Times Higher Education 2005 World Rankings: USyd ranked higher than UNSW (2 Viewers)

santaslayer

Active Member
Joined
May 29, 2003
Messages
7,816
Location
La La Land
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
ManlyChief said:
Why does there need to be an alternative? What purpose do the 'rankings' serve other than to spread misinformation based on the subjective opinion of a group of academics?
The HSC and subsequent UAI is an educational ranking system which ranks individual students against all other candiditure within the state of NSW. If you can't accept ranking systems then I question as to why you didn't just forfiet the UAI. Why did you get such a high rank which allowed you to study law? Why didn't you just do it via the Legal Practicioner's Admission Board? Why did you use the rank as a means of entering a course?


Just because these findings are of no use to you doesnt mean its useles. I find it very interesting. Esp the one the fedearl goverment conducted just recently. :p

I think it's very abnormal if you think all institutions are exactly the same in quality. Just like any product, the price USUALLY dictates the quality. A survey may SUGGEST the quality of a university.


nuff said...
 

Generator

Active Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Messages
5,244
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
That wasn't a ranking scheme and it was only concerned with teaching capabilities, santa. Don't go and build a funding distribution scheme into something that it isn't.
 

ManlyChief

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
438
Location
Manly: 7 miles from Sydney, 1000 miles from care
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
santaslayer said:
The HSC and subsequent UAI is an educational ranking system which ranks individual students against all other candiditure within the state of NSW. If you can't accept ranking systems then I question as to why you didn't just forfiet the UAI. Why did you get such a high rank which allowed you to study law? Why didn't you just do it via the Legal Practicioner's Admission Board? Why did you use the rank as a means of entering a course?


Just because these findings are of no use to you doesnt mean its useles. I find it very interesting. Esp the one the fedearl goverment conducted just recently. :p

I think it's very abnormal if you think all institutions are exactly the same in quality. Just like any product, the price USUALLY dictates the quality. A survey may SUGGEST the quality of a university.


nuff said...
I wan't talking about the HSC/UAI - I was talking about the futility of ranking Universities (as opposed to people) in this way ... If you are going to quote me, at least quote me in context.

Furthermore, I really don't see the relevance of ranking students to the question of ranking universities, given:

- students who sit the HSC sit comprable if not common examinations
- study the same syllabusses
- are ranked externally according to objective means of standardising marks

none of which apply to universities or university students.
 

ManlyChief

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
438
Location
Manly: 7 miles from Sydney, 1000 miles from care
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
The Time's Methodology

For those of you who are interested in the league table, you may want to inspect also the precis of the methodology used in compiling it:

Times Higher Education Suppliement said:
We have gathered new data on employers' opinions of universities around the world. This has allowed us to widen the pool of information we present, but we have gone further and deepened the pool as well. This year's tables are virtually free of gaps in data. And because we have collected a wealth of data on institutions outside the top 200, we are confident that no institution that should be in these tables has been overlooked. These efforts have resulted in what we believe is the world's best guide to the standing of top universities.

The core of our analysis is peer review, which has long been accepted in academic life and across social research as the most reliable means of gauging institutional quality. The sample used to compile the peer-review column of this table comprises 2,375 research-active academics [i.e. generally not those involved in the teaching of undergraduates - MC]. They were chosen by QS Quacquarelli Symonds, consultants to The Times Higher and experts in international rankings of MBA courses. The selection was weighted so that just under a third of the academics came from each of the world's major economic regions - Asia, Europe and North America - with a smaller number from Africa and Latin America. It also had to yield roughly equal numbers from the main spheres of academic life: science, technology, biomedicine, social sciences and the arts. The selected academics were asked to name the top universities in the subject areas and the geographical regions in which they have expertise.

Data collected in 2005 were supplemented by opinions from our 2004 survey, where the same question was asked but no individual's opinion was counted twice. We believe that this two-year rolling average provides improved statistical reliability.

The information derived from the responses was used to generate the faculty-level data on the top institutions for specific subject areas published in The Times Higher this month and was aggregated to produce the peer-review column of the main table in this supplement. We are confident that the sample is large enough and sufficiently well chosen for its aggregate opinion to be statistically valid.

