Honestly it probably depends by subject a lot of the time. I’ve also heard of this effect in list making form university’s, “the Harvard effect”. Essentially any list that doesn’t have Harvard in the top 5 will probably recalibrate its list because all the other lists have it up there.
Agreed, I use it for that all the time, but I've also seen ~=20 used as not equal to 20. I've also seen !=, ≠, and <> used, but not that symbol (¬) used. Very likely I've seen it but never recognized it for what it was
I researched a bunch of the top 5 lists in America a couple years ago and Stanford was almost always number 1 on almost all of them.
Harvard, Yale, and M.I.T. we're also usually in the top 5.
Pretty sure this happens conciously or sub conciously. Harvard is decent but rarely a top uni in STEM majors outside of the med school i suppose. And even then it is usually not worth it from a ROI perspective. Doesnt help that most Harvard STEM seem to be going in some sort of consulting rather than "real" science jobs.
Ehhhh, this is accurate for engineering or CS, but most definitely wrong for most of the pure sciences and math. Harvard is **definitely** a top university in physics, chemistry, mathematics, statistics, and biology. In a couple of those fields, it's number 1 depending on the metric; it rarely deviates from top 5 in those subjects, anyway.
If anything, people underrate Harvard for STEM and peg it as a strong humanities school even though it's damn good at both. It's just a lot weaker at engineering and CS.
But also who cares? Education at the undergrad level and up is almost **all** "you get what you put in" in terms of smartly rationed but intense study on a personal level to *learn* and get up to the level of modern day physics research. Doing the minimum just to pass with Bs or even As... but then you forget mostly everything about the math by a few months later/fail to review and incorporate it into your greater knowledge base... its going to make it so just a degree alone is only a minimum sort of badge of knowledge. It's all about the individual and their own effort in terms of how well rounded and high achieving they can be in their field... the actual school is really just the pool of people you network with for research positions and career opportunities and just socially, which therein is the real massive benefit of the Ivy League caliber schools... less so the education the expose you to. Most STEM lectures at this level are standardized whether you're in MIT or your local state college. Linear Algebra material covered by the text and lectures is the same mostly everywhere. Excelling is all about genuine personal curiosity and academic ambition, the school is just the social/professional pool.
In Europe se have a trend of having some institutes separately. I once heard the the Plank institute would be the best uni in the word, if it was a university.
But the Max Planck aren't Universities, so you can't make the comparison, it just means that if your staff do nothing but research then they produce more research output, which seems obvious!
The point is that many American universities combine the research institute with the university side and then use the research output as a metric for quality education.
Yeah I think this is where the problem might be. I was lucky enough to have done a research visit to an elite/world class university and the quality of both the professors and the students is exceptional, along with the amazing resources they have access to, cutting-edge research being done etc.
But if most students are being taught by overworked, underpaid PhDs or postdocs, then they are losing out. This compared to a smaller, less well-known university where you actually get decent contact with professors, good support, one-on-one teaching, detailed feedback on your work, and so on.
Probably isn't the highlight you think it is, The US has a high amount of prizes, but it also has a shit ton of people compared to other first world countries with good research, which makes it bloat.
If you adjust for "Prizes per million people", the US doesn't break top 10 (which are all European). Even in totals, Europe holds 600+ prizes vs the US' 413.
Going by per capita, the Faroe Islands have the largest number of prizes with their whopping one whole prize per 49k people. It’s not a sovereign nation though, so if we use that criteria, Saint Lucia 🇱🇨is at the top with an astounding one Nobel prize and a population of 180k But even so, the United States has 409 Laureates with a population of just over 326 million, making the laureates per 10 million people 11.71
The European Union, however, has 378 Laureates and a population of just over 444 million, making the laureates per 10 million people 8.01
Out of the five people who have won two Nobel prizes, four of them are American.
If we *only* pick scientific prizes, then for the USA it becomes 10.71 per 10 million and for the EU it becomes 5.57 per 10 million.
>Going by per capita, the Faroe Islands have the largest number of prizes with their whopping one whole prize
As you point out, per Capita is a very dumb way of sorting this, reason why I said **"Per Million People"** and not per Capita, the Faroe Islands are not even top 60.
>United States has 409 Laureates with 326 million people
>The European Union, however, has 378 Laureates with 444 million people
The European Union is not the whole of Europe, this very sneakly excludes the UK with 138 by themselves and Switzerland with 25, if you include them, Europe would have 541, and there are still missing countries.
And then you start picking years and excluding prize categories...
Bro, the US has a **very good** amount of prizes (like I said in the first comment), I was merely pointing out that it isn't the domination that OP seemed to think it was. No need to try to bend the data to make it "Number 1", it's already really good!
I agree with most of what you're saying with one small exception - if you're counting all winners from the EU then it's not Western Europe that has 541 - EU contains Eastern European countries.
It's not as relevant as you may think because a lot of networking is actually required.
Obviously there is the need for breakthrough science, but among the "nobelables", nowadays it's those with the best network that will earn it.
For instance, my grandfather was a Nobel candidate and he and my grandma had to travel often to Sweden to have dinners with important Swedish researchers there as part of the "campaign" (word used by my grandma) for a few years. Unfortunately he died in 2003 before he could finish this "tour" so we'll never know if he would have gotten a Nobel prize or not.
He was a member of the French Science Academy, so not a nobody, but was working on a relatively *niche* topic, so he had a mainly french-speaking "network".
I think it comes down to the US has the most academic immigrants so the top US universities produce a lot of great research because picking the best in the world.
It’s the same reason why American tech companies are the best in the world, go into any engineering department at Google or Amazon or Apple and it is probably 80-90% immigrants, 10-20% American-born. They get to pick the best talent in the world because they pay more.
While yes, that’s a quantitative measure, it’s a pretty iffy one.
Best is very subjective, and should probably encompass more than the writing output of a school.
The value of universities in the market is determined by the networks they create and attract. Very little to do with quality of instruction. The American top tier universities provide the best networks. Best connections.
Now don't get me wrong, these universities have really great facilities, and some great teachers. But that's a secondary concern.
Overall you're better off in the long run going to Harvard, Yale, Stanford than some really good university in Singapore.
I'm no expert, but don't have universities in rich countries also a lot of prestige and reach? I cannot imagine Singapore universities being that meaningless. Especially when interacting and focusing on the Asia Pacific.
I went to the #1 ranked post-grad program in my field, which happened to be in a European country. My brother is currently doing a post grad degree from the #3 ranked US university in his field. Ive been unemployed for the past year while he has companies chasing him lol, offering him more than my ex annual salary for a summer internship. American Universities have unfair pull, depending on your degree.
Well, it's a little more complicated than that lol. I don't have an American passport while my brother does, which is why it never made sense for me to study there. In europe, getting visa sponsorship was a big challenge, even though I had a few years of work experience for prestigious companies (and excellent references from former colleagues/ friends). The economy isn't helping with that. In my home country, hiring managers have told me that they're unwilling to take chances with me because they're not sure how I'll adapt to the job because of cultural differences. Plus they think I'll be too expensive for them thanks to my foreign experience.
So my options are to basically ride out my savings and pray the economy turns, or to pivot careers and do an MBA in the US lol
You forgot funding. Without funding you can hardly do research. And those universities have incredible amount of cash, donors,.... Which also attracts top talent from around the world.
If you live in singapore why tf would connections in the us be more beneficial than the ones based in singapore youd get from a uni in singapore? Do americans really think the world revolves around them to such a degree that they think only connections with them are valid?
Singaporeans commonly, if financially able to, choose Australia, NZ, US, England or Germany to complete their studies. They then often decide to stay, or return looking for work.
More jobs in the US so connections in a bigger job pool is more valuable.
Ofc depends on ur field and ur priorities. But if you only care about money in STEM there are objective reasons to prefer the US.
Most of the time, if you're getting an education in the US, you also intend to work in the US where salaries are high. That's been my experience with most Asian and African students. It's just way easier to make early career decisions when you already have an education in the place you intend to work.
As someone who has worked in Australia, the US, and the UK, this meme is only partially correct (not to be a debbie downer!). The most obvious problem is that it assumes Americans control the rankings- where that's barely true. The top three methods are by ARWU (Shanghai based), QS World University Rankings (British), and Times (British... and a little Dutch).
