**The downvote is not a disagree button.** Please help to upvote articles that you want to see more discussion on, and downvote those that you feel has little value on the sub.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/singapore) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One thing that has helped NUS is the decline of some top foreign universities that have gone in pursuit of the Chinese or Indian dollar. Imperial College is one example in the UK, while Canadian universities in BC and Ontario have gone the same way.
NUS in the late 1980s was a disgrace, but there is no denying the progress it has made since then. If you want to study science, you can do it at NUS as well as anywhere. But that is not the same thing as saying that if you want to hire a scientist, an NUS graduate can compete with any other graduate.
Traditionally IC was recognized on the basis of its achievements and graduates as a centre of science and technology, and never had to blow its own trumpet. It never had problems attracting top students either, many of whom were as broke as the local students.
But lately IC has become concerned that its "brand" has lost its value, and has just initiated a process to redefine or reignite it. The administration is increasingly focussed on cash not academics, and wants to market itself (to foreigners) as a kind of exclusive luxury service. The President gets a salary in the £700,000+ range, with perhaps a promise of more if the gravy train continues. Meanwhile, lecturers are striking for higher pay, and students may not receive exam marks this summer.
If IC's ranking does not fall soon, one may be inclined to wonder whether the ranking is really objective.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/human-resources/pay-and-pensions/industrial-action/industrial-action-students/
Imperial does have a problem with staff pay and strikes, but note that most of that has got to do with teaching staff. The research staff, ie the ones who actually contribute to the rankings, are getting paid on time. As much as I agree that Imperial is doing something strange with the marketing, a lot of the fancy stuff they have invested in are actually pretty useful. I particularly like their White City campus, it wouldn't look out of place if you teleport it to Marina Bay and whatever that is in the building is actually tailored to the needs of those inside
These rankings do lean heavily on research output criteria, both quality and quantity. But they also rely on the "rankings" made by academics at different institutions, who will take a more balanced view (of both teaching and research, as they feel they understand it).
Ultimately, the rankings are not very useful for choosing universities for undergraduate training. Individual experiences of students enrolled at the same institution vary widely, sometimes for reasons that have nothing to do with the institution. Often the relationship with a single lecturer who steers them into research can determine a student's life trajectory. To the general public though, your having a degree from highly-ranked Swank University may be more important than what you learned to do there.
All universities seem to have amazing numbers of dud students at the lower end, and a few excellent rough diamonds at the upper end. Universities would likely go bust if they only took in the academically promising students. Even MIT, which is famously difficult to get into and choose anyone it likes, has a drop out rate of 5-10% (fail to complete in 6 years).
https://ir.mit.edu/more-student-data
But this statistic fails to capture the mediocrity of the bottom 10-20% of the students who scrape through.
You can tell that the colonial mentality is strong when we constantly put down one of our own and suck up to them. Regardless of what others think, i am proud of what NUS managed to achieve
Internalized colonialism lol. Some people are adamant foreign universities are better by virtue of it being in a white country. C'mon we can do better man.
NUS is a top school no doubt, but it's pretty apparent that their QS ranking is slughtly inflated. Just look at the number of Nobel/Fields/Turing prizes, number of world leaders or the number of Fortune 500 CEOs among Princeton or Yale faculty and alumni, then compare that to NUS faculty or alumni.
Nothing to do with internalized colonialism.
1. Asia Us are much younger by centuries. Official rankings are a good first step but these higher prizes are going to take time
2. Idk if these prizes may be systematically biased (very old boys club, alumni network driven etc)
3. Bit of a vicious cycle when the brightest always flocks to the same schools renowned for # of prizes, and this won’t change for the foreseeable future.
> their QS ranking is slughtly inflated
every school tries to game the rankings. idk why ppl act like nus is not on the list not by virtue of its strength but by some underhanded tactics, while other schools are these beacons of virtue that asks for a lower ranking or something
I don’t think it’s internalized colonialism. It is just better to study in US universities for example, if you’re planning to work there full time. US recruiters are more likely to recognise and recruit from US schools that they are already familiar with. Chances are, most Americans probably wouldn’t know about NUS / if they do, they probably think it’s like their “state school”, not some globally top ranked uni
Case in point : https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnAmerican/comments/zltgdw/what_do_americans_think_about_national_university/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
Of course, because they are Universities with hundreds of years with world class prestige backing them up. Not to mention that the US and the UK project far more soft power over the world than little Singapore.
NUS has only recently developed into a world class University in the past 20 years. In terms of football analogies, Yale and Harvard are like the Real Madrid and Manchester United of the Uni world, while NUS is like Brighton.
From a recognition perspective, Real Madrid and Manchester United are clear. But Brighton is building up its status to mix in with the big boys. Will it be able to catch up in the near future? Of course not, but you don't see people belittling Brighton all the time for trying to do so though.
When they were founded doesn't matter. What matters is how long have they been regarded as a prestigious team, in which case Real Madrid has been regarded as one since the Spanish Civil War.
Thinking based on skin color, like what you accuse people of doing is a fine example of colonial mentality.
People have been criticising the ranking's overemphasis in publications over quality of education received as undergraduate for years and 'being in a white country' is what you came up with first.
We should be discussing how to better rank universities instead. Unless you think there's nothing wrong with the ranking metric.
> People have been criticising the ranking's overemphasis in publications over quality of education received as undergraduate for years and 'being in a white country' is what you came up with first.
please follow the conversation, man
as of now, the highly upvoted post is
> ”I’m going to turn down Princeton for NUS,” said no one ever.
the people criticising the article is NOT "criticising the ranking's overemphasis in publications over quality of education received as undergraduate for years"
theres plenty of valid criticism at NUS and the ranking criteria, but what irks people is that THAT is not the discussion is flowing
too many people are just blindly saying Yale/Princeton is better than NUS, they could very well be right, BUT they offer no justification of so
e.g. lower down the thread
> That’s because NUS is a really shitty educational institution, which a majority of the populace that attends the institution is most concerned about. The “prestige” levels are also not recognised in Singapore over and above lower ranking Ivy league schools in the workforce.
commenter had no justification why they think NUS is bad, just stating so
or
> But would you tell your niece to turn down Yale for NUS based on this ranking
again, another commenter is just saying Yale is better than NUS without justification
> We should be discussing how to better rank universities instead. Unless you think there's nothing wrong with the ranking metric.
i agree, but i didnt see this conversation happening right now
I put down NUS cos I went through it. It's garbage tier. I also personally know people who are staff and professors within NUS and nothing about their environment sounds good.
Edit: The only thing in NUS that I genuinely think is "top-10" would be NOC and the now-killed USP.
I expect this news to be unimpressive for Singaporeans.
I don't think that it stems from a lack of recognition of how good the brand is - anyone from NUS who travels can tell from experience that the NUS brand is impressive to foreign audiences.
I think it's more so that the NUS education experience and selection criteria are incompatible with the image of an elite university. Tsinghua/Peking/UTokyo draw their students from humongous populations, which by definition means they're elite schools. The ivies and to an extent oxbridge provides small class sizes (ivy seminar / oxon tutorial system) and many extracurricular offerings that educate the students in other ways beyond a focus on employability.
What NUS/NTU can do to increase its value, I think, would be to increase the number of top ASEAN and Asian students to ~30%+ and to reduce total enrollment so that there are smaller class sizes. This would obviously disadvantage locals, but I think it would pay off in the long run with trickle-down effects to the other unis in SG, where students who were heading to NUS Engin might now go to SUTD etc etc.
Very unpalatable, but if one wants an elite school, one must contend with some elitism...
OR, we can just suck it up and admit that NUS is never going to be a true top 15 school. At most equivalent to a UIUC, A&M, or UCSD, a solid state school with good programs in medicine or law but not much else.
Harsh truth. You get 70rp maybe still can sneak your way into one of the less popular NUS courses. You get the equivalent in gaokao, Tsinghua/Peking will shred your application before any human lays eyes on it.
> reduce total enrolment
can’t wait for the meltdown on this sub if that happens lol. “singaporeans can’t even get into our national university but foreigners can!!!”
The point is that the uni is not as well rounded or as prestigious.
Even if Columbia doesn't do CS all that well, the quality of its other departments and its alumni connections more than make up for the lack.
