The price of being the best

[Cornfed Hick]

Germany wants its own Harvards, Yales and Oxfords.

And Stanfords!!  (C. Hick = Class of '93)  The only problem with the criteria for this list is that they result in Harvard beating us out for #1.    Also, though I haven't studied it, I'm willing to wager that Harvard students are MUCH fatter than Stanford students.  Uglier, too.  And can't drink nearly as much beer.   

On a bit more serious note, though I can't speak as to the universities in other nations, the handful of U.S. universities listed in the Top 15 of this list really are generally accepted as the top research universities in the U.S.  One can quibble with the order, but there aren't any glaringly inappropriate inclusions or omissions.  The rankings after the top 15 or 20, however, get a little goofy.  With apologies to any alums of the University of Illinois, which is indeed a fine school with excellent engineering programs, no one I know would seriously rank it ahead of Duke or Northwestern in terms of prestige.  However, the criteria do appear to favor universities that are stronger in the sciences than the humanities, as evidenced by the absence of top U.S. liberal arts colleges such as Amherst, Dartmouth and Williams.  At first I thought this was intentional, because they technically are not "universities," but at least Dartmouth appears to have been among those surveyed, as it shows up on the North/Latin American list, toward the bottom. 

 

[Anonymous]

And Stanfords!!  (C. Hick = Class of '93)  The only problem with the criteria for this list is that they result in Harvard beating us out for #1.    Also, though I haven't studied it, I'm willing to wager that Harvard students are MUCH fatter than Stanford students.  Uglier, too.  And can't drink nearly as much beer.   

You're more than welcome to test yourself in a drinking contest with us gorgeous Berliners

On a bit more serious note, though I can't speak as to the universities in other nations, the handful of U.S. universities listed in the Top 15 of this list really are generally accepted as the top research universities in the U.S.  One can quibble with the order, but there aren't any glaringly inappropriate inclusions or omissions.  The rankings after the top 15 or 20, however, get a little goofy.  With apologies to any alums of the University of Illinois, which is indeed a fine school with excellent engineering programs, no one I know would seriously rank it ahead of Duke or Northwestern in terms of prestige.

Oh, I'm not arguing there. Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, Berkeley and Columbia are big names. But as you said, it gets a bit awkward afterwards. For example, there are so many renowned Italian universities, none of which made the top 100. Moreover, when it comes to the German unis, Bonn isn't even in the German "elite" list. I know it used to be a very prestigious school, but it really isn't anymore.

However, the criteria do appear to favor universities that are stronger in the sciences than the humanities, as evidenced by the absence of top U.S. liberal arts colleges such as Amherst, Dartmouth and Williams.  At first I thought this was intentional, because they technically are not "universities," but at least Dartmouth appears to have been among those surveyed, as it shows up on the North/Latin American list, toward the bottom. 

Göttingen and Heidelberg are strong in humanities, but Heidelberg has moved its heavyweight much more on the sciences lately. It is similar -though to a lesser extent- for Göttingen. However, Tübingen, which is rated number one among German humanities students, doesn't make the list because it is rather low on sciences. On the other hand, the TU Munich doesn't have anything on the humanities sector. How unfair is it that a school that has no humanities at all makes the list, but a school that has little sciences doesn't?

 

[Genghis Khan]

The international rankings may not be the same as national rankings.  For example, University of Alberta in Edmonton receives a fairly high ranking among Canadian universities but is not on the list provided by Forostar, even though it is ranked higher than University of British Columbia which is on the list.  (http://www.mcmaster.ca/research/facts/facts8.htm).  Also, University of Waterloo has a huge reputation for math and sciences and is not found in my local link above.  I'm not arguing with the results, but I can't see there being only one way of looking at criteria.  I know personally when I went to Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario, that the professors and students complained how the university ranked low among Canadian universities.  Brock has smaller classes because it has seminars along with lectures, which allow for more one-on-one and small group learning and thus better learning.  I'm not sure how much has changed in Canadian Universities in the last few years but this was fairly unique to Brock.  Also specialization is more important to a student, I believe, than prestige, when deciding which university would be best suited for one's career.  If you study viticulture in Canada, you'll want to go to Brock, if you are studying archeology, particularly prehistoric animals, you'll probably want to go to University of Alberta.  If you are a spoiler rich brat who cares more about impressing your social circle than about learning, you'll probably go to the university that is ranked the highest AND is the most expensive that your daddy's money can buy.    In conclusion, there should be more than one list of "The best University...".

 

[Onhell]

  I'm not sure how much has changed in Canadian Universities in the last few years but this was fairly unique to Brock.