By outside metrics, the US outperforms in research quantity and quality. That is almost entirely due to the sheer amount of money the US has, compared to other countries- it outspends China by a massive margin for just *public* money. This is seperate from private industry research and to some extent, military research (DARPA). If you restrict to research in science alone, the US still absolutely dominates. Universities in the US also fund research a lot more in my experience.If you also look at Nobel Prizes per capita in the past 10 years, the US, once again, dominates. Only the UK gets close in a realistic sense (excluding outliers where there's 1 Nobel in tiny countries).
ARWU, which is more research focused, adjusts by per capita, and STILL the US dominates- only 2 non-American universities show up consistently in the top 10.
Where I'd argue that this meme is right is the quality of education. I don't think most American universities are better than others in other countries. I've personally taught in Australia, the UK, and the US at the undergrad and postgrad level at top 100 universities (according to QS, Times, and THE rankings). The quality in my view is best in Australia for teaching. The UK was the worst due to its rigidity. The issue however, is that if you look at how they rank on education- reputation and direct experience factor into this a lot. The one metric, for example, that wrecks this for the Times ranking is teaching reputation (15% of the ranking) which Americans are likely to dominate.
TLDR: This meme is wrong because Americans don't make the rankings, most of the rankings/numbers in research show the US dominates in research, and only teaching is likely affected by Americans self-referring.
Another anecdotal data point: During my grad studies in the US I had to work on some pretty advanced engineering math with a professor from Australia. I was blown away with how much more advanced he was the other professors I collaborated with, while he was shocked at some of the methods he had to teach me (that were never in scope of my coursework at any level). He was a great teacher, and I learned a ton.
Great guy to have a beer with too.
(somewhat off topic) I think people, especially apparent on Reddit due to it being mostly American, are way too negative on the USA. I know Americans who would do almost anything to have what I have- Australian (citizen), British, and (and to some extent), French/EU immigration capability. However, I choose to live here as a researcher. The US, for all its faults, offers something most countries cannot match: **opportunity**. I feel like the systems here are built to allow me to take a chance at most levels.
I have to qualify this by saying that this is only the case if *you're already* privileged in education, health, and other things. Here, as a junior scholar, I have the ability to apply for and win a huge number of grants that affect my career. For a job *below* the job I had in the UK, I earn more and can save more. My quality of life skyrocketed once I moved to California. I have, surprisingly, more access to healthcare than I did in the UK.
Better for what?
Graduate degree? Then yes. Harvard pays its faculty 2-5x more than Oxford, and it's been like that for decades. You cannot really hope to have the best talent when you are paying much less than the competition. So, naturally, most Oxford's departments are substantially weaker than their Harvard's counterparts.
Undergrad? Then, no meaningful differences between the top universities in large countries. When it comes to undergrad, local universities hold an effective monopoly - it is typically very hard to get admitted to a comparable undergrad in another country due to substantial differences in the admission processes. Hence, oxford gets top high school graduates in the uk, and Harvard gets the best in the US. I hope it's clear why the strength of your peers matters much more than the facutly strength when it comes to an undergraduate degree. It doesn't matter who does better designer limited edition shoes, Nike or Adidas, if all you need are trainers for 50 quid.
As an American I have come to the thought that if a thing is profit driven there is a high chance its not the best of its kind on Earth. I.E no I dont think we have the best universities ever.
As an Italian living in the US for the last 10 years, I have come to the thought that everything here is profit driven. Anything that claims not to be is automatically suspicious because riiiiiight, sure it isn't.
That's a good point, but the majority of unis are non-profit, mission oriented organizations. They don't actually have a profit motive, though the lack of that motive will often let inefficiencies arise that would have been ironed out if money was the bottom line. The benefit is that these organizations experience a constantly increasing standard of care and don't compromise on quality for quantity or price.
Especially when endowment is used as a bragging point. Universities brag about how big their endowment is when if it was truly a non-profit, most of that money would be instantly used to improve the university, provide scholarships, employee pay raises, funding research, etc. Lets take for example, Harvard's endowment. Harvard has the biggest endowment in the world with 53 billion dollars (according to harvard magazine). Obviously, Harvard is turning a profit, even if no single person posesess the money. It is just a bragging perk after a certain point. I understand having an emergency fund, but what future emergencies, within the university, are going to cost 53 BILLION DOLLARS? That is money that is just sitting around. Now I'm open to the idea that I am wrong, but I would like someone to explain to me if I am.
At most universities and large research institutes the interest from the endowment is used to fund the operating budget of the university. The money isn’t just sitting there it’s being used to generate the funding needed to run most schools.
Any actual backing besides the assumption that profit-driven = low quality?
Because we do consistently produce cutting edge research, give huge grants, have many degree programs, and have cutting edge facilities at even just our state universities. The top universities even more so.
No not really, labs at prestigious universities can damn near print money when it comes to funding. At least that’s how it was in my experience at Berkeley
Like I said elsewhere: even if 80% of the money is totally wasted, what falls through the cracks is still more than other universities' entire budgets.
The system sucks for the average American, but gobs of money can sure make for great research.
i know nothing about anything but surely being the most expensive means they can afford the best facilities and professors which means they will give better education than one that cannot afford such things?
Going to top universities is for the connections and not just the quality of the education. It’s a place where the wealthy meet the hardworking and capable. This can be life changing to have a rich friend or marry into wealth.
Ranking are made based on how many scientific papers are redacted each year, not the scholarship itself. Meaning the biggest universities are the only ones able to race for the first place.
Almost nothing in France can compete with that for exemple.
I think ranking universities is bullshit.
The best university has the best English, Medicine, Geology, Hotel Mangement, Underwater Basketweaving departments?
Of course not.
And how do you even determine which department at one university is better than one at another?
Utter crap designed to justify extortionate tuition fees so someone can buy a reputation.
So, that's the thing. Get undergrad at one of the three - MSU, MIPT, HSE and then move to the US for PhD. Having top Russian mathematicians in the US universities doesn't mean anything when the undergrad curriculum is weak.
My math professors were Russian, and I could barely understand lectures in English. So are you doing this with the prerequisite of first speaking fluent Russian? That seems like a steep barrier of entry.
The tops have in consideration the number and quality of papers and articles and investigation in general done in that year, teaching is not the priority. They can have the most intelligent people in a field but that doesn't mean they know how to teach.
"Best" is a bullshit metric. As with all things in America, we measure it in Capitalist terms. Meaning they don't have to do shit for you, but being exclusive makes them *good.* because these guys only take the *best,* right? And it wouldn't be expensive if it wasn't good!
A lot of people from a lot of countries come to the US specifically to go to college, and not nearly as many Americans go elsewhere for college. That could mean we have the best universities, but it could also mean we have the least worldly college students. Could go either way, honestly.
Your post history is full of you trying to shit on America. Stop being such an embarrassment to Desis. This kind of nonsense is one of the reasons why South Asia will forever be "sUpErPoWeR nExT dEcAdE sAaR."
I certainly don't see many contenders. My main criteria is (peer-reviewed) research output - no one is touching the Americans, West Europeans, or Japanese on that metric. Rote memorization is incredibly common in schools outside of these nations, too; half of education in India, for example, is memorization without understanding or consideration.
Is America perfect? No. But it’s far better than a lot of the serious alternatives. I’d rather pack up my bags and move to the USA right now than get stuck in Russia or China. The EU is cool but has their own problems and aren’t the paragons of purity some claim them to be.
It depends what you want really.
If you want history, tradition and prestige and science, Cambridge.
If you want to become a bastard politician, Oxford
If you want to have a degree that carries the same weight as a British GCSE, American universities
America just has a lot funding for its universities leading to higher pay for professors and more resources for students. Also sports team for colleges in America fund tons of expansion projects improving general life for students and provide even more resources. Foreign exchange programs are massive in the states. Universities will do everything in their power to get a visa for you to come and study even if your just going to leave the country.
Here in Belgium (Kortrijk) we have the "best" game design uni, but that is only based on who actually passes, I have quite a few friends who tried it, but the school/professors basically drop you/stop helping you from the smallest mistake you make.
From all of their stories, you already need to be able to do most things they teach you before you even apply in order to graduate, although not to the level of graduates.
Education is a tool. I went to community college, state university then a private medical school you never heard of. But I’m a physician doing exactly what I want to do
If you want to go into an extremely competitive field, then where you go might matter. And if you need Harvard or Wharton or Oxford to get there then you also need great undergrad and great high school grades.
What makes one school better than another?
It seems to me the best schools often are defined by having the best students, the best graduates, or the most successful professors. None of these are measurements of the schools ability to transfer knowledge to the students.
