Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

The Chinese university, Shanghai Jiao Tong University recently released a ranking of top universities of the world based on 4 major criteria.
http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2004/Methodology.htm

1. Quality of Education (Alumni of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals)

2. Quality of Faculty (Staff of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals; Highly cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories)

3. Research Output.

4. Size of Institution

Following is the ranking of world's top 20 based on "Quality of Education", which reflects the number of Nobel laureates and Fields medallists that the institution has produced (i.e. those who received their education in the institution).


World Rank Institution
1 Univ Cambridge

2 Harvard Univ

3 Columbia Univ

4 Massachusetts Inst Tech (MIT)

5 Univ Chicago

6 Univ California - Berkeley

7 Univ Oxford

8 Princeton Univ

9 California Inst Tech

10 Yale Univ

11 Moscow State Univ

12 Johns Hopkins Univ

13 Ecole Normale Super Paris

14 Cornell Univ

15 Tech Univ of Munich
15 Univ Wisconsin - Madison

17 Univ Illinois - Urbana Champaign

18 Stanford Univ

19 Swiss Fed Inst Tech - Zurich

20 Kyoto Univ
20 Univ Michigan - Ann Arbor

By Benzinspeicher (Benzinspeicher) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 08:21 am: Edit

you've got to be an idiot to even look at that

By Harpgirl27 (Harpgirl27) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 08:32 am: Edit

UC Berkley above Oxford, Princeton, and Yale??

By Wagner (Wagner) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 08:41 am: Edit

Dear "Benwhatever",

Perhaps your college is not ranked as high as you had wanted it to be or it might not even have been ranked. Fretting and fuming doesn't get your college's rank up.
I certainly hope you do not represent the people here in this forum. For then I can conclude that people here are mere scorned losers.
If however people here are not losers(I am quite confident they aren't), then it can only be concluded that you are the only ignoramus here.

Thank you very much for reading my post though.
Danke sehr

BTW, according to you, you are also an idiot since you have looked at my post as well.

By Wagner (Wagner) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 08:51 am: Edit

The university ranking business never fails to be both intriguing and controversial. It is unlikely that a set of criteria will ever emerge that satisfy all parties. The same can also be said of the SJTU ranking from which the present ranking is derived. The SJTU ranking takes into account the above four factors and the final score is computed as a weighted sum of the all the listed indicators. This means that certain indicators are given more weight than the rest in the computation for the final score on which the final rank is based. Therefore, if university X is ranked higher than university Y, what is that supposed to mean? Does it mean that university X is “better” than university Y in the general sense? The perceptive reader will readily know the answer as negative. Perhaps It means that university X scores higher than university Y is some areas and the converse is true of other areas. Perhaps it may mean that university X scores better than university Y in areas that are given high weightings and scores worse in areas given low weightings. Therein lies the source of controversy. How are we to judge which areas should be given more weight and which less weight.

The present ranking differs from the SJTU ranking in that I do not pretend that I know the answer to the above question but rather base the ranking on the sole criterion of “Quality of Education”, which reflects the number of Nobel laureates and Fields medallists that the institution has produced (i.e. those who received their education in the institution). In this respect, if university X is ranked higher than university Y, we can immediately derive from it the fact that university X has produced more Nobel prize/Fields medal winners over the years than university Y.

By Jstos5 (Jstos5) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 09:05 am: Edit

This ranking seems to be predominant on google when you search for "top universities in the world" and cited by alot of universities (mainly in Europe)... I think it's the only comprehensive one out there that ranks univs around the world so it was fun to read. I wouldn't use it for selecting your undergrad school since they only seem to care about research output and there are a few rankings in there that I don't agree with.

By Benzinspeicher (Benzinspeicher) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 03:29 pm: Edit

seriously, i didn't even look to see if my school is ranked (is it even)?

i just think that anybody who looks and finds weird rankings like that are messed up and need help

Thank you very much

By Alexandre (Alexandre) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 04:16 pm: Edit

Actually Benzinspeicher, this ranking came out in the Economist. I personally think it is completely faulty, but it is not an pbscure ranking that somebody dug up.

Previous post by Benzinspeicher deleted and Benzinspeicher banned. He can get his required attitude adjustment on another board.