Boy have you been kept out of the loop! They have conveyor belts on the floor so students don't have to walk anymore! professors have been replaced by robots or holograms! students can view classes on giant IMAX screens or individual screens in cubicles! It is a mad world I tell ya!

 

[Genghis Khan]

Boy have you been kept out of the loop! They have conveyor belts on the floor so students don't have to walk anymore! professors have been replaced by robots or holograms! students can view classes on giant IMAX screens or individual screens in cubicles! It is a mad world I tell ya!

Sounds like international airports. 

 

[Cornfed Hick]

You're more than welcome to test yourself in a drinking contest with us gorgeous Berliners

I think you have just summed up the plot of the god-awful film "Beerfest."  There was a time when I might have been up to that challenge, but that was about 15 years ago. 

 

[LooseCannon]

Beerfest was awesome.

Of course, I was in university at the time...at a renowned party school...

 

[Onhell]

Party school or not "Beerfest" was funny. Super Troopers is still better

 

[Forostar]

It's still entertaining to check this topic and read all these critics, while no one else came with other (let alone better!) criteria.   

We have a nice Dutch saying for that (I'll translate it into English):
The best steersmen are ashore

Let me cast the first stone to get deeper into this matter:
What the hell is wrong with Nobel prizes related to universities?

Perun said:
If somebody got a Nobel Prize in 1907, that says nothing about the university in 2007; especially in Europe. Remember, there were two world wars inbetween.

What is this for an argument? World Wars in between or not:
The university is still the same university. Name and prestige are built upon HISTORY. Indeed if an award was given aeons ago, it still should count. It's a cumulative process, isn't it? It's not Wimbledon or the Champions League where players start from scratch.

Of course: current results should be monitored as well and that's why this list is made every year.

edit:
And this one (also Perun):
How unfair is it that a school that has no humanities at all makes the list, but a school that has little sciences doesn't?

A school with no humanities could be excellent in other fields while a school with little sciences could be worse in other fields (or overall).

 

[Anonymous]

Let me cast the first stone to get deeper into this matter:
What the hell is wrong with Nobel prizes related to universities?

It shouldn't be the only criteria. As I said: It is only relevant for five subjects. All those subjects are within the sciences. No humanities. There is no Nobel Prize for Theology, Law, Archaeology or History.

You could try to raise criteria for such subjects (for example, number of archaeological and/or palaeontological excavations, number of bishops or archbishops -or popes- that graduated here, number of judges, whatever), but the truth is, it gets so much less convenient in a world without numbers or exact results, where you can't give such a hands-on award like the Nobel Prize, simply because we are not dealing with exact sciences anymore. One possibility would be to rate the number of publications, but that does not lead to a good result either, because the number of publications does not speak anything about the quality of them. I could dedicate my life to writing articles and books on why I think Julius Caesar was, in fact, a rhinoceros, while another scholar can have two or three publications on the origin of the Chinese language and turn the whole world around.

What is this for an argument? World Wars in between or not:
The university is still the same university. Name and prestige are built upon HISTORY. Indeed if an award was given aeons ago, it still should count. It's a cumulative process, isn't it? It's not Wimbledon or the Champions League where players start from scratch.

True, but none of the scientists who won an award in 1907 are still around today. It was a hundred years ago, and things have changed. We're not talking about prestige but contemporary quality. A university might have virtually subscribed to the Nobel Prize between 1900 and 1930, and not have had a proper scientist since, while a contemporary one may have received Nobel Prizes every other year between 1990 and today. The list doesn't differ.

 

[Forostar]

Thanks for getting deeper into this. Good point with the quality and quantity, and the lack of humanities Nobel Prizes!
Science, science, science, science, science...

I might be prejudiced, but I have the assumption that many USA universities are science universities, with pretty narrow fields. If you would ask one of their students anything about culture, geography, history, arts or literature, I don't think they would know much about these topics as Europeans.  Just my 2 cents, of course.

 

[LooseCannon]

Then you *are* prejudiced.

The assumption that Americans = stupid does not necessarily filter into their expansive post-secondary education system.  Consider this: every state has a State U or two that can hand out degrees in most subjects.  Private schools are the ludicrously expensive ones that have produced famous laureates in *all* disciplines.  It is possible that because men and women of those disciplines are not famous in the European sphere that they are discarded from consideration - I wouldn't expect a European to know about men like Thurgood Marshall or Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, for instance, using the field of law as an example.  But you, of course, can recall the name of men of the USA who have made scientific advances - folks like, let's say, Robert Goodall and Thomas Edison, because they directly influence you.