The point has been made that peer reviewers might be more likely to cite large old universities, especially those with the name of a major city in their titles, than smaller, less familiar ones. But the peers are all experts in their fields; and in their responses they rated as excellent more than 500 universities, some of which were unknown even to staff of The Times Higher. [That 2,375 people only managed to cite 'more than 500 of these lesser known institutions does not rebutt the preceeding admission of methodological weakness. The 'big city' influence could also extend to the area of University Presses - often the author of a book will be identified with the University that Published the book, which, given the Melbourne really has the only large-scal university press in the country is bound to skew results in their favour]
The peer-review data account for 40 per cent of the available score in the World University Rankings. This is 10 percentage points lower than in 2004 because of the addition of data on the opinion of major international employers of graduates. Like the other columns we show, and in an improvement on the presentation of the data in 2004, we have normalised these data to show the top institution scoring 100.

Two other columns of data in this table account for 20 per cent each of the final score for each university listed. One is the number of citations for academic papers generated by each staff member. This has been compiled from staff numbers collected by QS and citations data supplied by Evidence Ltd on the basis of data from Thomson Scientific. The citations data, which come from Thomson's Essential Science Indicators, cover the period between 1995 and 2005. A lower cut-off of 5,000 papers has been applied to eliminate small specialist institutions. This criterion provides a clear measure of universities' research prowess, but it has some systematic biases. It disadvantages some institutions, especially those in Asia, that publish few papers in the high-impact journals surveyed.

Teaching is, of course, central to the university mission. To gauge it, we consider a classic measure of commitment to teaching, the staff-to-student ratio, which is worth up to 20 percentage points. Like citations per staff member, this measure depends on accurate staff numbers. We believe we have improved the accuracy of the figures we collect. Nevertheless, any inconsistency is to some extent self-correcting because exaggerating staff numbers would increase a university's staff-to-student ratio but reduce its citations per staff member.

The principal motivation for the World University Rankings is our realisation that although scholarship has always been international, the world of higher education is becoming one of the most global sectors of the world economy. The final two columns of data we show, each accounting for 5 per cent of the total, attempt to quantify universities' international orientation. The first reflects their percentage of international staff and the second their percentage of international students.

Our aim in these tables is to rank large general universities. We have not counted institutions that do not teach undergraduates. This removes from the listing a number of high-prestige institutions, especially in medicine and business. We have, however, included universities that teach a broad but not a full complement of subjects. These range from the London School of Economics to a large number of technology universities.

A frequent query about the 2004 rankings concerned the level of detail they provided. In general, we have tried to tease apart large federal universities such as California or London that consist of many in essence free-standing colleges. But we have not been able to disaggregate the many US state universities that boast more than one campus. Doing so would have complicated the task too much.

We have managed to remove some ambiguities that were present last year by distinguishing between the Flemish-speaking and Francophone institutions of Belgium and by providing clearer labelling of the many universities of Paris and other French cities.

As research on composite tables such as these has shown, it is important to read them with care. It would be wrong to attribute too much weight to the small differences in overall scores between universities lower down the rankings.
 

Omnidragon

Devil
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
935
Location
Melbourne
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Uni Grad
2007
ManlyChief said:
whoa - them's fightin' words.

but don't implicate me in the 'we give the rankings power by talking about them' thingo - remember my first post in this thread:
There's no need to use sarcasm to discredit my post.

I am trying to have a constructive and non-hostile conversation with you.

I cannot help but to implicate you in the 'we give the rankings power by talking about them'. You posted a criticism on the methods the rankings used. By doing that, I feel that you have again shed more attention onto the rankings.

And while you might persuade some people to criticise the ranking's methods, there are going to be those who aren't even going to bother to look at the methodologies. All they'll get from this is that there are people talking about the rankings, and in doing so bringing it to their awareness.
 

ManlyChief

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
438
Location
Manly: 7 miles from Sydney, 1000 miles from care
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
Omnidragon said:
There's no need to use sarcasm to discredit my post.

I am trying to have a constructive and non-hostile conversation with you.

I cannot help but to implicate you in the 'we give the rankings power by talking about them'. You posted a criticism on the methods the rankings used. By doing that, I feel that you have again shed more attention onto the rankings.

And while you might persuade some people to criticise the ranking's methods, there are going to be those who aren't even going to bother to look at the methodologies. All they'll get from this is that there are people talking about the rankings, and in doing so bringing it to their awareness.
I wans't being sarcastic. If anything, I was being facetious.

As for whether I too am guilty of publicising the rankings - you are entitled to your opinion.

And if potential students are going to accept the results of such rankings without critically evaluating the methodology use to compile the ranking then I question whether they are ready for university at all ...
 

gordo

Resident Jew
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Messages
2,352
Location
bondi, sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
lol its amusing to see the extent to which people can argue about inane subject matter in order to protect stabs at their factitious reputation on an internet forum.

