This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
QS World University Rankings article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Are MIT and Yale (4 and 5) and Singapore and Tokyo (19 and 20) tied? Why do they not show up as tied in the table? If noone justifies of fixes it, I will -- DFRussia 04:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I find this list hard to take seriously if UC Berkeley is missing. (I'm a CMU student, and have no affiliation with Berkeley). It's also quite suspect that 4 British universities are in the top 10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhhays ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
They changed the criteria as critics felt would be less pro-British last year and a lot of schools shifted around considerably. It might end up that it helped British schools more than hurt them even though the changes were suggested by their critics.-- 69.123.112.18 ( talk) 04:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Alot of people seem to be concerned when they read this article about not seeing some common Unis in the top 20. I was thinking, should we maybe include the top 10 (or 15 or 20) for the specific fields (subject ratings) THES-QS rates? ( Arts & Humanities, Life Sciences & Biomedicine, Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, Technology) -- DFRussia ( talk) 06:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I took a look at the link for the evidence for this complaint, it doenst appear to be from an official site (such as a newspaper), looks alot more like a bitter American student who is upset that other English speaking countries have high ranking universities. If we are going to be linknig to evidence, can we please make sure that its not written by an unnamed author on a free hosting website? Otherwise i could jsut go and write a complaint that so many American or Eastern Uni's are represented and then link it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.97.115 ( talk) 16:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
From UK Resorting to Biased Ranking to Woo International Students?
We first note that 4 out of the top 10 universities are from UK. While positions of many other universities (several prestigious ones included) fluctuated over the years, Cambridge, Oxford and Imperial’s positions are always improving. This year, Imperial College suddenly rose to Number 5 in the world, ahead of prestigious US universities like MIT, Berkeley and Caltech.
From
Brief: Stanford ranking falls from 6th to 19th?
The THES rankings have been controversial since day 1 due to their biased methodology. Now, they definitely managed to kill themselves with this year's no sense edition. With all due respect to whomever needs to be respected, any ranking that places Australian National University and London's Imperial College above Stanford these days only smells one thing: pure crap.
How can it rank McGill ahead of Stanford, Berkeley, and UPenn, to name a few, when it doesn't even have enough funding to get itself out of debt, and has little selectivity in comparison to the universities previously mentioned???
From
Berkeen's Blog
THES-QS has finally come up with changes that ensure their final loss of credibility. Look at where Stanford is and who come above it. Not even the people in the latter universities believe their place is better than Stanford. Perhaps the ensuing giggles will finally force THES-QS to get serious and stop peddling propaganda.
In relation to population, number of universities, output of research, quality of research or almost anything else the UK appears overrepresented in relation to the USA. The citations per faculty section is now as biased towards the UK as the “peer review”. With a forty % weighting given to the "peer review", in which in 2006 UK respondents alone were 71% of those from the US and 20 % towards a citations count in , which UK items alone are 61 % of those from the USA, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is a blatant exercise in academic gerrymandering.
You can do the search yourself...
Spookee 14:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Excellent sources provided by sevenneed!
Here is another article
From Global Higher Education Editorial
"A colleague in the UK noted that as one might expect from the home of one of the more notorious world rankings, and a higher education system obsessed with reputation, ‘league tables’ are much discussed in the UK. ... Many people working in higher education are deeply sceptical and cynical about the value of such league tables, about their value, purpose and especially methodology. For the majority of UK universities that do not appear in the tables and are probably never likely to appear, the tables are of very little significance. However, for the main research-led universities they are a source of growing interest. These are the universities that see themselves as competing on the world stage. Whilst they will often criticise the methodologies in detail, they will still study the results very carefully and will certainly use good results for publicity and marketing. ... However, it is reported that most UK students pay little attention to the international tables, but universities are aware that rankings can have a significant impact on recruitment of international students."
Once again, good work by Sevenneed! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Spookee (
talk •
contribs) 09:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You must STOP your nonsense Artlondon. 'Sevenneed' cited two articles (one from a peer-reviewed journal and another from the vice-president of an education institute in US. If you revert such quality edits in an attempt to suppress information again, I'll report you to Wiki Manangement for vandalism! Spookee ( talk) 09:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
What's Artlondon trying to do?
Why is he so much against the two articles (one from a peer-reviewed journal and another from the vice-president of an education institute in the US)??
Is it because he doesn't like the THES league tables being criticized? Is he trying to suppress relevant information to achieve certain goals?
