Fears for UK strength as its institutions slip down top 200

No one ever takes the THE-QS rankings seriously. I mean there is no way these rankings are ever going to convince employers that prestigious universities such as LSE, Princeton, Warwick, Toronto Columbia and several Ivy schools are behind institutions like UCL. It shocks me how UCL is oversubscribed and blindly placed above some prestigious IVY league schools. I mean UCL doesn't even perform well in most domestic rankings in the UK. But hey, we cant blame the THE-QS rankings, they are a British company after all.

That's odd because I know many people who would rate UCL higher than any of the universities on the list Adam mentions, any of them at the other 3 top universities. And in fact UCL is regularly rated at the top of UK HE in numerous domestic rankings. Granted it's improved a lot in the last few years, but that has got to be welcome news for the UK. Maybe Adam comes from a university further down the list. It's funny how people rubbish tables when they don't do well in them isn't it?

Why is it that in tables which rank just UK universities, the order is quite different from the ranking order we see for UK universities in the world list? <p>This seems inconsistent. <p>If the answer is because the criteria for the two lists is different, why are they different?

Confused as to what the rankings really entail and mean --- Research or Education? <P>If it is the quality of education, then it begets the question --- at what levels, and for what programs? <P>Ignoring the questionable methodology per se., let me point out that if one is considering the programs of study, at the undergraduate level (BA/BS), --- then there are a host of "Liberal Arts," institutions in the U.S.A., which merit serious consideration --- such as the Ivy League’s "Sister Colleges," (Wellesley, Smith, Mount Holyoke, etc.), additionally, one simply cannot ignore the "Little Ivies," (Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, etc.). <P>The quality of education at the aforementioned institutions is considered to be at par with the best (Harvard, MIT, etc.). For instance Mount Holyoke, a sister college (women only), produces more female PhD’s in Chemistry and Biology than any other institution.

That is true. <br>several points of inconsistency. <br>Princeton is regularly rated top three in US rankings behind just university king--Harvard! <br>LSE is generally oscillating between 3th-4th domestically. Look at last 20 yearts' record, there is no way UCL wouold surpass LSE by any means. <br>Imperial college is better than MIT? God bless me! <br>In sum, All my friends in oxford and cambridge are fancy going to Princeton and yet had never included UCL in their UCAS applications.

There is a error in the table in 28th rank : is probably the "Ecole Normale Supérieure (Paris)" and not the "Ecole Polytechnique" which is already listed at the 34th rank. <p>Thanks for change the entry in the table.

This ranking exercise is neither credible nor reliable. There is no accurate means of measuring the academic standing of universities, which operate in a wide range of contexts, across the world. The claim that Oxford and Cambridge Universities are less distinguished than Harvard or Yale has only to be formulated for its fallacious nature to be obvious to all.

Excuse me Claire, I did my undergraduate studies at Princeton university and my graduate studies at LSE. I am American who was privileged to be educated in a prestigious British university. I mean, maybe you should come over here in the states and ask anyone if they have ever heard of UCL. Most peope are familiar with Imperial , oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Warwick ( For there MBA). UCL isn't that popular. I mean these rankings are pathetic. Institutions like LSE, Princeton, Warwick, Toronto Columbia, Upenn, etc do not need such rankings to remind people of their status, their history of excellence speaks for themselves. Most employers (including my dad) at wall street know this. After all who do you think run wall street- Ivy league grads. Anyway, i would just like to stress to High school students or even graduates to select a university that they feel suits their needs. Selecting a university based on rankings isn't a good idea.

This list of 200 best world universities is amusing and misleading. Although my alma matter made the list, there are several other world class institutions, such as, Claremont Graduate University in California, are completely missing. The evaluators must be smoking something!

As an American Student looking at the University of Edinburgh, I'm wondering if UK employers actually view it as prestigious as it would seem a 23rd ranked university would be viewed. I was always under the impression that St. Andrews was more distinguished. Is this incorrect? <br>I would love any and all info. <br>Thanks!

Adam - unfortunately you're wrong. It is frightening how seriously VCs and other senior mangers treat these rankings. <p>Tom - if you were cynical you would say that this is because league table producers are more concerned about these being different to their competitors (and show annual changes they can write about) than that they tell any intrinsic truth. I'm sorry why should we treat seriously a table that, for example, tells us that Cardiff has dropped umpteen places, that TCD is a top 50 HEI while Warwick isn't, or that Glasgow is in the top 100.

Brian I agree with you, LSE is ranked too low and UCL is oversubscribed. I mean UCL isn't a top 5 Research institution according to the British national RAE assessment. UCL isn't even a top 5 teaching institution according to the 2009 guardian University ranking. Teaching and Research are very important components when trying to rank an institution. Alot of people may ask Why?, well we all know that active research keeps the learning process current and alive.In other words, students who work in classrooms or laboratories with instructors engaged in scholarly research are not merely passive recipients of "yesterday's wisdom." They encounter the latest thinking on the subjects they are studying. This is particularly important in our fast-changing world when intellectual breakthroughs on all fronts are occurring with increasing speed.at this day and age. Universities such as Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial and Warwick dominate the top 5 teaching and research positions in the UK. It just saddens me when LSE - a hub for excellence for both teaching and research is ranked that low. But again, LSE's history of excellence speaks for itself. Any employer or prospective student should know better than to use such misleading rankings to judge a university.

