Schools University Rankings: Valid Source or Not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bunsen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    University
AI Thread Summary
University rankings are debated for their validity, with various systems like ARWU, QS, and THES offering different perspectives. A university is often considered "top" if it ranks within the top 20 globally, but this raises questions about the status of institutions in countries like France and Germany, which may not appear as high. The discussion highlights that in the U.S., top universities are typically linked to significant research funding, while many institutions focus primarily on teaching. Rankings can measure certain aspects but may not accurately reflect the quality of specific programs or fields. Ultimately, the choice of institution should prioritize personal fit and research opportunities over rankings alone.
Bunsen
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
I know that there are many reasons why university rankings are not a "valid" source of information, but I would really like to know your opinion regarding the following questions:

1) Which ranking do you think it is better (more valid)?.. why? (Arwu, QS, THES, other)

2) How high should be ranked a university to be considered a top university?

3) I have seen that only few non US-UK universities do rank top 20 and for countries such as France, Germany or Australia, the best universities appear 30-60 in the world. Accordingly with your answer to question 2, do this mean that this countries do not have "top" universities?

Thanks a lot for your answers!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the US a "Top University" is one with a "Top Research Program" in your field of interest.

Thus the bigger the total research budget, the higher the ranking. This is why MIT, Stanford, Harvard, etc. are ranked near the top in various fields.

In some countries all of the research is based at national or regional labs ... thus the university is where you take your courses, not where you do your research.

And of course many universities in the US do very little research - they are primarily places for students to take courses, and earn specific degrees.

How valid are rankings? It all depends on how you intend to use the information, and how the information was gathered and put together.
 
Why do you personally care? Are you trying to decide where to go to school?

Somebody should post a sticky thread with regards to that question, it gets asked over and over.

The rankings do indeed measure something, but drawing conclusions about school quality is challenging. Some schools are very old and have lots of money; is it totally fair to compare such a school to a newer school with less money, particularly if your ranking depends upon, say, number of prestigious graduates? How about the fact that (since I assume we're talking about physics/math/engineering) that school X might be ranked #5 overall but is much lousier at specialty Y than school Z which is ranked #30 (for instance, this is true of Harvard biophysics relative to U of Maryland biophysics)?

As for the typical student, the rule which is oft repeated on physics forums everytime such a thread surfaces is that your undergraduate institution doesn't make much of a difference if you work hard, and your graduate institution choice is about optimizing department culture, advisor, research prowess, geographic location,and prestige as it relates to making connections and bumping shoulders with the best and the brightest.
 
After a year of thought, I decided to adjust my ratio for applying the US/EU(+UK) schools. I mostly focused on the US schools before, but things are getting complex and I found out that Europe is also a good place to study. I found some institutes that have professors with similar interests. But gaining the information is much harder than US schools (like you have to contact professors in advance etc). For your information, I have B.S. in engineering (low GPA: 3.2/4.0) in Asia - one SCI...
I graduated with a BSc in Physics in 2020. Since there were limited opportunities in my country (mostly teaching), I decided to improve my programming skills and began working in IT, first as a software engineer and later as a quality assurance engineer, where I’ve now spent about 3 years. While this career path has provided financial stability, I’ve realized that my excitement and passion aren’t really there, unlike what I felt when studying or doing research in physics. Working in IT...
Hello, I’m an undergraduate student pursuing degrees in both computer science and physics. I was wondering if anyone here has graduated with these degrees and applied to a physics graduate program. I’m curious about how graduate programs evaluated your applications. In addition, if I’m interested in doing research in quantum fields related to materials or computational physics, what kinds of undergraduate research experiences would be most valuable?

Similar threads

Back
Top