Manly, surely your superior dialectic could be used more productively elsewhere.
 

Omnidragon

Devil
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
935
Location
Melbourne
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Uni Grad
2007
Well... I've always had doubts over the intellectual capacity some people think university requires.
 

ManlyChief

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
438
Location
Manly: 7 miles from Sydney, 1000 miles from care
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
gordo said:
lol its amusing to see the extent to which people can argue about inane subject matter in order to protect stabs at their factitious reputation on an internet forum.

Manly, surely your superior dialectic could be used more productively elsewhere.
The funny thing is that I have had two windows open all day - this one and my history essay on walt whitman and the democratic mission. Today's work on one: 2,500 words, on the other: 2,700 words. I'm not telling which is which. :)

Needless to say, I would have got MUCH more of my essay done without this procrastination opportunity ... :)

Why am I so ill-discplined?
 

santaslayer

Active Member
Joined
May 29, 2003
Messages
7,816
Location
La La Land
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
ManlyChief said:
I wan't talking about the HSC/UAI - I was talking about the futility of ranking Universities (as opposed to people) in this way ... If you are going to quote me, at least quote me in context.

Furthermore, I really don't see the relevance of ranking students to the question of ranking universities, given:

- students who sit the HSC sit comprable if not common examinations
- study the same syllabusses
- are ranked externally according to objective means of standardising marks

none of which apply to universities or university students.
1) So the the assessment tasks are not comparable between universities. I thought you once said that universities, (more specifically, the law degree) are similar more than they are different. No?

2) We do the 'priestly eleven' don't we? OK, it may focus on different aspects of the topic but we do essentially the same things right?

3) Universities are ranked externally as well as internally. Objectivity is bullshit to say the least. Even given a set criteria, different people will judge/interpret/ apply the given situation differently. No such thing as pure objectivity.

So why did you dismiss the UAI is an example?

Even then, I can use the high school ranking system. Are you going to dismiss the claim that James Ruse is the best High School in the whole-wide-australian-universe?
 

ManlyChief

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
438
Location
Manly: 7 miles from Sydney, 1000 miles from care
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
To address each of your points in turn:

santaslayer said:
1) So the the assessment tasks are not comparable between universities. I thought you once said that universities, (more specifically, the law degree) are similar more than they are different. No?
Yes I said that the law degrees as they were taught in the various universities were more similar than they were different. I don't see how this supports your claim about the validity and utility of the rankings. If anything, it would surely tend to underscore the uselessness of such rankings.

santaslayer said:
2) We do the 'priestly eleven' don't we? OK, it may focus on different aspects of the topic but we do essentially the same things right?
Yes - again, how precisely does this support your claim? If anything it underlines my point that the exercise in differentiating unis in order to rank them is an inherently futile one.

santaslayer said:
3) Universities are ranked externally as well as internally. Objectivity is bullshit to say the least. Even given a set criteria, different people will judge/interpret/ apply the given situation differently. No such thing as pure objectivity.

So why did you dismiss the UAI is an example?

Even then, I can use the high school ranking system. Are you going to dismiss the claim that James Ruse is the best High School in the whole-wide-australian-universe?[/
Universities are 'ranked' externally, but the very point of the discussion I thought was the challenge that such rankings are valid and/or useful. As for ranking 'internally', I don't understand what you mean by this - do you mean that the internal members of a university rank each university of which they are a member? The statement is a little confusing ...

As for your rejection of 'pure objectivity', I never claimed such a thing existed, rather I said that the methodologies of ranking systems were far, far less objective because they had no externally set standard common to all assessors and no external moderating device. This is in contrast to the ranking system used to rank HSC students.

That system is as close to a pure objectivity as one can get since the ranking is determined by an non-arbitrary aggregated mark, in which the value of each mark score from each subject has been scaled in order to achieve, as closely as possible, a uniform standard deviation across all subjects. This system of ranking HSC students by UAI is therefore far more objective and reliable than a system of ranking universities that lacks even the raw marks yeilded from common examinations that the HSC has.

That no system is 'purely objective' does not per se invalidate either system. Rather it requires that we assess the validity of each ranking system based the level of objectivity each achieves. Bearing that in mind, the HSC/UAI system achieves a very high degree of objectivity and is therefore reasonably reliable, in contrast, the systems used to rank universities has a very, very low degree of objectivity (based as it is almost purely on subjective opinions of 2,000-odd academics) and therefore these systems are highly unreliable. This does not assume the existence of 'pure objectivity' but rather recognises that some systems can be more objective and more reliable than others.