I totally agree with Claire! and Adam you are coming out with statements which are seriuosly pie in the sky. The reason why LSE is not featured highly is because it is not even a multi faculty university. It offers no more than 20 different undergraduate degree courses and even then most of them are associated around economics. yes there is no question that LSE is dominant in economics and probably one of the best in the world at it. however what else is it good at? UCL on the other hand, has many established departments across the sprectrum. It is top 4 for economics and law in the UK according to the times, it has a very good medical school, it is highly dominant in areas such as pharmacology, anthropology, philosophy, modern languages etc. also lets not just look at how reputable a uni is in the corporate world. we must ask the existing academics in what they think. <p>And just a final point, any ranking that is published will always receive scrutiny from different people. we can never keep everyone happy. I by the way study medicine at Imperial college.

99...99.999, from a statistical point of view, how can it be that the top universities' grades are so close. Are these universities really so much equal. One should rather doubt about the relevance of the criteria that have been used. Another element is the volatility of these rangings from one year to the next. Letting aside the closeness of the grades, the volatility may well point to the inaccurateness of the measurements. Can an institution really change so quickly? How sad that political decisions are made upon these grades.

Billy I understand your position, but again, imperial is also considered as a specialty university just like LSE. And if that’s the case, then, why is imperial better than let’s say, Warwick , Cornell, Princeton or even Columbia. I mean all three universities that I mentioned above offer Science and Social Sciences courses, so they should have an advantage. This is a debatable issue. But again you have to ask yourself why UCL is above an institution like let’s say Warwick. After all both UCL and Warwick offer Science and Social Science courses. You used the times rankings to justify your claim in that UCL is stronger across certain departments such as economics and law. But again if you look careful at the rankings, you can clearly see that UCL is below Warwick. The Times Good University Guide 2009 placed Warwick 6th and UCL 7th. The Guardian University Guide 2009 Placed Warwick 4th and UCL 7th. The 2009 edition of the Complete University Guide placed Warwick 5th and UCL 8th.

Melchett: (stands) Explain yourself, Blackadder, before I have you shot for being rude to a lady! <p>Edmund: Well, sir, the first seeds of suspicion were sown when Lieutenant George unwittingly revealed that she spoke German. Do you deny, Nurse Fletcher-Brown -- or should I say Nurse Fleischer-Baum? -- that you helped Lieutenant George with the German words in his letters? <p>Mary: No, I did, but-- <p>Edmund: My suspicions were confirmed when she probed me expertly about tank movements. <p>Murse: Oh, Edmund, how could you? After all we've been through. <p>Edmund: And then the final, irrefutable proof. Remember, you mentioned a clever boyfriend... <p>Mary: Yes. <p>Edmund: I then leapt on the opportunity to test you. I asked if he'd been to one of the great universities: Oxford, Cambridge, or Hull... <p>Mary: Well? <p>Edmund: You failed to spot that only two of those are great universities. <p>Mary: You swine! <p>Melchett: That's right -- Oxford's a complete dump! <p>Edmund: Well, quite. No true Englishwoman could have fallen into that trap.

To Adam: <br>I dont think Warwick should be ranked in UK's Top 5, there are still many great uni like University of Edinburgh and University of Manchester. <p>I think University of Edinburgh is doing quite well in these years

As someone in a rather lowly ranked university who has built up a postgraduate course which is very popular with overseas students. All I can say is that the slide in rankings is because the government has cut investment in U.K. universities. Now, because of a few bogus colleges, it is also cutting off the overseas students market. However, never mind, they can always go to the US.

I agree with everything said, but you forgot to mention the great effort made by Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México to level with all of these other Institutions. <p>Just a short comment to celebrate, yet another year, as the most prestigious Spanish Language University in the ranking.

Viva UNAM (Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México) 150th!!!

As an ex postgraduate of Manchester University I am very proud of it, but I would like to know more about my especiality ranking-economics. I suppose others' especialities could be included too.

I totally agree with Billy! and Adam you are coming out with statements which are seriuosly pie in the sky. The reason why LSE is not featured highly is because it is not even a multi faculty university. It offers no more than 20 different undergraduate degree courses and even then most of them are associated around economics. yes there is no question that LSE is dominant in economics and probably one of the best in the world at it

Anyway, who cares about this pathetic rankings anymore? If I were an examiner, I would fail the publishers of this ranking if it were submitted as a piece of undergraduate or graduate statistics coursework. Their methodology is horrendously poor, and anybody who "bigs up" their university, or runs down other universities, based on this ranking should be ashamed of themselves.

