Group of 8 Unis..what happens if one ranks below 8? (1 Viewer)

[dolbinau]

Well you made two claims, one RE: the reliability and one RE: the validity. The results could be reliable (as ComingUpForAir described) without being valid. So I would respond similarly and say that you could trust the results to be reliable if you look at them for many years and they all stay around the same (e.g. as given the example top 10).

But RE: The Validity of it, obviously 50% of it is not objective ('peer review'), and it's questionable whether the other 50% 'objective' markings are really that relevant - does 50% international students make Uni a good Uni? (which in these rankings would seem like it does), but I think you can get some idea of how 'good' a Uni is..maybe not good enough to base the best 8 unis of Australia on..but 'some' idea.

Though as said in the thread now several times people aren't claiming [as I once thought, see basically the 3rd post or so] the Go8 are the best universities based off these rankings. So it is somewhat a 'moot point' I guess.

 

[Sultun]

You don't need a course in statistics to understand that THES is in no way objective. A good uni may be ranked well because it is good, but a uni is not 'good' BECAUSE it ranks well. Get the relationship right.
.

wow your thick..no one asserted that ranking was the causation of 'goodness', but simply asserted that ranking was correlated with goodness....the only ones arguing the contrary are the voices in head, now, how about you take a lie down?

 

[hotdimsim]

wow your thick..no one asserted that ranking was the causation of 'goodness', but simply asserted that ranking was correlated with goodness....the only ones arguing the contrary are the voices in head, now, how about you take a lie down?

but a good uni might not rank well at all. so the two (rank and a 'good' uni) aren't mutually exclusive, but ranking is definately not conclusive to the quality of a uni.

 

[hotdimsim]

Yes, a single persons opinion is not an objective assertion you clammy slow-ped, the whole point is that I'm pointing to various empirical measures that correlate with 'goodness', rather than mummbling something along the lines of "me goez to a shit uni but cause I like it it makez dis uni gooz n stuff".

what are 'various empirical measures'

 

[dolbinau]

50% of the THES rankings are based on things such as , ratio before staff/students, number of journal articles cited from the uni, number of international staff and students. You can read more on their website. (Again I'm not claiming this is a good measure, I'm just answering your question)

 

[runnable]

wow your thick..no one asserted that ranking was the causation of 'goodness', but simply asserted that ranking was correlated with goodness....the only ones arguing the contrary are the voices in head, now, how about you take a lie down?

Stanford 16th in the world. UC Berkeley 39th, after USyd and UMelb. Co-relate that.

 

[phrred]

Stanford 16th in the world. UC Berkeley 39th, after USyd and UMelb. Co-relate that.

its ok, sultun has a fork up his ass

everyone go look at rankings by subject areas on THES .UC Berkeley is in the top 10 for most of them. How do they suddenly fall to 39th? USYD and Melb definitely rank poorer per subject. Combined you would think Berkeley is better.