--Moderator Obiwan

By Selcouth1 (Selcouth1) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 10:34 pm: Edit

lmao obiwan you're my hero. LOL

By Ziyanlan (Ziyanlan) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 11:43 pm: Edit

Can't imagine Cambridge on the top, one with a glorious history but hardly a prosperous future.

By Ansiarach (Ansiarach) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 07:36 am: Edit

"Can't imagine Cambridge on the top, one with a glorious history but hardly a prosperous future"
Sadly true unless the attitude towards funding of the universities changes radically in the UK.

By Alexandre (Alexandre) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 08:29 am: Edit

I must disagree with Ziyanlan and Ansiarach. Cambridge has a very bright future. It has an incredible faculty, a very talented student body and a reputation second to none. Admitedly, European universities have lagued, but no longer. Over the next decade, Europe is going to dump hundreds of billions of Euros into their universities in an effort to upgrade their curricula and provide their students with more flexibility and better resources.

By Lfill (Lfill) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 10:57 am: Edit

Alexandre you seem so knowledgeable. Do you know what kind of stats an American would need to get into Oxford. Do they value ECs?

By Alexandre (Alexandre) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 12:48 pm: Edit

Six letters:
AP, AP, AP!!!

The reason for this is simple. The English have a slightly different educational system. They do not have "required electives". As such, they expect their students to have received a well rounded and thorough High School education. They take several "Ordinary" Level classes and exams in 10th and 11th grade and then they take 3 or 4 "Advanced" Level classes and exams in their 12th and 13th grade. It is very indepth. The math "A" Level is equivallent to Calculus I, II and even some III.

Of course, good school grades and SAT scores (at least a 1400) are a must, but in order for your son to have a shot at a top British university, be it Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, LSE, St. Andrews, Edinburgh, UCL etc..., he needs to have taken several APs and gotten 5s on them.

And it cannot be just any APs. For example, AP Calculus AB simply won't do. If he wants to show that he is good in math, he will have to take AP Calculus BC (which is the closest thing to "A" Level Math). Same with Physics. In the case of Physics, AP Physics B will not do. He has to take AP Physics C.

In order to have a solid chance at Oxford, he must have taken at least 5 APs and gotten 5s accross the board and the APs must be related to what he wishes to study. If he wants to study Economics for example, he must take AP Micro and AP Macro as well as 3 more APs, preferable AP Calculus BC and AP English.

I hope this answers your questions.

The beauty of the British system is that with just one application form, you apply to 5 universities. You basically apply through UCCA, a centralized system that routs applicants through to the universities they wish to apply to. I hope your son is a Junior. If he is a senior, I would say he has missed the deadline.

Unlike the American system, in Engliand, you must declare your major as you apply and it is not easy to change majors once you are accepted into a program.

One caveat. You cannot apply to Oxford and Cambridge in the same academic year unless you intend to major in music...I think.

By Mzhang23 (Mzhang23) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 02:44 pm: Edit

Harvard could have all the Nobel laureates and field medalists in the world and most people would still have a better undergraduate experience at Yale or Princeton. I would never go to MIT in my life, even if they offered me full tuition and a free car because I found the environment to be horrible.

People often choose colleges based on fit, money, student body, and their experience there. No one chooses based on the number of Nobel laureates and field medalists (which excludes famous professors without these prizes). Therefore, you'd be stupid to consider this rankings list when making your college choices.

Just two cents from a person who's been through it all. This same rankings system was debated last year here.

The one thing this list does show is that the best universities in the world all have a high number of nobel laureates and field medalists. Unfortunately, that in no way qualifies one school's educational experience to be better than the other.

By Ziyanlan (Ziyanlan) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 02:55 pm: Edit

Maybe you are right. But, just during the past year, Harvard's endowment jump to 22.6 billion dollars, Stanford and Princeton up to 10 billion and 9.9 billion respectively. I cann't imagine how many Euros can be enough for European universities to catch up with HYPS.

"I must disagree with Ziyanlan and Ansiarach. Cambridge has a very bright future. It has an incredible faculty, a very talented student body and a reputation second to none. Admitedly, European universities have lagued, but no longer. Over the next decade, Europe is going to dump hundreds of billions of Euros into their universities in an effort to upgrade their curricula and provide their students with more flexibility and better resources. "

By Alexandre (Alexandre) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 03:24 pm: Edit

Not too long. Believe it or not, Europe is more cash rich than the US and the universities are state owned. We all know how those socialist b@stards in Europe do things. Subsidize everything. By the way, Europe has already set aside the financial plan to fund this project. 250 Billion Euros ($300 billion)/year over the next decade. That money will go to Europe's top 200 or so universities. Not bad, $1.5 Billion/school/year. the intent is to increase faculty size by 700,000 and improve infrastructure. But it will take years before they see results.

