Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Jason Stanley's avatar
  2. Daniel Greco's avatar
  3. Nobody's avatar
  4. Roger of Invisible America's avatar
  5. Santa Monica's avatar
  6. Optimistic about LLM's avatar
  7. Ben M-Y's avatar

Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) Ranking of World Universities

Brian Leiter

My more detailed commentary on these rankings is here.  Because the focus there (at my law school site) is on U.S. universities, let me record here the peer evaluation of some non-US universities (why I’m only reporting the peer score is explained at the other site).  Here are the peer evaluations for  British and Irish universities:

1.  Cambridge University (96)

2.  Oxford University (93)

3.  Imperial College London (59)

4.  University of Edinburgh (48)

5.  University College London (46)

6.  London School of Economics (43)

6.  University of Manchester (43)

8.  Trinity College Dublin (31)

9. University of Warwick (30)

10. University of Bristol (28)

10. University of Sussex (28)

10. University of York (28)

13.  King’s College, London (27)

13. University of Leeds (27)

15. Univeristy of Liverpool (25)

Allowing for the importance of strengths in medicine and the sciences in these rankings, these results seem fairly plausible for the U.K., at least based on what I can tell.

I have a less clear sense of research strengths elsewhere, but here are the top five in peer reputation for Australasia according to THES:

1.  University of Melbourne (66)

2.  Australian National University (64)

3.  Monash University (55)

4.  University of Sydney (53)

5.  University of New South Wales (50)

And the top five for Canada:

1.  McGill University (52)

2.  University of Toronto (51)

3.  University of British Columbia (47)

4.  University de Montreal (25)

5.  University of Alberta (24)

These results don’t look bizarre to me, but I may be wrong (comments are open).  Outside the English-speaking world, I simply have no idea what is sensible, and what not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

19 responses to “Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) Ranking of World Universities”

  1. Andrew Leigh

    Trackback: http://imaginingaustralia.blogs.com/imagining/2005/11/ive_got_a_littl.html

    Reply
  2. Andrew Goldfinch

    I think ranking British universities by peer review alone leads to problematic results.

    In this new list Liverpool is in the top 15 but not Durham or Nottingham, both of which should feature in any list of top 15 British universities. Liverpool certainly shouldn’t feature in any top 15 general league table.

    Edinburgh being 4th and LSE outside the top 4 doesn’t look right either.

    According to the full THES world league table (when all measurements are factored in), British universities rank as follows (brackets indicate position in the world):

    1. Cambridge University (3rd)
    2. Oxford University (4th)
    3. LSE (11th)
    4. Imperial (13th)
    5. UCL (28th)
    6. Edinburgh (30th)
    7. Manchester (35th)
    8. Bristol (49th)
    9. King’s College London (73rd)
    10. Warwick University (77th)
    11. Durham University (83rd)
    12. Nottingham University (97th)
    13. Sussex University (100th)
    14. Glasgow University (101st)
    15. Leeds University (103rd)

    I think this is actually spot on and accurately reflects the relative strength and esteem of these universities in the eyes of both academics, employers and students alike.

    Incidentally, the top 5 universities in THES British list are the same members of the G5, a self-appointed group of 'super-elite' universities. And Oxford, Cambridge, LSE and Imperial have never – as far as I am aware – been outside the top 4 positions in the annual Times League Table of British Universities.

    Reply
  3. Brian Leiter

    Query for Andrew Goldfinch: what are the criteria you are applying? My guess is that Nottingham doesn't fare as well as Liverpool based on evaluation by scholars because Nottingham is weaker in the sciences, even if strong in the humanities and social sciences.

    Reply
  4. Fiona de Londras

    I find it difficult to believe University College Cork (Ireland) isn't included…but I'll admit to some bias in that regard…

    Reply
  5. Jonathan M

    I'd say your Canadian rankings are accurate, except for maybe the University of Montreal being in the top 5. There are other good schools like Victoria, Xavier and Queens that have merits.

    Reply
  6. Thom Brooks

    I have much affection for University College Cork, University College Dublin, and Trinity College Dublin in Ireland, thinking very highly of the quality of people there. That said, I am shocked to see TCD ranked so highly. True, it is rightly held in high regard in Ireland, but most of the best students were told to get their PhD's in the UK or the USA instead of in Ireland. The thought is that a PhD from the UK or USA is held in even higher esteem (of course, depending on where you go!). On that advice (and given to about everyone I know), I left Dublin for Sheffield. So I think TCD & co. excellent places, but not top 15 when including all British universities. I would think my own Newcastle University fares much better.

    Reply
  7. Andrew Goldfinch

    My view that a general ranking of British universities that places Liverpool in the top 15 and Nottingham outside the top 15 is questionable is based on rankings and information from the Times league table, Sunday Times league table, THES world league table, the RAE, the Shanghai science league table, and Guardian league table. I’m not, of course, claiming that in certain subjects Liverpool can't be in the top 15 or indeed top 10 and outrank Nottingham; its just that overall it doesn't.

