and engineering).

I can see that, although I disagree with the weighting. Maybe faculty/$$$ should also be taken into account.
posted by ryanrs at 3:35 AM on October 8, 2009

Not me. British universities and American universities tend to have insane funding. This correlates with quantity of research, quality of talent, and number of publications. These lists are fun, but there's a certain amount of arbitrariness involved inevitably. I treat their results as being 'rough grain'.

Fair enough, but I suspect that every country rankings are going to focus on what that country does best (or I suppose considers important). In L'Ecole des Mines de Paris's rankings (from honest knave's last link), France comes out just on top of the UK in every ranking.
posted by nangua at 3:38 AM on October 8, 2009

Nice to see that my alma mater wrestled its way into the top 200 this year. Even nicer to see that it has climbed an impressive 34 posts to do so. Not so nice not to see it in the top 50 for engineering, though.

The UK bias is pretty obvious, mind you. Manchester scoring before France's élite École Polytechnique in engineering?! Give me a break!
posted by Skeptic at 3:40 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

Yay, UCL at number 4! In your face, Oxford, Imperial!!!

I have given the matter careful reflection and am satisfied on balance that the methodology here is robust, sensitive, and soundly based.
posted by Phanx at 3:43 AM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

The UK bias is fairly obvious. For starters, UK universities do not appear this high on any other global rankings. That doesn't mean everybody else is unbiased, of course. The US rankings are more US heavy and I'm sure there's a similar story everywhere.
posted by vacapinta at 3:45 AM on October 8, 2009

From the Inside Higher Ed link:

But Berdahl, a former chancellor at the University of California at Berkeley, said he just can't buy the numbers in the Times Higher's survey. "While I think that there has been some relative slippage as a result of a decline in funding in the U.S. and the investment elsewhere, the rankings indicated by the Times seem to me to be wildly off the mark," he said. "No one I know would rank Berkeley anywhere near as low as 39th in the world. I admit I’m biased; but this is too far from the mark to be taken terribly seriously."

I strongly agree with him. Berkeley is often mentioned as being possibly the best University in the US and, though some may disagree, the proposition is taken seriously.

To see it in 39th place does indeed point to a deep flaw in the methodology.
posted by vacapinta at 3:59 AM on October 8, 2009

Mostly what this proves is something we already knew: prestige builds on prestige. It doesn't matter how good the work that comes out of Harvard actually is, because it has "Harvard" stamped on it, and so people cite to it to gain authority for their own work.

I find this a bit off the mark. I agree that prestige builds on prestige in the sense that well-funded universities attract brighter faculty and students, put out good work, then get more funding based on that well-funded research, and so on. But the reputation has to be maintained. Prestige is not a license to distribute shit and have people call it gold (in the sciences at least... there may in fact be a good argument for that being the case in the humanities).

So in the sciences, say, if MIT puts out poor-quality work, or starts making unsubstantiated claims, or drawing patently incorrect conclusions in their research, then the work will not be cited and it will be discredited. When I cite other papers, it is because they contain information I need and I am able to find them. I am not looking at the university affiliations except out of curiosity. I assume that everyone else in the sciences approaches research this way. So yes, a prestigious university will distribute more papers more widely, so they are easier to find and more likely to contain the information I am seeking - but again, that is contingent directly on funding.
posted by molecicco at 4:22 AM on October 8, 2009

Couldn't find mine in either list.

Lousy school of hard knocks.
posted by cerulgalactus at 4:23 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

Yay, UCL at number 4! In your face, Oxford, Imperial!!!

I have given the matter careful reflection and am satisfied on balance that the methodology here is robust, sensitive, and soundly based.

I couldn't agreed more.
posted by jonnyploy at 4:28 AM on October 8, 2009

I'm extremely suspicious about any ranking that places the University of Manchester above the Ecole Normale Supérieure de Paris, the Ecole Polytechnique, Georgia Institute of Technology, or the London School of Economics.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:34 AM on October 8, 2009

Unlike Harvard or MIT, Berkeley has no weak fields. It has world-class everything. If you go by department rankings, Berkeley is one of the best universities in the world. One of the top 10.