 

[Cornfed Hick]

Last I checked, literature is considered part of the humanities, and there is certainly a Nobel Prize for that.    (Though it has become a joke recently, in my opinion.) 

Thanks to LC for his defense of the American university system.  Forostar's "assumption" is totally inaccurate, although to be fair, in the past few decades there has been an increasing emphasis on engineering and scientific research at many universities, as there is significantly greater federal and private funding for research grants, professorships, graduate students, etc. in those fields.  The old-line prestigious universities, however, have absurdly large endowments that keep growing, so there is plenty of money for professors of ancient languages, comparative literature and the like, whose "value" to society may be better measured in cultural rather than commercial terms.  Places like Harvard, Stanford, Yale, the University of Chicago and Princeton have exceptionally strong programs in both the sciences and the humanities.

By the way, some (sort of) topic-related trivia:  Which of the Nobel Prizes isn't actually called a "Nobel Prize"?  (EDIT:  Yes, I'm posting this here instead of in "Random Trivia" because it isn't entirely "random", and I would be breaking the rules of that thread because I don't know the name of LC's samurai.  So, feel free to consider this a transparent, bad-faith evasion of those rules.  Mea culpa.) 

 

[LooseCannon]

Econ, if I remember correctly.

And I'll post the answer shortly if no one comes up with it.  I'll post a hint now.

 

[Forostar]

I was talking about what people learn on universities, but maybe I should have said: What do people learn before they are in this stage, let’s say in their primary school stage, at school, or from their parents:

- (knowledge of) American culture ≠ comparable with (knowledge of) culture from outside U.S.A. (the size, and the differences)
- (knowledge of) American litarature ≠  comparable with (knowledge of) literature from outside the USA (the amount, the differences)
- (knowledge of) American law ≠  comparable with (knowledge of) law from outside the USA
- (knowledge of) American geography/topography ≠  comparable with (knowledge of) geography/topography from outside the U.S.A.

Now this last one, when we talk about knowledge is laughable. Most Americans don’t even know where separate countries lie on the world map. The basic stuff, learning about the world and different countries should be done on primary school. The result is that American university students (being busy with their own chosen field) still have the same knowledge of basic things as when they were e.g. 12 years old, which is nada!

Conclusion: An American who knows all the things about his own country, and who studied on a university still doesn’t know much of the world. There are exceptions, but they’re not numerous.

Let me look at myself now: Do I know much (or anything) about American culture, literature, law, geography/topography etc.?

Well, I do know a lot of films, further some presidents, states and cities, some famous people, a bit of the civil war, slavery, and the terrible genocide of the indians, but for the rest no, not really. At this point, I find the American society totally irrelevant.

Cultures outside the U.S.A. have always influenced the USA and apart from science, science, science, science, military help, military help, military help, not many other great things came this way. Alright: “Freedom of speech” is a good one! (that’s why I’m posting this).

However, Americans DO know how to make money, and that’s why a lot of Europeans (and others!) emigrate to the U.S.A. Unfortunately it’s not the other way around. It would be good if more highly educated people from outside the European Union would come here and help us with our economy, business, etc. They could also tell us of the “American Way”, to understand their culture better. Right now the European Union is busy with developing some kind of “Green Card” for outsiders.

I know I might sound extremely offensive to some of you, but I am ignorant of all the good things coming from the U.S.A., brought by people who studied at their brilliant American universities.

Please help me with my ignorance. I am not the type of guy who can’t change his ideas, so give it a try!

 

[Onhell]

It would be good if more highly educated people from outside the European Union would come here and help us with our economy, business, etc. They could also tell us of the “American Way”, to understand their culture better. Right now the European Union is busy with developing some kind of “Green Card” for outsiders.

Aside from Going to the University of Chicago for Masters and PHD, moving to Europe is my other dream, primarily Europe, though Sweden and Finland would be great as well

 

[porcnoz]

I could dedicate my life to writing articles and books on why I think Julius Caesar was, in fact, a rhinoceros, while another scholar can have two or three publications on the origin of the Chinese language and turn the whole world around.

That's why they've choosen, in the study, to only keep publisations in "Science", the reason is that this review is a reference for science... And there's a reference review in every soft science too so it's probably not so difficult to integrate that criteria.

When you're choosing in which Engineering School we'd like to go, we don't have a lot of criterias :
1) the prestige = how old is the school, personalities who studied in and how much is the schooling (the cheapest it is, the best it is because of public subventions, some pay you to study in)
2) how much you can expect for you first salary (can be the first criteria)
3) students associations = what is the frequence of "untill you puke parties" ?

(...) with yours, Germany and Ireland would take the top 20

So there would be, like for Olympic Games, quotas and minimas...