By Davidrune (Davidrune) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 03:29 pm: Edit

This ranking makes absolutely no sense.

Who says that nobel laureates make good teachers?

Since, when amount of research produced equate with the quality of education?

And the random "size" category. So bigger is automatically better?

By Shyboy13 (Shyboy13) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 03:56 pm: Edit

“Harvard could have all the Nobel laureates and field medalists in the world and most people would still have a better undergraduate experience at Yale or Princeton.”

How in the world can you say that? How do you know what MOST people’s experience would comparatively be like?

"No one chooses based on the number of Nobel laureates and field medalists (which excludes famous professors without these prizes).”

What? Do you really know what EVERYONE does? How can you possibly know how EVERYONE makes decisions?

“Therefore, you'd be stupid to consider this rankings list when making your college choices.”

That is only your opinion. Besides, do you have any idea how many people apply to specific schools just because of US News rankings?

"Unfortunately, that in no way qualifies one school's educational experience to be better than the other.”

According to this last statement, which I agree with, many people CAN have a better educational experience at a school with more Nobel Prize winners.


“This ranking makes absolutely no sense.”

How does it not make sense? All it did was rank universities by certain criteria. Given this criteria, this is the way the rankings came out.

"Who says that nobel laureates make good teachers?"

Who said they don’t?

By Davidrune (Davidrune) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 05:00 pm: Edit

Nobel laureates might make good teachers. But the fact that they are laureates does not automatically mean that they will be a good teacher.

For example, I would rather be taught chemistry by a non-nobel prize winning professor who is passionate about teaching, than a professor who is too busy doing research to actually teach.

Nobel laureates might indicate the level of research opportunities available in a university. However, many schools with amzing research opportunities might not have nobel prize winners.

This ranking is automatically biased towards large research institutions. That is why it makes no sense. It is not a ranking of universities, but rather a ranking of the "research facilities" of these universities as perceived by the Shanghai university.

By Ziyanlan (Ziyanlan) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 05:03 pm: Edit

Please note that most IVY's and their counterparts have an annual income of about $2-3 billion.

"Not too long. Believe it or not, Europe is more cash rich than the US and the universities are state owned. We all know how those socialist b@stards in Europe do things. Subsidize everything. By the way, Europe has already set aside the financial plan to fund this project. 250 Billion Euros ($300 billion)/year over the next decade. That money will go to Europe's top 200 or so universities. Not bad, $1.5 Billion/school/year. the intent is to increase faculty size by 700,000 and improve infrastructure. But it will take years before they see results."

By Rtkysg (Rtkysg) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 05:44 pm: Edit

I think I'll take a rather neutral stand with a slight bias towards US universities on this thread. Look, everything depends on the subjects and majors. For Pure Sciences major, yes Cambridge can still stand against Harvard for another decade. For English literature major, Yale would never be able to beat Oxford for sure. However, for Engineering, Cambridge obviously has no place in the US top engineering powerhouses league. Cambridge is not even better than its peer, Imperial College, for its engineering dept. Also for Business major, US universities are the obvious winners (US is still the most important business pivot in the world nowadays). Only INSEAD has a relatively comparable name to the top US business schools. In Medicine, yes, Cambridge is very well known, however it could hardly compare with John Hopkins and Harvard MS.

In conclusion, I doubt that European Universities could catch up with the top US universities in near future, unless of course, for pure science and social science subjects. Perhaps, they may not even be better than Asian Universities for the next decade.

By Alexandre (Alexandre) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 05:57 pm: Edit

Ziyalan, the $300 Billion is in addition to what they already spend. Schools like Cambridge, Sorbonne etc... already have an annual budget in the $1 Billion+ range.

Rtkysg, if Europe was indeed so far behind, why is it that their doctors are among the most effective and their medical research second to none? Obviously, Europe is not suffering on the medical front. Admitedly, they needed more funding, and they will be getting that funding effective this year. Asia is up there too of course. China is a monster and Japan has always been awesome.