Does anyone know where we can get the full list of rankings of Unis across the world? I mean, not only the 200 best Unis, but let's say from 1 to 1000. Im sure the evaluators have the complete list as they should have been assessing more than these 200 top unis when making the ranking

Adam, I don't think employers criteria on wall-street have much to recommend them, given the current financial climate. You have an axe to grind; given you're incapable of even using the right 'their/there' you're difficult to take seriously. Nor can you base the ranking of a University on the US-centric basis of how many American citizens have heard of it. RE: the RAE let's wait until the next one is out this Winter.

Adam -- UCL is a top five uni in the guardian rankings, contrary to what you state. It's number 5. Interestingly, Oxford and Cambridge don't even feature in the top ten, since teaching and research rankings are very different. For my subject area UCL is number 1.

It is impossible that kings college and manchester are in top 50 universities in the world as they are in top 40 in uk universities league table. Look at warwick, it is top 5 university in uk and now it is in 67th place in the world. i think the uk league are more accurate than the world ranking

The statemnt quoted in the above article: "In terms of GDP, the US invests more than twice as much as the UK in higher education, and its major research-intensive universities are among the largest beneficiaries. For example, the endowment fund of Harvard alone is greater than the total public funding for all universities in England in any given year" is completely misleading and erroneous in its comparison. Harvard's endowment cannt be compared to public support in the UK because H's funds come entirely from private donors and astute investments by its finance officers. <p>If apples are to be compared with apples, state / federal funding for the highest ranking public universities in the US might be compared to the funding provided to national universities in the UK. But even this could be misleading as in the case of Cornell, for example, or the University of Vermont, which are both public and private. And the picture needs to be further inflected to separate federal from state funding. <p>If the UK is to reach levels of achievement by top US institutions, the only responsible approach might be to allow institutions to choose whether they want to be public or private. Those who become private can build endowments and alumni loyalty, develop markers of identity through sports, signature academic programs, and other activities, and thus compete with their counterparts in the US. <p>My sense, through my experience teaching in the UK an the US, however, is that longstanding hoity toitiness by traditional universities in the UK will prevent such a move towards self-reliance. It will be difficult for UK institutions to move away from their continued dependence on handouts by the government.

I remember my experience in one UK university and felt that I was discriminated as a foreigner. Some lecturers were not really understanding and probably saw us as dollar signs and revenue generators for British universities. Next, teaching us computer science and business it is ironic now that Iceland are holding much of British institutions by the cuff over monies invested. How can British Unis teach foreigners what to do with their money when their monies are tied up with now defaulted Icelandic and American Investment Banks.

Sarah, If you cant differentiate the difference between the two words, "their and there' then i feel sorry for you.

Adam- I'm really not quite sure what the Ivy league are teaching this weather, or the LSE for that matter, but it certainly isn't good grammar. Also, to make what many would regard to be a pretty key point here- you can prove and disprove anything with statistics. A U.S. Report recently found that something like 75 of the World's top 100 Universities were American, which is understandable, given they used a methodology that would favour their institutions, such as endowment figures. Given that just one in seven of the World's top 200 are British, I don't think THES can be accused of the same. The simple fact is, the method used to produce these rankings is quite clear, and explains LSE's place, if you'd care to read it. Don't take issue with the 'my university is better than your university' argument which you seem to be angling for- take issue with the process used to compile the table in the first place. <p>I'd like to see what (if any) basis, you give for 'most people being familiar' with certain Universities. Unless you've got some serious cross-sector research behind you, I'd willingly discount that comment. What constitutes a well known University? Scotland alone has four, yes, four, institutions which are all decades and centuries older than anything in America, three of which are comfortably in the top 100 and have been since rankings began. Just because your and your Wall Street dad have a different opinion, doesn't mean it hold's any weight with a company professionally chartered to produce such tables.

The diversity of the US system is what sets the entirety of American higher education apart from that of almost all other HE systems. There is an institution, a price point, and a major (academic focus) for just about anything anyone would want to study. It is also this diversity that allows US institutions to survive across economic conditions. Indeed, historically in the US, HE has done well during recessionary economies, as people use the time out of the workforce to invest in their future earning potential. <p>I think those taking umbrage with the idea that American higher education is generally regarded as the best in the world are doing so out of national pride versus a real understanding of the popular culture of higher education. Outside Oxford and Cambridge, most of the world does not recognize UK institutions by name. The same can be said for nearly all US institutions outside the Ivies, MIT, and Stanford. This is simply a fact, and those who study and practice international HE issues/administration know the challenges of competing in that environment for the ever more valuable international student. <p>These rankings matter. They are unquestionably flawed and unnervingly influential, but they are, nonetheless, unstoppable. Many others are seeking methodologies to trump the subjectivity of THES and the limitations of the SJTU ranking, to develop something more complete. This is only going to evolve and, with any luck, improve. <p>Chris--There has been research done globally regarding perceptions of excellence in international HE. Look at Hobson's work in 2006 and much coming out of the Observatory for Borderless Higher Education, as just two example of sources. Very useful information on decision-making of international students and the factors that go into choosing where to study.

