2005 World Ranking for Universities [Compiled by Shanghai Jiao Tong Uni] (1 Viewer)

[Lexicographer]

What do you think PhDs are about if not good ideas?

That's ALL they're about!

 

[santaslayer]

No ranking or 'league' table is ever going to be accurate. Such attempts at ranking institutions are excursions in futility. This broad criticism applies whether the ranking is produced by the Government or the private sector.

Let me explain my reasons:

A. Lack of General Moderator Device

Unlike schools, there is no common objective moderating device against which all graduates, across all discplines and in all degrees and at all institutions can be measured. This point is particularly underlined when international comparisons are attempted.

B. Methodology

The methodology used is always going to be biased in terms of what the particular researchers think most important: e.g. student-teacher ratio, PhD numbers among academic staff, number of journals published, student satisfaction, graduate starting salaries, government research grants etc.

As a result of this focus, the ranking is really only good (if good at all it be) for providing data on that particular aspect(s) of the institutions and that aspect(s) alone. That is, a ranking that is biased in that it allocates a greater weighting to, say, student-teacher ratio can, at most, only provide guidance on that point, not on the quality of the institution as a whole. (Such qualitative judgement is subjectively extrapolated from that data.)

Often, such 'surveys' producing these rankings are completed by a small sample of students, graduates or (as the Times one earlier this year was) academics actually in the universities. As such, the survey exposes itself to being unduly influenced by the fickleness of human subjectivity.

C. Application of 'Results' to Universities as a whole

I said above that there is no moderator to assess the outcomes of students. The same can be said even of students within the same university. There is no possible analytical comparison that can be drawn, objectively, between students studying in completley different degree programmes. For example, no person can say that the outcomes of a particular university for a vet science student, med student, arts student, commerce student will be the same, or even similiar.

Each of those students will have differing workloads, experience different staff ratios, different levels of industry exposure, quantitatively and qualitatively different resources and engage in campus life to differeing extents. To try to apply a general label is self-evidently ridiculous. Yet this is precisely what general league tables attempt to do.


The league table mentality is absurd. No definitive ranking of universities generally can ever be produced because, quite simply, the methodological barriers are too high. Ranking A might place Uni X at the top based on student satisfaction. Ranking B might place Uni Y at the top based on international recognition. Ranking C might place Uni Z at the top based on staff-student ratios. Who says any of those things constitute the right criterion by which universities should be ranked? No one can say with any generally applicable certainty.

Furthermore, who can say that the fact that Ranking A places Uni X at the top for criterion F generally, is any indication of the experience of criterion F in degree Q specifically? Again, no one can. The methodological and interpretive hurdles are too numerous and too high for effective league tables to ever be devised.

Let's all try to think a bit more rationally and dispose of this ranking nonsense once and for all.

That is very correct. It's always easy to criticise. Anyone can do that to anything.

I think the more important thing is to give the research some context. The government's goal was to hand out a shitload of money to a few universities that fulfilled it's criteria, and that's what it'll do. It isn't faulty because it satisfied whatever the government wanted it to satisy.

The funny thing is that the research just accidently found out how sometimes, perception is very different from reality.

 

[braindrainedAsh]

These lists are shit. How is La Trobe University, Murdoch University and University of Tasmania better than UTS or UOW...

Also in the UK rankings, St Andrews was really low, but in a survey or two I read recently it was up there with Oxbridge.

 

[ManlyChief]

It isn't faulty because it satisfied whatever the government wanted it to satisy.

True, but it is inherently faulty because the 'results' naturally and forseeably lend themselves to misunderstanding/misuse by the media, the general public, HSC students, international students etc for other purposes. Few, if any people, actually read the detailed statistical analysis involved in producing the Government's report, most people's understanding of the data is gleaned from the few column inches on the inside pages of The Australian, SMH etc.

It is the nature of any form of analysis which seeks to rank A, B and C that the public, unconcerned with (or ignorant of) the original purpose of the analysis will adopt the analysis as a tool to qualitative judge A, B and C across many characteristics (whether such pan-characteristic approach is supported by the terms of the analysis).

