This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
I think the general rank list should go up to 50.-- Zereshk 23:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
A new list has been released, but you have to be a subscriber to access it from the official website. Is there anyone with access to it? Some updates are probably due. -- Brendanfox 09:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Can you please stop changing the Engineering/IT list? Last time I looked at the THE website (2004 version), the number one and two were the University of California, Berkeley and MIT, respectively. Editing a Wikipedia article to give incorrect information that suits your taste is nothing but childish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Till Sawala~enwiki ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Could someone update the 2005 THES rankings into the chart, so its not just a list above the 2004 rankings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.149.70 ( talk) 08:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
University of Texas at Austin at #9 in North America? Are they kidding? Neutrality talk 04:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the top post, although I understand that THES used a particular ranking formula, Having UT Austin ranked top ten in North America is bordering on ridiculous. With all due respect, I am sure the sensible students and faculty at UT Austin would agree that it is not in the league of the Havards and Stanfords. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.140.207 ( talk) 06:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
"A better alternative to this set of rankings is the Shanghai JiaoTong Top 500 list."I disagree. The Shanghai ranking is laughably flawed in its criteria which is heavily biased against institutions which do not cater or specialise in Science/Engineering. If i remember correctly the LSE (for one exmaple) did not even make the ranking when it first came out which is an absolute joke. I honestly find it hard to accept the accusations of bias with regard to the criteria used. siarach 10:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I added universities 26-200 from the THES 2005. They gave a trial membership for 14 days, i downloaded the list ages ago. Aslate 23:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
i don't understand the footnote to this table. the table doesn't score all the faculty or all the students. just the international ones. but the student/faculty score is for internation and domestic, right? -- jashar 22:29, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
Someone added the following row to the table:
199= University of Georgia, Athens USA 20.8
This doesn't appear of my list from the THES, i have removed this until there is proof it should be there. Aslate 17:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
number 10: "ecole polytechnique" is located in switerland NOT in France!!! And the official name is ETH (german: Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule; englisch: swiss federal institute of technology) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.170.91.146 ( talk) 22:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The official name of "Beijing University" is "Peking University". However rumour has it that the authority has proposed to change the offical name to "The University of Beijing" in 2006, "Peking University" is still used in its offical webpage. So, I change it to its official name accordingly. Powermac 02:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I have cut this unreferenced assertion. My research doesn't show that the ranking is generally criticised. Most references simply accept it. Can anyone find any other references?-- Duncan 09:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Did you ever consider the fact that Oxford and Cambridge are actually quite good and deserve to be in the No 2 place? No, you didn't, did you? Also, if you had bothered to read the full pamphlet, they go in some detail explaining about how BOTH US and UK universities together dominate the results and why this is. But you didn't read it, did you? -- 69.123.112.18 ( talk) 05:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Stupid brits ranked Cornell above the venerable U Penn? Have they not heard of Penn's #1 business school (Wharton) and #3&4 Law and Med schools (USNews)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.224.210 ( talk) 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is University College London in first place... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.56.64 ( talk) 05:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If I click on the column head to sort by, say, 2005 ranking, the results are not sorted numerically, but rather alphabetically, so "10" follows "1". This should be fixed, could anyone tell the programmer-in-charge? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.161.144.74 ( talk) 00:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
They start so many unnecessary flame wars.
"OMG My School isn't #1?!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quanticles ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There are numerous ways to access the rankings without paying. If your just interested in top 200, goto ( http://www.paked.net/higher_education/rankings/times_rankings.htm) for the rankings. But if you need full info like top USA, top UK, top science, top medicine etc, goto thes.co.uk and register for a free trial. Simply copy and paste all rankings in a safe place (like Excel or Word, or save as images) since the trial expires after 15 days. If you are interested in the new rankings I recommend you do not register for the free trial just now but wait till the 2007 rankings become available (this summer). This paragraph has been contributed by Ahsan Rahim, Pakistan.