Aaron-- <p>Edinburgh has a stellar reputation in the UK, and from my perch within UK higher education, it's reputation is as a bit more prestigious than St. Andrews, though St.A is also a stellar institution. <p>If you are planning to return to the US to work, however, would want to consider the familiarity of future employers with any of the institutions you consider. Not every first class foreign degree rates the same on US soil (and vice versa, for that matter.)

Dear Adam, I agree with you - 'Their methodology is horrendously poor, and anybody who "bigs up" their university, or runs down other universities, based on this ranking should be ashamed of themselves. ' . <p>QED. No doubt your Alma Maters will be proud both of your sticking to this principle, your command of English and also your perception that 'Daddy on Wall Street' is a valid adjudicator of global academic worth. <p>One of the issues not discussed has been the Anglophone bias of these tables. Where 'citations' are a key factor, and the current truth that English is the 'lingua franca', there is an intrinsic bias towards the anglophones and anglophone institutions. Work published in other languages is less likely to get 'cited' as often and so less likely to get recognised outside that language domain. <p>Would anyone like to argue that worthwhile and valid research only occurs in English? <p>Just a question!

Adam, what's this obsession with Warwick? It's an internationally completely unknown institution that is ranked very low in the Shanghai Jiaotong ranking (152-200 in the world and only 17-22 in the UK). They may have a great MBA programme (if you say so), but it's hardly a world class university and it's not even comparable to UCL for example. Having said that, I agree with you that no sane person can take the THES ranking serious. Even UK institutions stay away from it... <p>The Shanghai ranking is somewhat better but also very biased towards institutions in the English speaking world (Ohio State ranked above Sorbonne, etc.). And your theory about teaching quality having something to do with ranking is simply wrong. Go to Harvard and you'll get taught by Asian graduate students... The uni parachutes in famous professors who will enhance the prestige, but try to get taught by one... These rankings are all pointless and they say almost nothing about actual quality. If you've got the money and the interest, you can play the game and enhance your university's score (spending money for example will enhance a university's score). Why would any university do that? Because that's how you attract students paying $45K/year (your precious Ivy league) or Asians/Americans paying $8K/year instead of the capped £3145 for EU students (UK). Why are top universities in Europe scoring so bad (think Leiden, Free University Berlin, Heidelberg, etc)? Because they don't care about these rankings since they don't charge tuition from anyone regardless of nationality. It's that simple. I have taught at universites in northern and central Europe, the US and the UK, and in terms of research output and teaching quality, the US and the UK are by no means ahead of continental Europe, they just care a lot more...

and by the way, the UK university I'm currently teaching at dropped some 30 positions from last year. Will no doubt cost us much wanted Chinese RMB :(

I partially agree with Adam when he mentions that a university like the LSE is placed below the UCL. However, the UCL is indeed a reputed and an improving institution and is really at par with other institutions; and certainly much higher than Warwick! <p>Besides, I think the main reason for Harvard and Yale nudging Oxbridge down is because of the former being funded generously vis-a-vis the latter. Moreover, the rise of Australasian institutes is praiseworthy and finally, these ratings, and others like these, are provided as reference guides, not ultimate truths!

Chloe - I do not take umbrage with research into what constitutes a global university- I merely believe the 'most people in America think LSE is better than UCL' is a pile of nonsense. Nor do I think these rankings are unimportant, quite the opposite infact. The point I am re-making, is that the methodology can do as much for an institution as anything else. These rankings favour those who spend money on researchers for instance, those with more will improve their staff/student ratio and pick up points as result. <p>I am in my 5th year, proceeding to doctoral level study at a University which has comfortably been ranked in the top 100 for the last few years, and I have had a chance to look at some factors concerning which Universities students apply to- and they are incredibly complex. Of course, the average person on the street who hasn't attended University doesn't know much apart from Oxbridge and Harvard- but thats hardly surprising. Employers are (usually) much better at distinguishing, but only in a national context- I'd hardly expect a bank in Liverpool to know the difference between two Japanese University degrees, for instance. Academics obviously have an unfair advantage on this, they may know obscure universities who specialise in their discpline, so in this case, who they have and haven't heard of is of little use. <p>However, this is misleading. A case in point would be Strathclyde, ranked way down in 270th, but I have no doubt that it is much, much, harder to get accepted for Mechanical Engineering than Edinburgh, but looking at the discipline I am involved in, the reverse is true. 'Russell Group' or 'Ivy League' also carries weight, considerably more than a couple of dozen places in a league table anyway. I'm also extremely skeptical of 'more prestigious', when we're talking of Universities of the Calibre of St Andrews and Edinburgh- I don't believe for a second that an identical degree from both would carry any different weight in a job interview- It'd be down to how the candidate performed, I am 100% certain of that. <p>Money makes the world go round- I know from an academic at my university that considerable funds go into postgraduate courses that foreign students flock to, because a good reputation here really can pay dividends. With the funding being what it is in the UK, its not surprising they are quick to laud a positive ranking in a table like this. <p>We can go with the cold hard facts. I've read Glasgow being derided above, yet its teaching standards, research, income, turnover, quality of its applicants (based on the UCAS score), are all in the top 10 in the UK from what I've read, yet it loses a huge amount of points in UK tables who concentrate on the number of people who don't complete their course. St Andrews, being a small university, cannot compete in broad financial figures with somwhere like Manchester, but then again, it is 10 times the size. There is no happy medium, and until people realise this, the bickering will continue, and nothing will ever be accepted as fact.