No reasons are given so far...
--
Sevenneed (
talk) 17:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The opening paragraph is uncited and also NPOV. These criticisms are discussed in detail further on in the article. The NPOV improvements that have been made by others previously are being constantly reversed. Discuss your additions here please! 78.105.147.255 ( talk) 19:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what it is about this opening paragraph, and the urge to repeat what is already said in the appropriate section! Recycling of citations to say the same thing is hardly useful. Matt641 ( talk) 15:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I requested a lock but its been denied. Looks like we're just going to have to keep reverting the edits. Matt641 ( talk) 21:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I was interested to see that Andrew Oswald suggested that the number of Nobel Prizes awarded to members of an institution is a useful measure of its degree of excellence. Prizes are awarded in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Peace, with an associated prize in Economics. Peace is not an academic discipline. Literature could be an academic discipline but the prize in practice goes to a novelist, poet, dramatist, etc, not to a scholar (Mommsen being very much the exception). Of course some winners are university-educated but many are not and even fewer are university academics. So the prizes are effectively awarded to scientists and (if it's counted as a Nobel) an economist. This is another example of university rankings being in somes ways divided between those that emphasise the sciences and those that emphasise that arts and humanities. The fact that in the last 20 years Stanford has won three times as many Nobel Prizes as Oxford and Cambridge combined doesn't mean that Oxford and Cambridge might not remain among the best, if not the best, institutions in classics, theology, history, philosophy, and the study of English language and literature. I'm surprised there's no debate cited on this point.
Another point that needs to be addressed is how small institutions are ranked. The Courtauld Institute, for example, is the best history of art institution in the UK and among the best in the world. The Warburg Institute is perhaps even more eminent in an even smaller field. But because of their very small size these institutions will never make it into the top 200.
But I think there must be something wrong with these rankings or something wrong with universities. Having spent some time at universities that in 2007 ranked =2 and 9 and at another one that this year dropped out of the top 200 (but last year was in the top 50 - something very strange there I think) I'd say that either the rankings are wrong or that all but the top, say, five universities in the world are not very good.
The most striking factor to me is the massive fluctuation in placings. In 2006 Colorado ranked 124 for staff-student ratio but has leapt up to 10th place, and staff-student ratio is a factor that one would expect to stay fairly stable. Manchester ranks 5th among employers in 2007 compared with 31 the year before. It's no surprise to see Oxbridge at the top (no matter what their academic standards are like employers on both sides of the Atlantic love the names), but who are these employers who rate Manchester 5th (just behind Harvard) and don't even put Yale into the top 10?
None of this is very new, and the THES says much of it itself, but I think some of it could do with deeper investigation and incorporation into the article.-- Oxonian2006 ( talk) 21:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This section has a couple of tags on it. One says: "This article or section contains too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry." The second tag says: "This article or section is written like an advertisement."
Both tags have a point. The commentary on the THES - QS rankings is all by representatives of universities who are on the list, most of whom treat it as an opportunity to gush about how good their programs are. I don't see the point of having such a section. If there was objective third party commentary, fine. But there isn't. I suggest eliminating this section, unless objective comments can be found. Sunray ( talk) 00:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, this is more of a comment that an edit. Public perception of Univesities is very important in that the human body is a primary concern of most forward thinking individuals thus making athletics important to the over all ranking of a university. The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit for a religious perspective and we do not need any more Jenny Craig, if you get my point of view.
There should be a method of ranking public perception which includes athletics, hopefully, clean athletics, as Rose Bowls are played and National Champions are crowned at basketball, and amateur athletes in the Olympics are identified with Universities.
Most of the schools you rank very highly have not seriously invovled in athletics for quite some time.
It is unfortunate that this public perception of a healthy mind and sound body is not necesserily expressed in these ranking poles, especially this QS pole.
Furthermore, in the early 1960s Hastings Law School permitted professor's beyond retirement to continue as teachers so people like Harold Pinter could win awards.
What up, with the retirement age requirement and the methods for recruiting faculty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.5.138 ( talk) 21:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that the times higher education supplement (now called just 'times higher education') is in no way related to the Times newspaper, even though the name can suggest this. Even a different publisher.