As you can see from the foregoing, I do not 'dismiss' the UAI as an example of an objective ranking system, rather I dismiss the UAI as a ranking system comprable to the ranking systems for univerities. There is a significant difference between these two positions. I applaud the UAI/HSC system as a system that has attained a reasonably high degree of objectivity and validity. The simple fact is that a valid comparison between the validity of the UAI ranking and the ranking of universities cannot be made.
 

Omnidragon

Devil
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
935
Location
Melbourne
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Uni Grad
2007
ManlyChief said:
Yes I said that the law degrees as they were taught in the various universities were more similar than they were different. I don't see how this supports your claim about the validity and utility of the rankings. If anything, it would surely tend to underscore the uselessness of such rankings.
Doesn't the fact that courses are similar mean there are common grounds on which to rank them? As such, wouldn't the rankings be 'more' objective (not saying that it is objective)?

I don't see how Santa's point isn't relevant to what he said..

In contrast, can you explain how his point is relevant to underscoring the uselessness of such a ranking?
 

santaslayer

Active Member
Joined
May 29, 2003
Messages
7,816
Location
La La Land
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
ManlyChief said:
To address each of your points in turn:



Yes I said that the law degrees as they were taught in the various universities were more similar than they were different. I don't see how this supports your claim about the validity and utility of the rankings. If anything, it would surely tend to underscore the uselessness of such rankings.
I simply addressed the key points you raised in your previous post:

"students who sit the HSC sit comprable if not common examinations"

If they are similar, then they should be more comparable, no?

EDIT: I see omnidragon has raised a similar point....



ManlyChief said:
Yes - again, how precisely does this support your claim? If anything it underlines my point that the exercise in differentiating unis in order to rank them is an inherently futile one.
As Above. :)

In reference to this:

"study the same syllabusses"


Must stress that I am addressing your own points and not raising anything new. (yet)



ManlyChief said:
As for your rejection of 'pure objectivity', I never claimed such a thing existed, rather I said that the methodologies of ranking systems were far, far less objective because they had no externally set standard common to all assessors and no external moderating device. This is in contrast to the ranking system used to rank HSC students.

That system is as close to a pure objectivity as one can get since the ranking is determined by an non-arbitrary aggregated mark, in which the value of each mark score from each subject has been scaled in order to achieve, as closely as possible, a uniform standard deviation across all subjects. This system of ranking HSC students by UAI is therefore far more objective and reliable than a system of ranking universities that lacks even the raw marks yeilded from common examinations that the HSC has.

That no system is 'purely objective' does not per se invalidate either system. Rather it requires that we assess the validity of each ranking system based the level of objectivity each achieves. Bearing that in mind, the HSC/UAI system achieves a very high degree of objectivity and is therefore reasonably reliable, in contrast, the systems used to rank universities has a very, very low degree of objectivity (based as it is almost purely on subjective opinions of 2,000-odd academics) and therefore these systems are highly unreliable. This does not assume the existence of 'pure objectivity' but rather recognises that some systems can be more objective and more reliable than others.

As you can see from the foregoing, I do not 'dismiss' the UAI as an example of an objective ranking system, rather I dismiss the UAI as a ranking system comprable to the ranking systems for univerities. There is a significant difference between these two positions. I applaud the UAI/HSC system as a system that has attained a reasonably high degree of objectivity and validity. The simple fact is that a valid comparison between the validity of the UAI ranking and the ranking of universities cannot be made.
The academics must have some set criteria in which they can work within. The important thing I tried to stress though, was that even given a set criteria, different markers (for the HSC) will give varying marks because of their own subjectivity. One may have higher marking standards than the other.

I'd like to go back to my initial post about it being extremely easy to criticise a certain ranking system but we don't have a perfect system yet right? You then followed through by saying that we didn't really need one. I responded by stating that even though you don't like the ranking system, a lot of others might find it useful. Anyway, this is like the dog/cat/whateva chasing its tail...
 

ManlyChief

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
438
Location
Manly: 7 miles from Sydney, 1000 miles from care
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
Omnidragon said:
Doesn't the fact that courses are similar mean there are common grounds on which to rank them? As such, wouldn't the rankings be 'more' objective (not saying that it is objective)?
No it dosen't. The fact that the courses are similar provides no basis for ranking the universities, because, while the content is the same, there is no external examination upon which a ranking could be objectively based.