But looking beyond the department rankings, I can see why you'd penalize Berkeley for its faculty/student ratio. When I was there ten years ago, the severe lack of staff impacted class availability and the quality of teaching. It was the main reason I left before graduating.

This survey seems to weigh faculty-to-student ratio much more heavily than most other university rankings. But if that ratio is your number two concern, as it was to Times Higher Education, then you probably should place Berkeley at #39.
posted by ryanrs at 4:41 AM on October 8, 2009

Methodology summarized in part:

· 40 percent is based on a worldwide survey of academics, who are asked to name the 30 institutions they consider the best in the world.
· 10 percent is based on another international survey – this one of employers of graduates.

So who did the University of Washington (-21 places) piss off?

Also fuck yeah USA.
posted by vapidave at 4:53 AM on October 8, 2009

To see it in 39th place does indeed point to a deep flaw in the methodology.

Nope, what it points to me is the bizarre reasoning that something as complex and varied as universities can be squeezed into some kind of list that purports to show the "best" and the "worst".
posted by smoke at 4:55 AM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

In at 26 with a bullet!

(I applied to one of the higher-up universities and they didn't offer any of my areas of interest. Manchester did. Never look back.)
posted by mippy at 5:01 AM on October 8, 2009

I haven't had enough coffee for the day, because I read this as the "The High Times Education Supplement's World Ranking."
posted by piratebowling at 5:08 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Interesting. However they measured it, it's a reputational ranking, again. Fine with me, since my employer remains in the top 10.

Most of us in the trade are awaiting with eager, anxious trepidation the release of the NRC report on research doctoral programs, long delayed, due this fall, and based on a new methodology which is supposed to minimize reputational factors and look at hard measures of quality. Should be out within a few weeks. While it's a ranking of PhD programs, it will be useful for comparing universities overall without the bias of self-perpetuating reputational factors overdetermining the rankings.

I mean, I went to Harvard. I teach at another elite university now. I've studied and worked at a pair of big state universities. And I've talked or reviewed programs at dozens of other schools.

Harvard is number one, again. Because everyone knows it's the best. Which, for many things, is simply bullshit.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:20 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

I read this as the "The High Times Education Supplement's World Ranking."

Frankly, based on my personal experience (in the 80s), Harvard would still win.

But that's a ranking I'd pay to see.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:29 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

My employer is 59th in the THES UK 2010 rankings. Up yours Lampeter, Glyndwyr, Anglia Ruskin and other lesser ranked places I've never heard of.
posted by vbfg at 5:35 AM on October 8, 2009

Up yours Lampeter, Glyndwyr, Anglia Ruskin and other lesser ranked places I've never heard of.

I went to Anglia Ruskin (when it was still called Anglia Polytechnic). It was pretty awful. I think the campus I used to go to has been condemned now, and is about to be pulled down and turned into a multistory car park.
posted by dng at 5:40 AM on October 8, 2009

I fully support any methodology that gives good rankings to red-brick campus universities near Coventry.
posted by patricio at 5:43 AM on October 8, 2009

On the one hand, there are clearly issues with any ranking of this sort, not the least of which is that it is (obviously) quantitative and not qualitative and is just about "prestige"; I went to #7 on the list (University of Chicago) and it was ABSOLUTELY the right choice for me, but if it's not the right place for you, even if you're very bright, you will be absolutely miserable. It also doesn't take into account subtleties and differences within departments or fields, that sort of thing.

On the other hand, my cousins went to Johns Hopkins (#13) and Brown (#31) so I win!
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 6:07 AM on October 8, 2009

Yeah, but the Hunan College of Traditional Chinese Medicine All-In Wrestling Dim Mak Death Touch Squad are so feared in varsity sports that no-one has dared play them since the famous 'Changsha Massacre' in the 92/93 series.
posted by Abiezer at 6:09 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

I'm at one of the top 50 places. A lot of effort is expended by our university in these sorts of things. We have lots of pro-vice-chancellors, deputy deans, consistently-branded logos on approved glossy stock and inter-faculty industry partnership vetting committees.

