Times Higher Education Uni Rankings (1 Viewer)

[acer23]

World Rankings 2006

16. Australian National University
22. Melbourne Uni
35. Sydney University
38. Monash University
41. Unsw
45. Queensland University
82. Macquarie University
105. University of Adelaide
111. University of Western Australia
146. RMIT University
156. Curtin University of Technology
192. Queensland University of Technology
196. University of Wollongong

uts is not on the list. Anyone know why??

Link
http://acer23.125mb.com/worldrankings2006.pdf
or
http://www.sendspace.com/file/oats54

Other university Rankings from 2006
http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2006/ARWU2006TOP500list.htm
http://www.australian-universities.com/rankings/

 

[sando]

neither is uws.. does that answer ur question

 

[little-rat-boi]

UTS isnt as widely established as the uni's mentioned in the rankings.. just because its in the city and offers high UAI's doesnt mean its one of the best uni's .. sorry mate..

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I wouldn't worry. The THES rankings are pretty much useless. The rankings are largely based on research - about 60% if I recall - which often has very little impact on students. Apart from some recognition if you are looking at working overseas, you could hardly find a more pointless way of deciding which university to attend. (Not to mention that the accuracy of the assessment is highly questionable, given the global scope of the rankings.)

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

which often has very little impact on students.

Wouldn't one expect that a university that has the best, most influential researchers would therefore have the best teaching?

 

[S1M0]

Wouldn't one expect that a university that has the best, most influential researchers would therefore have the best teaching?

He has a point.

 

[watatank]

Wouldn't one expect that a university that has the best, most influential researchers would therefore have the best teaching?

Sure, if you're doing a PhD. or something. I doubt these influential researchers would have time for meagre undergrad students.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Wouldn't one expect that a university that has the best, most influential researchers would therefore have the best teaching?

There are two points to make in relation to that.

First, the answer is no. My old contracts lecturer was one of the best teachers I've ever had in my life. She left the law school to go and teach maths at high school. She wanted to do more teaching, which she loved. But at the university, they stress research output above everything. And so she said to us, "At university, there is so much pressure to do research. You can be a terrible teacher and be a good or consistent researcher and that's okay. But if you're a fantastic teacher who doesn't do enough research there's no place for you." So research is not a guarantee of good teaching by any means. There are some brilliant people at my university but some of them can't teach to save themselves.

Second, if it's good teaching you're interested in, then that should be part of the assessment in rankings. Of course, being a "global" study, done by an education newspaper in the UK, it is impossible to assess the teaching quality of all the world's universities. So they assess the only thing they can - research. (And I would be somewhat cautious about the basis of even those findings.)

My point about rankings focusing almost solely on research has been recently recognised:

Revamp for flawed rankings
February 14, 2007 - The Australian

A $6MILLION project to overhaul the way Australian universities measure teaching quality could eventually help international rankings systems address one of their biggest problems - how to measure teaching rather than just research performance.

The inability of rankings systems to take account of excellence in the lecture theatre was a recurring theme at a symposium of international rankings experts in Brisbane on Monday. [...]

 

[haque]

Thought sydney uni would be higher-at least we're above unsw lol