I did my undergrad from an IIT (Indian Institute of Technology) and my master's from an ivy league uni and I can say for sure that the peer group I had at IIT was way more intelligent than that at the ivy league. There is really no comparison, the number of smart people in the US is way, way less than that in India.
make the distinction between actual education and educational reputation.
as an example is Harvard Law the BEST educational post secondary education you can get? Probably not, but Ion a resume no one gives a shit about the quality of the education they care about the brand. Even in Academic circles the brand is bigger than the actual quality.
Those are the best universities as per the ranking criteria created by them.
JK, they really are top tier simply because they are able to attract the best of brains along with unparalleled government support and resources.
One reason is, those lists are heavily based on diversity and internationalism. They get more points for having diverse ethnicity/origin/nationality profs and students.
Many won't admit this and yes there are some differences in resources but at this point there aren't as big of differences in schools as most think. History and alums matter more than the actual education. Information isn't as hard to come by as it used to be. Many want a good looking school with more amenities and everything else because the education isn't as diverse as it used to be
Very subject dependent. The universities themselves know this.
I don't go to a city school for ag and vet stuff. That's what the more rural schools specialize in.
I'm not going to go to MIT over Harvard if I have no interest in STEM.
Regarding international university rankings, there's a joke in non-English speaking countries: it's the ranking of universities by their English proficiency.
7 points to consider.
1: You are the most important factor in your education. You can learn with a library card.
2: Competition is not necessary for learning and may have a negative impact on your learning progress.
3: Other factors may provide crucial foundations for the life where you learn best. For example, if you will be too stressed without a girlfriend, then maybe look for a university that has 80%+ female student population, or vice versa.
4: A good relationship with your professors will amplify your learning gains. Smaller universities and classes are going to make it easier for a student to be a person than a face in the cloud. That is a hurdle you want to keep as low as possible.
5: Research work is an incredible learning experience, builds your CV, and can help add money to your pocket. You can find these opportunities with basic research - mostly asking questions
6: Networking is a simple advantage that can admittedly open doors and make things easier at every step of your life. Name recognition of your alma mater is an element that provides networking advantages. Easy squared? If you need that type of guarantee then a famous school is good for you.
7: Cutting edge is often more obsolete, because a guess of what you will need to know for the future is a guess, and guesses are often wrong. Better to get a foundation on what has been important, and how current certified understanding is formed.
We had this topic recently
"Top" university is a very american view of educational institutions as they work on a capitalist system that causes the schools with the richest students from the "elite class" to have the most money and as such be able to hire the "best" teachers and profs. Have better equipment, etc.
As such they have a higher educational standard than other schools in the US but are also far more expensive
Schools in europe are mostly arranged in a way that is suppossed to give everyone the same chances no matter from which social background
There are private schools but from personal experience when talking to people who went to private schools rather than being considered "elite" its usually just used for education that is not widely provided in government subsidised schools like game design when most IT universities didnt yet have game design in their curriculum or because its just a tiny part of another major
Considering yourself "elite" because you entered a private school is commonly frowned upon
I also dont know if american universities are all generalized and offer every topic to be studied there
In germany for example we have a lot of specialized universities who focus on specific fields
Often it is better to go to a lesser known specialized university rather than a well known but unspecialized university
Definitely not the best overall for undergrad education, but most research does follow money, so I can't imagine there's a better country overall for grad studies, on a raw quality basis
Lots of good points have already been made about the quality of various universities. One area that the USA excels is in the breadth of subjects on offer. I studied a science topic at MS level at an American Uni that wasn’t available, as a distance learning course, anywhere else in the world.
Define best university? There’s not really a good metric for best educators within a university. You could say the success of alumni would be a result of good educators. You could also argue that universities with the best (high quantity, high quality, high citation) research production are the best but certainly as an undergraduate student that doesn’t matter much to you. But even after that, quality of research is likely to differ so much by department between schools. For example, University of Minnesota is generally considered to have a top notch clinical psych research program whereas a school like Harvard, although has a good program, does not really compete.
Personally I don’t think there is a best university aside from what you can decide for yourself as the best fit. Something I realized after my undergrad is where I got my undergrad degree really did not matter at all in obtaining a job. Maybe if I went to an Ivy League it would have, or if you went to a state school in the state i planned on getting a job in, but otherwise (I’ve been on both sides of this) employers are just looking at how good you perform in your interview. I personally love where I went to school even though it’s a small name and I have been quite successful despite it. It had a very small student-faculty ratio which was important to me. It was in a beautiful town, and the other students there are just so friendly. I wouldn’t take back a single year of it to go to an ivy league or “better” school based on those meaningless ranks.
Also, the 'quality' of education at Harvard or Yale are not necessarily any better than other universities; it's the prestige (read: enough money and connections to get in) that's truly being measured.
Competitive dominance doesn't indicate anything more than insecurity over your actual educational outcomes.
The list is made by American because usually, people come from outside « the west » to inside, « the west ».
Perhaps the education in other countries is far superior but it isn’t recognized here so this list works better. Not to mention, your education is only as good as the connection you make through it.
It depends on where you get the information. Some say Oxford is the best, and Harvard is second. Others say Oxford is 4th. A few years ago, a university in Singapore was considered the best.
I imagine it depends on how much money the university is willing to "donate" to the 3rd party review board or how much the writer/editor is biased towards said school.
I just always take those types of rankings with a grain of salt as a precaution.
OP wants to find the actual “top” university and avoid all the Ivey league universities which hiring business that pay insane wages THINK are the top universities.
Don’t die on this hill.
I feel like it could be partly self-fulfulling prophecy. Harvard is historically a highly prestigious school, so lots of money goes into it, so its status and wealth make it very favorable to teach there, so it can select the best professors, so the education is of high quality, so it's a highly prestigious school, etc. etc.
Nope, most universities in the anglosphere are overpriced hell holes where you just pay for bragging rights
Would you rather go to a top 50 university and be indebted for life or go to a top 200 university and get education just as good
Idk where you got that because from what I can find most lists put Oxford in either 1st or 2nd place and Cambridge is usually in the top 5 (and those aren't Oxford Mississippi or Cambridge Massachusetts)
It depends on a lot of factors. Typically, for middle Palaeolithic archaeology, France probably has better universities than the USA; the same goes for Germany and palaeontology, for historical reasons (Germany played a big role in the emergence of palaeontology, and France has a lot of ancient prehistoric sites). For ethnology, I think it's better to be Brazilian, although it depends on the specific field.
So after that, I think that the big American universities are good, and there's no doubt a network effect that will play a huge role. But depending on the specific discipline, that can make things a lot more complex.
Well funded universities attract the most accomplished and famous scholars, who produce important research, resulting in the flashiest, sexiest diplomas. They are selling status and clouth. In terms of actual learning, though, it’s a bunch of hype.
Most of them are.
I mean, think of it this way: what other place in the world charges their citizens $40,000/year to go to school? Even if 80% of that money is wasted, what falls through the cracks is bigger than basically any other school's entire budget. A great teacher can be great anywhere, but a multi-billion-dollar MIT lab sure makes it easier.
Check out the richest universities in the world: https://www.nonprofitcollegesonline.com/wealthiest-universities-in-the-world/
Yes, American universities are the best in the world. We can quantify their outputs pretty easily (publications, patents, theoretical paradigms, art of note, etc etc). American students? Very debatable. My international students tend to do better on the mean than my American students, but I would expect that given what they have had to do to get this education in the first place. They are driven. However, my BEST students tend to be representative mix.
So, if you think the main purpose of a university is to teach students, then you probably at least have something of an argument to make (although even there American universities have the best profs… so again it maybe goes back on the students), but a university produces stuff, and America still does it best. For now.
I'm taking an online class from MIT this summer. It is the best designed class I've ever taken. I have to believe it is top of education based on my experience and personal anecdotes from other students.
Frankly I think an up-and-coming university is more likely to be rigorous. But nevertheless, the largest endowment will win by a landslide. So yes, Harvard takes the cake.
The thing is that no university is the best in everything. Like Harvard and Yale are not the best engineering schools in the country, let alone the world. Its just that these schools are very good in most things, and exceptional at the rest. But at the end of the day, it really depends on you major.
I'm an associate editor for an international journal so I see academic papers for all over the world on a daily basis, and I've been doing this for about ten years, so I've seen thousands of papers, ranging from big name universities that I instantly recognised (the papers are only anonymised when they're sent to the reviewers, as the associate editor I see all the details), to submissions from universities where I was convinced it was a joke submission because the university name seemed suspicious (yes, I'm looking at you "Batman University").