As for Engineering, historically, Europe leaves the theoretical instruction to universities and the research to think tanks. That is why universities in Europe are not known for research in Engineering. I am not sure which way Europe will be heading in this regard. I am sure you know more about this than I do. However, technologically speaking, Europe holds its own and considering the amoung of cash Europe intends to dump into universities and R&D (an increase of 50% over the next 3 years), Europe is positioning itself to stay competitive in this front as well.

Each system is different, each has its strengths and weaknesses and each system will keep up with the times. It is not really possible to say which is the best.

By Ansiarach (Ansiarach) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 06:12 pm: Edit

"Over the next decade, Europe is going to dump hundreds of billions of Euros into their universities in an effort to upgrade their curricula and provide their students with more flexibility and better resources."

Never confuse the European Union for a state in the sense you seem to be using here. As a Briton i have heard nothing of this scheme although i would welcome it; our government seems determined to let the universities die while pretending standards are as high as ever.

"Of course, good school grades and SAT scores (at least a 1400) are a must, but in order for your son to have a shot at a top British university, be it Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, LSE, St. Andrews, Edinburgh, UCL etc..., he needs to have taken several APs and gotten 5s on them. "

Of these it may be slightly easier to get into Edinburgh, UCL and to a lesser extent St.Andrews although im assuming that the standards for international students are roughly equivalent to those set for home students. I say this as i could walk into any of those but the rest would most likely reject me.

"The beauty of the British system is that with just one application form, you apply to 5 universities. You basically apply through UCCA, a centralized system that routs applicants through to the universities they wish to apply to. I hope your son is a Junior. If he is a senior, I would say he has missed the deadline."

You can actually apply to 6 Universities, but only 4 of them may be Medical Schools if youre going in for medicine. The organisation is the University and Colleges Admissions Service, or UCAS.

"Unlike the American system, in Engliand, you must declare your major as you apply and it is not easy to change majors once you are accepted into a program."

This depends on the specific institution; St.Andrews in Scotland for example is renowned for the flexibility of its degree system, but then the Scottish universities all have 4 year undergrad courses similiar to the American system

"One caveat. You cannot apply to Oxford and Cambridge in the same academic year unless you intend to major in music...I think."

You can only apply to one of the two period.

"Only INSEAD has a relatively comparable name to the top US business schools"

What about the London Business School?

By Rtkysg (Rtkysg) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 06:19 pm: Edit

You are right Alexandre, Europe allocates most of its exlusive engineering research in its engineering industry. It's also true that Europe's technology is not behind US for many cases. Ecole Poly perhaps the most famous European technical university nowadays, but still, they don't have such rigorous researches you'll find in US universities. But again, the case may not true for industry.

As for medical front, I notice that Europe has outstanding performance. However if you take medical research products per top universities (excluding research company), I think it still lose to its US counterparts. I don't know why but it seems to me that Europe universities are less practical than those in US.

"
What about the London Business School? "

Nope. LBS is not good enough . However, its sister London School of Economics is comparable to UChicago for economics study.

By Celebrian23 (Celebrian23) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 06:23 pm: Edit

It would be interesting to see if someone from europe, particularly britain, who is still living there would comment, so we could see if its just typical american bias or actually true

By Ansiarach (Ansiarach) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 06:25 pm: Edit

"It would be interesting to see if someone from europe, particularly britain, who is still living there would comment, so we could see if its just typical american bias or actually true "

*Waves

By Ansiarach (Ansiarach) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 06:29 pm: Edit

"Nope. LBS is not good enough . However, its sister London School of Economics is comparable to UChicago for economics study. "

So despite being ranked as the best Business School in Europe(Financial Times), and as 2nd in the World (Wall Street Journal) its "not good enough" ?

By Rtkysg (Rtkysg) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 08:38 pm: Edit

I think it is an irony to have WSJ (companies that give their votes) rank LBS 2nd in the world and at the same time hire MBA grads from Stanford with higher salary and advancement

By Ziyanlan (Ziyanlan) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 09:05 pm: Edit

I hope what you said is true. Then, each top-200 university in Europe can get an annual fund about $2 billion from its goverment, in about the same level as (maybe even more than) the University of Tokyo, whose annual fund from the government is the largest among all universities in the world currently.

"Ziyalan, the $300 Billion is in addition to what they already spend. Schools like Cambridge, Sorbonne etc... already have an annual budget in the $1 Billion+ range. "

By Piman3141 (Piman3141) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 09:31 pm: Edit

um, where's the university of tokyo?