Your claim appears to be:
* Student A does course X and Uni P
* Student B does course X(1) (which is almost identical to course X) at Uni Q
.'. it is possible to rank A and B or P and Q based on the marks in those courses.

This is counterintuitive and illogical, as a comparison with the HSC should demonstrate:

* Student E does HSC physics at school L and scores 89% in the school assessment
* Student F does HSC physics at school M and scores 84% in the school assessment

Does this mean that one can draw either of the following conclusions:

(i) student E is better at physics than student F; or
(ii) school L is a better (physics) school than school M?

No. Neither is really tennable without having it validated by an external and common examination scheme. This is what the HSC provides and it is what is lacking in the comparisons between the universities.

The argument appears to be something of a fallacious syllogism:
* The HSC/UAI ranks people from different institutions and is valid.
* The THES ranking is ranks different institutions
.'. the THES ranking [or any other for that matter] is valid.
Quite clearly, this fails because the key charcteristic of the HSC/UAI rankings that gives rise to their validity is that the have a common, external system of objective and non-arbitrary examinations, which the THES system clearly does not.


Omnidragon said:
In contrast, can you explain how his point is relevant to underscoring the uselessness of such a ranking?
The point in question was that the courses are more similar than different, yes? This undermines the ranking because the rankings assume a fundamental difference which doesn't in fact exist.
 