    The question raised is whether Liverpool is stronger than Nottingham in science, and whether this could account for Liverpool enjoying a higher peer review than Nottingham in THES.

    According to the 2001 RAE (next RAE due is 2008):

    Liverpool
    5A Chemistry
    5A Physics
    5B Biological Sciences

    Nottingham
    5A Chemistry
    5A for Physics
    Biological Sciences (split)
    – Life and Environmental Science 3a B
    – Genetics 5A

    For chemistry and physics Liverpool and Nottingham are in the same research tier. For biological sciences, Liverpool has the edge (if we average the Nottingham biological sciences results).

    So Liverpool is slightly stronger than Nottingham for science but not significantly. The gap between Liverpool and Nottingham for humanities, I suspect, is wider in Nottingham’s favour than the gap between Liverpool and Nottingham for science in Liverpool’s favour.

    So I don’t think Liverpool having a slight edge over Nottingham in science can explain it having a better peer review ranking overall in THES. The THES is known for being balanced between science and humanities so I don’t understand how Liverpool got a better peer review. Also LSE doesn’t do science but this doesn’t rob LSE of a high ranking in THES (11th); nor does Imperial do humanities or social science but it too enjoys a high ranking in THES (13th).

    Other measurements also indicate Nottingham being stronger overall than Liverpool.

    — Sunday Times Peer Review:

    According to the Sunday Times, Nottingham has the 8th highest peer review for its British rankings http://www.timesonline.co.uk/displayPopup/0,,69987,00.html .

    — RAE Overall

    Nottingham has five 5* departments
    Liverpool has three 5* departments

    http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/

    — Times League Table 2005

    Nottingham 12th
    Liverpool 41st

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/pdfs/finalunitable2.pdf

    — Guardian League Table 2005

    Nottingham 15th
    Liverpool 45th

    http://education.guardian.co.uk/universityguide2005/table/0,,-5163901,00.html

    — THES World Rankings

    Nottingham 97th
    Liverpool 119th

    — Shanghai league table

    Nottingham 83rd
    Liverpool 101-152 group

    The Shanghai league table is fundamentally defective because it is a science-orientated league table that gives a token nod to humanities and social sciences (if it was open about being a science league table, instead of pretending to be a general league table, it would be a bit more credible). That being so if Liverpool was significantly stronger in the sciences than Nottingham we should see this reflected in the Shanghai table, which we don’t.

    I have noticed that rankings that use peer review alone often produce quirky results. Peer review, of course, must be at the core of any accurate league table. But peer review that isn’t blind is liable to be influenced by alliances and grudges. Peer review that isn’t blind at best provides a general idea of relative rankings, which other measurements then sharpen. Hence why RAE scores (and other some measurements) should also be factored in when ranking British universities.

    Reply
  8. Anon

    Re: Canadian universities. McGill is certainly a very fine school, but its international reputation, while well-deserved decades ago, is no longer so deserved. Univ of Toronto is Canada's finest university. What Univ de Montreal is doing in the top five is beyond me, but is perhaps explained by having pulled in votes from French-speaking scholars in Europe and elsewhere.

    Reply
  9. otherpaul

    Re. Canada: Toronto should be first. Univ. of Montreal shouldn't be there, but I don't know what school should take its place (Queen's, or Western Ontario?). Someone up-thread mentioned Victoria and Xavier, but they're not big research schools and shouldn't be included.

    Reply
  10. Anon

    Maclean's magazine in Canada ranks Canadian universities. Their top 5 for research universities (a category they call "Medical/Doctoral") is:

    1 McGill
    1 Toronto
    3 Western Ontario
    4 UBC
    5 Queen's

    http://www.macleans.ca/universities/article.jsp?content=20051104_162820_5764

    Reply
  11. Keith Douglas

    Universite de Montreal has the language barrier to contend with, though many of its departments do produce research in English. (Since one practically has to, particularly in natural science, engineering, etc.) Does it belong in the top 5 Canadian? It depends crucially on what one is trying to characterize. It has a well respected medical school, many graduate programs, a business school, a famous engineering school, etc.

    Reply
  12. otherpaul

    Note that the Maclean's rankings focus on "undergrad experience" at universities in the Research/Med-school category. So it isn't primarily about research strength. For undergrad experience, Toronto suffers because it's so big and because many of the students are commuters from the Toronto area (so they're not immersed in the 'undergrad experience').