By Ziyanlan (Ziyanlan) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 09:53 pm: Edit

A state university of Japan, in Tokyo, capital of Japan, with an annual income of more than 200 billion yen, maybe the best university in Japan.

"um, where's the university of tokyo? "

By Ansiarach (Ansiarach) on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 03:22 am: Edit

"um, where's the university of tokyo? "
Tokyo is one of the best universities in the world in the same league as Harvard-Cambridge-Yale-Oxford-Princeton-London etc from what ive read.

By Alexandre (Alexandre) on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 04:07 am: Edit

Ansiarach and Rtkysg, the concept of the MBA has been perfected by Americans over decades. Europe just got on board recently (in the late 80s). INSEAD is arguably the best business school in Europe, but LBS and IMD are up there too. They are maybe not quite as good as Wharton and Harvard, but they are certainly comparable to Columbia and Duke. But if you look at the top 20 MBA programs in the World, I would say at least 15 are in the US, so it is an academic field that is still very much dominated by the Americans.

Rtkysg, my uncle (the one that is currently a professor at Michigan) got his undergraduate degree at France's Ecole Poly before going to MIT for his PhD. France's strength (and weakness) lies in its rigorous requirements. In order to even apply to Poly, French students must do very well in their Bac only to enroll in a Mathematique Supplementaire program for two years. If they survive those two years of intense Math and Physics, only then can they apply to Poly to study Engineering at the undergraduate level. So the students who get into Poly are usually extremely strong in Math and Physics...probably comparable to the students entering MIT and Caltech. Unfortunately, as you point out, I do not think European universities are as practical and cutting edge as their American counterparts. A friend of mine studied at Imperial and when he went to Stanford, he confessed that much of what the students were studying was not even touched upon at Imperial. That is what I mean by revamping their curricula. Europe has the brains and the resources...there is no excuse. I think it is time for companies and governments in Europe to start diverting their money from those think tanks to their universities. The governments are already starting through several initiatives, but companies have to join in. It is their future afterall.

But if we look at the big picture, I would say Asia is making the biggest strides in education today, not because they are separating from the rest, but because they did not have the resources until recently. China is going to be HUGE in the coming years and Japan is obviously there already. Europe needs to do some catching up. The institutions, researchers, students and funding are all there, they simply need to put it all together and revamp their curricula. The US is proceeding in the right direction and probably needs the least improvement.

By Rtkysg (Rtkysg) on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 06:46 am: Edit

Alexandre, I completely agree with you

By Cupcake (Cupcake) on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 07:22 am: Edit

First of all, when I click on that link Harvard is at the top of the table, not Cambridge.

Reading this as a foreigner this thread highlights a particular American attribute - you're all so VERY competitive! You feel the need to beat everyone else down and 'win' (whatever that may mean) all the time. The chancellors of European universities don't wake up every morning and worry how they can 'beat' US universities today! I'm from the UK and when people on this board mention applying to UK universities they only ever mention Oxbridge and maybe St Andrews (which I don't think is a particularly good uni! Just famous because Prince William studies there. He didn't get very good A-level grades). There are many other UK unis which are highly regarded here such as Bath, Warwick and York. Employers and students in the UK don't care that they are unheard of outside this country, because they aren't outside this country. I am sure there are many outstanding centres for education across the world which are not recognised outside their own countries. (though I do see, as an overseas applicant it's much better to go to a university that has a 'name' in your own country. I came to this board because I was thinking of applying to a US grad school. I would only apply to Ivy league/top tier because other universities, however good, would not be recognised in the UK. )

University education in the US was built on the premise that everyone can go if they want. Am I right? In Europe it is traditionally for the elite academics only so universities tend to be small and highly specialised. All the eggs are in one basket so-to-speak. Also universities were not hierarchical. In the UK they were ranked as Oxbridge at the top then everywhere else for example. In the UK I think the government is trying to move towards the US model(coplete with league table obsession) as they have a target of getting 50% of people under 30 into university. However, they expect to achieve this without spending any more money. This is where the idea breaks down.

I'm not against league tables per se, they give some useful information but not the whole picture. I think they are good at forcing universities to maintain their standards so they are not seen to fall in the league tables. I haven't looked into exactly how this table has been compiled, but the number of nobel prize winners will be greater for older institutions just due to age, so they will be favoured.