At times this entry seems to blur this (refering to how the times is popular in SE Asia and Australia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.172.17 ( talk) 19:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
2008 results can be found here: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=243&pubCode=1 78.86.101.116 ( talk) 09:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The rankings are called the Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings NOT the THE-QS World University Rankings - could this be changed in the title please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.240.83.20 ( talk) 10:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if the average score (rankings over 2009-2004) is a souracable statistic that the THES compiles?., or is this just extrapolated. thanks Ottawa4ever ( talk) 16:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Someone tried to replace Leiden as the #1 University in the Netherlands, but if they double check with the study result, they'll find that Leiden ranks #60 vs. Amsterdam ranking #165. If anyone disagrees with this report, they should show why the ranking should be reversed, and inform the QS organization, instead of vandalizing this page. -- EJohn59 ( talk) 04:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)EJ
The "comments" section of this page seems to be unduly biased towards positive comments. As can be seen on the Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings and Times Higher Education World University Rankings page, there has been a lot of negative criticism levelled at QS' methods, and this is not reflected in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.240.83.20 ( talk • contribs) 06:39, 10 December 2009
THES basically launched this ranking to compete with Academic Ranking of World Universities by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, presumably THES and/or QS's goal was largely to elevate the rankings for British institutions. In fact, the ARWU rankings by Shanghai University have always been far more honest and legitimate, but even they are biased towards English speaking countries.
In any case, any rankings that even includes places like Manchester and Sheffield in the top 100 world wide is laughable. There are surely 50 nations whose flagship universities beat those two, all the nations affiliated with Europe, like Istanbul's Boğaziçi University, plus the most powerful nations in Asia, South America, and Africa. You'll then easily find another 50 universities that beat Manchester and Sheffield in the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.132.111 ( talk) 13:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
i think someone is playing a joke, the page shows Colgate university, but shouldnt it really show harvard university? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.238.152.3 ( talk) 15:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Here
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2010/results —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.82.54.18 ( talk) 16:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
This is only for QS World University Rankings which has split off from the Times Higher Education World University Rankings this year (apparently). Cheers, — sligocki ( talk) 05:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The Times Higher Education rankings can be found at http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings Jellybub ( talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.131.110.104 ( talk) 13:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It would not be appropriate for the Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings page to be merged with the QS page. Times Higher Education will also be producing rankings after the split with QS, which will be known as Times Higher Education World University Rankings. Given that both parties in the previous arrangement are now producing separate rankings, it would be inappropriate to favour one party over the other by merging the page. It would perhaps be more appropriate for a disambiguation page to be set up differentiating between THE-QS rankings (between 2004 and 2009) and the new separate THE World University Rankings and QS' own project —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jellybub ( talk • contribs) 12:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
This is a bad idea - THE and QS are now working separately and producing very different products. It would be a backward step for Wikipedia's article structure not to reflect reality. Saint cuthbert ( talk) 13:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
People, if you do not agree with this rankings, this page is not the place to complain. If you do not like the fact that a particular nation is doing well or poorly, this is not the place to complain. If you do not like the fact that your institution of choice does not do as well as in another ranking, this is not the place to complain.
This is a place to discuss your the article, not your opinion on its subject. Please keep it as such. Xtremerandomness ( talk) 03:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I tabulated the methodological info. for a clearer presentation and to avoid redundant and unsourced claims, and updated the subject ranking categories. Reorganization was also done for better fluency. However, User Universityranking watcher and IP 219.252.219.113 have (has) kept reverting my changes, which provided appropriate citations, without any explanation and this seems a bit destructive. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 09:34, 5 May 2015
To facilitate regular updates, I suggest that we reduce the coverage of the global table from top 50 to simply top 10, like those regional ones. It's quite hard to rearrange all those institutions for the right places while at the same time filling in all the previous ranks for new comers. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 18:39 Tuesday, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
A user added these sources to support the Rankings as the most viewed of its kind:
I'm not sure if they're scientific and worthy enough to be added in the intro. None of these pages directly say what the statement claims either. Biomedicinal 06:40 on Sunday, September 18, 2016 (UTC)