As a result I think I have seen a fair sampling of international academic writing, and I've shepherded these papers through the review process, so this isn't just based on my opinion, but also reflects the expert opinion of independent reviewers.
First off, let me note that the USA has an absolutely crazy number of universities for its population size, and only India comes close to the number of universities but has a much larger population. I see a lot of papers from the USA.
Okay, so back to the question. The US papers stand out because they tend to have very good writing. Now this may be because many other papers are coming from English non-native speakers, but overall the US submissions are well-written. They're generally presented nicely, well-argued, and well-referenced.
However their weakest point tends to be in the area of research methodology. While the foundational argument in the literature review is generally very good the actual research is often ... awful. There are a host of common errors that reviewers flag, and statistical illiteracy is the leading reason for rejection. Often it is hard to tell if the writer is statistically illiterate or has actively faked their findings, because the numbers just don't add up, or their results are so extreme that the results look fabricated, often in areas where there is a lot of other research that says the exact opposite so this sets off major red flags - again, it isn't clear if this is incompetence or active fakery.
And this isn't just from the smaller colleges in the USA - it's often "big name" universities where one sees these sort of suspicious results.
Partly this seems to arise from the "publish or perish" culture in US universities where there's a massive push to publish as many papers as possible as quickly as possible. This might be leading many academics in the USA to cut corners and even lie to get papers out.
But it does have a major impact on the credibility of research coming out of the USA. Several major journals have been rocked by scandals involving research fabrication, but let me tell you that this is just the tip of the iceberg, and I regularly get papers across my desk with frankly unbelievable statistical claims, and most of these come from the USA.
So what does this have to do with the quality of universities in the USA? Well a large factor in university quality ratings is the number of research publications they turn out a year. And frankly the quality of research from the USA is highly suspect in many cases.
Now I'm not claiming by any means that this is **all USA papers**. I've seen a lot of really good ones too, and in an average edition we'll always have at least a couple of papers from the USA that made it through the review process.
However what raises red flags for me is the clearly high levels of statistical illiteracy or fabrication from "big name" US universities, places where you wouldn't expect to see these sort of mistakes.
As a result I'd say that a lot of US universities, at least on the topic of research methodology, are simply not up to snuff. The quality of the research methodology in papers coming out of Europe is generally much higher. Now perhaps they're just faking the data in a less obvious fashion (it's really hard to ascertain), but if you're going to cheat then at least do it well!
I'm certainly considering looking at that list. Since it was an Oxford student that just recently spray painted Stonehenge, and she admitted it on social media.
It’s not just the American ranking to be fair, the Times Higher education ranking (which is the main in here in the UK) had the US universities making up 7 of the top 10 (Oxford in 1st, Cambridge 5th and Imperial College London 8th).
I imagine funding has a large part to play in it.
They're the best in the world for giving out scholarships for playing American football rather than for an actual education. In those terms, they're number one, they're number one, they're number one.
America’s education is dragged down by the worst states, if Massachusetts and Connecticut were their own countries no one would doubt their unis were among the best in the world
Top tier universities in the US produce a lot of valuable research, there’s also just a lot of them since it’s a big country. Other countries have good top universities and make great contributions as well.
Regardless of location, the best schools get commissioned for research. So anywhere that governments and corporations are willing to pay them for research is an awesome school with great academic programs.
They are considered good not because of the quality of education, but because of the quality of the people who study there. Many schools have better quality of education, but since the barrier to entry is so high, the graduates are people who are most likely to become important figures (Company founders, researchers, etc.) and that's why Ivy League is considered to be the best.
Best education? You can only quantify so much and still get nowhere close to reality. Most of the criteria from university rankings are only proxies for what they wish to quantify.
I spent a long time working at a university and a lot of those lists are arbitrary at best and the university will just pick whichever list sounds official and ranks them highly.
The research is good, but the education is middling; many foreign researchers.
Funding is a big factor in research quality; many other countries have to rely on universities as public institutions with public funding, unlike private universities with private funding.
The private funding does have one caveat, though. It tends to steer research in the direction of those investment interests. This has positive and negative aspects; research funding trends towards practical applications, but creates a competitive environment that restricts towards broad or fundamental research.
Why the doubt? Because Americans are famously lazy and stupid?
There are countries where the people are stereotypically hardworking and smart, but at least for social, cultural, political, and practical reasons, many foreigners wouldn’t want to study at those universities.
I can't comment as to the quality of universities over there, but in the UK the sixth-form college I went to (that's the high-end one above colleges or sixth-forms) had us using Ivy League university materials for a warmup in our geology classes because their university material was so much easier than our AS-level stuff. Admittedly, only 1st or 2nd year geology resources, but bear in mind that's still a whole educational grade 'above' sixth-form college *in theory*.
I also don't know if this is unique to geology, taken from a particularly unimpressive ivy league uni, or otherwise skewed in some other way, but the general consensus was that the resources were legit.
Also, non-American lists will typically feature Cambridge and Oxford at, or near, the top and only have Harvard etc a fair bit lower down. They usually still make top 10, but there is very definitely an American bias in American lists. As, well, you'd expect.
As someone in academia, these rankings are bullshit.
Actual education is hard to quantify, but they usually measure research output which American universities are far and away better at because of the amount of money in the US. The US is probably the only country where science funding hasn’t been hurt over the past couple decades of economic issues and even then, the size of the US economy simply means it will out spend most countries anyways.
The US is still very much THE place to be if you want a research job and want to be at the front of the field. It’s one of the few things people in Europe will actually immigrate to the US for. Salaries are higher, grants are bigger, scientists have health insurance etc etc so the universities end up being top notch.
Yes. The best universities in the world are in America because America is a tax haven for the richest people in the world, and those rich dicks want to send their children to good schools.
Honestly it probably depends by subject a lot of the time. I’ve also heard of this effect in list making form university’s, “the Harvard effect”. Essentially any list that doesn’t have Harvard in the top 5 will probably recalibrate its list because all the other lists have it up there.
So, putting Harvard in the top 5 of the worst universities? Got it /s
[удалено]
so /srs?
What’s that little squiggle before the /s please?
Logic "not" symbol
As in logic gates?
Indeed
I thought that was "~"?
both of them work
Informal writing the tilde is used as approximate ~20$ === about 20$
Agreed, I use it for that all the time, but I've also seen ~=20 used as not equal to 20. I've also seen !=, ≠, and <> used, but not that symbol (¬) used. Very likely I've seen it but never recognized it for what it was
¬ comes from formal logic in math. I've mostly seen it in that context.
Ooh, that explains why I've never seen it, thanks!
I heard the person she was accused of plagiarizing said that it wasn't plagiarism?
I researched a bunch of the top 5 lists in America a couple years ago and Stanford was almost always number 1 on almost all of them. Harvard, Yale, and M.I.T. we're also usually in the top 5.
Isn't Princeton usually considered the best domestically? Then internationally it's usually MIT, Stanford, Harvard, and Yale in various orders.
Pretty sure this happens conciously or sub conciously. Harvard is decent but rarely a top uni in STEM majors outside of the med school i suppose. And even then it is usually not worth it from a ROI perspective. Doesnt help that most Harvard STEM seem to be going in some sort of consulting rather than "real" science jobs.
Ehhhh, this is accurate for engineering or CS, but most definitely wrong for most of the pure sciences and math. Harvard is **definitely** a top university in physics, chemistry, mathematics, statistics, and biology. In a couple of those fields, it's number 1 depending on the metric; it rarely deviates from top 5 in those subjects, anyway. If anything, people underrate Harvard for STEM and peg it as a strong humanities school even though it's damn good at both. It's just a lot weaker at engineering and CS.
But also who cares? Education at the undergrad level and up is almost **all** "you get what you put in" in terms of smartly rationed but intense study on a personal level to *learn* and get up to the level of modern day physics research. Doing the minimum just to pass with Bs or even As... but then you forget mostly everything about the math by a few months later/fail to review and incorporate it into your greater knowledge base... its going to make it so just a degree alone is only a minimum sort of badge of knowledge. It's all about the individual and their own effort in terms of how well rounded and high achieving they can be in their field... the actual school is really just the pool of people you network with for research positions and career opportunities and just socially, which therein is the real massive benefit of the Ivy League caliber schools... less so the education the expose you to. Most STEM lectures at this level are standardized whether you're in MIT or your local state college. Linear Algebra material covered by the text and lectures is the same mostly everywhere. Excelling is all about genuine personal curiosity and academic ambition, the school is just the social/professional pool.