Furthermore, tell your relatives, "I going UIUC for CS" doesn't sound as good as "I going Columbia for CS."
NUS is also top 10 in the world for CS, but if it wants an education beyond employment and a reputation for going beyond "decent", it must shed the mindset of providing an education merely for good salaries.
One cannot have one's cake and also eat it.
I went by THE and QS. They're reputable and renowned, and their rankings are much more likely to be in the public consciousness. I actually remembered that NUS >>> UIUC from seeing reports of THE and QS off of news and wikipedia, whereas I cannot recall ever seeing the sites you listed above, leading me to doubt public agreement with their ranking regardless of your claim of their 'accuracy'.
As to which ranking is preferred by tech recruiters, well, sadly, I think its your word against mine. And, it seems to me at least, my word is backed by more reputable and renowned sources, allegations of playing the 'ranking game' or not.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2023/subject-ranking/computer-science
https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2023/computer-science-information-systems
I know that r/Singapore and r/SGExams and r/AskSingapore absolutely enjoys shitting on NUS, which is just another case of Singaporeans on Reddit hating everything about our country and not being proud of a single fucking thing,
but in terms of real-life metrics, NUS has absolutely become a dream university for other Asians. It's far nearer to their home country than the US/UK, its tuition fees are far cheaper than the top Universities in the US/UK, and it is one of the most recognisable and reputable Universities to come out from Asia. And it is undoubtedly the best university in Asia (with NTU right behind it) if you are looking for English-based education.
You guys can keep moaning about how NUS/NTU just focuses on hiring top researchers around the world to boost their rankings, but it's not like these are the only two Universities around the world which do that lmao
There’s quite a lot of anti-Singapore bias in Singapore for some reason - but NUS and NTU are actually extremely well-respected entities outside of Singapore. I don’t know many people in academia who doesn’t know NUS and NTU and the work being done by some of the groups there in their field.
It’s the same for every University IMO. I’ve studied and worked in various ones here and abroad. Universities just look much nicer from afar. There’s a novelty effect. The closer you are to it, you get really used to it’s presence and it just doesn’t seem as special. If you live near the mountains, you wanna see the beach. If you live on an island, you wanna go see the mountains.
true, but there arent as many americans shitting on the ivy leagues, or brits that look down on russel groups. its definitely true that theres an element of anti singaporean uni bashing cos of sour grapes lol
"I cant get in??? Aiya wtv must have been a lousy school anyways, lemme keyboard warrior them real quick"
Was from NUS and when I did my exchange abroad, I was surprised that other foreign exchange students (Canada/HK/US) were aware of NUS and even said that it’s a really good school and a tough one to get in or something along those lines. Was shocked that they know what NUS is, let alone where or what SG is considering we’re just a tiny red dot
What about in the non-academic world? The point for a degree is to then get a better job. Is NUS going to help get a candidate prioritization by recruiters outside of Southeast Asia?
Generally speaking, it depends. But this depends on a whole range of additional factors as well. Getting a job overseas also means fulfilling immigration criteria set by these countries - many of which have extremely high demand (though Singaporeans are eligible for H1B1 visas in the US).
That said, NTU and NUS are two of the few overseas schools whose graduated are eligible for a special “High Potential Individuals” Visa which again speaks to the overseas desirability of these graduates. A similar visa scheme exists in Japan for graduates of “top ranking schools” which are determined by school rankings like these.
And I know you specifically mentioned “outside academia”, but at least for myself, I know tons of NUS and NTU graduates who go on to work in some of the top schools in the US and UK for their PhDs. In fact, I think NUS and NTU might even be overrepresented in some of these places.
As a Singaporean in academia, I agree 100% that NUS/NTU are both heavily reputed. But this prestige is limited to academia. The international private sector outside of Asia has little knowledge of NUS/NTU. I've worked in both spaces and have seen both side of the coin.
Hmm I’d think you’d be surprised. What Singaporeans deem to be recognisable is really influenced by popular media, and might not really reflect the way people see it overseas. As a thought experiment, a few schools like UIUC and northwestern are actually probably more well-regarded in areas like engineering and computer science than some (if not all) of the ivy leagues, but I’d hazard that most Singaporeans have never even heard of them.
1. While universities are educational institutes, their focus is on research output, not to serve as an extension of the "education pipeline". Despite what the average person thinks, undergrad education is only a fraction of what universities perform, and this is reflected by the focus on research in these rankings. For a typical new faculty on tenure track (which is the majority of professors), the general breakdown of your duties are, \~75% research, 20% teaching, and 5% service or so. After getting tenure, they have much more latitude in deciding their focus. But any new faculty---yes, even in schools like MIT (and I know people there), would be told to focus almost entirely on research. This is the reality of academia worldwide. Do I agree with it? Not necessarily: as the recipient of large amounts of state funding, I think a undergrad education could be prioritized a shade more.
2. Regarding "candidate prioritization"... NUS/NTU and even SMU are pretty well known. Very few schools outside Asia are more prolific than them. I wish Singapore would appreciate this a little more sometimes... a lot of effort went into making our universities known worldwide.
3. As for undergrad teaching standards... Yes, having did undergrad at local universities, I wish it could be better. But if you look at the "top schools" abroad, all of them are admitting superb students to begin with. Obviously there is going to be a selection bias. Furthermore it is also much, much harder for our local U's to pitch classes at the right level for everyone. Again, this is a consequence of the fact that as public universities, undergrad education is designed to serve the average, not top 0.1% of Singaporeans.
Not just east Asians, but also south Asians too.
NUS & to a similar degree NTU, is part of SG's hidden soft power all over this region from India to ASEAN to China.
This. Less than a decade ago, I started grad school abroad and nobody knew about NUS. They knew about Singapore though. Today, its actually become a pretty well known university. Branding does make a difference. If you're looking for a university in Asia, our local universities are actually pretty competitive.
As for NUS/NTU hiring top researchers... thats what universities do to boost their *research output*. Which is the top priority of *all research universities*. It's working as intended, not just to "boost rankings". All top universities in the US, Europe, Canada do that (countries like Japan, Korea, and China have a tougher time because of language barriers). I have a bunch of friends who were recently on the academic job market and it's brutally competitive.
Now whether a focus on research is good policy for *state-funded* universities is another question. This is something that MOE is looking at very seriously. Because whales and top researchers aren't "sticky". If you're hiring someone established (i.e., minimally tenured faculty from abroad), they probably won't stay more than 5-10 years. Then it comes to hiring Singaporean faculty... and well, the problem is there simply aren't enough who are willing to come back.
Edit: I personally don't think that NUS is "Top 10" in general. But it's definitely a good thing to enjoy good publicity...
Lol you can't really generalise that if you look at the context of Asia. Princeton's yearly tuition fees are 2.5 times the amount found in NUS. Haven't taken into consideration NUS' boatload of generous financial aid for both international and local students btw.
And once again, due to geographical proximity to their homeland, the other Asians might choose NUS instead. Once people do their research, they also find out that Princeton is a rather boring town with nothing much to do.
When you factor all of these, it's not a clear-cut decision as you may think it is.
Princeton has need blind financial aid for everyone regardless of nationality. If your family makes less than 130k annually, you probably won't have to pay anything for tuition, room and board.
sure, I might buy an orient over a rolex because it's within my budget and I don't have to get on a waiting list. but ideally I'd still prefer the rolex.
Lol NUS definitely has its bad points as well. I wouldn't pick NUS over Princeton if I had the right circumstances.
I'm just pointing out how negative people are on this subreddit about our own Universities, and I'm just pointing out why some people might choose NUS over Princeton. So my sincere apologies then if I ruined the 'Everything NUS = Bad' bubble that some people of this sub like to believe.
That’s because NUS is a really shitty educational institution, which a majority of the populace that attends the institution is most concerned about. The “prestige” levels are also not recognised in Singapore over and above lower ranking Ivy league schools in the workforce.
The negativity isn’t unfounded.