Last edited:
S

Shuter

Guest
2005
rank 2004
rank Name Country Peer review
score (40%) Recruiter
review (10%) Int'l faculty
score (5%) Int'l students
score (5%) Faculty/
student score
(20%) Citations/
faculty score
(20%) Overall
score
1 1 Harvard University US 100 100 17 23 21 57 100
2 3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology US 84 87 12 41 16 53 86.9
3 6 Cambridge University UK 96 73 65 34 20 16 85.8
4 5 Oxford University UK 93 70 58 37 23 15 83.9
5 7 Stanford University US 78 95 10 30 12 56 83.4
6 2 University of California, Berkeley US 95 62 7 13 7 39 80.6
7 8 Yale University US 71 43 52 27 42 19 72.7
8 4 California Institute of Technology US 48 2 27 41 26 100 71.5
9 9 Princeton University US 69 32 22 30 20 31 64.8
10 27 Ecole Polytechnique France 37 17 47 36 100 4 61.5
11= 52 Duke University US 36 79 24 20 66 10 59.1
11= 11 London School of Economics UK 43 86 99 100 20 1 59.1
13 14 Imperial College London UK 59 15 63 51 34 10 59
14 23 Cornell University US 56 71 11 19 17 23 58.1
15 17 Beijing University China 71 37 7 4 26 0 56.3
16 12 Tokyo University Japan 73 2 2 12 19 17 55.1
17= 20 University of California, San Francisco US 24 0 4 6 91 44 54.9
17= 13 University of Chicago US 52 47 29 29 27 16 54.9
19 22 Melbourne University Australia 66 27 53 36 9 7 54.5
20 19 Columbia University US 56 36 11 32 25 17 53.9
21 10 ETH Zurich Switzerland 49 7 98 35 37 8 53.5
22 18 National University of Singapore Singapore 62 12 94 45 8 7 53
23 16 Australian National University Australia 64 8 52 33 13 13 52.9
24= 30 Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris France 38 23 26 23 65 9 51.6
24= 21 McGill University Canada 52 48 33 31 23 8 51.6
26 15 University of Texas at Austin US 47 29 9 15 7 54 51.5
27 25 Johns Hopkins University US 50 14 17 20 21 32 50.2
28 34 University College London UK 46 19 45 46 30 10 48.4
29 37 University of Toronto Canada 51 34 40 14 6 22 47.8
30 48 Edinburgh University UK 48 47 33 28 15 10 47.7
31 29 Kyoto University Japan 57 2 20 9 28 10 47.5
32 28 Pennsylvania University US 42 41 20 25 28 15 47.3
33 33 Monash University Australia 55 19 54 49 7 5 46.5
34 32 Ecole Polytech Fédérale de Lausanne Switzerland 22 3 95 65 64 3 45
35 43 Manchester University & Umist UK 43 50 47 23 18 6 44.8
36 31 University of Michigan US 46 32 17 19 17 15 43.9
37 26 University of California, Los Angeles US 52 6 2 11 12 24 43.3
38= 46 University of British Columbia Canada 47 12 63 18 6 17 42.6
38= 40 Sydney University Australia 53 4 53 31 7 8 42.6
40 36 University of New South Wales Australia 50 12 53 34 11 4 42.5
41 39 Hong Kong University Hong Kong 43 19 82 21 17 4 42
42 24 University of California, San Diego US 43 0 3 9 10 43 41.9
43 42 Hong Kong University Sci & Technol Hong Kong 43 12 93 28 7 11 41.8
44 38 Carnegie Mellon University US 37 33 34 40 18 10 40.5
45 47 Heidelberg University Germany 47 12 11 28 14 11 39.6
46 73 Northwestern University US 28 66 4 20 20 16 39.1
47 49 Queensland University Australia 46 8 53 24 8 7 38.5
48 50 Nanyang Technological University Singapore 38 12 95 53 7 2 38.2
49 91 Bristol University UK 28 63 40 25 13 10 37.2
50 41 Indian Institutes of Technology India 44 11 1 1 10 20 37
51 84 Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong 37 12 73 17 14 6 36.4
52 67 Auckland University New Zealand 45 0 20 25 18 2 35.8
53 78 Delft University of Technology Netherlands 35 3 55 17 25 3 35
54 75 Boston University US 41 3 10 22 16 10 34.9
55 99 Munich University Germany 39 24 11 21 11 8 34.8
56 79 New York University US 36 15 5 18 24 6 34.4
57 64 Erasmus University Rotterdam Netherlands 27 32 19 13 5 31 34
58= 109 Washington University, St Louis US 25 14 6 17 28 22 33.7
58= 98 Amsterdam University Netherlands 36 14 18 18 12 14 33.7
58= 35 University of Illinois US 39 16 12 16 11 9 33.7
61 59 Purdue University US 36 28 25 20 8 8 33.6
62= 129 Helsinki University Finland 39 15 12 5 16 7 33.4
62= 61 Tsing Hua University China 42 4 25 10 18 1 33.4
64 130 Pennsylvania State University US 34 21 2 1 11 21 33.3
65 94 Vienna University Austria 40 3 26 26 4 14 33.1
66 63 Copenhagen University Denmark 39 13 20 4 15 5 32.8
67 68 Macquarie University Australia 34 22 53 42 4 5 32.7
68 45 Massachusetts University US 38 0 1 12 7 23 32.5
