I’m sure everyone will say the one they are at, or the one they went to is the best university in the world… but tell us why. Good social life? Good tuition? Range of courses? SOcieties and clubs?
Various rankings obviously give us their views and results, for example:
But we are the ones who count - so which is the best uni and why?.. think about everything - and not just the academic basis on which the above rankings are primarily based.
Well I was at Birmingham myself - although visited quite a few others. It has by far and away the nicest campus I’ve seen (Warwick is also impressive), but coupled with the social scene and nightlife, it’s number one for me.
My alma mater is on the worldwide list (Washington University in St. Louis, tied for 48th place.)
Wash U has been putting a lot of time, effort and money into climbing the rankings, to the detriment of the students (in my not-so-humble opinion.) They have been accepting more and more high-scoring students, leading to overcrowded dorms and students struggling to get into “the good classes.” They’ve been pouring money into campus improvements, including an “executive center” into which undergrad students are not (last I heard) allowed.
When I was in school, the joke was that there are two kinds of students at Wash U - kids who work very hard but aren’t quite smart enough to make it in an Ivy League school, and kids who are very smart but don’t work hard enough to make it in an Ivy League school. It’s funny because it’s true.
For what it’s worth (not much), I hated college, but I can’t say if that was Wash U’s fault or mine. I found the academics to be bland and tedious, the students to be arrogant and dull, and the administration to be so focused on ratings that they couldn’t see the big picture. On the other hand, the campus is beautiful, the radio station is awesome, and Peggy Guest in the Women and Gender Studies department is the best teacher I’ve ever had.
I think that trying to determine what University is the best in the world is a lot like trying to figure out which color is best. Everyone has an opinion, based on what is important to them, and finding an objective way to rate schools is an exercise in futility.
However, aparently UM grads can’t remember to put the serious part of the post in before hitting submit.
Are you just talking educational experience? A lot of the value of the university in most of those lists has nothing to do with educational quality, and more with contibution to the world. Most of the one’s at the top of the lists do huge amounts of cutting-edge research, and invention(they have things like most nobel prizes, etc). No smaller college has a chance on those lists, even though the effective educational experience might be similar.
Some of the most brilliant, interesting, richest, powerful people in the world graduated from that place and never stepped a foot inside any of the places on that list.
This is a fairly pointless debate, is it not? “Best?” Surely no one criterion, or series of criteria equals best in everyone’s eyes. You’re setting up a discussion of subjective opinion.
One could quantify some aspect of the collegiate experience: grad rates, research dollars… but how does that translate to “best university?” Having Nobel laureates on the faculty is great, yes, but what’s the net effect if you’re majoring in another field, and never interact with this person?
At least not without being extremely specific when you say “best.” If “best” means “most Rhodes Scholars” I’m sure we could find out the answer to that. Or if “best” means “most Nobel Laureate alumni” or “most World Leaders” et cetera.
Different schools have different strengths in different disciplines (for example some prominent American universities have very strong engineering departments but relatively weak social sciences, or vice versa–so which one you think is best is probably tied to what discipline you’re most interested in.) Furthermore some schools have totally different values from others. Some, the focus is on getting students into nice jobs when they graduate so they become prominent people who will donate money to the school. Other schools have little emphasis on post-education employment, and may not even have a grade system but instead just focus on “educating” and leaving what students do with the rest of their lives up to the student in question.
I kinda think university rankings are bullshit, and have nothing to do with how good of an education you get (which, ideally, is how universities should be judged). For example, I got my PhD at Georgetown, which is #102 on the list. One of my dissertation readers got his PhD at Harvard, which is #1 on the list. But my dissertation readers read multiple drafts of my dissertation chapters, gave me all kinds of helpful feedback and constructive criticism, and in general resulted in my dissertation writing process (and the final product) much better. My Harvard-educated reader got very little constructive criticism; one of his readers didn’t read the dissertation at all until the defense, and then just showed up and asked some general, big-picture kind of questions. All the Harvard profs. were just too busy to help a graduate student; I can imagine how helpful they are to undergrads. So why is Harvard judged a better university then Georgetown? Beats me.
No cite, but I seem to remember a discussion around the ranking methodology in the ubiquitous* US News & World Report rankings. I think that, by the very definition of “University” (meaning loosely: “have lots o’different majors and schools”), you’re going to miss out on a ton of info if you make any decisions based on lists like this.