It would be great if the month and day of each annual ranking publication was clearly indicated. I saw that the first 2004 ranking came out in November (according to your article) but is that the month of every offical ranking publication? Also, is there a certain day of the month that it happens? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.17.65.14 ( talk) 02:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello - I have created a new Ownership section for the Times Higher Education entry as the publication has changed ownership several times over the past few years and has now been split up from TES Global by its latest owners. Additionally, I have also included a mention of THE's recent moves to enter the for-profit international student recruitment and housing markets. Finally, I updated the Company entry in the description summary box on the right from TES Global to Inflexion. Happy to discuss further should any wiki experts here feel the page could be improved further. Thank you, HEwonk ( talk) 11:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Some or all of the changes weren't supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Consider re-submitting with content based on media, books and scholarly works. |
SilkTHE ( talk) 11:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
References
@ SilkTHE: Let start by saying I've never heard of this publication before which isn't terribly surprising nor important — I only mention it to explain why I might ask questions what you think are fairly obvious.
Your proposed edit implicitly suggests removing "formerly The Times Higher Education Supplement (THES)". I don't think we have a formal standard for when such a clause should be included or more importantly when it should be removed. Very casually speaking, it seems useful shortly after a change in name, and ought to be retired eventually. Can you fill me in on when the change in name occurred? I glanced through the article and think it is been some time but I'm not fully sure.
The current wording, "reporting specifically on news and issues related to higher education" is neutral and hopefully accurate. The proposed wording "providing insights, analysis and news on universities worldwide" is less neutral. It's potentially acceptable if it is commonly stated in multiple reliable sources, but in my opinion simply finding one or two publications referencing insights an analysis is not enough. I also note the addition of "worldwide".
The Forbes reference is not remotely useful. While portions of Forbes are acceptable as a high quality reference, Forbes permits contributed articles which are barely better than advertisements. I'm fairly certain that the general consensus is that contributed articles do not qualify as reliable sources.
I would be happy to help correct errors and outdated data.
Ping me specifically and make sure to provide:
In each case.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Sphilbrick: Thanks for your feedback, but we disagree on multiple points and do not believe that this Wikipedia article is in any way accurate as to what our business is or how it operates. The publication still exists and is part of our offer, particularly in the United Kingdom but we have, since 2004 been a provider of global international rankings and are globally better known in this space than as a publisher. Our rankings business has grown to compile data from 3,500+ universities, comprising 9 million datapoints, and is used by universities and governments around the world in support of their HE strategies. I appreciate that Wikipedia will only state the facts, and that is all we ask, but at present this article is misleading and erroneous. In this regard, how can we best move to get this amended in a way that is satisfactory for Wikipedia while ensuring accuracy?
In terms of citations, most media sources accept sponsored content, but this is nearly always flagged as such so I'm not sure how we can get to a necessary threshold of citations if we are unable to use media as a source for this? Perhaps we could leave this page to be purely about the publication (as I said, one stream of our business but not by any stretch the largest globally), and start a new page about the business itself that is factually accurate and fair? Any advice you can give in this regard would be helpful - we only seek to ensure information is up to date and relevant.
@ Hewonk: Are you able to assist with the above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilkTHE ( talk • contribs) 10:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Some or all of the changes weren't supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Consider re-submitting with content based on media, books and scholarly works. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SilkTHE ( talk • contribs) 12:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
References
What I think should be changed: "Frequency - Weekly" needs to be changed to "Frequency - Fortnightly"
Why it should be changed: The print version of the THE magazine is delivered to subscribers on a fortnightly basis, not weekly.