69 - IEP Sciences Po, Paris France 19 16 25 50 43 - 32.2
70 83 Eindhoven University of Technology Netherlands 20 3 33 7 54 2 32
71 61 Brown University US 27 6 39 19 19 16 31.9
72 195 Fudan University China 35 26 13 6 17 1 31.3
73= 96 King's College London UK 27 17 45 28 17 6 31.1
73= 86 Rochester University US 24 9 10 24 32 13 31.1
73= 66 University Wisconsin-Madison US 36 0 0 14 17 11 31.1
76 - Brussels Free University (French) Belgium 29 3 31 41 20 6 30.9
77= 93 Hebrew University of Jerusalem Israel 36 0 5 13 5 22 30.8
77= 80 Warwick University UK 30 21 50 37 7 4 30.8
79 92 Lomonosov Moscow State University Russia 42 3 10 7 11 3 30.7
80= 96 University of Western Australia Australia 29 12 53 29 10 8 30.4
80= 56 Adelaide University Australia 33 0 53 30 8 8 30.4
82 55 RMIT University Australia 35 0 53 62 4 1 30.3
83 128 Durham University UK 24 38 46 22 9 9 30
84 - Indian Institutes of Management India 33 24 2 7 21 - 29.9
85 - Zurich University Switzerland 22 0 65 22 29 5 29.6
86 77 Vienna Technical University Austria 33 7 31 32 11 3 29.5
87 113 University of Technology, Sydney Australia 35 4 53 37 4 1 29.4
88= - Geneva University Switzerland 12 3 93 57 29 7 29.2
88= 74 Washington University US 28 0 16 10 14 22 29.2
88= 57 Pierre and Marie Curie University France 31 0 25 36 15 6 29.2
88= - Catholic University of Leuven (French) Belgium 32 5 17 26 9 12 29.2
92 - Ecole Normale Supérieure, Lyon France 16 0 30 18 39 16 29.1
93= 154 China University of Sci & Technology China 33 4 6 0 27 1 28.9
93= 118 Seoul National University South Korea 39 0 3 5 14 4 28.9
95= - Catholic University of Leuven (Flemish) Belgium 24 10 48 20 23 4 28.8
95= 195 National Autonomous Univ of Mexico Mexico 33 9 3 1 25 0 28.8
97 170 Nottingham University UK 22 38 39 30 10 6 28.7
98 142 La Trobe University Australia 34 0 53 26 6 3 28.6
99 51 Tokyo Institute of Technology Japan 30 0 6 16 22 10 28.5
100 58 Sussex University UK 28 0 44 28 15 7 28.4
101= 112 Glasgow University UK 26 27 18 15 13 8 28.3
101= 76 Curtin University of Technology Australia 30 0 54 63 4 1 28.3
103= 133 Leeds University UK 27 22 30 26 10 6 28.2
103= 44 School of Oriental and African Studies UK 20 2 51 74 23 - 28.2
105= 118 Virginia University US 24 29 7 11 13 14 28
105= 95 Technical University Munich Germany 27 12 11 30 16 9 28
105= 69 Osaka University Japan 28 0 7 8 23 12 28
108 - Wageningen University Netherlands 16 3 28 47 29 12 27.9
109= 137 York University UK 28 5 37 28 12 7 27.8
109= 88 Case Western Reserve University US 20 11 4 22 23 19 27.8
111 87 Trinity College, Dublin Ireland 31 14 17 21 5 8 27.6
112= 125 Humboldt University Berlin Germany 32 0 11 18 16 4 27.4
112= 100 Queen Mary, University of London UK 24 3 44 35 18 4 27.4
114= 156 Vanderbilt University US 18 12 2 14 32 14 27.2
114= 102 National Taiwan University Taiwan 36 0 4 1 15 3 27.2
114= 85 Gttingen University Germany 33 0 11 17 12 7 27.2
117 138 Dartmouth College US 19 19 15 16 21 15 27.1
118 - Queensland University of Technology Australia 34 0 53 21 3 2 27
119 151 Liverpool University UK 25 14 35 21 11 8 26.9
120 120 Utrecht University Netherlands 27 3 33 5 12 13 26.8
121= - Chulalongkorn University Thailand 33 16 11 1 12 0 26.7
121= 116 Michigan State University US 31 11 11 12 8 9 26.7
121= 71 Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne France 38 0 13 26 4 - 26.7
124 180 University of Southern California US 25 12 7 28 17 9 26.6
125= 162 La Sapienza University, Rome Italy 39 0 5 5 4 5 26.5
125= 105 Texas A&M University US 30 9 14 13 6 13 26.5
127= - Basel University Switzerland 12 0 88 28 26 10 26.4
127= - University of Newcastle Australia 30 0 53 25 5 5 26.4
129 167 Nagoya University Japan 21 0 9 13 35 6 26.3
130 103 Bath University UK 18 35 47 34 7 7 26.2
131 132 University Louis Pasteur Strasbourg France 24 3 25 35 11 12 26.1
132 177 Université de Montréal Canada 25 6 55 11 5 13 26
133= - Lausanne University Switzerland 17 2 53 26 27 6 25.9
133= 134 Maryland University US 22 15 18 16 13 13 25.9
133= - HEC Paris France 15 46 77 30 8 - 25.9
136= 153 Tohoku University Japan 26 0 7 11 19 11 25.7
136= 70 St Andrews University UK 19 11 39 48 13 8 25.7
138= 131 Leiden University Netherlands 22 8 25 15 14 14 25.6
