I can’t decide if this belongs in GQ or IMHO, so mods please move it if necessary.
Why does the US seem to have a near monopoly on the most highly ranked (theoretically most prestigious) universities?
Now, I know all rankings take into account different measurements and they are all subjective, but when you start looking at multiple ones, a trend does appear.
For example, these are the three I found (from three different countries).
Depending on which one you look at, it appears that the US has a 70%-90% market share. Why is this? It makes it even more strange considering the overall failure of our secondary education system!
Yes, we have a larger population than many other countries and more money. But if we combined the UK, Germany, France, Canada and Australia we will get close to the US population and they are all well educated and well off. Why aren’t all these combined keeping up? (at least one or two colleges from each would do)
Considering those, almost all of the top ones of those countries are in the UK. What is the deal with France, Germany, etc.?
The reasons I’ve heard are that a) American universities are allowed to compete for students in ways that other countries’ universities can’t, and b) better funding. For the first, as I understand it, many other countries’ universities pretty much have to accept any eligible students, with the result that class sizes are swollen and there aren’t enough resources to go around. Also, in some other countries there seems to be a taboo against developing any “elite” universities, because everyone is so tied to their egalitarian ideals. (IIRC, there was a big uproar a few years ago when German politicians decided to establish an elite university.) Fair enough, but the result is that you end up with a lot of mediocre universities, and no great elite ones (like Harvard, Yale, et al.).
As for the money, as you well know American colleges charge through the nose, but it does tend to result in a better product. Also, I understand that American colleges – private or public – tend to form a closer bond with their students which result in higher rates of alumni donations than many foreign universities.
That doesn’t seem right to me. Germany already has a hugely stratified and elite-ified secondary school system, with the Gymnasium, Realschule. They’ve been doing educational tracking for over 100 years, and it’s been very rigid.
Looking at my own links more closely ( :smack: ) it looks like it’s the funding that’s egalitarian, not necessarily the ability of the students. Still, though, I thought I’d read that in many European countries schools have to accept way more students that comparable US colleges. Can someone closer to the ground confirm or deny?
As Rodgers01’s link said, all relevant German universities are state-owned and as long as they are large enough, states operate several of them. In the past there was no real tradition of favouring certain universities over others. Universities differ in size and programs offered. Particular departments might be more attractive than others for a variety of reasons but the University doesn’t have that much influence on your actual student experience. This is also reflected in the perceived prestige of the universities. We have no real concept of a “____ graduate” as a shorthand for some level of education. Only in foreign war B-movies the villain always went to Heidelberg for some reason.
The recent often ridiculed elite/excellence initiative is supposed to create a small number (currently three) of significantly better funded universities. The problem is that the distinction is largely artificial and it remains to be seen if they can convince anyone that they are now elite.
Because those rankings have a lot to do with stuff like movies? I’ve never seen a Spanish movie or TV series where they said “he studied at Deusto” or “he studied at La Complutense” to indicate he’s a good lawyer. But Harvard gets name-dropped so much it’s black-and-purple by now. We know that the worst lawyer from Deusto is worse than the best lawyer from La Laguna.
Also the Spanish system, until very recently, included many “standalone colleges” where you could take a single “carrera,” perhaps with more than one specialization. Whether it’s a university or a standalone, you choose school+major from the start, and while Deusto is very good for Business Law… uh, I don’t even know if they have a medical school! Do they have a medical school? No idea.
Because US universities have money to pay for graduate students? Not in every field, not every university… but to get a PhD in Chemistry in Spain, I would have had to pay for it; to get one in the US, I would have been paid for it (I was paid for it, actually, but happened to drop out for reasons that are best left out of this thread). Automatically makes US universities more desirable. Uh, about $50K a year more desirable.
Because those rankings are partially based on publishing, which in other countries is not considered as important as in the US? Several of my best Spanish college professors hadn’t published in years; a couple of them, if their students research got published, made a point of getting the student as the Main Author, the professor would be listed second. That doesn’t mean Spain doesn’t have those professors who see teaching as “a drag taking me away from my research (which, not to put to fine a point on it, is actually done by the grad students),” but in Spain research is expected to be secondary to teaching, not the other way round as (IME) it’s in “big US universities”.
Huh? From what I can see, the US doesn’t have a runaway lead, when compared to populations. Quick calculations using the top 100 of the topuniversities.com list:
USA 34 = 1 per 9 million population
But (US) universities are international–even the most piddling state schools have some kind of international presence on campus. Ignoring for the moment that a student from Jaurez would probably go to a school in Texas and a student from Toronto would probably go to a school in New York, for an international student it pretty much comes down to “there are 34 top colleges in the US but only 3 in Canada”.
Hey, if you’re going to define a school as good because there are foreigners, then Spain suddenly looks real good.
Lilbro is from the second year of students from his university, yet his class picture includes three Erasmus students and half a dozen others who weren’t Spanish citizens; in total they were less than 200 (the picture includes only his “major”, Business Administration).
a) English-speaking country. Looking at the Newsweek rankings, many of the measures used are vastly easier to do well in when your native language is the world’s number one international language (“number of international faculty/students” is the big one, but I bet “number of citations” is helped a lot by being English-speaking too). I doubt it’s any coincidence that of the 5 non-US universities in the top 20, three are from the UK and one is from Canada
b) Very rich country. Many top people in their fields are likely to want to emigrate there, in a way that they wouldn’t want to emigrate to, say, Russia or China.
c) Big population. Again looking at the Newsweek Top 20, the US isn’t actually doing any better than the UK (15 Top 20 Universities per 300million ppl versus 3 per 60million)
There’s probably more, but that’ll do to be getting on with.
America is the only first world country with a significant privatised higher education sector. Nearly all of the entries at the top of the list are private universities.
As clarified by my second post, I was thinking more along the lines of why around 80% of the top 20 or so are from the US. Most of the highly educated and well off people in the world are not in the US, so their universities should show up more in the top 20. UK obviously has a much better showing than others and is about on par with the US. This would make me think that the English language has a large advantage.
Thanks for all the replies so far. As many of you mentioned, I think the larger number of private universities help. Since they are autonomous, it allows them to become elite and charge large amounts of money to go there.
I was also wondering about alumni giving. Giving rates for the top universities is very high and that has to have a large affect, especially on endowments (which tend to prove that top US universities are richer than anyone else, on average).
Is it less common for alumni and others to bestow large amounts of money to universities?
OK, fair enough. And with the methodologies used to put together these rankings, the quantity of publishing in English from the very top universities might be enough to explain other countries getting pushed down the list.