We do dry-runs of rumoured external evaluations. They take months. Some individuals with fine research records are now mostly employed to touch base regularly with those who might have the nod on key indicators.

I'm not suggesting these sort of exercises are worthless, but boy are they costly.
posted by hawthorne at 6:11 AM on October 8, 2009

#118? 7th in Canada*? My perpetually-insecure** alma mater ain't gonna like that.

* It's a great party school, though.

** Back in 1991 when I was deciding on what school to attend for my undergrad, MacLeans had just put out its first issue of Canadian university rankings and Queen's had finished second overall, behind McGill. At the information meeting I attended the speaker started out by saying "Queen's may be number two to MacLeans, but it's number one in the hearts of its students, faculty and alumni!" Then he and the other presenter did an oil thigh and ran a slide show bigging up the alleged school spirit of the students there. At that point I mentally crossed Queen's off my list, and how I got from there to actually deciding to go is still beyond me.
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:14 AM on October 8, 2009

Woo, I'm Dr. #12! In your face, um, someone else!
posted by dmd at 6:23 AM on October 8, 2009

I'm particularly pleased at Ireland, with Trinity (#43) and UCD (#89) both in the top 100.

Can any country beat a top-100-per-million population of 0.5? Woo!
posted by stepheno at 6:23 AM on October 8, 2009

#4 (I dropped out) represent! :)
posted by lowlife at 6:27 AM on October 8, 2009

Bob Berdahl: "I admit I’m biased; but this is too far from the mark to be taken terribly seriously."

vacapinta: "I strongly agree with him. Berkeley is often mentioned as being possibly the best University in the US and, though some may disagree, the proposition is taken seriously."

Well, it's lovely that he's decided to become Berkeley's champion now that he's gone, since it was widely acknowledged when he skipped over from Texas--to fill the (late, lamented, beloved) Chancellor Tien's shoes--that Berdahl didn't care a whit for Cal and only accepted the position to further his career.
posted by kittyprecious at 6:34 AM on October 8, 2009

I'm going to pretend that my alma mater was number 201.
posted by battleshipkropotkin at 6:46 AM on October 8, 2009

GO 32! GO 32! YOU COULDN'T PLAY FOOTBALL, BUT I LOVE YOU!

Well, when I was there (1987-1991), they couldn't play football. BUT we took solace in the fact that we had the highest SAT scores in the Big Ten. (Nerds.)

When Penn State joined The Big Ten in 1990, we were ranked eleventh in the Big Ten.

The maths departments had a good time with that. :D
posted by tzikeh at 6:55 AM on October 8, 2009

I'm going to pretend that my alma mater was number 201.

Mine is number 50.

(In the UK.)
posted by afx237vi at 7:30 AM on October 8, 2009

The South Korean unis are working as hard as they can to game this system--and it's working. Look at the jumps!
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:37 AM on October 8, 2009

#200 University of Twente
#400 University of Forte
#600 University of Sexe

Bingo!
posted by storybored at 7:39 AM on October 8, 2009

OK, because I'm bored and nerdy:

        C O U N T R I E S    of    T H E    W O R L D

                        with the most

T O P   H U N D R E D   R A N K E D   U N I V E R S I T I E S

                         (per capita)


COUNTRY         POPULATION    #200   #100    #200/m    #100/m
                (millions)

Switzerland     7.581         08     04      1.055     0.528
Ireland*        4.185         02     02      0.478     0.478
Singapore       4.608         02     02      0.434     0.434
Australia       21.00         09     08      0.423     0.381
Denmark         5.484         03     02      0.547     0.365
UK              60.94         29     18      0.476     0.295
Netherlands     16.65         11     04      0.660     0.240
New Zealand     4.173         03     01      0.718     0.240
Sweden          9.052         05     02      0.553     0.221
Canada          33.21         11     04      0.331     0.120
US              304.1         54     32      0.178     0.105
Belgium         10.40         05     01      0.480     0.096
Germany         82.37         10     04      0.121     0.048
Japan           127.3         11     06      0.087     0.047
Taiwan          22.90         01     01      0.044     0.044
South Korea     48.37         04     02      0.083     0.042
France          61.53         04     02      0.065     0.033
China**         1330.         11     05      0.008     0.004