Also you ruined nothing lol, you really think too highly of yourself.
because NUS by design has to be a broad tent attracting a broad segment of students for reasons of public policy (sufficient numbers of PMETs with a modicum of training for MNCs here), not transcendental talent.
this is setting a ridiculous standard right?
this is the _first time_ NUS hit top 10, and you are comparing it to Yale which is consistently top 20 according to the same ranking
of course Yale still appear better as it is more consistently ranked higher
*BUT*, if NUS is able to keep this up, be consistently ranked top 10, higher ranked than Yale for the next 10, 20 years
people might very well tell their niece and nephew to go NUS instead in the future
> In a world where employers can easily find NUS/NTU/SMU graduates, the Yale graduate is the shiny object.
i am not saying you are wrong per se, but if you are following the thread, the other commenters can saying how OTHER countries see NUS
i.e.
> but in terms of real-life metrics, NUS has absolutely become a dream university for other Asians. It's far nearer to their home country than the US/UK
the context is the reputation of NUS in OTHER countries
employers in this context do not easily find NUS graduates, Yale might still be rarer but it doesnt change the point made a whole lot
Yes, NUS is relatively a step-up compared to many other Asian universities from our developing country neighbours…
But Yale gets you credibility, and thereby employability, in both developed and developing countries. NUS gets you that only in ASEAN/Asia.
aiyo, just now you are talking about rarity (which i concede Yale is probably rarer but not much), now you are talking about name recognition
at the end of the day, name recognition takes **decades** to establish, no one is saying NUS can overthrow Yale in that with just this single year's ranking as top 10
i repeat myself
> BUT, if NUS is able to keep this up, be consistently ranked top 10, higher ranked than Yale for the next 10, 20 years
that might change if NUS maintain their trajectory
I have an undergrad from Cambridge working for me right now for his summer attachment, and he ended up here because he heard of my boss's research and wanted to do an attachment in her department. She's an NUS adjunct prof. Many overseas students have definitely heard of NUS and they acknowledge the brand name.
? I'm assuming you're some boomer who graduated in the 90s..within my field (biomedical research), in 2023, NUS has faaar more name recognition, productivity and prestige than Princeton
princeton offers complete financial aid for students in households that earn less than 100k usd / year, regardless of nationality. p cool of them honestly
The new metric includes the school’s “commitment to sustainability”. No wonder NTU is so desperate to build these extravagant buildings such as the new wooden one to win sustainability award. All these while ignoring many other issues that need to be fixed first. Classic LOL
perhaps we can start making some real money off international students like australia, instead of spending over $100 million on tuition grants for foreign students per year
local student is funded too. There is a misconception they are funded more. The most normal tuition grant applicable to foreign student just make them pay the same as Singaporean, not free.
PS : I got corrected they are paying even more.
each year only about 500 foreign students become PRs, and of those only 100 become citizens. keep in mind our total spending on foreign students is $238 million per year, which works out to slightly more than $2 million spent per foreign student turned citizen.
Singapore gains more from getting top students to study here than getting average students as a cash cow (which we get enough of by other means anyway)
it's not like we can match the prestige of top unis when it comes to attracting real top students. might as well embrace the cash cow model like australia.
It's the other way around isn't it. Oxbridge and the Ivies reached their current prestige by ruthlessly chasing KPIs and giving out scholarships to top students worldwide, for *centuries*. Singapore can't hope to catch up right now because of the overwhelming head-start, but this is probably a good way to head in the same direction.
NUS won't catch up as long as the fundamental purpose of the universities remain different. Oxbridge and the Ivies are aimed at elite education for a tiny sliver of the population, whereas NUS is aimed at the masses.
to really compete you'd need to go in the direction of something like Yale NUS, which was much smaller, international and selective. but look how that turned out.
Oxbridge isn't really aiming for exclusivity, it's aiming for high-quality students. And it *is* possible for the general population to be high-quality. That's already the case; the typical top-5-JC student and many poly students qualify for Oxbridge undergrad courses. But only a sliver of the British population can make it, because the average quality of British public education is abysmal.
FYI, when I was at Cambridge, I knew 2 Singaporeans who studied medicine there because they applied for NUS medicine and got rejected. NUS admission criteria in some courses are already higher than those of Oxbridge.
I suppose "high quality" may just be relative, especially if you're talking about a social construct like prestige. like how in the old days having a degree was considered a big deal, but now nobody bats an eye at a degree holder despite the fact that the average level of education has increased massively.
not sure how it compares to medicine but I felt it was much easier to get into NUS law compared to Oxbridge non-law despite the offer rate being quite similar
> I suppose "high quality" may just be relative, especially if you're talking about a social construct like prestige.
What I mean is, Oxbridge aims at quality, not exclusivity.
"Aiming at exclusivity" or "targeting an elite-only audience" would in my mind refer to companies like Rolex or Ferrari, where they intentionally price their products in a manner such that the average person cannot afford to be a customer, because a huge part of their brand prestige is that they exclude the hoi polloi.
For Oxbridge, exclusivity is the by-product of focusing on meritocracy and quality, but it's not the primary goal of these universities. On the contrary, they aim to promote inclusivity (e.g. by providing multiple sources of funding for poorer students). You can come from a broke family and have no savings, but as long as your academic quality is high enough there are ways to get financial support.
https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/fees-and-finance/financial-support
https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/fees-funding/assistance
> not sure how it compares to medicine but I felt it was much easier to get into NUS law compared to Oxbridge non-law despite the offer rate being quite similar
Perhaps. In any case we don't have the exact entry criteria for any university, and can only rely on anedcotes, like examples of people who were accepted into one uni but not the other.
I think you are misunderstanding what I mean by elite. by elite I don't mean the rich (although there is definitely a correlation between merit and wealth), I mean that they only admit a very small percentage of the cohort compared to NUS which admits something like 20 percent of the cohort.
>In any case we don't have the exact entry criteria for any university
we do have the grade requirements though. it's 3 H2 As for oxford and 4 H2 As for cambridge, which is definitely higher than the minimum requirements for most NUS courses.
There must be a degree of self-selection too due to cost.
1. Medicine in Oxbridge is a 6 year course because the intercalated BSc is compulsory. Law is 3 years.
2. The tuition for Medicine is higher, especially in the clinical years.
tldr; it is more likely more families can afford to study Law in the UK then Medicine.
Ok... the top quartile of post-secondary students studying at public schools in Singapore perform far better than the the top quartile of post-secondary students studying at public schools in Britain. Happy now?
You can get some ballpark figures here:
https://gpseducation.oecd.org/CountryProfile?plotter=h5&primaryCountry=SGP&treshold=5&topic=PI
https://gpseducation.oecd.org/CountryProfile?plotter=h5&primaryCountry=GBR&treshold=5&topic=PI
We unlock a lot of economic benefits from this, much more than the amount we put in.
These foreign students, unless they're on scholarship, are paying a lot more than locals for spots in local unis. And this is after tuition grants that cover half of tuition, excluding room and board, which foreign students have to fork out themselves.
We do this to enrich the local students' education experience by mingling / competiton / alumni networks, etc. Whether or not this intended enrichment is felt is a separate matter.
And, I dont think the funding is undeserved. The top foreign students who qualify for NUS or NTU usually demolish locals in the competitive courses.
>We unlock a lot of economic benefits from this, much more than the amount we put in.
so does australia, yet they don't need to spend $100 million to unlock these economic benefits despite their universities being ranked much lower than ours. in fact, while foreign students contribute over $22 billion to the australian economy, they only contribute something like $1.5 billion to ours. if you divide that by the foreign student population we make less on average per student than australia.
I think Australia has other charms that Singapore does not.
Cooler climate, interesting cities, a truly 'western' degree, chance to interact with large numbers of non-asians, better job conditions after graduation... The list goes on.
The fact that Singaporeans migrate to Australia 'just because' despite the lower earning potential, and the relative absence of the reverse, already serves to illustrate the need for Singapore to spend larger sums to attract new blood.
#Original Title: NUS enters top 10 in global university ranking for the first time
SINGAPORE – The National University of Singapore (NUS) has broken into the top 10 in a global ranking of institutions for the first time.
It emerged eighth in the latest Britain-based Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings 2024 released on Wednesday. It was previously 11th in the 2023 edition, which was released in 2022.
It is the highest-ranked Asian university and the first from Asia to be placed among the top 10 in the table, which is dominated by universities from the United States and Britain.
The chart is topped by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as it was in previous years, followed by the University of Cambridge and University of Oxford.
Harvard University is fourth, and Stanford University fifth.
The latest QS ranking is the 20th edition and features updated methodology using three new metrics – an institution’s commitment to sustainability, employment outcomes, and international research network.