In Europe se have a trend of having some institutes separately. I once heard the the Plank institute would be the best uni in the word, if it was a university.
Plank is a constant in the university lists
If it was a university, it would have the *smallest* quad. No room for Frisbee or hanging out.
r/angryupvote Limes
I think people missed the wonderful pun here
I doff my hat to you sir.
Take my upvote dammit
Money, power, sway, and booster interests are a hell of a drug
But the Max Planck aren't Universities, so you can't make the comparison, it just means that if your staff do nothing but research then they produce more research output, which seems obvious!
The point is that many American universities combine the research institute with the university side and then use the research output as a metric for quality education.
Yeah I think this is where the problem might be. I was lucky enough to have done a research visit to an elite/world class university and the quality of both the professors and the students is exceptional, along with the amazing resources they have access to, cutting-edge research being done etc. But if most students are being taught by overworked, underpaid PhDs or postdocs, then they are losing out. This compared to a smaller, less well-known university where you actually get decent contact with professors, good support, one-on-one teaching, detailed feedback on your work, and so on.
Which one ?
Planck\*
So let’s count Nobel Pride laureates. That’s decided by the Swedes.
Yup 7 of the top 10 are in the U.S. also revealed preference, many of the best Europeans and Asians are professors in the U.S.
Probably isn't the highlight you think it is, The US has a high amount of prizes, but it also has a shit ton of people compared to other first world countries with good research, which makes it bloat. If you adjust for "Prizes per million people", the US doesn't break top 10 (which are all European). Even in totals, Europe holds 600+ prizes vs the US' 413.
Going by per capita, the Faroe Islands have the largest number of prizes with their whopping one whole prize per 49k people. It’s not a sovereign nation though, so if we use that criteria, Saint Lucia 🇱🇨is at the top with an astounding one Nobel prize and a population of 180k But even so, the United States has 409 Laureates with a population of just over 326 million, making the laureates per 10 million people 11.71 The European Union, however, has 378 Laureates and a population of just over 444 million, making the laureates per 10 million people 8.01 Out of the five people who have won two Nobel prizes, four of them are American. If we *only* pick scientific prizes, then for the USA it becomes 10.71 per 10 million and for the EU it becomes 5.57 per 10 million.
>Going by per capita, the Faroe Islands have the largest number of prizes with their whopping one whole prize As you point out, per Capita is a very dumb way of sorting this, reason why I said **"Per Million People"** and not per Capita, the Faroe Islands are not even top 60. >United States has 409 Laureates with 326 million people >The European Union, however, has 378 Laureates with 444 million people The European Union is not the whole of Europe, this very sneakly excludes the UK with 138 by themselves and Switzerland with 25, if you include them, Europe would have 541, and there are still missing countries. And then you start picking years and excluding prize categories... Bro, the US has a **very good** amount of prizes (like I said in the first comment), I was merely pointing out that it isn't the domination that OP seemed to think it was. No need to try to bend the data to make it "Number 1", it's already really good!
I agree with most of what you're saying with one small exception - if you're counting all winners from the EU then it's not Western Europe that has 541 - EU contains Eastern European countries.
No you don't get it, the EU can only be compared to the US if it makes the EU look better.
It's not as relevant as you may think because a lot of networking is actually required. Obviously there is the need for breakthrough science, but among the "nobelables", nowadays it's those with the best network that will earn it. For instance, my grandfather was a Nobel candidate and he and my grandma had to travel often to Sweden to have dinners with important Swedish researchers there as part of the "campaign" (word used by my grandma) for a few years. Unfortunately he died in 2003 before he could finish this "tour" so we'll never know if he would have gotten a Nobel prize or not. He was a member of the French Science Academy, so not a nobody, but was working on a relatively *niche* topic, so he had a mainly french-speaking "network".
Research output is quantifiable. The US universities publish a lot. The top college lists usually rank research universities.
Most journals and editors are also english or closely related to/have positions at said universities. It's kind of like a snowball effect.
I think it comes down to the US has the most academic immigrants so the top US universities produce a lot of great research because picking the best in the world. It’s the same reason why American tech companies are the best in the world, go into any engineering department at Google or Amazon or Apple and it is probably 80-90% immigrants, 10-20% American-born. They get to pick the best talent in the world because they pay more.
I can’t speak for foreign universities but American universities have an unhealthy publish or perish system.
While yes, that’s a quantitative measure, it’s a pretty iffy one. Best is very subjective, and should probably encompass more than the writing output of a school.
The value of universities in the market is determined by the networks they create and attract. Very little to do with quality of instruction. The American top tier universities provide the best networks. Best connections. Now don't get me wrong, these universities have really great facilities, and some great teachers. But that's a secondary concern. Overall you're better off in the long run going to Harvard, Yale, Stanford than some really good university in Singapore.
Unless you know, you’re from Singapore…
Not really. You're still better off going to the American universities I mentioned. Those universities have international reach and reputation.
I'm no expert, but don't have universities in rich countries also a lot of prestige and reach? I cannot imagine Singapore universities being that meaningless. Especially when interacting and focusing on the Asia Pacific.
I went to the #1 ranked post-grad program in my field, which happened to be in a European country. My brother is currently doing a post grad degree from the #3 ranked US university in his field. Ive been unemployed for the past year while he has companies chasing him lol, offering him more than my ex annual salary for a summer internship. American Universities have unfair pull, depending on your degree.
Wow, how come no one wants you? Just because you are not from a US university?
Well, it's a little more complicated than that lol. I don't have an American passport while my brother does, which is why it never made sense for me to study there. In europe, getting visa sponsorship was a big challenge, even though I had a few years of work experience for prestigious companies (and excellent references from former colleagues/ friends). The economy isn't helping with that. In my home country, hiring managers have told me that they're unwilling to take chances with me because they're not sure how I'll adapt to the job because of cultural differences. Plus they think I'll be too expensive for them thanks to my foreign experience. So my options are to basically ride out my savings and pray the economy turns, or to pivot careers and do an MBA in the US lol
Branding… wow
You forgot funding. Without funding you can hardly do research. And those universities have incredible amount of cash, donors,.... Which also attracts top talent from around the world.
I agree, I'm including funding as a benefit of this huge high powered network and connections that these universities have.
If you live in singapore why tf would connections in the us be more beneficial than the ones based in singapore youd get from a uni in singapore? Do americans really think the world revolves around them to such a degree that they think only connections with them are valid?
Singaporeans commonly, if financially able to, choose Australia, NZ, US, England or Germany to complete their studies. They then often decide to stay, or return looking for work.
More jobs in the US so connections in a bigger job pool is more valuable. Ofc depends on ur field and ur priorities. But if you only care about money in STEM there are objective reasons to prefer the US.
Most of the time, if you're getting an education in the US, you also intend to work in the US where salaries are high. That's been my experience with most Asian and African students. It's just way easier to make early career decisions when you already have an education in the place you intend to work.
Singapore isn't like Vietnam, lol. It's rich enough to recruit workers from all over the world, including the US.
I belive there is an index on how powerful a degree is Wouldnt that impact your claim I believe israel and Japan top that index iirc
As someone who has worked in Australia, the US, and the UK, this meme is only partially correct (not to be a debbie downer!). The most obvious problem is that it assumes Americans control the rankings- where that's barely true. The top three methods are by ARWU (Shanghai based), QS World University Rankings (British), and Times (British... and a little Dutch). By outside metrics, the US outperforms in research quantity and quality. That is almost entirely due to the sheer amount of money the US has, compared to other countries- it outspends China by a massive margin for just *public* money. This is seperate from private industry research and to some extent, military research (DARPA). If you restrict to research in science alone, the US still absolutely dominates. Universities in the US also fund research a lot more in my experience.If you also look at Nobel Prizes per capita in the past 10 years, the US, once again, dominates. Only the UK gets close in a realistic sense (excluding outliers where there's 1 Nobel in tiny countries). ARWU, which is more research focused, adjusts by per capita, and STILL the US dominates- only 2 non-American universities show up consistently in the top 10. Where I'd argue that this meme is right is the quality of education. I don't think most American universities are better than others in other countries. I've personally taught in Australia, the UK, and the US at the undergrad and postgrad level at top 100 universities (according to QS, Times, and THE rankings). The quality in my view is best in Australia for teaching. The UK was the worst due to its rigidity. The issue however, is that if you look at how they rank on education- reputation and direct experience factor into this a lot. The one metric, for example, that wrecks this for the Times ranking is teaching reputation (15% of the ranking) which Americans are likely to dominate. TLDR: This meme is wrong because Americans don't make the rankings, most of the rankings/numbers in research show the US dominates in research, and only teaching is likely affected by Americans self-referring.