I have included schools that were in the top ten of previous years. Otherwise the list stinks of recentism. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 00:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Columns should be ordered such that the most recent year is nearest the institution's name, with older dates being order toward the right. Making this change will make the tables much more readable. Eventually, without the recommended change, the most recent year will be the year furthest from the institution making it much harder to associate the institution with its ranking. Bluedudemi ( talk) 14:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Currently, "Criticism" is listed as a minor subsection of the methodology. In fact, to be more compatible with other wiki pages, and more directly accessible given its importance, it should possibly be a section on its own? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.152.147.166 ( talk) 21:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
QS World University Rankings article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Are MIT and Yale (4 and 5) and Singapore and Tokyo (19 and 20) tied? Why do they not show up as tied in the table? If noone justifies of fixes it, I will -- DFRussia 04:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I find this list hard to take seriously if UC Berkeley is missing. (I'm a CMU student, and have no affiliation with Berkeley). It's also quite suspect that 4 British universities are in the top 10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhhays ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
They changed the criteria as critics felt would be less pro-British last year and a lot of schools shifted around considerably. It might end up that it helped British schools more than hurt them even though the changes were suggested by their critics.-- 69.123.112.18 ( talk) 04:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Alot of people seem to be concerned when they read this article about not seeing some common Unis in the top 20. I was thinking, should we maybe include the top 10 (or 15 or 20) for the specific fields (subject ratings) THES-QS rates? ( Arts & Humanities, Life Sciences & Biomedicine, Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, Technology) -- DFRussia ( talk) 06:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I took a look at the link for the evidence for this complaint, it doenst appear to be from an official site (such as a newspaper), looks alot more like a bitter American student who is upset that other English speaking countries have high ranking universities. If we are going to be linknig to evidence, can we please make sure that its not written by an unnamed author on a free hosting website? Otherwise i could jsut go and write a complaint that so many American or Eastern Uni's are represented and then link it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.97.115 ( talk) 16:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
From UK Resorting to Biased Ranking to Woo International Students?
We first note that 4 out of the top 10 universities are from UK. While positions of many other universities (several prestigious ones included) fluctuated over the years, Cambridge, Oxford and Imperial’s positions are always improving. This year, Imperial College suddenly rose to Number 5 in the world, ahead of prestigious US universities like MIT, Berkeley and Caltech.
From
Brief: Stanford ranking falls from 6th to 19th?
The THES rankings have been controversial since day 1 due to their biased methodology. Now, they definitely managed to kill themselves with this year's no sense edition. With all due respect to whomever needs to be respected, any ranking that places Australian National University and London's Imperial College above Stanford these days only smells one thing: pure crap.
How can it rank McGill ahead of Stanford, Berkeley, and UPenn, to name a few, when it doesn't even have enough funding to get itself out of debt, and has little selectivity in comparison to the universities previously mentioned???
From
Berkeen's Blog
THES-QS has finally come up with changes that ensure their final loss of credibility. Look at where Stanford is and who come above it. Not even the people in the latter universities believe their place is better than Stanford. Perhaps the ensuing giggles will finally force THES-QS to get serious and stop peddling propaganda.
In relation to population, number of universities, output of research, quality of research or almost anything else the UK appears overrepresented in relation to the USA. The citations per faculty section is now as biased towards the UK as the “peer review”. With a forty % weighting given to the "peer review", in which in 2006 UK respondents alone were 71% of those from the US and 20 % towards a citations count in , which UK items alone are 61 % of those from the USA, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is a blatant exercise in academic gerrymandering.
You can do the search yourself...
Spookee 14:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Excellent sources provided by sevenneed!
Here is another article
From Global Higher Education Editorial
"A colleague in the UK noted that as one might expect from the home of one of the more notorious world rankings, and a higher education system obsessed with reputation, ‘league tables’ are much discussed in the UK. ... Many people working in higher education are deeply sceptical and cynical about the value of such league tables, about their value, purpose and especially methodology. For the majority of UK universities that do not appear in the tables and are probably never likely to appear, the tables are of very little significance. However, for the main research-led universities they are a source of growing interest. These are the universities that see themselves as competing on the world stage. Whilst they will often criticise the methodologies in detail, they will still study the results very carefully and will certainly use good results for publicity and marketing. ... However, it is reported that most UK students pay little attention to the international tables, but universities are aware that rankings can have a significant impact on recruitment of international students."
Once again, good work by Sevenneed! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Spookee (
talk •
contribs) 09:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You must STOP your nonsense Artlondon. 'Sevenneed' cited two articles (one from a peer-reviewed journal and another from the vice-president of an education institute in US. If you revert such quality edits in an attempt to suppress information again, I'll report you to Wiki Manangement for vandalism! Spookee ( talk) 09:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
What's Artlondon trying to do?
Why is he so much against the two articles (one from a peer-reviewed journal and another from the vice-president of an education institute in the US)??
Is it because he doesn't like the THES league tables being criticized? Is he trying to suppress relevant information to achieve certain goals?