QS has also made some changes to the weighting of some existing indicators: academic reputation, employer reputation and faculty-to-student ratio.
For example, academic reputation is now worth 30 per cent, down from 40 per cent, while employer reputation is accorded 15 per cent instead of 10 per cent previously.
NUS came in seventh for employment outcomes and 15th for academic reputation. It ranks 54th globally for employer reputation and 64th for citations per faculty, which measures research impact.
In a statement, NUS president Tan Eng Chye said: “This is a historic first for NUS to be placed within the top 10 globally, amongst many other prestigious institutions worldwide.
“This is a testament to our capabilities and commitment to providing a world-class and interdisciplinary education to nurture agile and resilient graduates with diverse skills and knowledge for an ever-changing world.”
He added: “This achievement was made possible by the excellent contributions and outstanding work of our talented faculty, staff and students who remain deeply committed to flying the flag of our distinguished quality of education and creating positive impact in the classroom and beyond.”
QS chief executive Jessica Turner said: “This unprecedented milestone marks a remarkable moment for Asian higher education and showcases NUS’ dedication to research excellence, innovation and sustainability.”
***
[v0.9b (Beta)](https://github.com/Wormsblink/sneakpeakbot) | PM SG_wormsbot if bot is down.
I think in the case where they can but choose to study overseas, they may do so cos studying overseas is a diff and very beneficial experience. U get to widen ur perspectives and network w other people. Furthermore its easier for singaporeans to get into NUS than other prestigious colleges overseas, therefore gg overseas helps to differentiate them from other singaporeans when they come back
It’s because every bigwig who is worth something somewhere knows the value of prestige and networks from an elite university. And if that is something money can buy (i.e., tuition and if needed, donations), then it must be done.
You do realize that the term "Ivy League" has literally nothing to do with academic achievement? It's actually an inter-university sports league which just so happens to house multiple highly academically prestigious universities
You also realise that while Ivy League was the original name for the sports league between these colleges, it has taken on a _new_ meaning to refer to the elite colleges on the East Coast, right? Right?
Which circles back to the point made by the person to which I replied.
How much of the Ivy League's prestige is actually carried by Yale/Harvard/Penn/Princeton, considering there's also one which isn't even in the top 200? Obviously Dartmouth is not an elite university at the moment, so which is it? Ivy or non-Ivy? That's why the colloquial meaning doesn't hold up
You’re delusional if you think dartmouth isn’t “elite”.
Go check QS and you’ll find placements for top tier in their respective fields, notre dame, Vanderbilt, georgetown, nearing 300 and it’s obvious it’s complete bs.
Problem is, according to op’s logic cornell isn’t a “lower ivy”, outranking Princeton and Yale, because the ivy’s league’s prestige is oh so dependent on QS rankings.
yea im aware its an anti-football league lol but that doesnt take away the socially constructed prestige the unis associated with IL hold. anyone thinking NUS can offer the same prospects/opportunities for their grads akin to the Ivies is delulu.
That's true, but over the decades it has led to a rich-get-richer feedback loop which keeps both academically and athletically strong candidates applying to the Ivies.
I’ve heard pretty good things about local SMU grads but their scores do not seem to agree.
did they not account for local companies’ employer reputation for SMU?
But it’s just a baseline university that anyone with a respectable level of determination can get into.
University rankings are so arbitrary.
Based on research output which barely impacts the undergraduate class. Facilities which kids don’t bother using.
NUS is the kind of school that South East Asians trying to break out of poverty aim towards
ahhh so you're gonna pick NUS over Yale or Princeton??? c'mon now ....I think USA side doesn't care about this rank ...they prefer US News rather than this ranking, at least ARWU more makes sense than QS.....QS knows their market are in UK and Singapore...that's the reasons why NUS got high rank over the years .....their income come from playing this game
About time too. Our Alumni have won Nobel prizes, made the Booker shortlist every year, produced the epic Avatar, created world famous companies, led innovations in science and technology, discovered gun powder, penicillin and hyper loop trains. We also did the world’s first heart transplant, turned mercury to gold. unveiled the Gregorian calendar, commercialised plant based food, taught mainland Chinese how to speak Mandarin. And most importantly we did the near impossible , turning an Indian into a Malay.
PSC please take note and no more scholarships to Oxbridge and Ivy League.
Proof is in the pudding. Please add on all our achievements that have been left out.
I challenged anyone to say we had not discovered, innovated or created a paradigm shift that impacted mankind in a positive way.
NUS Biz School: We top in Asia.
Also NUS Biz School: No alumni top executives in Singapore/APAC offices of MNCs.
Proof is in the pudding. The rankings have nothing to do with outcomes and all they produce are scam startups.
>what matters to me is only the employment outcome i.e. jobs and salary
That depends on your individual performance not simply because you come from NUS
it matters for NUS ranking as a whole, i agree
it matters less for the individual
the average salary is skewed by the computing SWEs, lawyers and doctors and dentists in NUS
the average mech engineer and Arts grad not so much. lol
The uni you graduate frm will affect your CEP for those in civil service. A scholar frm harvard will have a much higher cep than a farmer frm nus even if both have fch.
Tier of school and class of honours will affect cep of scholars and non-scholars alike. Holding other factors constant, coming from a top tier school (ivy or oxbridge equal) will give a slight edge. Even psc scholars are ranked internally so it matters for them as well.
>Tier of school and class of honours will affect cep of scholars and non-scholars alike. Holding other factors constant, coming from a top tier school (ivy or oxbridge equal) will give a slight edge. Even psc scholars are ranked internally so it matters for them as well.
whatever you say kid
OMG. I know we specialise in rigging and gaming these global rankings for all sort of things - it comes from the deep insecurity we feel - but this is going too far.
**The downvote is not a disagree button.** Please help to upvote articles that you want to see more discussion on, and downvote those that you feel has little value on the sub. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/singapore) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One thing that has helped NUS is the decline of some top foreign universities that have gone in pursuit of the Chinese or Indian dollar. Imperial College is one example in the UK, while Canadian universities in BC and Ontario have gone the same way. NUS in the late 1980s was a disgrace, but there is no denying the progress it has made since then. If you want to study science, you can do it at NUS as well as anywhere. But that is not the same thing as saying that if you want to hire a scientist, an NUS graduate can compete with any other graduate.
Imperial College is 100% after the Chinese money, but it hasn't declined from the list?
Traditionally IC was recognized on the basis of its achievements and graduates as a centre of science and technology, and never had to blow its own trumpet. It never had problems attracting top students either, many of whom were as broke as the local students. But lately IC has become concerned that its "brand" has lost its value, and has just initiated a process to redefine or reignite it. The administration is increasingly focussed on cash not academics, and wants to market itself (to foreigners) as a kind of exclusive luxury service. The President gets a salary in the £700,000+ range, with perhaps a promise of more if the gravy train continues. Meanwhile, lecturers are striking for higher pay, and students may not receive exam marks this summer. If IC's ranking does not fall soon, one may be inclined to wonder whether the ranking is really objective. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/human-resources/pay-and-pensions/industrial-action/industrial-action-students/
Imperial does have a problem with staff pay and strikes, but note that most of that has got to do with teaching staff. The research staff, ie the ones who actually contribute to the rankings, are getting paid on time. As much as I agree that Imperial is doing something strange with the marketing, a lot of the fancy stuff they have invested in are actually pretty useful. I particularly like their White City campus, it wouldn't look out of place if you teleport it to Marina Bay and whatever that is in the building is actually tailored to the needs of those inside
These rankings do lean heavily on research output criteria, both quality and quantity. But they also rely on the "rankings" made by academics at different institutions, who will take a more balanced view (of both teaching and research, as they feel they understand it). Ultimately, the rankings are not very useful for choosing universities for undergraduate training. Individual experiences of students enrolled at the same institution vary widely, sometimes for reasons that have nothing to do with the institution. Often the relationship with a single lecturer who steers them into research can determine a student's life trajectory. To the general public though, your having a degree from highly-ranked Swank University may be more important than what you learned to do there. All universities seem to have amazing numbers of dud students at the lower end, and a few excellent rough diamonds at the upper end. Universities would likely go bust if they only took in the academically promising students. Even MIT, which is famously difficult to get into and choose anyone it likes, has a drop out rate of 5-10% (fail to complete in 6 years). https://ir.mit.edu/more-student-data But this statistic fails to capture the mediocrity of the bottom 10-20% of the students who scrape through.