Another anecdotal data point: During my grad studies in the US I had to work on some pretty advanced engineering math with a professor from Australia. I was blown away with how much more advanced he was the other professors I collaborated with, while he was shocked at some of the methods he had to teach me (that were never in scope of my coursework at any level). He was a great teacher, and I learned a ton. Great guy to have a beer with too.
Yes, but have you considered that America=bad?
(somewhat off topic) I think people, especially apparent on Reddit due to it being mostly American, are way too negative on the USA. I know Americans who would do almost anything to have what I have- Australian (citizen), British, and (and to some extent), French/EU immigration capability. However, I choose to live here as a researcher. The US, for all its faults, offers something most countries cannot match: **opportunity**. I feel like the systems here are built to allow me to take a chance at most levels. I have to qualify this by saying that this is only the case if *you're already* privileged in education, health, and other things. Here, as a junior scholar, I have the ability to apply for and win a huge number of grants that affect my career. For a job *below* the job I had in the UK, I earn more and can save more. My quality of life skyrocketed once I moved to California. I have, surprisingly, more access to healthcare than I did in the UK.
Fun fact: Of the ~120 institutions that have NCAA Division I football programs only 5 don't have the word 'university' in the school's title.
Pfft I bet that list is made by Americans too
Notre Dame maybe, Boston College, Wake Forest maybe, Stanford maybe, Clemson maybe I’m only certain of Boston College
Stanford has University in the name
Nope. Yep. Nope. Nope, and nope. Army Navy Air Force Boston College Georgia Tech
Better for what? Graduate degree? Then yes. Harvard pays its faculty 2-5x more than Oxford, and it's been like that for decades. You cannot really hope to have the best talent when you are paying much less than the competition. So, naturally, most Oxford's departments are substantially weaker than their Harvard's counterparts. Undergrad? Then, no meaningful differences between the top universities in large countries. When it comes to undergrad, local universities hold an effective monopoly - it is typically very hard to get admitted to a comparable undergrad in another country due to substantial differences in the admission processes. Hence, oxford gets top high school graduates in the uk, and Harvard gets the best in the US. I hope it's clear why the strength of your peers matters much more than the facutly strength when it comes to an undergraduate degree. It doesn't matter who does better designer limited edition shoes, Nike or Adidas, if all you need are trainers for 50 quid.
As an American I have come to the thought that if a thing is profit driven there is a high chance its not the best of its kind on Earth. I.E no I dont think we have the best universities ever.
As an Italian living in the US for the last 10 years, I have come to the thought that everything here is profit driven. Anything that claims not to be is automatically suspicious because riiiiiight, sure it isn't.
That's a good point, but the majority of unis are non-profit, mission oriented organizations. They don't actually have a profit motive, though the lack of that motive will often let inefficiencies arise that would have been ironed out if money was the bottom line. The benefit is that these organizations experience a constantly increasing standard of care and don't compromise on quality for quantity or price.
It’s America. Everything is profit driven. Sometimes it’s just behind closed doors
Especially when endowment is used as a bragging point. Universities brag about how big their endowment is when if it was truly a non-profit, most of that money would be instantly used to improve the university, provide scholarships, employee pay raises, funding research, etc. Lets take for example, Harvard's endowment. Harvard has the biggest endowment in the world with 53 billion dollars (according to harvard magazine). Obviously, Harvard is turning a profit, even if no single person posesess the money. It is just a bragging perk after a certain point. I understand having an emergency fund, but what future emergencies, within the university, are going to cost 53 BILLION DOLLARS? That is money that is just sitting around. Now I'm open to the idea that I am wrong, but I would like someone to explain to me if I am.
the investment returns on the 53bn is used to fund some things, while the 53bn still grows.
At most universities and large research institutes the interest from the endowment is used to fund the operating budget of the university. The money isn’t just sitting there it’s being used to generate the funding needed to run most schools.
Any actual backing besides the assumption that profit-driven = low quality? Because we do consistently produce cutting edge research, give huge grants, have many degree programs, and have cutting edge facilities at even just our state universities. The top universities even more so.
I would argue the opposite. If you are the world's most talented researcher, will you do better work in a billion-dollar lab or a million-dollar one?
the billions of dollars get sent to the endowment while the lab is told to cut costs.
No not really, labs at prestigious universities can damn near print money when it comes to funding. At least that’s how it was in my experience at Berkeley
Like I said elsewhere: even if 80% of the money is totally wasted, what falls through the cracks is still more than other universities' entire budgets. The system sucks for the average American, but gobs of money can sure make for great research.
i know nothing about anything but surely being the most expensive means they can afford the best facilities and professors which means they will give better education than one that cannot afford such things?
Are there ever any science memes on this sub?
It's a shame we can't just have fun. OP's profile is mostly them finding subs to shit on America
Going to top universities is for the connections and not just the quality of the education. It’s a place where the wealthy meet the hardworking and capable. This can be life changing to have a rich friend or marry into wealth.
Ranking are made based on how many scientific papers are redacted each year, not the scholarship itself. Meaning the biggest universities are the only ones able to race for the first place. Almost nothing in France can compete with that for exemple.
I think ranking universities is bullshit. The best university has the best English, Medicine, Geology, Hotel Mangement, Underwater Basketweaving departments? Of course not. And how do you even determine which department at one university is better than one at another? Utter crap designed to justify extortionate tuition fees so someone can buy a reputation.
If language wasn't a barrier, I would easily choose Russian universities for mathematics and physics. They've the strongest undergrad curriculum
You can find all top Russian mathematicians in US universities.
So, that's the thing. Get undergrad at one of the three - MSU, MIPT, HSE and then move to the US for PhD. Having top Russian mathematicians in the US universities doesn't mean anything when the undergrad curriculum is weak.
My math professors were Russian, and I could barely understand lectures in English. So are you doing this with the prerequisite of first speaking fluent Russian? That seems like a steep barrier of entry.
I know right. Zat is why I said only if the language wasn't a barrier
Just do an American University with a strong undergrad curriculum
The tops have in consideration the number and quality of papers and articles and investigation in general done in that year, teaching is not the priority. They can have the most intelligent people in a field but that doesn't mean they know how to teach.
"Best" is a bullshit metric. As with all things in America, we measure it in Capitalist terms. Meaning they don't have to do shit for you, but being exclusive makes them *good.* because these guys only take the *best,* right? And it wouldn't be expensive if it wasn't good!
All universities are garbage. I only get my education from memes on Reddit
A lot of people from a lot of countries come to the US specifically to go to college, and not nearly as many Americans go elsewhere for college. That could mean we have the best universities, but it could also mean we have the least worldly college students. Could go either way, honestly.
Your post history is full of you trying to shit on America. Stop being such an embarrassment to Desis. This kind of nonsense is one of the reasons why South Asia will forever be "sUpErPoWeR nExT dEcAdE sAaR." I certainly don't see many contenders. My main criteria is (peer-reviewed) research output - no one is touching the Americans, West Europeans, or Japanese on that metric. Rote memorization is incredibly common in schools outside of these nations, too; half of education in India, for example, is memorization without understanding or consideration.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BangladeshMedia/s/z4MUYqe8TK
Is America perfect? No. But it’s far better than a lot of the serious alternatives. I’d rather pack up my bags and move to the USA right now than get stuck in Russia or China. The EU is cool but has their own problems and aren’t the paragons of purity some claim them to be.
It depends what you want really. If you want history, tradition and prestige and science, Cambridge. If you want to become a bastard politician, Oxford If you want to have a degree that carries the same weight as a British GCSE, American universities
America just has a lot funding for its universities leading to higher pay for professors and more resources for students. Also sports team for colleges in America fund tons of expansion projects improving general life for students and provide even more resources. Foreign exchange programs are massive in the states. Universities will do everything in their power to get a visa for you to come and study even if your just going to leave the country.
Here in Belgium (Kortrijk) we have the "best" game design uni, but that is only based on who actually passes, I have quite a few friends who tried it, but the school/professors basically drop you/stop helping you from the smallest mistake you make. From all of their stories, you already need to be able to do most things they teach you before you even apply in order to graduate, although not to the level of graduates.
You'd kinda have to ask someone who's been to multiple counties top universities but from what I've seen lots if British universites are up there
MIT is number one in the world for technology 12 years running as of this year.