I don't really think we should go so much by this list which is just a sort of rough guide for students. The Swinburne University of Technology, for example, is well-known in Australia as one of the best Australian universities and is known to be better in teaching than many Australian unis mentioned in the list. I am sure the same goes for UKs universities. Similarly, I think many more universities from Europe need to be in the list and fewer American universities.

Adam:- <br>I'm not sure what you mean by UCL being 'oversubscribed'? <br>Do you mean that it has too many people applying for the number of places it has -- the usual usage? In which case, given your regard of UCL, there are clearly an awful lot of misguided people? Or do you mean it in some new usage yet to enter the OED?

I like to point out some inconsistency in the statistics. <p>UC Berkeley dropped from 22nd to 35th place this time while University of Michigan rose form 38th to 18th. Why? Because Berkeley only scored a 24 in student/faculty ratio while Michigan scored 85. <p>BUT.. please look at the 2007 ranking. Merely ONE year ago, Berkeley was scoring a 59 on the score and Michigan is scoring a 53. The relative score change is SO huge that it is unbelievable and, in my opinion, erroneous. Unless Berkeley had a huge retrenchment and Michigan refused to take in freshmen this year.

Lets just face the reality, there is no way the London colleges can contend with some institutions like MIT, Cornell and Stanford or even slip comfortably into the top 10 list. It saddens me when the THE-QS slides in UCL and Imperial college because the government has cut investment in the U.K higher education and enforced strict polices on the entrance of international students.. We have to ask ourselves this question, " Does the THE-QS ultimately serve its purpose as a plausible guide to higher institutions by slipping in UCL and Imperial college to attract international students or UCL is better that MIT and Cornell?”

it really surprise me, I when to Imperial College in 1996, at that time the MBA was ranked amongh the top 10 in EU, as overall University though, it was considered top 3 within the UK. I can´t believe that INSEAD (France) does not come up!. I am proud of imperial, but I can´t believe its position, it is too high. Besides, when a USA intitute carry out the survey, Imperial barely come up. Isn´t it weird?. Would the universities "pay" to be better off?.

Perhaps the THE commentary that talks about fears of UK slipping down the list should contact a statistician in a university (perhaps drawn from a non-UK institution if they are worried about the advice they will get in the UK, in the light of the recent slippage). <p> "The UK's position across the top 200 also weakened, with the total number of institutions making the cut down from 30 to 29." <p>Any reasonable interpretation of these tiny changes in numbers (and of shifting among the top 6) is "how boring no real change, pity there isn't a story we can report". <p>Unless of course the commentary is trying to boost funding to the sector? It seems that moving down the list is motivation to lobby government for more money, and moving up it is the same (look! the investment is working!).

I find it hard to believe in the adequacy of a list that would rank the top universities of Russia, Italy, and Spain below those of certain developing or minor countries. It is probably somehow connected to the peculiarities of higher education in these states. <p>Of course, all of this has already been mentioned several times, but I thought it'd make sense to reiterate the point anyway.

Adam, you are absolutely right! The THES-QS is ranking UK (and Asian/Australian) institutions waaaay too high (not just UCL and Imperial but ALL UK institutions are overrated). It is also obvious that it is ranking continental European institutions way too low. There can be no doubt about this and that's why most serious Australian and UK institutions have stopped quoting it (it's becoming embarrasing). <p>One thing though: both UCL and Imperial are doing fairly ok in the ARWU ranking (which also is biased but that's another story). UCL is ranked 22 and Imperial 27, both being above very prominent US institutions, such as NYU, Duke, UC Santa Barbara, etc. <p>As I've said earlier, there are a few countries (US, UK, Australia) where universities are run like businesses, and where institutions are fiercely competing for national (US) or international (UK, Australia) students. In these countries these rankings REALLY matters, no matter how stupid and flawed they are. Everybody knows they are flawed but they still matter. Therefore, institutions in these countries put a lot of effort and money into this (we have an office dedicated solely to the league tables at my university). It's not particularly difficult to climb in the rankings, but it is very expensive. For example, if you build a $100 million sports facility, you'll see the results in next year's rankings. If you increase your library budget with 30%, you'll see the results in the rankings. That's why Harvard (who has by far the most money) will never be passed by Yale in the rankings. It's not because Harvard is better university than Yale (they are comparable institutions in all aspects expect wealth). For the same reason, NYU can never pass Columbia, Manchester never pass Oxford, etc. In reality, in terms of research output and overall quality, there is no real difference between any of these universities.

Well said oi, Well said.