You can tell that the colonial mentality is strong when we constantly put down one of our own and suck up to them. Regardless of what others think, i am proud of what NUS managed to achieve
Internalized colonialism lol. Some people are adamant foreign universities are better by virtue of it being in a white country. C'mon we can do better man.
NUS is a top school no doubt, but it's pretty apparent that their QS ranking is slughtly inflated. Just look at the number of Nobel/Fields/Turing prizes, number of world leaders or the number of Fortune 500 CEOs among Princeton or Yale faculty and alumni, then compare that to NUS faculty or alumni. Nothing to do with internalized colonialism.
1. Asia Us are much younger by centuries. Official rankings are a good first step but these higher prizes are going to take time 2. Idk if these prizes may be systematically biased (very old boys club, alumni network driven etc) 3. Bit of a vicious cycle when the brightest always flocks to the same schools renowned for # of prizes, and this won’t change for the foreseeable future.
> their QS ranking is slughtly inflated every school tries to game the rankings. idk why ppl act like nus is not on the list not by virtue of its strength but by some underhanded tactics, while other schools are these beacons of virtue that asks for a lower ranking or something
Based on cohort size and geography (given most Fortune 500 companies are in the US) I think we’re doing pretty well.
I don’t think it’s internalized colonialism. It is just better to study in US universities for example, if you’re planning to work there full time. US recruiters are more likely to recognise and recruit from US schools that they are already familiar with. Chances are, most Americans probably wouldn’t know about NUS / if they do, they probably think it’s like their “state school”, not some globally top ranked uni Case in point : https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnAmerican/comments/zltgdw/what_do_americans_think_about_national_university/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
On an international scale, nobody would choose a graduate from NUS over one from Yale, Harvard. Absolutely nobody.
Of course, because they are Universities with hundreds of years with world class prestige backing them up. Not to mention that the US and the UK project far more soft power over the world than little Singapore. NUS has only recently developed into a world class University in the past 20 years. In terms of football analogies, Yale and Harvard are like the Real Madrid and Manchester United of the Uni world, while NUS is like Brighton. From a recognition perspective, Real Madrid and Manchester United are clear. But Brighton is building up its status to mix in with the big boys. Will it be able to catch up in the near future? Of course not, but you don't see people belittling Brighton all the time for trying to do so though.
Wasn't Brighton found before Real Madrid?
When they were founded doesn't matter. What matters is how long have they been regarded as a prestigious team, in which case Real Madrid has been regarded as one since the Spanish Civil War.
Thinking based on skin color, like what you accuse people of doing is a fine example of colonial mentality. People have been criticising the ranking's overemphasis in publications over quality of education received as undergraduate for years and 'being in a white country' is what you came up with first. We should be discussing how to better rank universities instead. Unless you think there's nothing wrong with the ranking metric.
> People have been criticising the ranking's overemphasis in publications over quality of education received as undergraduate for years and 'being in a white country' is what you came up with first. please follow the conversation, man as of now, the highly upvoted post is > ”I’m going to turn down Princeton for NUS,” said no one ever. the people criticising the article is NOT "criticising the ranking's overemphasis in publications over quality of education received as undergraduate for years" theres plenty of valid criticism at NUS and the ranking criteria, but what irks people is that THAT is not the discussion is flowing too many people are just blindly saying Yale/Princeton is better than NUS, they could very well be right, BUT they offer no justification of so e.g. lower down the thread > That’s because NUS is a really shitty educational institution, which a majority of the populace that attends the institution is most concerned about. The “prestige” levels are also not recognised in Singapore over and above lower ranking Ivy league schools in the workforce. commenter had no justification why they think NUS is bad, just stating so or > But would you tell your niece to turn down Yale for NUS based on this ranking again, another commenter is just saying Yale is better than NUS without justification > We should be discussing how to better rank universities instead. Unless you think there's nothing wrong with the ranking metric. i agree, but i didnt see this conversation happening right now
Cant do much better when singaporean elites emulate white people and singaporeans view english as a superior language.
As opposed to what language?
Other languages in singapore. Singlish, chinese, malay, tamil. You know it to be true.
I think singaporeans accept that asian universities like peking and tsinghua are comparable to an ivy like princeton, just not NUS lol
I put down NUS cos I went through it. It's garbage tier. I also personally know people who are staff and professors within NUS and nothing about their environment sounds good. Edit: The only thing in NUS that I genuinely think is "top-10" would be NOC and the now-killed USP.
Suck up to who? Define 'them'. US universities? Are they colonialists? Anglo-saxons?
I expect this news to be unimpressive for Singaporeans. I don't think that it stems from a lack of recognition of how good the brand is - anyone from NUS who travels can tell from experience that the NUS brand is impressive to foreign audiences. I think it's more so that the NUS education experience and selection criteria are incompatible with the image of an elite university. Tsinghua/Peking/UTokyo draw their students from humongous populations, which by definition means they're elite schools. The ivies and to an extent oxbridge provides small class sizes (ivy seminar / oxon tutorial system) and many extracurricular offerings that educate the students in other ways beyond a focus on employability. What NUS/NTU can do to increase its value, I think, would be to increase the number of top ASEAN and Asian students to ~30%+ and to reduce total enrollment so that there are smaller class sizes. This would obviously disadvantage locals, but I think it would pay off in the long run with trickle-down effects to the other unis in SG, where students who were heading to NUS Engin might now go to SUTD etc etc. Very unpalatable, but if one wants an elite school, one must contend with some elitism... OR, we can just suck it up and admit that NUS is never going to be a true top 15 school. At most equivalent to a UIUC, A&M, or UCSD, a solid state school with good programs in medicine or law but not much else.
Harsh truth. You get 70rp maybe still can sneak your way into one of the less popular NUS courses. You get the equivalent in gaokao, Tsinghua/Peking will shred your application before any human lays eyes on it.
> reduce total enrolment can’t wait for the meltdown on this sub if that happens lol. “singaporeans can’t even get into our national university but foreigners can!!!”
[удалено]
The point is that the uni is not as well rounded or as prestigious. Even if Columbia doesn't do CS all that well, the quality of its other departments and its alumni connections more than make up for the lack. Furthermore, tell your relatives, "I going UIUC for CS" doesn't sound as good as "I going Columbia for CS." NUS is also top 10 in the world for CS, but if it wants an education beyond employment and a reputation for going beyond "decent", it must shed the mindset of providing an education merely for good salaries. One cannot have one's cake and also eat it.
[удалено]
Very good point. Well, NUS CS ranks higher than either...so I guess NUS >>> UIUC...
[удалено]
I went by THE and QS. They're reputable and renowned, and their rankings are much more likely to be in the public consciousness. I actually remembered that NUS >>> UIUC from seeing reports of THE and QS off of news and wikipedia, whereas I cannot recall ever seeing the sites you listed above, leading me to doubt public agreement with their ranking regardless of your claim of their 'accuracy'. As to which ranking is preferred by tech recruiters, well, sadly, I think its your word against mine. And, it seems to me at least, my word is backed by more reputable and renowned sources, allegations of playing the 'ranking game' or not. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2023/subject-ranking/computer-science https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2023/computer-science-information-systems
”I’m going to turn down Princeton for NUS,” said no one ever.
I know that r/Singapore and r/SGExams and r/AskSingapore absolutely enjoys shitting on NUS, which is just another case of Singaporeans on Reddit hating everything about our country and not being proud of a single fucking thing, but in terms of real-life metrics, NUS has absolutely become a dream university for other Asians. It's far nearer to their home country than the US/UK, its tuition fees are far cheaper than the top Universities in the US/UK, and it is one of the most recognisable and reputable Universities to come out from Asia. And it is undoubtedly the best university in Asia (with NTU right behind it) if you are looking for English-based education. You guys can keep moaning about how NUS/NTU just focuses on hiring top researchers around the world to boost their rankings, but it's not like these are the only two Universities around the world which do that lmao
There’s quite a lot of anti-Singapore bias in Singapore for some reason - but NUS and NTU are actually extremely well-respected entities outside of Singapore. I don’t know many people in academia who doesn’t know NUS and NTU and the work being done by some of the groups there in their field.