No reasons are given so far...
--
Sevenneed (
talk) 17:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The opening paragraph is uncited and also NPOV. These criticisms are discussed in detail further on in the article. The NPOV improvements that have been made by others previously are being constantly reversed. Discuss your additions here please! 78.105.147.255 ( talk) 19:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what it is about this opening paragraph, and the urge to repeat what is already said in the appropriate section! Recycling of citations to say the same thing is hardly useful. Matt641 ( talk) 15:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I requested a lock but its been denied. Looks like we're just going to have to keep reverting the edits. Matt641 ( talk) 21:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I was interested to see that Andrew Oswald suggested that the number of Nobel Prizes awarded to members of an institution is a useful measure of its degree of excellence. Prizes are awarded in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Peace, with an associated prize in Economics. Peace is not an academic discipline. Literature could be an academic discipline but the prize in practice goes to a novelist, poet, dramatist, etc, not to a scholar (Mommsen being very much the exception). Of course some winners are university-educated but many are not and even fewer are university academics. So the prizes are effectively awarded to scientists and (if it's counted as a Nobel) an economist. This is another example of university rankings being in somes ways divided between those that emphasise the sciences and those that emphasise that arts and humanities. The fact that in the last 20 years Stanford has won three times as many Nobel Prizes as Oxford and Cambridge combined doesn't mean that Oxford and Cambridge might not remain among the best, if not the best, institutions in classics, theology, history, philosophy, and the study of English language and literature. I'm surprised there's no debate cited on this point.
Another point that needs to be addressed is how small institutions are ranked. The Courtauld Institute, for example, is the best history of art institution in the UK and among the best in the world. The Warburg Institute is perhaps even more eminent in an even smaller field. But because of their very small size these institutions will never make it into the top 200.
But I think there must be something wrong with these rankings or something wrong with universities. Having spent some time at universities that in 2007 ranked =2 and 9 and at another one that this year dropped out of the top 200 (but last year was in the top 50 - something very strange there I think) I'd say that either the rankings are wrong or that all but the top, say, five universities in the world are not very good.
The most striking factor to me is the massive fluctuation in placings. In 2006 Colorado ranked 124 for staff-student ratio but has leapt up to 10th place, and staff-student ratio is a factor that one would expect to stay fairly stable. Manchester ranks 5th among employers in 2007 compared with 31 the year before. It's no surprise to see Oxbridge at the top (no matter what their academic standards are like employers on both sides of the Atlantic love the names), but who are these employers who rate Manchester 5th (just behind Harvard) and don't even put Yale into the top 10?
None of this is very new, and the THES says much of it itself, but I think some of it could do with deeper investigation and incorporation into the article.-- Oxonian2006 ( talk) 21:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This section has a couple of tags on it. One says: "This article or section contains too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry." The second tag says: "This article or section is written like an advertisement."
Both tags have a point. The commentary on the THES - QS rankings is all by representatives of universities who are on the list, most of whom treat it as an opportunity to gush about how good their programs are. I don't see the point of having such a section. If there was objective third party commentary, fine. But there isn't. I suggest eliminating this section, unless objective comments can be found. Sunray ( talk) 00:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, this is more of a comment that an edit. Public perception of Univesities is very important in that the human body is a primary concern of most forward thinking individuals thus making athletics important to the over all ranking of a university. The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit for a religious perspective and we do not need any more Jenny Craig, if you get my point of view.
There should be a method of ranking public perception which includes athletics, hopefully, clean athletics, as Rose Bowls are played and National Champions are crowned at basketball, and amateur athletes in the Olympics are identified with Universities.
Most of the schools you rank very highly have not seriously invovled in athletics for quite some time.
It is unfortunate that this public perception of a healthy mind and sound body is not necesserily expressed in these ranking poles, especially this QS pole.
Furthermore, in the early 1960s Hastings Law School permitted professor's beyond retirement to continue as teachers so people like Harold Pinter could win awards.
What up, with the retirement age requirement and the methods for recruiting faculty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.5.138 ( talk) 21:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that the times higher education supplement (now called just 'times higher education') is in no way related to the Times newspaper, even though the name can suggest this. Even a different publisher.