Very good... please read the attached comment by full Professor of Economics at Warwick: <p>"The latest criticism of the QS-THES league tables came from Andrew Oswald, Professor or Economics at University of Warwick:[14] <p> "Such claims do us a disservice. The organisations who promote such ideas should be unhappy themselves, and so should any supine UK universities who endorse results they view as untruthful. Using these league table results on your websites, universities, if in private you deride the quality of the findings, is unprincipled and will ultimately be destructive of yourselves, because if you are not in the truth business what business are you in, exactly? Worse, this kind of material incorrectly reassures the UK government that our universities are international powerhouses. Let us instead, a bit more coolly, do what people in universities are paid to do. Let us use reliable data to try to discern the truth. In the last 20 years, Oxford has won no Nobel Prizes. (Nor has Warwick.) Cambridge has done only slightly better. Stanford University in the United States, purportedly number 19 in the world, garnered three times as many Nobel Prizes over the past two decades as the universities of Oxford and Cambridge did combined. " "

I am Indian & applying to British universities like UCL, Imperial College, Kings College.these rankings do matter, but still i think that Imperial in no matter is below UCL. As far as IIT D is concerned. I think IIT Bombay have better ranking in India even than IIT Delhi, but still IIT D is placed higher.

Re: Aaron <p>I currently study at the University of Edinburgh as a grad student... Well I am not sure how prestigious it is compared to St Andrews and Warwick, etc, but I can tell you one thing: The university is really nice with a beautiful campus located in one the center of one of the nicest cities of Europe. The level of teaching (at least at the Masters level) is excellent and the lectures are super interesting. The university is well equipped in every respect and students are supported by the professors, the administration and the careers office extensively. <p>Actually, when I made the my decision to come here I had to decide between imperial college, Warwick and Edinburgh and I really do not regret my decision. <p>Just a side note on the rankings: My undergrad university (University of Amsterdam) is consistently ranked in the Dutch rankings 5th or 6th behind universities such as Maastricht, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Tilburg and Leiden (sometimes even Utrecht), while on the THES rankings the University of Amsterdam is normally the best or second best Dutch university. Although I am quite happy with this, I must say I would treat these rankings extremely carefully since I believe that the level of education in any of the top 7 or 8 (the ones mentioned before and Delft and the Vrije Universiteit van Amsterdam) Dutch universities is almost identical. In fact, having done an Erasmus exchange in Portugal at the Universidade Nova de Lisboa, I must say that the level of education between a university that is approximately 50th on the ranking, one that is 23rd, and one that is not even on the list, is NOT that different. <p>And no, I am not trying to take away credit from Oxford, Stanford Harvard or Cambridge, I do believe that these are top world class institutions, all I am trying to say is that I think that one can be successful in both academia or in the real world with a degree of any of these top 200 universities (probably even more) if one strives and endeavors achieving her/his own definition of success.

It's the Judaean People's Front! Intead of a united stand against these ratings, we bicker over whether they are fair. Has anyone ever wondered whether this was precisely the intention? Divide and conquer, anyone? If we're really going to say these tables are silly, then we should not immediately proceed to adding that 'but my favourite university should be higher. Actually. Really. REALLY.' For some obscure reason that, if applied, would create another league table we could argue about. And then we can move on to The Best 200 Bands of All-Time, topped - SURELY - by the Beatles. And the Stones. And Abba. And Crass. And the Sex Pistols. I'm a big fan of Tubeway Army myself, they're much better than Lennon-Mcartney, anyway their solo stuff was terrible... <p>Fighting instrumentalism by arguing about the details ain't gonna help us. If we are going to resist this tendency and bewail the 'management culture', then we need to do more than moan. We need to stand firm with our own culture and values, not lay into one another. At least Stanley Fish does that.

Ah, yes, love Adam's post above in which he writes that Ivy grads run Wall Street...that says it all. Have you seen what those elitists have done to the world economy? They obviously did not learn about ethics and social consciousness/activism is the Ivy business schools; they learned how to manipulate and exploit and even fool governments with their bogus financial instruments. <p>Ratings like these are fallacious. They perpetuate elitism, snobbery and highlight that learning for the sake of learning and education has been replaced by status driven and misguided quests for material gain and prestige. <p>Odd, considering that one would expect that these elite schools would have instilled/mandated advanced critical thinking skills in their students such that their graduates would laugh at what these rankings imply and the flawed and incomplete methodology that is used to arrive at these specious rankings.

It is sad to find so many people taking the THES Ranking system seriously. It is based on Peer Review, always subjective, often deliberately biased. For a realistic way of evaluating academic research see the web site academic-research.co.uk [base it on how many highly cited people teach there]. To evaluate teaching use drop out rates and employment prospects.[Higher education is now vocational which may be unfortunate but most students wish to use their degree to get some sort of better job.] This is all you need to know.