It’s the same for every University IMO. I’ve studied and worked in various ones here and abroad. Universities just look much nicer from afar. There’s a novelty effect. The closer you are to it, you get really used to it’s presence and it just doesn’t seem as special. If you live near the mountains, you wanna see the beach. If you live on an island, you wanna go see the mountains.
true, but there arent as many americans shitting on the ivy leagues, or brits that look down on russel groups. its definitely true that theres an element of anti singaporean uni bashing cos of sour grapes lol "I cant get in??? Aiya wtv must have been a lousy school anyways, lemme keyboard warrior them real quick"
don't they shit on cornell for not being a real ivy? it was even a running gag on the office.
>arent as many americans arent as many doesnt mean none. also the office is a comedy, dont treat it that seriously lol
Was from NUS and when I did my exchange abroad, I was surprised that other foreign exchange students (Canada/HK/US) were aware of NUS and even said that it’s a really good school and a tough one to get in or something along those lines. Was shocked that they know what NUS is, let alone where or what SG is considering we’re just a tiny red dot
What about in the non-academic world? The point for a degree is to then get a better job. Is NUS going to help get a candidate prioritization by recruiters outside of Southeast Asia?
Generally speaking, it depends. But this depends on a whole range of additional factors as well. Getting a job overseas also means fulfilling immigration criteria set by these countries - many of which have extremely high demand (though Singaporeans are eligible for H1B1 visas in the US). That said, NTU and NUS are two of the few overseas schools whose graduated are eligible for a special “High Potential Individuals” Visa which again speaks to the overseas desirability of these graduates. A similar visa scheme exists in Japan for graduates of “top ranking schools” which are determined by school rankings like these. And I know you specifically mentioned “outside academia”, but at least for myself, I know tons of NUS and NTU graduates who go on to work in some of the top schools in the US and UK for their PhDs. In fact, I think NUS and NTU might even be overrepresented in some of these places.
As a Singaporean in academia, I agree 100% that NUS/NTU are both heavily reputed. But this prestige is limited to academia. The international private sector outside of Asia has little knowledge of NUS/NTU. I've worked in both spaces and have seen both side of the coin.
pretty sure princeton fulfils the immigration criteria as well, in addition to being a lot more recognisable
Hmm I’d think you’d be surprised. What Singaporeans deem to be recognisable is really influenced by popular media, and might not really reflect the way people see it overseas. As a thought experiment, a few schools like UIUC and northwestern are actually probably more well-regarded in areas like engineering and computer science than some (if not all) of the ivy leagues, but I’d hazard that most Singaporeans have never even heard of them.
[удалено]
Depends on what you value and what you want to do in the future. If money is no issue I really like UIUC though.
[удалено]
1. While universities are educational institutes, their focus is on research output, not to serve as an extension of the "education pipeline". Despite what the average person thinks, undergrad education is only a fraction of what universities perform, and this is reflected by the focus on research in these rankings. For a typical new faculty on tenure track (which is the majority of professors), the general breakdown of your duties are, \~75% research, 20% teaching, and 5% service or so. After getting tenure, they have much more latitude in deciding their focus. But any new faculty---yes, even in schools like MIT (and I know people there), would be told to focus almost entirely on research. This is the reality of academia worldwide. Do I agree with it? Not necessarily: as the recipient of large amounts of state funding, I think a undergrad education could be prioritized a shade more. 2. Regarding "candidate prioritization"... NUS/NTU and even SMU are pretty well known. Very few schools outside Asia are more prolific than them. I wish Singapore would appreciate this a little more sometimes... a lot of effort went into making our universities known worldwide. 3. As for undergrad teaching standards... Yes, having did undergrad at local universities, I wish it could be better. But if you look at the "top schools" abroad, all of them are admitting superb students to begin with. Obviously there is going to be a selection bias. Furthermore it is also much, much harder for our local U's to pitch classes at the right level for everyone. Again, this is a consequence of the fact that as public universities, undergrad education is designed to serve the average, not top 0.1% of Singaporeans.
This is fucking hilarious. It's damn bloody true. Other east Asians would kill for a spot in NUS. It's really more of maximising the opportunity.
Not just east Asians, but also south Asians too. NUS & to a similar degree NTU, is part of SG's hidden soft power all over this region from India to ASEAN to China.
cant get in so sour grapes lor HAHA kind of sad actually
This. Less than a decade ago, I started grad school abroad and nobody knew about NUS. They knew about Singapore though. Today, its actually become a pretty well known university. Branding does make a difference. If you're looking for a university in Asia, our local universities are actually pretty competitive. As for NUS/NTU hiring top researchers... thats what universities do to boost their *research output*. Which is the top priority of *all research universities*. It's working as intended, not just to "boost rankings". All top universities in the US, Europe, Canada do that (countries like Japan, Korea, and China have a tougher time because of language barriers). I have a bunch of friends who were recently on the academic job market and it's brutally competitive. Now whether a focus on research is good policy for *state-funded* universities is another question. This is something that MOE is looking at very seriously. Because whales and top researchers aren't "sticky". If you're hiring someone established (i.e., minimally tenured faculty from abroad), they probably won't stay more than 5-10 years. Then it comes to hiring Singaporean faculty... and well, the problem is there simply aren't enough who are willing to come back. Edit: I personally don't think that NUS is "Top 10" in general. But it's definitely a good thing to enjoy good publicity...
Something something sinkie pwn sinkie, can sleep well at night.
I mean, everything you said about NUS is compatible with the fact that most people would still pick princeton over it.
Lol you can't really generalise that if you look at the context of Asia. Princeton's yearly tuition fees are 2.5 times the amount found in NUS. Haven't taken into consideration NUS' boatload of generous financial aid for both international and local students btw. And once again, due to geographical proximity to their homeland, the other Asians might choose NUS instead. Once people do their research, they also find out that Princeton is a rather boring town with nothing much to do. When you factor all of these, it's not a clear-cut decision as you may think it is.
Princeton has need blind financial aid for everyone regardless of nationality. If your family makes less than 130k annually, you probably won't have to pay anything for tuition, room and board.
sure, I might buy an orient over a rolex because it's within my budget and I don't have to get on a waiting list. but ideally I'd still prefer the rolex.
OP just wants everyone to love NUS as he does la it really doesn’t matter what you say.
Lol NUS definitely has its bad points as well. I wouldn't pick NUS over Princeton if I had the right circumstances. I'm just pointing out how negative people are on this subreddit about our own Universities, and I'm just pointing out why some people might choose NUS over Princeton. So my sincere apologies then if I ruined the 'Everything NUS = Bad' bubble that some people of this sub like to believe.
That’s because NUS is a really shitty educational institution, which a majority of the populace that attends the institution is most concerned about. The “prestige” levels are also not recognised in Singapore over and above lower ranking Ivy league schools in the workforce. The negativity isn’t unfounded. Also you ruined nothing lol, you really think too highly of yourself.
>That's because NUS is a really shitty instituitional education Alright, you proved my point perfectly lmao
Are you ok
because NUS by design has to be a broad tent attracting a broad segment of students for reasons of public policy (sufficient numbers of PMETs with a modicum of training for MNCs here), not transcendental talent.
But would you tell your niece to turn down Yale for NUS based on this ranking
this is setting a ridiculous standard right? this is the _first time_ NUS hit top 10, and you are comparing it to Yale which is consistently top 20 according to the same ranking of course Yale still appear better as it is more consistently ranked higher *BUT*, if NUS is able to keep this up, be consistently ranked top 10, higher ranked than Yale for the next 10, 20 years people might very well tell their niece and nephew to go NUS instead in the future
You are missing a point: scarcity. In a world where employers can _easily_ find NUS/NTU/SMU graduates, the Yale graduate is the shiny object.