At times this entry seems to blur this (refering to how the times is popular in SE Asia and Australia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.172.17 ( talk) 19:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
2008 results can be found here: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=243&pubCode=1 78.86.101.116 ( talk) 09:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The rankings are called the Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings NOT the THE-QS World University Rankings - could this be changed in the title please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.240.83.20 ( talk) 10:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if the average score (rankings over 2009-2004) is a souracable statistic that the THES compiles?., or is this just extrapolated. thanks Ottawa4ever ( talk) 16:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Someone tried to replace Leiden as the #1 University in the Netherlands, but if they double check with the study result, they'll find that Leiden ranks #60 vs. Amsterdam ranking #165. If anyone disagrees with this report, they should show why the ranking should be reversed, and inform the QS organization, instead of vandalizing this page. -- EJohn59 ( talk) 04:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)EJ
The "comments" section of this page seems to be unduly biased towards positive comments. As can be seen on the Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings and Times Higher Education World University Rankings page, there has been a lot of negative criticism levelled at QS' methods, and this is not reflected in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.240.83.20 ( talk • contribs) 06:39, 10 December 2009
THES basically launched this ranking to compete with Academic Ranking of World Universities by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, presumably THES and/or QS's goal was largely to elevate the rankings for British institutions. In fact, the ARWU rankings by Shanghai University have always been far more honest and legitimate, but even they are biased towards English speaking countries.
In any case, any rankings that even includes places like Manchester and Sheffield in the top 100 world wide is laughable. There are surely 50 nations whose flagship universities beat those two, all the nations affiliated with Europe, like Istanbul's Boğaziçi University, plus the most powerful nations in Asia, South America, and Africa. You'll then easily find another 50 universities that beat Manchester and Sheffield in the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.132.111 ( talk) 13:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
i think someone is playing a joke, the page shows Colgate university, but shouldnt it really show harvard university? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.238.152.3 ( talk) 15:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Here
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2010/results —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.82.54.18 ( talk) 16:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
This is only for QS World University Rankings which has split off from the Times Higher Education World University Rankings this year (apparently). Cheers, — sligocki ( talk) 05:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The Times Higher Education rankings can be found at http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings Jellybub ( talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.131.110.104 ( talk) 13:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It would not be appropriate for the Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings page to be merged with the QS page. Times Higher Education will also be producing rankings after the split with QS, which will be known as Times Higher Education World University Rankings. Given that both parties in the previous arrangement are now producing separate rankings, it would be inappropriate to favour one party over the other by merging the page. It would perhaps be more appropriate for a disambiguation page to be set up differentiating between THE-QS rankings (between 2004 and 2009) and the new separate THE World University Rankings and QS' own project —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jellybub ( talk • contribs) 12:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
This is a bad idea - THE and QS are now working separately and producing very different products. It would be a backward step for Wikipedia's article structure not to reflect reality. Saint cuthbert ( talk) 13:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
People, if you do not agree with this rankings, this page is not the place to complain. If you do not like the fact that a particular nation is doing well or poorly, this is not the place to complain. If you do not like the fact that your institution of choice does not do as well as in another ranking, this is not the place to complain.
This is a place to discuss your the article, not your opinion on its subject. Please keep it as such. Xtremerandomness ( talk) 03:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I tabulated the methodological info. for a clearer presentation and to avoid redundant and unsourced claims, and updated the subject ranking categories. Reorganization was also done for better fluency. However, User Universityranking watcher and IP 219.252.219.113 have (has) kept reverting my changes, which provided appropriate citations, without any explanation and this seems a bit destructive. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 09:34, 5 May 2015
To facilitate regular updates, I suggest that we reduce the coverage of the global table from top 50 to simply top 10, like those regional ones. It's quite hard to rearrange all those institutions for the right places while at the same time filling in all the previous ranks for new comers. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 18:39 Tuesday, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
A user added these sources to support the Rankings as the most viewed of its kind:
I'm not sure if they're scientific and worthy enough to be added in the intro. None of these pages directly say what the statement claims either. Biomedicinal 06:40 on Sunday, September 18, 2016 (UTC)
I have included schools that were in the top ten of previous years. Otherwise the list stinks of recentism. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 00:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Columns should be ordered such that the most recent year is nearest the institution's name, with older dates being order toward the right. Making this change will make the tables much more readable. Eventually, without the recommended change, the most recent year will be the year furthest from the institution making it much harder to associate the institution with its ranking. Bluedudemi ( talk) 14:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Currently, "Criticism" is listed as a minor subsection of the methodology. In fact, to be more compatible with other wiki pages, and more directly accessible given its importance, it should possibly be a section on its own? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.152.147.166 ( talk) 21:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)