I almost laughed when I saw Australian National University above Stanford and Michigan. I doubt if any Australian institutions should be included in the list at all. Australian education is just candy. You pay them money, walk around campus several times, and they give you your certificates. I've never seen anyone with enough financial support who got rejected by universities in Australia, be it ANU or any Aussie big names. And look at that! Berkeley is just above U of Sydney and that, HELL, U of Melbourne. This ranking is a sham. It's just another propaganda to boost institutions in UK and the Commonwealth.

Adam - you said.. <p>"Excuse me Claire, I did my undergraduate studies at Princeton university and my graduate studies at LSE. I am <an>American who was privileged to be educated in a prestigious British university. ... Most employers (including my dad) at wall street know this. After all who do you think run wall street- Ivy league grads." <p>Isn't this in itself rather damning of Ivy league grads? <p>By the way, I feel complaining that Clare does not differentiate between there and their is rather a bit much given the grammatical/spelling errors in your own contributions. <p>I am a graduate from the third world (University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka) with a Master of Economics from University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia - no grandiose ideas, me. However, as part of my masters thesis at UNE, I had to point out a rather basic statistical error in a journal article published at Stanford by an academic (from distant memory, the Stanford Journal of Economics and Mathematics 1973 - a test of the Hirschman Linkage hypothesis) - where the coefficient of correlation in a linear regression was used as a test to prove association between two value series. As every beginner knows, or should, the coefficient of correlation only measures fit - how far values lie off the regression line. It is the slope of the line that needs to be tested for association. So no one should just judge on the basis of repute. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. And finally, clear, independent thinking is a rare trait, and any teacher, anywhere who encourages that is to be revered. My own thinking was stamped by "Tawny" Rajaratnam of Peradeniya who taught me Economic History. He studied at LSE.

If you want the UK to be top in the world, first fund foreign students appropriately. I graduated from the UK and couldn't obtain funding to study for a graduate degree in the UK. Well, I left for the US. They provide full funding to international students who qualify - tuition and living expenses all covered. All major schools in the US provide full funding to those who qualified and in large numbers through teaching and research assistantships (they don't call it "scholarships"). The UK is relying on the lousy ORS which only pays the difference between local and overseas student. Also, one has to find their own support for living expenses. I read that the UK is also planning to phase out ORS. The UK system is still in its colonial days. If you want to be the best in the world, provide adequate funding, so you will attract the best, and those who stay will ultimately contribute to the UK's might.

My humble opinion to the Institutions. Kindly think of the students who have real Attitude to the specific disciplines. Find them and select them, provide the education at free of cost, especially for the downtrodden.

I am an undergraduate at Oxford university studying medicine, and in the UK, it has almost always ranked 1st, with Cambridge almost always as 2nd. I find it hard to believe that globally, Cambridge ranks above Oxford - though, of course, different criteria apply. I disagree wholeheartedly with Adam. UCL is an extremely prestigious university in the UK, consistently in the top 5, with the likes of Oxbridge, Imperial College and Warwick. UCL is heavily oversubscribed for all of its courses - as are most universities in the UK and is looked up upon very considerably internationally too.

Pendleton, you are correct that, in the US, much money is provided by alumni of big schools. But when you talk about university entrance, you are referring to undegraduate studies. But you must also acknowledge the fact that these big schools also have great graduate schools, and to gain admission and survive in graduate school is not just a matter having money. The big universities are well-known because of their great research and their faculty. Sure, they have the money, but you need the brains as well. The unversities in the US hire a great number of international students and providing them with full tuition waiver and stipend. I think the greatness of the universities in the US is in a big part due to these brilliant international students coming for graduate research. Many of these students are from India and China (and many aren't rich). You may hack undergraduate school, but that doesn't mean you'll hack graduate school as well. I think the UK institutions are losing ground because they don't really attract international students. The irony is that while the universities are portray as international friendly in their websites, they provide minimal or no funding to them.

please give me MBA universities which is the best education in uk universities

I am so amused that Adam is so proud that Ivy league grads (including his dad) run Wall Street. I think it is because of them that American banks, financial institutions and American economy are is such a mess now. Dr Mahathir Mohamad, my country's (Malaysia) ex- Prime Minister who studied medicine at Raffles Institution Singapore, knows more about economy than most of these Ivy league grads. I got my PhD from UCL, my brother from Stanford, one nephew from Cambridge and another one form LSE. None of us think that we are better than the rest. People in Malaysia judge you from what you are, not from where you got your degree.

Did all of you obtain funding from the government or did all of you obtained funding by yourselves?

Very much funny to see Imperial college quite at the top of MIT. I cant even believe this. I am very much sure that the times is not being fair about their judgment. Is it because they are based in UK. Very much in line with what Adams said. They should be able to repeat their research again and make reasonable findings and judgment. I am neither an alumni of MIT nor Imperial college but we must be sincere in all the contributions we made, to cry out loud MIT is far ahead of Imperial college and must agree at levels that they are ahead of my school(Newcastle University) which is even among top twenty schools in UK.