For example, I went to #77 on that list. I was a LAS major, in Political Science when I graduated. When I was admitted to that fine institution, I was a Biochemical Engineer.
Good old #77 happens to be #1 on the planet (or somewhere in #1-#3…it varies) per college rankings for Chem Engineering. For Poli-Sci…not quite so high. So, did I go to the 77th-best university on the planet? Who knows?
-Cem
*: Hey, U of M guy…I used the work “ubiquitous”! Muck Fichigan!
I thought Warwick was a hell hole. I loved my course there, but it has a bar aptly called the Airport Lounge for the love of God.
Only good thing I found was the summer confrence attendees (and to a lesser extent the undergrads) fileld the triv machines up with cash and left them ripe for the plucking.
From your first link, here are their weightings of factors:
Research quality (peer review – 40%, citations per faculty – 20%), graduate employability (recruiter review – 10%), international outlook (international faculty – 5%, international students – 5%), teaching quality (student faculty – 20%)
I’d think for most students, the “best” university would simply be based on teaching quality and grad employability. I mean, unless it helps me get hired, do I really care what some bigwig prof is writing or doing back in his lab if I’m being taught by TAs?
Of course a university might be adjudged “best” in terms of advancing science, generating income, Nobel and other prizes won by faculty, or any number of other factors.
I think these ratings are significant for a couple of reasons. First, the higher a school is ranked often increases a grad’s chances of employment, at least in certain areas that recruit only from “elite” schools. Second, to some extent if more “accomplished” (however you define that) students get accepted at the elite schools, you might benefit from the heitened intellectual atmosphere. I dunno.
I earned my MA and Ph.D. from #79 on the list. My experience was good, because my department, a small one, was good, friendly, helpful. The profs always had time for students, people socialized together, and it was the happiest time of my life. Other friends, in acrimonious departments, went through hell. I suspect that undergrads are often lost in the huge lecture course/ TA section shuffle.
However, I have some friends who had great educational experiences in community colleges. They had terrific teachers who had gotten degrees from name schools, who always had time for the students, and who concentrated on teaching, not research. After they got their two-year degree, they transferred into a name university. At the upper level classes, they were mostly able to bypass the TA-taught courses.
edited to add: U of Wisconsin Rathskellar, on Lake Mendota, was a great place to drink beer and socialize and read. I hope it still is.
On universities that I did not attend, I can just comment on what I’ve observed in some graduates.
Two people I know went to #1 on the list. They both became very successful in the worldly sense – one became a multimillionaire and retired early on; the other makes a very high salary. But both of them treated the good people of their families of origin like crap – I think because they came from rural, working class backgrounds, and the snobbishness of Harvard instilled a sense of shame in their origins? Hostage syndrome, like what happened to Patty Hearst?
People I know who graduated from #15, Cornell, remained down to earth folks, treating other people well, doing volunteer work, giving back to the world, as well as successful in their chosen careers.
My undergrad university is ranked #150 on that list. It’s being doing its best to climb the rankings but I don’t think such efforts are doing the school much good. They knocked down the Education dept. building and turned it into a dorm for international students and visiting professors. The Education majors got kicked into the basement classrooms of the old Business School buildings. They erected a building with the promise that it would turned into reading/study rooms for students but instead they installed a Starbucks. :rolleyes: They got rid of BA dissertations and instead have students take TOEFL tests!! :mad:
My grad school (#11) definitely has some of the sharpest minds in the country, but a lot of their energy goes into their own research and not into the students. In terms of what the professors produce it’s certainly one of the best universities in the world but many times the students end up getting the short end of the stick (ie, brilliant professors who don’t give a crap about actually teaching classes).
My undergrad degree is from Boston University (#66) and my master’s from WashU (#48). The teaching approach and general interest in education was much better at BU. WashU was so focused on research and rankings that the personal interaction between professors and students was lacking.
Also, the students at WashU seemed to be a bit full of themselves, as if they were at Harvard or something. At BU, we knew very well we weren’t at Harvard ('cause we could basically see it…) so it was easier to stay grounded.
I think what it really comes down to is being at the very top of the list can be useful - a degree from Harvard/Oxford/MIT does mean something. Once you’re out of the top ten or so they’re all pretty indistinguishable (until you get to your second- or third-tier state school) in terms of employability.