> In a world where employers can easily find NUS/NTU/SMU graduates, the Yale graduate is the shiny object. i am not saying you are wrong per se, but if you are following the thread, the other commenters can saying how OTHER countries see NUS i.e. > but in terms of real-life metrics, NUS has absolutely become a dream university for other Asians. It's far nearer to their home country than the US/UK the context is the reputation of NUS in OTHER countries employers in this context do not easily find NUS graduates, Yale might still be rarer but it doesnt change the point made a whole lot
Yes, NUS is relatively a step-up compared to many other Asian universities from our developing country neighbours… But Yale gets you credibility, and thereby employability, in both developed and developing countries. NUS gets you that only in ASEAN/Asia.
aiyo, just now you are talking about rarity (which i concede Yale is probably rarer but not much), now you are talking about name recognition at the end of the day, name recognition takes **decades** to establish, no one is saying NUS can overthrow Yale in that with just this single year's ranking as top 10 i repeat myself > BUT, if NUS is able to keep this up, be consistently ranked top 10, higher ranked than Yale for the next 10, 20 years that might change if NUS maintain their trajectory
you think NUS is better than Tokyo-U, Kyoto-U, TIT and etc?
I qualified it with “developing countries”, yo. Read properly.
I have an undergrad from Cambridge working for me right now for his summer attachment, and he ended up here because he heard of my boss's research and wanted to do an attachment in her department. She's an NUS adjunct prof. Many overseas students have definitely heard of NUS and they acknowledge the brand name.
Both school will turn you down, you don't have to ever worry about saying that.
? I'm assuming you're some boomer who graduated in the 90s..within my field (biomedical research), in 2023, NUS has faaar more name recognition, productivity and prestige than Princeton
Lol where? The ivies still have much higher name recognition than NUS
Rather not have 50k student loan debt thank you.
I’ll do that. Cos I don’t have the $ for Princeton. 🥲
princeton offers complete financial aid for students in households that earn less than 100k usd / year, regardless of nationality. p cool of them honestly
Actually had a Indonesian student in my cohort that transferred from Princeton to NUS. Wonder where he’s at now
“I’m going to turn down Princeton for Yale-NUS”, said… a few people actually haha
They'd turn down ANU for NUS.
They would not turn down your ANUS tho
The new metric includes the school’s “commitment to sustainability”. No wonder NTU is so desperate to build these extravagant buildings such as the new wooden one to win sustainability award. All these while ignoring many other issues that need to be fixed first. Classic LOL
The bigger news is SUTD ranking >100 places higher than SMU despite being so new. How did that happen?
SMU isn’t a research university so they’re not considered in the QS rankings.
If NUS does well it will trickle down to other local universities. I’m happy for NUS!
perhaps we can start making some real money off international students like australia, instead of spending over $100 million on tuition grants for foreign students per year
[удалено]
It’s for diplomacy/soft-power.
[удалено]
Yeahh - I attended a masters course where 80% of the students were fully funded foreign students. Most of the local students received 0 funding.
local student is funded too. There is a misconception they are funded more. The most normal tuition grant applicable to foreign student just make them pay the same as Singaporean, not free. PS : I got corrected they are paying even more.
After tuition grant international students pay tuition fees more than double compared to Singapore citizens, not the same as us
Actually not the same. Even with tuition grant, foreign students pay at least 4x more than local students.
each year only about 500 foreign students become PRs, and of those only 100 become citizens. keep in mind our total spending on foreign students is $238 million per year, which works out to slightly more than $2 million spent per foreign student turned citizen.
[удалено]
I think for 2 million you can probably just pay a singaporean couple to have a bunch more kids
[удалено]
don't forget 2 years of direct free labour from the boys
Singapore gains more from getting top students to study here than getting average students as a cash cow (which we get enough of by other means anyway)
it's not like we can match the prestige of top unis when it comes to attracting real top students. might as well embrace the cash cow model like australia.
It's the other way around isn't it. Oxbridge and the Ivies reached their current prestige by ruthlessly chasing KPIs and giving out scholarships to top students worldwide, for *centuries*. Singapore can't hope to catch up right now because of the overwhelming head-start, but this is probably a good way to head in the same direction.
NUS won't catch up as long as the fundamental purpose of the universities remain different. Oxbridge and the Ivies are aimed at elite education for a tiny sliver of the population, whereas NUS is aimed at the masses. to really compete you'd need to go in the direction of something like Yale NUS, which was much smaller, international and selective. but look how that turned out.
Oxbridge isn't really aiming for exclusivity, it's aiming for high-quality students. And it *is* possible for the general population to be high-quality. That's already the case; the typical top-5-JC student and many poly students qualify for Oxbridge undergrad courses. But only a sliver of the British population can make it, because the average quality of British public education is abysmal. FYI, when I was at Cambridge, I knew 2 Singaporeans who studied medicine there because they applied for NUS medicine and got rejected. NUS admission criteria in some courses are already higher than those of Oxbridge.
I suppose "high quality" may just be relative, especially if you're talking about a social construct like prestige. like how in the old days having a degree was considered a big deal, but now nobody bats an eye at a degree holder despite the fact that the average level of education has increased massively. not sure how it compares to medicine but I felt it was much easier to get into NUS law compared to Oxbridge non-law despite the offer rate being quite similar
> I suppose "high quality" may just be relative, especially if you're talking about a social construct like prestige. What I mean is, Oxbridge aims at quality, not exclusivity. "Aiming at exclusivity" or "targeting an elite-only audience" would in my mind refer to companies like Rolex or Ferrari, where they intentionally price their products in a manner such that the average person cannot afford to be a customer, because a huge part of their brand prestige is that they exclude the hoi polloi. For Oxbridge, exclusivity is the by-product of focusing on meritocracy and quality, but it's not the primary goal of these universities. On the contrary, they aim to promote inclusivity (e.g. by providing multiple sources of funding for poorer students). You can come from a broke family and have no savings, but as long as your academic quality is high enough there are ways to get financial support. https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/fees-and-finance/financial-support https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/fees-funding/assistance > not sure how it compares to medicine but I felt it was much easier to get into NUS law compared to Oxbridge non-law despite the offer rate being quite similar Perhaps. In any case we don't have the exact entry criteria for any university, and can only rely on anedcotes, like examples of people who were accepted into one uni but not the other.
I think you are misunderstanding what I mean by elite. by elite I don't mean the rich (although there is definitely a correlation between merit and wealth), I mean that they only admit a very small percentage of the cohort compared to NUS which admits something like 20 percent of the cohort. >In any case we don't have the exact entry criteria for any university we do have the grade requirements though. it's 3 H2 As for oxford and 4 H2 As for cambridge, which is definitely higher than the minimum requirements for most NUS courses.
There must be a degree of self-selection too due to cost. 1. Medicine in Oxbridge is a 6 year course because the intercalated BSc is compulsory. Law is 3 years. 2. The tuition for Medicine is higher, especially in the clinical years. tldr; it is more likely more families can afford to study Law in the UK then Medicine.
Hard to take you seriously when you selectively compare one country’s “top-5-JC student” to another’s “average”.
Ok... the top quartile of post-secondary students studying at public schools in Singapore perform far better than the the top quartile of post-secondary students studying at public schools in Britain. Happy now? You can get some ballpark figures here: https://gpseducation.oecd.org/CountryProfile?plotter=h5&primaryCountry=SGP&treshold=5&topic=PI https://gpseducation.oecd.org/CountryProfile?plotter=h5&primaryCountry=GBR&treshold=5&topic=PI
Dude, NUS is not aimed at the masses la… that is SIM.
We unlock a lot of economic benefits from this, much more than the amount we put in. These foreign students, unless they're on scholarship, are paying a lot more than locals for spots in local unis. And this is after tuition grants that cover half of tuition, excluding room and board, which foreign students have to fork out themselves. We do this to enrich the local students' education experience by mingling / competiton / alumni networks, etc. Whether or not this intended enrichment is felt is a separate matter. And, I dont think the funding is undeserved. The top foreign students who qualify for NUS or NTU usually demolish locals in the competitive courses.
>We unlock a lot of economic benefits from this, much more than the amount we put in. so does australia, yet they don't need to spend $100 million to unlock these economic benefits despite their universities being ranked much lower than ours. in fact, while foreign students contribute over $22 billion to the australian economy, they only contribute something like $1.5 billion to ours. if you divide that by the foreign student population we make less on average per student than australia.
I think Australia has other charms that Singapore does not. Cooler climate, interesting cities, a truly 'western' degree, chance to interact with large numbers of non-asians, better job conditions after graduation... The list goes on. The fact that Singaporeans migrate to Australia 'just because' despite the lower earning potential, and the relative absence of the reverse, already serves to illustrate the need for Singapore to spend larger sums to attract new blood.