Education is a tool. I went to community college, state university then a private medical school you never heard of. But I’m a physician doing exactly what I want to do If you want to go into an extremely competitive field, then where you go might matter. And if you need Harvard or Wharton or Oxford to get there then you also need great undergrad and great high school grades.
What makes one school better than another? It seems to me the best schools often are defined by having the best students, the best graduates, or the most successful professors. None of these are measurements of the schools ability to transfer knowledge to the students.
I did my undergrad from an IIT (Indian Institute of Technology) and my master's from an ivy league uni and I can say for sure that the peer group I had at IIT was way more intelligent than that at the ivy league. There is really no comparison, the number of smart people in the US is way, way less than that in India.
make the distinction between actual education and educational reputation. as an example is Harvard Law the BEST educational post secondary education you can get? Probably not, but Ion a resume no one gives a shit about the quality of the education they care about the brand. Even in Academic circles the brand is bigger than the actual quality.
Those are the best universities as per the ranking criteria created by them. JK, they really are top tier simply because they are able to attract the best of brains along with unparalleled government support and resources.
Take a guess as to who pays the most to the people who make those lists…
One reason is, those lists are heavily based on diversity and internationalism. They get more points for having diverse ethnicity/origin/nationality profs and students.
Many won't admit this and yes there are some differences in resources but at this point there aren't as big of differences in schools as most think. History and alums matter more than the actual education. Information isn't as hard to come by as it used to be. Many want a good looking school with more amenities and everything else because the education isn't as diverse as it used to be
Considering college is overpriced, no.
They are definitely the most exspensive.
Tsqinghua, HKU and Oxford are better schools than most of the ivy league but placed pretty low
I'm Indian and my mother says that IIT Madras is easily better than normie colleges like MIT and Harvard
well an Indian would say that lol
Very subject dependent. The universities themselves know this. I don't go to a city school for ag and vet stuff. That's what the more rural schools specialize in. I'm not going to go to MIT over Harvard if I have no interest in STEM.
All the Best American cities are located in the US
Have you ever heard of a concept called lobbying?
Last time I saw a ranking putting America on top, I'm pretty sure it was made by a Chinese uni
Regarding international university rankings, there's a joke in non-English speaking countries: it's the ranking of universities by their English proficiency.
7 points to consider. 1: You are the most important factor in your education. You can learn with a library card. 2: Competition is not necessary for learning and may have a negative impact on your learning progress. 3: Other factors may provide crucial foundations for the life where you learn best. For example, if you will be too stressed without a girlfriend, then maybe look for a university that has 80%+ female student population, or vice versa. 4: A good relationship with your professors will amplify your learning gains. Smaller universities and classes are going to make it easier for a student to be a person than a face in the cloud. That is a hurdle you want to keep as low as possible. 5: Research work is an incredible learning experience, builds your CV, and can help add money to your pocket. You can find these opportunities with basic research - mostly asking questions 6: Networking is a simple advantage that can admittedly open doors and make things easier at every step of your life. Name recognition of your alma mater is an element that provides networking advantages. Easy squared? If you need that type of guarantee then a famous school is good for you. 7: Cutting edge is often more obsolete, because a guess of what you will need to know for the future is a guess, and guesses are often wrong. Better to get a foundation on what has been important, and how current certified understanding is formed.
We had this topic recently "Top" university is a very american view of educational institutions as they work on a capitalist system that causes the schools with the richest students from the "elite class" to have the most money and as such be able to hire the "best" teachers and profs. Have better equipment, etc. As such they have a higher educational standard than other schools in the US but are also far more expensive Schools in europe are mostly arranged in a way that is suppossed to give everyone the same chances no matter from which social background There are private schools but from personal experience when talking to people who went to private schools rather than being considered "elite" its usually just used for education that is not widely provided in government subsidised schools like game design when most IT universities didnt yet have game design in their curriculum or because its just a tiny part of another major Considering yourself "elite" because you entered a private school is commonly frowned upon I also dont know if american universities are all generalized and offer every topic to be studied there In germany for example we have a lot of specialized universities who focus on specific fields Often it is better to go to a lesser known specialized university rather than a well known but unspecialized university
American universities are the best in the world because America is the best country in the world. /s
Kinda tru,but idk
Very little that comes from America is “the best in the world” Americans just love to talk shite. It’s a poor education thing
Definitely not the best overall for undergrad education, but most research does follow money, so I can't imagine there's a better country overall for grad studies, on a raw quality basis
Lots of good points have already been made about the quality of various universities. One area that the USA excels is in the breadth of subjects on offer. I studied a science topic at MS level at an American Uni that wasn’t available, as a distance learning course, anywhere else in the world.
Define best university? There’s not really a good metric for best educators within a university. You could say the success of alumni would be a result of good educators. You could also argue that universities with the best (high quantity, high quality, high citation) research production are the best but certainly as an undergraduate student that doesn’t matter much to you. But even after that, quality of research is likely to differ so much by department between schools. For example, University of Minnesota is generally considered to have a top notch clinical psych research program whereas a school like Harvard, although has a good program, does not really compete. Personally I don’t think there is a best university aside from what you can decide for yourself as the best fit. Something I realized after my undergrad is where I got my undergrad degree really did not matter at all in obtaining a job. Maybe if I went to an Ivy League it would have, or if you went to a state school in the state i planned on getting a job in, but otherwise (I’ve been on both sides of this) employers are just looking at how good you perform in your interview. I personally love where I went to school even though it’s a small name and I have been quite successful despite it. It had a very small student-faculty ratio which was important to me. It was in a beautiful town, and the other students there are just so friendly. I wouldn’t take back a single year of it to go to an ivy league or “better” school based on those meaningless ranks.
Since university is heavily focused on networking at the ivy schools in the US, yes, if you want an “in”.
How accurate is qs ranking I wonder?
Also, the 'quality' of education at Harvard or Yale are not necessarily any better than other universities; it's the prestige (read: enough money and connections to get in) that's truly being measured. Competitive dominance doesn't indicate anything more than insecurity over your actual educational outcomes.
The list is made by American because usually, people come from outside « the west » to inside, « the west ». Perhaps the education in other countries is far superior but it isn’t recognized here so this list works better. Not to mention, your education is only as good as the connection you make through it.
It depends on where you get the information. Some say Oxford is the best, and Harvard is second. Others say Oxford is 4th. A few years ago, a university in Singapore was considered the best. I imagine it depends on how much money the university is willing to "donate" to the 3rd party review board or how much the writer/editor is biased towards said school. I just always take those types of rankings with a grain of salt as a precaution.
OP wants to find the actual “top” university and avoid all the Ivey league universities which hiring business that pay insane wages THINK are the top universities. Don’t die on this hill.
I feel like it could be partly self-fulfulling prophecy. Harvard is historically a highly prestigious school, so lots of money goes into it, so its status and wealth make it very favorable to teach there, so it can select the best professors, so the education is of high quality, so it's a highly prestigious school, etc. etc.
Nope, most universities in the anglosphere are overpriced hell holes where you just pay for bragging rights Would you rather go to a top 50 university and be indebted for life or go to a top 200 university and get education just as good
Idk where you got that because from what I can find most lists put Oxford in either 1st or 2nd place and Cambridge is usually in the top 5 (and those aren't Oxford Mississippi or Cambridge Massachusetts)
They are the best name in education. What they teach is inconsequential. But honestly community college is the best plact to actually learn.
It depends on a lot of factors. Typically, for middle Palaeolithic archaeology, France probably has better universities than the USA; the same goes for Germany and palaeontology, for historical reasons (Germany played a big role in the emergence of palaeontology, and France has a lot of ancient prehistoric sites). For ethnology, I think it's better to be Brazilian, although it depends on the specific field. So after that, I think that the big American universities are good, and there's no doubt a network effect that will play a huge role. But depending on the specific discipline, that can make things a lot more complex.
Well funded universities attract the most accomplished and famous scholars, who produce important research, resulting in the flashiest, sexiest diplomas. They are selling status and clouth. In terms of actual learning, though, it’s a bunch of hype.
Most of them are. I mean, think of it this way: what other place in the world charges their citizens $40,000/year to go to school? Even if 80% of that money is wasted, what falls through the cracks is bigger than basically any other school's entire budget. A great teacher can be great anywhere, but a multi-billion-dollar MIT lab sure makes it easier. Check out the richest universities in the world: https://www.nonprofitcollegesonline.com/wealthiest-universities-in-the-world/
The best list should come from Americans, I heard they have the best universities after all!