* Yeah, Ireland's position is inflated by ranking in terms of top 100s but that was the metric I set out to do.
** Hong Kong included as part of China, although HK would do very well alone. But then again so would Cambridge, MA.


posted by stepheno at 7:41 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Think of a number. Divide it by two. Add seven. Times by three. Now minus the original number. That's your rank.

I don't take these things seriously, at all. Teachers always badger me to fill-in "student satisfaction surveys", but I refuse to do so. I know that in the UK at least, it's a load of bullshit. I could write that my uni gave me a kitten every time I walked through the door and wiped my arse to a perfect sheen every time I took a shit, and yet I know that Oxford and Cambridge would still be at the top.

For this ranking, I suppose the 40% peer survey weighting and the near absence of non-English speaking universities in the top 20 and English dominance overall, suggests that its one big incestuous Anglo-academic love-in. They say they weighted the survey results according to location, but the regions used were very broad, with at least one significant English speaking country in each. I wonder if they also weighted for language, would they get the same results?

Worse still, they are only asking about the quality of the research produced, and not about the quality of the institution overall. I understand that they're asking about research specifically because other academics might not actually know how good a university is for students, but that just makes the weight given to this measure such a bad judgement in my opinion.
posted by Sova at 7:51 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

vacapinta: "The US rankings are more US heavy"

There are US rankings that actually include universities from other countries?
posted by madcaptenor at 7:54 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

UC Berkeley does indeed have a lot of world-class everything, including recent Nobel Prize winners, but I wonder how the recession and attendant budget crises are eventually going to affect its rankings, if the effect isn't already there. As Bob Herbert noted in his Saturday column, "Berkeley is caught in a full-blown budget crisis with nothing much in the way of upside in sight" because "the University of California system ... is being jeopardized by shortsighted politicians and California’s colossally dysfunctional budget processes."

Seven of the 10 UC campuses are in the top 200, the highest being UCLA at 32. Only two are in the top 40. None of the 23 Cal States is in the top 200, and they've been hit even harder by the budget situation. UC Berkeley's chancellor and vice-chancellor pleaded for federal-state hybrid funding status for "top public research schools" this week, arguing that public institutions of higher learning in the US are finding it increasingly difficult to remain true to their missions because of federal disinvestment in higher education funding.

But the Obama Administration basically told them that there is no money to think about the hybrid idea anytime soon, and even if there were, the Administration already has too much on its plate (the Administration's favorite metaphor these days) to deal with.
posted by blucevalo at 7:56 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Well, at least my alma mater, FSU, still ranks in the Top Party Schools.
posted by Cookiebastard at 8:26 AM on October 8, 2009

(resides 1 mi from Harvard, 1/2 mi from MIT and can feel waves of prestige washing over cerebrum like warm UV)
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 8:32 AM on October 8, 2009

Great post! I'm currently applying to PhD programs right now, and I am happy to find all of my choices in the top 135. And even better in the Top 50 lists for academic categories. Whew!
posted by iamkimiam at 9:08 AM on October 8, 2009

#11 for arts and humanities! Suck it McGill!
posted by Beardman at 9:41 AM on October 8, 2009

My university has gone up 9 places to 58. They have been going on about getting into the top 50 all year. Heh. Interestingly though, there are several UK universities above it in the THES world rankings which are not above it in the THES UK rankings. Odd.
posted by knapah at 9:43 AM on October 8, 2009

One of their primary criteria includes an "International Staff Score" and "International Student Score", which comprises 10% of their total. This has more bearing on the geopolitics/immigration-policy of the country in which the university resides. They're not scoring the quality of the university, they're scoring for diversity — which has only indirect benefits. I strongly suspect that this was designed to create a slight bias towards European universities