References supporting the possible change: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/store — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilkTHE ( talk • contribs) 12:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
"Interesting" that the first 37 years are reduced to a single sentence. Surprisingly no mention of the many illustrious journalists who worked on the Times Higher Education Supplement in its newspaper incarnation, including founding editor Brian MacArthur, his successor (Sir) Peter Scott, Lord (Peter) Hennessy, Christopher Hitchens, David Hencke, David Walker, Judith Judd and others. 146.90.130.179 ( talk) 08:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Any suggestions where I can find online a source from 2013 THES? It doesn't appear to be covered by Newsbank or PressReader, available from my local library. Specifically I'm looking for this 2013 article to help source the Burston entry in List of fictional British and Irish universities. Pam D 08:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
I think the general rank list should go up to 50.-- Zereshk 23:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
A new list has been released, but you have to be a subscriber to access it from the official website. Is there anyone with access to it? Some updates are probably due. -- Brendanfox 09:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Can you please stop changing the Engineering/IT list? Last time I looked at the THE website (2004 version), the number one and two were the University of California, Berkeley and MIT, respectively. Editing a Wikipedia article to give incorrect information that suits your taste is nothing but childish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Till Sawala~enwiki ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Could someone update the 2005 THES rankings into the chart, so its not just a list above the 2004 rankings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.149.70 ( talk) 08:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
University of Texas at Austin at #9 in North America? Are they kidding? Neutrality talk 04:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the top post, although I understand that THES used a particular ranking formula, Having UT Austin ranked top ten in North America is bordering on ridiculous. With all due respect, I am sure the sensible students and faculty at UT Austin would agree that it is not in the league of the Havards and Stanfords. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.140.207 ( talk) 06:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
"A better alternative to this set of rankings is the Shanghai JiaoTong Top 500 list."I disagree. The Shanghai ranking is laughably flawed in its criteria which is heavily biased against institutions which do not cater or specialise in Science/Engineering. If i remember correctly the LSE (for one exmaple) did not even make the ranking when it first came out which is an absolute joke. I honestly find it hard to accept the accusations of bias with regard to the criteria used. siarach 10:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I added universities 26-200 from the THES 2005. They gave a trial membership for 14 days, i downloaded the list ages ago. Aslate 23:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
i don't understand the footnote to this table. the table doesn't score all the faculty or all the students. just the international ones. but the student/faculty score is for internation and domestic, right? -- jashar 22:29, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
Someone added the following row to the table:
199= University of Georgia, Athens USA 20.8
This doesn't appear of my list from the THES, i have removed this until there is proof it should be there. Aslate 17:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
number 10: "ecole polytechnique" is located in switerland NOT in France!!! And the official name is ETH (german: Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule; englisch: swiss federal institute of technology) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.170.91.146 ( talk) 22:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The official name of "Beijing University" is "Peking University". However rumour has it that the authority has proposed to change the offical name to "The University of Beijing" in 2006, "Peking University" is still used in its offical webpage. So, I change it to its official name accordingly. Powermac 02:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I have cut this unreferenced assertion. My research doesn't show that the ranking is generally criticised. Most references simply accept it. Can anyone find any other references?-- Duncan 09:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Did you ever consider the fact that Oxford and Cambridge are actually quite good and deserve to be in the No 2 place? No, you didn't, did you? Also, if you had bothered to read the full pamphlet, they go in some detail explaining about how BOTH US and UK universities together dominate the results and why this is. But you didn't read it, did you? -- 69.123.112.18 ( talk) 05:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Stupid brits ranked Cornell above the venerable U Penn? Have they not heard of Penn's #1 business school (Wharton) and #3&4 Law and Med schools (USNews)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.224.210 ( talk) 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is University College London in first place... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.56.64 ( talk) 05:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If I click on the column head to sort by, say, 2005 ranking, the results are not sorted numerically, but rather alphabetically, so "10" follows "1". This should be fixed, could anyone tell the programmer-in-charge? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.161.144.74 ( talk) 00:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
They start so many unnecessary flame wars.
"OMG My School isn't #1?!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quanticles ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There are numerous ways to access the rankings without paying. If your just interested in top 200, goto ( http://www.paked.net/higher_education/rankings/times_rankings.htm) for the rankings. But if you need full info like top USA, top UK, top science, top medicine etc, goto thes.co.uk and register for a free trial. Simply copy and paste all rankings in a safe place (like Excel or Word, or save as images) since the trial expires after 15 days. If you are interested in the new rankings I recommend you do not register for the free trial just now but wait till the 2007 rankings become available (this summer). This paragraph has been contributed by Ahsan Rahim, Pakistan.