138= 127 Aarhus University Denmark 27 6 28 7 12 9 25.6
138= 101 Oslo University Norway 29 0 25 16 13 5 25.6
141 173 Emory University US 16 15 1 12 30 13 25.5
142 157 Frankfurt University Germany 33 0 11 17 7 6 25.3
143= 160 Korea Advanced Inst of Sci and Tech South Korea 26 0 22 4 7 19 25.2
143= 150 Sheffield University UK 21 16 34 27 12 7 25.2
143= 126 Birmingham University UK 21 17 36 30 10 8 25.2
143= 117 North Carolina University US 21 14 9 8 13 19 25.2
147= - Hiroshima University Japan 26 0 7 8 25 4 25.1
147= 65 Georgia Institute of Technology US 27 8 5 28 8 11 25.1
149 166 University of Alberta Canada 24 2 52 11 13 7 25
150= 192 Nanjing University China 34 0 12 5 11 1 24.8
150= - St Gallen University Switzerland 2 14 85 59 37 - 24.8
150= 146 Rice University US 20 5 14 23 19 14 24.8
150= 82 University of Minnesota US 25 3 10 12 8 19 24.8
154= - University of South Australia Australia 27 0 53 49 4 1 24.7
154= 145 Technical University of Denmark Denmark 23 0 21 24 10 15 24.7
154= 60 Technical University Berlin Germany 30 7 11 25 6 5 24.7
157= - Hokkaido University Japan 28 0 3 7 16 9 24.5
157= 123 Maastricht University Netherlands 16 5 39 44 20 7 24.5
159= 186 Bologna University Italy 34 0 7 9 7 3 24.4
159= 165 Georgetown University US 19 26 9 17 15 11 24.4
159= 143 University of Waterloo Canada 21 11 75 13 9 5 24.4
159= 72 University of California, Santa Barbara US 24 0 10 6 6 23 24.4
163 107 Colorado University US 23 0 17 7 17 13 24.3
164 104 Tufts University US 15 11 13 18 16 22 24.2
165 164 Innsbruck University Austria 21 0 44 47 8 9 24
166= 161 Tasmania University Australia 24 0 53 29 6 5 23.8
166= 110 Chalmers University of Technology Sweden 24 0 18 16 20 4 23.8
168 179 Newcastle upon Tyne University UK 17 20 34 32 13 7 23.6
169= - Shanghai Jiao Tong University China 25 26 15 5 10 0 23.5
169= - Novosibirsk State University Russia 16 0 2 9 45 - 23.5
169= 89 Malaya University Malaysia 33 0 12 7 8 1 23.5
172= - Free University Berlin Germany 28 0 11 17 9 6 23.3
172= - Kobe University Japan 24 5 9 9 21 3 23.3
172= 184 Aachen RWTH Germany 25 12 11 24 11 4 23.3
175= 136 State Univ of New York, Stony Brook US 24 0 7 15 11 15 23.2
175= 90 Alabama University US 18 0 4 7 7 32 23.2
177 191 Nijmegen University Netherlands 17 3 38 11 25 5 23.1
178 198 City University of Hong Kong Hong Kong 19 0 100 9 8 4 22.7
179 - Notre Dame University US 18 24 17 14 13 8 22
180= - Toulouse 1 France 18 0 25 32 26 0 22.5
180= 171 Lund University Sweden 24 0 15 16 13 7 22.5
180= 140 Uppsala University Sweden 24 0 27 8 7 11 22.5
183 159 Madrid Autonomous University Spain 29 0 5 9 9 6 22.2
184= - Korea University South Korea 28 0 7 2 15 1 22.1
184= 147 McMaster University Canada 18 8 10 16 7 21 22.1
186= - Free University of Amsterdam Netherlands 17 3 32 14 13 13 22
186= 114 Otago University New Zealand 22 0 31 21 15 3 22
188= - Tel Aviv University Israel 25 0 1 1 5 18 21.9
188= 108 Massey University New Zealand 23 0 62 20 5 2 21.9
190 - Gothenburg University Sweden 14 0 27 2 1 37 21.8
191 - University of Western Ontario Canada 11 46 28 12 6 13 21.7
192 - Jawaharlal Nehru University India 29 0 3 6 10 3 21.5
193 - Pittsburgh University US 15 0 23 10 23 11 21.3
194= 176 Helsinki University of Technology Finland 22 0 11 11 20 2 21.1
194= 158 Technion - Israel Inst of Technology Israel 23 2 7 1 10 12 21.1
196= - São Paulo University Brazil 28 0 10 3 8 3 21
196= 122 Royal Institute of Technology Sweden 19 0 54 22 9 5 21
198 - Showa University Japan 8 0 7 19 45 3 20.9
199= - University of Florence Italy 28 0 6 5 5 6 20.8
199= - George Washington University US 22 9 5 14 13 4 20.8
199= - Wake Forest University US 12 8 3 6 28 11 20.8
 

santaslayer

Active Member
Joined
May 29, 2003
Messages
7,816
Location
La La Land
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
braindrainedAsh said:
UTS came 87th in the world in the Times rankings. Woo!
OMG!


67 68 Macquarie University Australia 34 22 53 42 4 5 32.7

82 55 RMIT University Australia 35 0 53 62 4 1 30.3
 

Minai

Alumni
Joined
Jul 7, 2002
Messages
7,458
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
Uni Grad
2006
Good to see Melbourne Uni in the Top 20
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top