Ken, my brother and I were funded by the government. My nephews were not. The affirmative action (some people call it discrimination) has enabled poor people like me, coming from a remote village in the south of Peninsular Malaysia to study in the 'top' university in the UK. Malaysia is a socially mobile country, thanks to the government's interventions that enable students from poor families to study in prestigeous universities all over the world. Unlike in the UK, the top universities are dominated by students from rich families. The unbriddled capitalism is leaving the poor behind. The government must help the poor in education , the way they help the rich bankers and financiers during the present economic recession.

Ismail, I have read about your country and feel that funding should be given to those who qualify, regardless of race. I know many who are talented and brilliant but yet they receive no support from the government.

The claim of Imperial College being ranked higher than MIT would indeed be laughable. The impact of education transcends the bounds of the classrooms, research labs, and ranking tables, and its quality is reflected in the society's ability to adapt to new challenges and changes, be it man-made or natural. I read that the city of London was crippled by the recent snow storm. The UK may claim to have top schools, but they sure don't know how to be prepared for a small snow storm, which is by the way, nothing compared to what we have here in the US. Also, could the UK have a black Prime Minister? Such questions should be asked when judging the quality of education in a country.

I find these rankings rankings problematic. They are based on the scores as it seems to be at face value otherwise the universities with high scores are at the top of the ladder. I have noticed that perhaps some categories are more wightier than others and Im wondering as to how that is weighted because if you look at totals both Cambridge and Oxford overall have higher scores than Havard and Yale! THE please explain your system.

Most of these rankings seem bogus and based on past glory. From my application experience, UCL ranks 100th in the UK in processing admission applications. Administrative competence ,I am sure ,has some influence on academic standing. My belief is that in the nearest future the quality of education will be judged by personal performance of graduates than by '' school names'' , ''class'' and ''Year founded''.

what about London Metropolitan university... is it a good university to study.....

What about Birkbeck University of London?

What about University of Aberdeen?

I do agree with Li Tsu. Currently I am studying at Uni Melb for few months to gain experience and apparently the uni is ranked top 40 in the world but from my 3 months of experience, what I can conclude is that ranking does not mean anything and don't be fooled by the uni's ranking. what i'm trying to say here is that i don't feel the challenges studying here. it's too laid back and u r actually being spoon fed. everything from the lectures notes and to the solutions of tests and tutorials are being posted in the web. so how do u actually train a student to be critical and self-reliance? compared to my experience studying in my own country, Malaysia, i could say that eventhough the universities there are not ranked highly in the world but for me, it is more challenging and tough to study there and the quality of education there is much better than uni melb. not to say that i don't learn anything from uni melb, i do but there's just lack of challenges and the x-factor that i've been looikng for in these few months. another thing, regardless the ranking of Uk's unis are dropping, its reputation and history in education speaks for itself. when i asked opinion from my lecturer back home, most of them recommended me to experience studying in UK, not only because of its reputation but for life time experience.. and i will be going back there for that.

yep... don't believe the true

How can one sit and argue over the possible discrepencies between the top 4 institutions in the world....(Oxford 4 life baby!!)...half the colleges at Oxbridge are older than the united states. The fact that both uni's are so highly rated is something that can only be admired, and eternally respected. It is widely regarded that an Oxbridge education has more academic quality than an Ivy League one. The difference is, sadly, the money. Ivy League components will always make more money, and this trend will be very difficult to shift. As far as I'm concerned, anyone negatively judging the Oxbridge experience is bitter for not getting a taste. It is a level above the rest, unfortunately this will never be displayed in any rankings as its not very noble to our friends across the pond. The truth is out there. :D

Even in a recession, American universities are still doing well. I'm not sure how other universities around the world are doing. My own alma mater(which is a California State University funded school, not even ranked on this list) has had it's budget cuts due to the state being bankrupt, but it doesn't hinder the overall quality of education. It's still able to keep a good endowment through private funding. As an engineering grad, we still could get our hands on the most innovative and newest technologies out there and are given a chance to work and learn in a real world enviornment, as a variety of companies still sponsor our projects and university labs. Another example of US universities still doing well even in a recession, Stanford as well as other Ivy League schools decide to eliminate tuition (as well as pay some room and board) to any student who gets accepted, whose family makes $60,000 or less a year. Another boost for US universities, as Harry Potter fame Emma Watson decides to go to Brown University.

There must be a better more objective way to come up with a ranking that reflects the real quality of a university, that does not overrepresent UK and US universities so much.

'ophiochos 8 November, 2008 wrote that: Intead of a united stand against these ratings, we bicker over whether they are fair. Has anyone ever wondered whether this was precisely the intention? Divide and conquer, anyone? If we're really going to say these tables are silly, then we should not immediately proceed to adding that 'but my favourite university should be higher. ' He really does make a good point. Unfortunately it's got lost in the bickering.

LSE has dropped considerably possibly due to the realisation that the pseudo-bable that is Economics has been discredited of late in the light of the 'credit crunch'.

LSE has dropped considerably possibly due to the realisation that the pseudo-bable that is Economics has been discredited of late in the light of the 'credit crunch'.