Top 200 Universities 2010 - Times Higher Education Hong Kong U's in 21, 41, 111,149

[Football16]

Yah everyone has a list and criteria including McLeans Magazine in Canada where Simon Fraser University is pretty much dominating these years in their Comprehensive University category.

http://oncampus.macleans.ca/educatio...sive_chart.jpg

Our 19th Annual Rankings : Macleans OnCampus

I really think students (prospective ones) need to look first at the success of the grads in each of the programs. Where do they get jobs? Who employs them.

These rankings influence many parents for the most dubious of reasons. I see this in Vancouver.

[Freetrader]

FYI here is the ranking done by USNEWS
World's Best Universities: Top 400 - US News and World Report

In this ranking, the gap among Top Ten is very narrow.

UCB is behind UCLA and HKUST. That makes sense, not!

Each ranking reflects the biases of the compilers. The USNWR ranking for some reason puts 40% of the emphasis on having 'international' students and faculty - so that benefits the ranks of schools from the smaller countries (e.g., love the Aussies, but the University of Sydney over UCB or UCLA? Probably not). Such a quirk is probably the reason why HKUST ranks so high. Another ratio that doesn't reflect much is the faculty to student ratio - in my experience many professors don't lecture undergraduates at all, so having a lot of tenured professors really means very little.

It would be good to see someone compile a list from the student's point of view - class size, quality of teaching, the availability of fincancial aid, plus the usual indices of post-graduate earnings and job opportunities. Those issues, of course are so subjective that it is no wonder that the compiilers use easily available, but basically useless information, and compile lists that are interesting and useful really only to the faculty and administration.

[hullexile]

Each ranking reflects the biases of the compilers. The USNWR ranking for some reason puts 40% of the emphasis on having 'international' students and faculty - so that benefits the ranks of schools from the smaller countries (e.g., love the Aussies, but the University of Sydney over UCB or UCLA? Probably not). Such a quirk is probably the reason why HKUST ranks so high. Another ratio that doesn't reflect much is the faculty to student ratio - in my experience many professors don't lecture undergraduates at all, so having a lot of tenured professors really means very little.

It would be good to see someone compile a list from the student's point of view - class size, quality of teaching, the availability of fincancial aid, plus the usual indices of post-graduate earnings and job opportunities. Those issues, of course are so subjective that it is no wonder that the compiilers use easily available, but basically useless information, and compile lists that are interesting and useful really only to the faculty and administration.

Agree wholeheartedly with all the above. The problem that comes from this obsession with what are very dubious rankings is that universities then put all their efforts into the things that are measured. For example our library is open 24/7 365 days per year. Expensive but an excellent service to students. No impact on our ranking and we could spend that money to get in a few more profs. Which is better for the students?

P.S. The UK gov't has introduced the National Student Survey which is a step in the right direction. Certainly focuses the mind of the bosses on the student issues.

See: http://unistats.direct.gov.uk/