 

[santaslayer]

True, but it is inherently faulty because the 'results' naturally and forseeably lend themselves to misunderstanding/misuse by the media, the general public, HSC students, international students etc for other purposes. Few, if any people, actually read the detailed statistical analysis involved in producing the Government's report, most people's understanding of the data is gleaned from the few column inches on the inside pages of The Australian, SMH etc.

It is the nature of any form of analysis which seeks to rank A, B and C that the public, unconcerned with (or ignorant of) the original purpose of the analysis will adopt the analysis as a tool to qualitative judge A, B and C across many characteristics (whether such pan-characteristic approach is supported by the terms of the analysis).

Yes, but considering the government is handing out such a substantial amount of money, don't you think that the tertiary institutions that will get this handout actually deserve some credit? Interpreting this further, don't you feel that it was quite a shock for the fact that a few well known, and highly reputable universities did not even get considered? Does it not say something about the ones that were successful? (I was going to say, "Does it not say something about the few "highly reputable" unis?" But that would be interpreted as shit stirring and attempting to start a flame war...)

Anyway, there is a considerable element of truth in the media in relation to this topic.

 

[AsyLum]

Maqu needs some image. Sorry to say but the campus is um...not pretty. It resembles a High School built in the 50s.

As much as it really isn't important to academics nice presentation can help prestige and enrollments.

Think of all the enrollments usyd get each year because people are wowed by the sandstone. OR unsw with its manicured everything. etc etc

You sir, are an idiot.

http://community.boredofstudies.org/showpost.php?p=1831872&postcount=25

 

[santaslayer]

Ahhh fuck i have dialup

OMG the first pic looks like the path at UNSW at night....
OMG the 7th pic looks like the many random creeks/ponds/rivers we have at UoW
OMG the 9th pic looks like my high school gym

 

[erawamai]

yep looks like a High School! (apart from a lake and many trees). All I see is alot of trees, lots of open space, lots of concrete, wheely bins and grafitti.

IMO whoever is in charge has let maqu go...and its pretty obvious when I've had to go to maqu. It doesn't feel like a university. I just feels like a big high school. This is a subjective opinion of course. I can't comment on how good the courses are other than based on what I've heard.

My original point was that maqu could use some landscaping or something. It would improve its image. Presentation is important in many ways.

I sure you would not deny that usyd often wins people over simply on the basis that it has nice grounds.

 

[AsyLum]

Oh no, we love it that dickheads like you dont go there

Keeps it nice and friendly.

 

[Meldrum]

Whilst the campus isn't really that nice, I'm sure students don't judge a book by its cover. If they did, I'm quite sure Southern Cross University would pwwwwwwn.

 

[Tabris]

Yes lot of trees and bushes, nature, green, we have everything....above all its great for "snap snap" (by u know who) camouflage and for quack quack (by u know what

Concrete is stronger than sandstone, besdies even though the old Blocks around W5C, the aboriginal and torres straight islander and law dvisions look crap,the new buildings around SIBT and the new commerc block looks good, not to mention the department of science, physics and info tech/comp......

Hey Aslum can u post a few of those?

ANyway dont know whwat type of school u goto but ur average school isnt that green, and designed or that large, are u one of those snobby eltitest school kids who believe in sandstone and aesthetics???

In terms of our departments, we are the best in NSW for actuary(we have a 30+ year advantage over UNSW i think) and psychology, and ancient history

and our ECFS stuff is very well recognised in asia and our MGSM is number 1 in asia. U ever been there??

 

[my sharona]

http://community.boredofstudies.org/showpost.php?p=1831872&postcount=25

There are ghosts in that picture.

So long as employers prefer UTS communications graduates over communications graduates from another universities, i don't flippin' care.

 

[santaslayer]

OMG...whiterabbits right!

 

[011]

hahahaha funny and true

 

[AsyLum]

There are ghosts in that picture.

So long as employers prefer UTS communications graduates over communications graduates from another universities, i don't flippin' care.

Haha its a slow shutter speed, the dudes were walking pretty slowly.

And communication/media isnt really dependent on the uni from what i hear, moreso to do with your ability to produce the goods and your individual portfolios.