It would be great if the month and day of each annual ranking publication was clearly indicated. I saw that the first 2004 ranking came out in November (according to your article) but is that the month of every offical ranking publication? Also, is there a certain day of the month that it happens? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.17.65.14 ( talk) 02:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello - I have created a new Ownership section for the Times Higher Education entry as the publication has changed ownership several times over the past few years and has now been split up from TES Global by its latest owners. Additionally, I have also included a mention of THE's recent moves to enter the for-profit international student recruitment and housing markets. Finally, I updated the Company entry in the description summary box on the right from TES Global to Inflexion. Happy to discuss further should any wiki experts here feel the page could be improved further. Thank you, HEwonk ( talk) 11:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Some or all of the changes weren't supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Consider re-submitting with content based on media, books and scholarly works. |
SilkTHE ( talk) 11:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
References
@ SilkTHE: Let start by saying I've never heard of this publication before which isn't terribly surprising nor important — I only mention it to explain why I might ask questions what you think are fairly obvious.
Your proposed edit implicitly suggests removing "formerly The Times Higher Education Supplement (THES)". I don't think we have a formal standard for when such a clause should be included or more importantly when it should be removed. Very casually speaking, it seems useful shortly after a change in name, and ought to be retired eventually. Can you fill me in on when the change in name occurred? I glanced through the article and think it is been some time but I'm not fully sure.
The current wording, "reporting specifically on news and issues related to higher education" is neutral and hopefully accurate. The proposed wording "providing insights, analysis and news on universities worldwide" is less neutral. It's potentially acceptable if it is commonly stated in multiple reliable sources, but in my opinion simply finding one or two publications referencing insights an analysis is not enough. I also note the addition of "worldwide".
The Forbes reference is not remotely useful. While portions of Forbes are acceptable as a high quality reference, Forbes permits contributed articles which are barely better than advertisements. I'm fairly certain that the general consensus is that contributed articles do not qualify as reliable sources.
I would be happy to help correct errors and outdated data.
Ping me specifically and make sure to provide:
In each case.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Sphilbrick: Thanks for your feedback, but we disagree on multiple points and do not believe that this Wikipedia article is in any way accurate as to what our business is or how it operates. The publication still exists and is part of our offer, particularly in the United Kingdom but we have, since 2004 been a provider of global international rankings and are globally better known in this space than as a publisher. Our rankings business has grown to compile data from 3,500+ universities, comprising 9 million datapoints, and is used by universities and governments around the world in support of their HE strategies. I appreciate that Wikipedia will only state the facts, and that is all we ask, but at present this article is misleading and erroneous. In this regard, how can we best move to get this amended in a way that is satisfactory for Wikipedia while ensuring accuracy?
In terms of citations, most media sources accept sponsored content, but this is nearly always flagged as such so I'm not sure how we can get to a necessary threshold of citations if we are unable to use media as a source for this? Perhaps we could leave this page to be purely about the publication (as I said, one stream of our business but not by any stretch the largest globally), and start a new page about the business itself that is factually accurate and fair? Any advice you can give in this regard would be helpful - we only seek to ensure information is up to date and relevant.
@ Hewonk: Are you able to assist with the above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilkTHE ( talk • contribs) 10:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Some or all of the changes weren't supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Consider re-submitting with content based on media, books and scholarly works. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SilkTHE ( talk • contribs) 12:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
References
What I think should be changed: "Frequency - Weekly" needs to be changed to "Frequency - Fortnightly"
Why it should be changed: The print version of the THE magazine is delivered to subscribers on a fortnightly basis, not weekly.
References supporting the possible change: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/store — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilkTHE ( talk • contribs) 12:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
"Interesting" that the first 37 years are reduced to a single sentence. Surprisingly no mention of the many illustrious journalists who worked on the Times Higher Education Supplement in its newspaper incarnation, including founding editor Brian MacArthur, his successor (Sir) Peter Scott, Lord (Peter) Hennessy, Christopher Hitchens, David Hencke, David Walker, Judith Judd and others. 146.90.130.179 ( talk) 08:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Any suggestions where I can find online a source from 2013 THES? It doesn't appear to be covered by Newsbank or PressReader, available from my local library. Specifically I'm looking for this 2013 article to help source the Burston entry in List of fictional British and Irish universities. Pam D 08:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)