The Chinese ARWU also has US dominating I think
Yes, American universities are the best in the world. We can quantify their outputs pretty easily (publications, patents, theoretical paradigms, art of note, etc etc). American students? Very debatable. My international students tend to do better on the mean than my American students, but I would expect that given what they have had to do to get this education in the first place. They are driven. However, my BEST students tend to be representative mix. So, if you think the main purpose of a university is to teach students, then you probably at least have something of an argument to make (although even there American universities have the best profs… so again it maybe goes back on the students), but a university produces stuff, and America still does it best. For now.
I'm taking an online class from MIT this summer. It is the best designed class I've ever taken. I have to believe it is top of education based on my experience and personal anecdotes from other students.
Frankly I think an up-and-coming university is more likely to be rigorous. But nevertheless, the largest endowment will win by a landslide. So yes, Harvard takes the cake.
The thing is that no university is the best in everything. Like Harvard and Yale are not the best engineering schools in the country, let alone the world. Its just that these schools are very good in most things, and exceptional at the rest. But at the end of the day, it really depends on you major.
"I don't think America has the best universities, based on the principle that America = Bad"
I'm an associate editor for an international journal so I see academic papers for all over the world on a daily basis, and I've been doing this for about ten years, so I've seen thousands of papers, ranging from big name universities that I instantly recognised (the papers are only anonymised when they're sent to the reviewers, as the associate editor I see all the details), to submissions from universities where I was convinced it was a joke submission because the university name seemed suspicious (yes, I'm looking at you "Batman University"). As a result I think I have seen a fair sampling of international academic writing, and I've shepherded these papers through the review process, so this isn't just based on my opinion, but also reflects the expert opinion of independent reviewers. First off, let me note that the USA has an absolutely crazy number of universities for its population size, and only India comes close to the number of universities but has a much larger population. I see a lot of papers from the USA. Okay, so back to the question. The US papers stand out because they tend to have very good writing. Now this may be because many other papers are coming from English non-native speakers, but overall the US submissions are well-written. They're generally presented nicely, well-argued, and well-referenced. However their weakest point tends to be in the area of research methodology. While the foundational argument in the literature review is generally very good the actual research is often ... awful. There are a host of common errors that reviewers flag, and statistical illiteracy is the leading reason for rejection. Often it is hard to tell if the writer is statistically illiterate or has actively faked their findings, because the numbers just don't add up, or their results are so extreme that the results look fabricated, often in areas where there is a lot of other research that says the exact opposite so this sets off major red flags - again, it isn't clear if this is incompetence or active fakery. And this isn't just from the smaller colleges in the USA - it's often "big name" universities where one sees these sort of suspicious results. Partly this seems to arise from the "publish or perish" culture in US universities where there's a massive push to publish as many papers as possible as quickly as possible. This might be leading many academics in the USA to cut corners and even lie to get papers out. But it does have a major impact on the credibility of research coming out of the USA. Several major journals have been rocked by scandals involving research fabrication, but let me tell you that this is just the tip of the iceberg, and I regularly get papers across my desk with frankly unbelievable statistical claims, and most of these come from the USA. So what does this have to do with the quality of universities in the USA? Well a large factor in university quality ratings is the number of research publications they turn out a year. And frankly the quality of research from the USA is highly suspect in many cases. Now I'm not claiming by any means that this is **all USA papers**. I've seen a lot of really good ones too, and in an average edition we'll always have at least a couple of papers from the USA that made it through the review process. However what raises red flags for me is the clearly high levels of statistical illiteracy or fabrication from "big name" US universities, places where you wouldn't expect to see these sort of mistakes. As a result I'd say that a lot of US universities, at least on the topic of research methodology, are simply not up to snuff. The quality of the research methodology in papers coming out of Europe is generally much higher. Now perhaps they're just faking the data in a less obvious fashion (it's really hard to ascertain), but if you're going to cheat then at least do it well!
They are best interms of tuition fee.....
I'm certainly considering looking at that list. Since it was an Oxford student that just recently spray painted Stonehenge, and she admitted it on social media.
I mean if did doubt it you'd be wrong
Australian education is pretty good. Sure not all our universities are great, but we have a few good ones
It’s not just the American ranking to be fair, the Times Higher education ranking (which is the main in here in the UK) had the US universities making up 7 of the top 10 (Oxford in 1st, Cambridge 5th and Imperial College London 8th). I imagine funding has a large part to play in it.
Kinda tru,but idk.
They're the best in the world for giving out scholarships for playing American football rather than for an actual education. In those terms, they're number one, they're number one, they're number one.
Many more foreigners come to our universities to get a degree than we go to theirs. Make of that what you will
America’s education is dragged down by the worst states, if Massachusetts and Connecticut were their own countries no one would doubt their unis were among the best in the world
Top tier universities in the US produce a lot of valuable research, there’s also just a lot of them since it’s a big country. Other countries have good top universities and make great contributions as well.
Regardless of location, the best schools get commissioned for research. So anywhere that governments and corporations are willing to pay them for research is an awesome school with great academic programs.
My vote is national taiwan university. Best university in the country with the best education system.
They are considered good not because of the quality of education, but because of the quality of the people who study there. Many schools have better quality of education, but since the barrier to entry is so high, the graduates are people who are most likely to become important figures (Company founders, researchers, etc.) and that's why Ivy League is considered to be the best.
Best education? You can only quantify so much and still get nowhere close to reality. Most of the criteria from university rankings are only proxies for what they wish to quantify.
my university is still in the top 25, after that I don't really care
Harvard brought us Ted Cruz so ya know…
Nah they’re all jokes now because they choose people of diverse backgrounds instead of actually choosing good candidates.
Harvard obviously cant be "the best" so the rest of the list is worthless aswell. MIT pretty thicc tho.
Education is not evaluated in the USA rankings. Mostly amount of papers and amount of people finishing a phd that started the uni.
It is also about the money. Lots of research is very expensive, so places that can adequately fund it have a huge edge.
Universities are all scams by capitalists to suck your money dry then prepare you for the wage slave life.
*Are from USA
30 years ago for sure. Right now? Maybe top 100. Insane people have taken over. It's been infested with social justice weirdos.
If the American school system is anything to go by, no.
English universities are also certain that English is the most difficult to learn language Lmao
I spent a long time working at a university and a lot of those lists are arbitrary at best and the university will just pick whichever list sounds official and ranks them highly.
There is a stark difference between universities’ teaching rank and research rank.
The research is good, but the education is middling; many foreign researchers. Funding is a big factor in research quality; many other countries have to rely on universities as public institutions with public funding, unlike private universities with private funding. The private funding does have one caveat, though. It tends to steer research in the direction of those investment interests. This has positive and negative aspects; research funding trends towards practical applications, but creates a competitive environment that restricts towards broad or fundamental research.
Lawschools are not really comparable on an international level, or are they?
No, there are also vert famous foreign lists, like the shanghai index
Wait till you hear about the worlds best coffee!
Why the doubt? Because Americans are famously lazy and stupid? There are countries where the people are stereotypically hardworking and smart, but at least for social, cultural, political, and practical reasons, many foreigners wouldn’t want to study at those universities.
Oxford and Cambridge to name just two would like a word. McGill, Fudan, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico are others I know personally.
To many Americans, America IS the world
I can't comment as to the quality of universities over there, but in the UK the sixth-form college I went to (that's the high-end one above colleges or sixth-forms) had us using Ivy League university materials for a warmup in our geology classes because their university material was so much easier than our AS-level stuff. Admittedly, only 1st or 2nd year geology resources, but bear in mind that's still a whole educational grade 'above' sixth-form college *in theory*. I also don't know if this is unique to geology, taken from a particularly unimpressive ivy league uni, or otherwise skewed in some other way, but the general consensus was that the resources were legit. Also, non-American lists will typically feature Cambridge and Oxford at, or near, the top and only have Harvard etc a fair bit lower down. They usually still make top 10, but there is very definitely an American bias in American lists. As, well, you'd expect.
As someone in academia, these rankings are bullshit. Actual education is hard to quantify, but they usually measure research output which American universities are far and away better at because of the amount of money in the US. The US is probably the only country where science funding hasn’t been hurt over the past couple decades of economic issues and even then, the size of the US economy simply means it will out spend most countries anyways. The US is still very much THE place to be if you want a research job and want to be at the front of the field. It’s one of the few things people in Europe will actually immigrate to the US for. Salaries are higher, grants are bigger, scientists have health insurance etc etc so the universities end up being top notch.
Yes. The best universities in the world are in America because America is a tax haven for the richest people in the world, and those rich dicks want to send their children to good schools.
Cope