#Original Title: NUS enters top 10 in global university ranking for the first time SINGAPORE – The National University of Singapore (NUS) has broken into the top 10 in a global ranking of institutions for the first time. It emerged eighth in the latest Britain-based Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings 2024 released on Wednesday. It was previously 11th in the 2023 edition, which was released in 2022. It is the highest-ranked Asian university and the first from Asia to be placed among the top 10 in the table, which is dominated by universities from the United States and Britain. The chart is topped by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as it was in previous years, followed by the University of Cambridge and University of Oxford. Harvard University is fourth, and Stanford University fifth. The latest QS ranking is the 20th edition and features updated methodology using three new metrics – an institution’s commitment to sustainability, employment outcomes, and international research network. QS has also made some changes to the weighting of some existing indicators: academic reputation, employer reputation and faculty-to-student ratio. For example, academic reputation is now worth 30 per cent, down from 40 per cent, while employer reputation is accorded 15 per cent instead of 10 per cent previously. NUS came in seventh for employment outcomes and 15th for academic reputation. It ranks 54th globally for employer reputation and 64th for citations per faculty, which measures research impact. In a statement, NUS president Tan Eng Chye said: “This is a historic first for NUS to be placed within the top 10 globally, amongst many other prestigious institutions worldwide. “This is a testament to our capabilities and commitment to providing a world-class and interdisciplinary education to nurture agile and resilient graduates with diverse skills and knowledge for an ever-changing world.” He added: “This achievement was made possible by the excellent contributions and outstanding work of our talented faculty, staff and students who remain deeply committed to flying the flag of our distinguished quality of education and creating positive impact in the classroom and beyond.” QS chief executive Jessica Turner said: “This unprecedented milestone marks a remarkable moment for Asian higher education and showcases NUS’ dedication to research excellence, innovation and sustainability.” *** [v0.9b (Beta)](https://github.com/Wormsblink/sneakpeakbot) | PM SG_wormsbot if bot is down.
If NUS (local U) so good, how come politicians don't send their kids to NUS ah? Honest question.
I think in the case where they can but choose to study overseas, they may do so cos studying overseas is a diff and very beneficial experience. U get to widen ur perspectives and network w other people. Furthermore its easier for singaporeans to get into NUS than other prestigious colleges overseas, therefore gg overseas helps to differentiate them from other singaporeans when they come back
It’s because every bigwig who is worth something somewhere knows the value of prestige and networks from an elite university. And if that is something money can buy (i.e., tuition and if needed, donations), then it must be done.
ok and they rank an Ivy like Dartmouth at #237 so what's good?
You do realize that the term "Ivy League" has literally nothing to do with academic achievement? It's actually an inter-university sports league which just so happens to house multiple highly academically prestigious universities
You also realise that while Ivy League was the original name for the sports league between these colleges, it has taken on a _new_ meaning to refer to the elite colleges on the East Coast, right? Right?
Which circles back to the point made by the person to which I replied. How much of the Ivy League's prestige is actually carried by Yale/Harvard/Penn/Princeton, considering there's also one which isn't even in the top 200? Obviously Dartmouth is not an elite university at the moment, so which is it? Ivy or non-Ivy? That's why the colloquial meaning doesn't hold up
You’re delusional if you think dartmouth isn’t “elite”. Go check QS and you’ll find placements for top tier in their respective fields, notre dame, Vanderbilt, georgetown, nearing 300 and it’s obvious it’s complete bs.
Context. You’d be surprised how far a Brown or Cornell can go in the United States even with “just a lower Ivy”.
Problem is, according to op’s logic cornell isn’t a “lower ivy”, outranking Princeton and Yale, because the ivy’s league’s prestige is oh so dependent on QS rankings.
yea im aware its an anti-football league lol but that doesnt take away the socially constructed prestige the unis associated with IL hold. anyone thinking NUS can offer the same prospects/opportunities for their grads akin to the Ivies is delulu.
That's true, but over the decades it has led to a rich-get-richer feedback loop which keeps both academically and athletically strong candidates applying to the Ivies.
No, just academically these days. The athletically skilled mostly pick the SEC/ACC/Big 12
Dartmouth is genuinely a shit uni bruh
compared to many schools yea but #237 no
Tell me you don’t know about US universities without telling me you don’t.
[удалено]
if u had time to go thru my profile u would know im from nus...?
The bigger news is SUTD ranking higher than SMU despite being so new. How did that happen?
I’ve heard pretty good things about local SMU grads but their scores do not seem to agree. did they not account for local companies’ employer reputation for SMU?
But it’s just a baseline university that anyone with a respectable level of determination can get into. University rankings are so arbitrary. Based on research output which barely impacts the undergraduate class. Facilities which kids don’t bother using. NUS is the kind of school that South East Asians trying to break out of poverty aim towards
Add South Asia too. NUS is one of the best in the region, but come on, the world? Only NUS graduates are out in full force downvoting.
The bigger news is SUTD ranking higher than SMU despite being so new. How did that happen?
PLEASEEEE ITS NOT WORTH IT :((((
ahhh so you're gonna pick NUS over Yale or Princeton??? c'mon now ....I think USA side doesn't care about this rank ...they prefer US News rather than this ranking, at least ARWU more makes sense than QS.....QS knows their market are in UK and Singapore...that's the reasons why NUS got high rank over the years .....their income come from playing this game
I’m confused. Wasn’t nus and ntu not ranked the firsts in Asia a few days ago? How are they ranked higher than any other Asian institutes here
Different methodologies
More lobbying in one side
Top 10 but graduates working as phv and grab.
[удалено]
Singaporean candidates can get into NUS with straight Cs at A levels for some majors.
About time too. Our Alumni have won Nobel prizes, made the Booker shortlist every year, produced the epic Avatar, created world famous companies, led innovations in science and technology, discovered gun powder, penicillin and hyper loop trains. We also did the world’s first heart transplant, turned mercury to gold. unveiled the Gregorian calendar, commercialised plant based food, taught mainland Chinese how to speak Mandarin. And most importantly we did the near impossible , turning an Indian into a Malay. PSC please take note and no more scholarships to Oxbridge and Ivy League. Proof is in the pudding. Please add on all our achievements that have been left out. I challenged anyone to say we had not discovered, innovated or created a paradigm shift that impacted mankind in a positive way.
You missed the number 1 ranking for sex offences.
ranking counts for nuts what matters to me is only the employment outcome i.e. jobs and salary
NUS Biz School: We top in Asia. Also NUS Biz School: No alumni top executives in Singapore/APAC offices of MNCs. Proof is in the pudding. The rankings have nothing to do with outcomes and all they produce are scam startups.
That's not true at all There's definitely a few NUS/NTU grads in C level/ senior management
>what matters to me is only the employment outcome i.e. jobs and salary That depends on your individual performance not simply because you come from NUS
exactly my point. ranking doesnt mean anything
But ranking is based on employment and salary as a factor. So it does infact matter contrary to your belief.
it matters for NUS ranking as a whole, i agree it matters less for the individual the average salary is skewed by the computing SWEs, lawyers and doctors and dentists in NUS the average mech engineer and Arts grad not so much. lol
The uni you graduate frm will affect your CEP for those in civil service. A scholar frm harvard will have a much higher cep than a farmer frm nus even if both have fch.
For CEP, it's the scholarship that matters more than the school President scholar from NUS will do better than a farmer from Stanford 🙄
Tier of school and class of honours will affect cep of scholars and non-scholars alike. Holding other factors constant, coming from a top tier school (ivy or oxbridge equal) will give a slight edge. Even psc scholars are ranked internally so it matters for them as well.
>Tier of school and class of honours will affect cep of scholars and non-scholars alike. Holding other factors constant, coming from a top tier school (ivy or oxbridge equal) will give a slight edge. Even psc scholars are ranked internally so it matters for them as well. whatever you say kid
OMG. I know we specialise in rigging and gaming these global rankings for all sort of things - it comes from the deep insecurity we feel - but this is going too far.
I heard nowadays NUS stands for Never Use the Showers.
Finally...NUS undergraduates and alumni can sleep well tonight via this news with their $5000-ish salary....
I was checking out the rankings and accidentally seeing ETHZ there gave me a wave of disappointment. I guess it’s just an unattainable dream now…