    Reply
  13. Alan R

    Regarding Jonathan M's comments above, I too have a strong affinity to Trinity (TCD) and express some equal bias–and he is right about attitudes in the past–but actually no surprise on Trinity's actual ranking at all here and now. It has unmistakable and rapidly growing alure that is rubbing off on the rankings. 400+ years in existence, the only Eurozone English speaking country, gorgeous prime location in the heart of the Celtic Tiger (reminds me of UCLA in the midst of the wealth of Bel Air and Westwood), uncontrovertable wealth of Ireland (first time ever to this fabulous degree) and the growing (absolutely huge!) wave of young Irish students about to seek its limited spots have destined TCD to elite status simply because it is well positioned and cannot be duplicated. It is apparently quietly attracting some of the best Ph.D. students and researchers from the EU to ramp- up. Unless it is managed very poorly, and there is definitely no sign of that, TCD has nowhere to go but up, really. Ireland is becoming too affluent to not have its 'Harvard'. UCC and UCD cannot fill that slot as public universities (few can–maybe UC Berkeley, apparently named after a famous TCD Philospher I might add–is a rare exception). Rather, TCD is incredibly well positioned to fill it and appears to be going for it and I would not bet against them making it sooner rather than later.

    Reply
  14. Michael Gooding

    I have heard a lot about UCL, University College London, and as I live in the US, i dont know much about it. People in my area are always saying its the next Oxbridge etc. Can anyone give any information about this uni?

    Reply
  15. SLC

    In general, UCL, the "original" University of London, is indeed considered "the" multi-faculty university next to Oxbridge. Nevertheless, some of UCL's schools/programmes are actually second to none in the UK in their respective fields:the Bartlett School of Architecture, the Slade School of Fine Art, the School of Slavonic and East European studies, Psychology & Psychoanalysis, etc.

    It also has some programmes (at least) on par with those of Oxbridge:Law, English, German, Classics, etc. Its Economics and Art History are only second to that of LSE and of the Courtauld Institute of Art respectively. Moreover, UCL has some quite unique departments such as Dutch, Hebrew and Jewish, etc.

    As a matter of fact, in 2005/06, UCL receive more research funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) than any other university in the UK (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news-archive/feature/newsitem.shtml?HEFCE).

    Compared to Oxbrige, UCL is more liberal and open to groundbreaking thoughts. For example, back in the 1960s-70s, the English Dept, under Frank Kermode, chaired a series of graduate seminars which broke new ground by introducing for the first time contemporary French critical theory to Britain. Also, UCL is the first university in England to admit students of any race, class or religion, and the first to welcome women on equal terms with men.

    Since I'm a humanities major, my view is more humanities/arts-oriented.

    Reply
  16. Joseph Streeter

    I am a history PhD student at Oxford (currently visiting at Princeton), and think the Times ratings should be viewed with scepticism. I did a masters in social anthropology at the LSE a few years ago, which, along with UCL, is the best in the country in academic terms. However, in the Times list, which incidentally is aimed at undergraduates, the Oxford dept was apparently the best, on the basis of entrance requirements and staff student ratio, even though it has produced very little interesting or groundbreaking work over the last 25 years. Also, many of the Times' calculations are based on an assumption that the Oxbridge tutorial system is the best way to teach. As someone who has taught Oxford tutorials, I am far from sure that this is true. Although it ensures that students cover a lot of ground, it is, at least as a training in history, wholly inadequate when the student has to study complex historical processes.

    Reply
  17. Steve Farrar

    Just a quick note to point out that the Times Higher Education Supplement's world rankings are entirely independent of the Times and Sunday Times and are based on a much broader (and we hope more useful) set of metrics. And as it happens, the Times Higher is now no longer part of the same newspaper group as the Times and Sunday Times.

    Reply
  18. jade

    i am keen to apply to irish unis like ucd and rcsi. i live in malaysia. can anyone shed some light on these unis and their rankings in the medical field?

    Reply
  19. MF

    Canada doesn't have anything like the NRC rankings, or anything for grad school. And the Maclean's rankings are a joke.

    Where I've seen Canadian grad programs ranked internationally – UofT always fares well. I'd say it's around the level of say, Michigan or Wisconsin.

    McGill is a very mixed bag – world-renowned in some areas (esp. medicine), rather marginal in others. When I saw the rankings for social science disciplines, for example…I don't know how it fared so well. In econ, McGill is marginal. It's no better than say #75 in North America, well behind UofT and UBC (top 25-30), Western and Queen's (top 50) and behind McMaster, SFU and York as well. In my own field, political science, UofT, York and Carleton are generally viewed to be the leaders – again McGill is marginal. In sociology, McGill seems to be kicking themselves for losing Wallerstein back in the 70s!

    I'm going to limit myself to English Canada. I think we can say with confidence that UofT is #1 overall. McGill and UBC would probably be tied for 2nd. Runners up would probably include Alberta, McMaster and York and maybe SFU, Western Ontario and Queen's. But it varies across fields. York is esp. strong in history and social sciences, for example, probably in the top 3 in Canada in these areas overall – but marginal elsewhere. A breakdown by field would be interesting for Canada if anyone's in the loop.

    Reply

Designed with WordPress