I strongly suspect this was rather designed to create a strong bias towards British universities. Continental European countries do indeed exchange a lot of students through the successful Erasmus program. But language is a serious barrier. Most country-hopping students (never mind faculty) prefer to attend English-speaking unis, and since getting a student visa to the US has become vastly more difficult since 2001, British universities have very consciously been catering to this international market (especially since the fees they are allowed to charge to British and EU students are capped).
posted by Skeptic at 9:48 AM on October 8, 2009

My goodness. My former and current universities are evenly matched, at 5th. I would be offended by UCL, but as they don't even appear on the Engineering and IT list, they can both suck it. Yeah, I'm talking to you, Phanx and Jonnyploy.

Only kidding. Lets all gang up and hate on Chicago...
posted by iso_bars at 10:35 AM on October 8, 2009

"We're number 105, we're number 105!"
posted by Mental Wimp at 10:49 AM on October 8, 2009

I graduated from and now work for one in the top 20... Is there an indicator for how smug people are on campus?
posted by yoHighness at 11:06 AM on October 8, 2009

Nope, what it points to me is the bizarre reasoning that something as complex and varied as universities can be squeezed into some kind of list that purports to show the "best" and the "worst".

Thats exactly it. Personally, I have no trouble dismissing this but all I see over the web today is "Hey! I went to the Nth best University in the world! Hooray!" which means this nonsense does have an effect.

I'm sure UCL today is full of officials patting themselves on the back while at Oxford and Berkeley there are others trying to figure out who/what to blame! All because of fudged up numbers and some cryptic methodology.

I'll tell you what I think is the big give-away that this is all a fudged-numbers game: Harvard is #1.

What that makes me think is that they could tweak the outcome easily. They dont have to actually do something so blatant as to make up numbers - they can just decide how much "weight" to assign to different things. Depending on your assignments you can get a lot of Universities on top: Berkeley if you weight breadth, MIT if you weight citations, Tokyo U if you weight importance to career prospects and so on...

But if you get a safe #1 such as Harvard on top then its more likely that people will look at your list and say "Well...I dont know much about their methodology but if it popped up Harvard on top all by itself, then its probably not too far off...and Hey by that same standard a UK Uni is #2 so thats probably right too..."

Put another way, Cambridge at #2 is just credible. If it had appeared at #1 instead - which it would in some models no doubt - it would be too laughably obvious that this list should be ignored.
posted by vacapinta at 11:25 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

The snob in me

The snob in your doesn't know how to spell the word "its." That's just sad.
posted by ethnomethodologist at 11:45 AM on October 8, 2009

YOU. That'll teach me for playing spell check.
posted by ethnomethodologist at 11:45 AM on October 8, 2009

Hearing #89 heavily self-congratulating the same week we find out they're gouging our (amazing, heavily-used) library's hours for the second time this semester makes me incredibly angry.
posted by carbide at 1:13 PM on October 8, 2009

Wow, fell from #5 to #10. Looks like mostly due to "Employer Review Score". I assume this only applies to companies who actually do employ people from the university? Cause with only 200 undergrads graduating a year, the sample size is gonna be pretty low compared to a lot of others on the list.
posted by wildcrdj at 3:31 PM on October 8, 2009

Oxford below UCL and ICL? This is a sad day for Oxford.
posted by loco_chilli at 4:42 AM on October 9, 2009

I fully support any methodology that gives good rankings to red-brick campus universities near Coventry.

What? There aren't any. Unless you mean Warwick which certainly isn't red-brick.
posted by altolinguistic at 6:49 AM on October 9, 2009

What? There aren't any. Unless you mean Warwick which certainly isn't red-brick.

I believe the term for Warwick is plate-glass university, although I believe white tile would be more apt.
posted by knapah at 6:54 AM on October 9, 2009

Given that universities are more like battleships than minis, a mean absolute change of 14 ranks over a year suggests to me that it's very noisy. I'm mostly saying that because my horse dropped 30 and ended up behind f'ing Pennsylvania State University.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 10:29 AM on October 9, 2009