Talk:College and university rankings/Archive 1

message: A series of anonymous edits have recently added a list of universities to this article.  I am going to delete this list, for the following reasons: First, there is probably a copyright problem with Wikipedia republishing the U.S. News rankings.  Second, the list that was added to the article is completely arbitrary (it claims to be a list of universities which "U.S. News...consistently ranks among the US's best," but does not define "best" or "consistently."  Therefore the list can be expanded indefinitely by each individual university and college's boosters, who would be completely justified in adding the next-best-ranked school to the list ad infinitum.  Third, this issue has already been extensively discussed before at Talk:List of famous universities and colleges in the United States, a discussion which Wikipedians who want to create lists of "best" colleges should familiarize themselves with.  I think the Carnegie classification  still remains the best option for generating such a list, and anyone who is bothered by this deletion might be best served to begin an article on that classification.  -- Rbellin 05:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  list of "best" universities 

message: It needs to be made clearer than college 'rank' in the US has no official status, unlike in some other countries. --Macrakis 16:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See the reference listed in the article: "The study was just published, under the title "U.S. News & World Report's College Rankings: Why Do They Matter?" in the November-December 1999 issue of Change magazine." -- Rbellin|Talk 00:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unofficial nature

message: Rice University's 3 billion dollar endowment is no where near the top 5.  Please feel free to refer to the link I have provided. 
I am going to remove the sentence regarding Rice University as it does not appear to be true.
The top five ranks for endowments are filled by the following institutions (I am excluding the UT System, because multiple schools make up 1 UT system and each individual schools are then to appear later on in lower ranks):
Harvard
Yale
Princeton
Stanford
MIT
Ll 04:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rice's Endowment

message: On 22 August 2005, I added a section entitled "United States university rankings".  There was something wrong with the syntax of what I added that caused the link to the U.S. News & World Report webpage to be displayed in a weird way.
On 27 August 2005, Austrian corrected my error and the section is now displayed correctly.  But when I click the "Compare selected versions" button to compare my bad text with Austrian's good text, the texts that are displayed appear to be identical.  I'd like to know how they really differed, so that I can avoid entering incorrect syntax in the future.
Mike Sage 17:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On Wikipedia:How to edit a page, look for "line starts with a space". -- Austrian 19:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Content of correction not apparent

message: This article is solely concerned with institutions in the USA.
Can we ammend the title to reflect that?  I'm not aware that the "US News" has anything to do with institutions outside the USA.
: There is substantial, though inadequate, non-US content in the article: some discussion of British league tables, and many links.  The best solution to this problem is not to re-title the article, but to expand it with more information.  Please, help fix it! -- Rbellin|Talk 04:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA based 

message: E.g. Asiaweek's ranking linked, the list of Asia's Best Universities 2000, there are 9 universties in mailand China, but almost none of them is really recoganized as top ten in China, except USTC. And too many rankings are nonsense. A school's fame is earned by its longterm performance, instead of such rankings. For example, the number of distinguished alumnis may indicate a school's  quality. ----Whatufor 03:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above comments are interesting.  However, we cannot add this sort of material to the article without a source.  To do so would be original research.  Sunray 03:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many rankings are nonsense  

message: Honestly, I think that's making it seem more biased, or be more biased than it is or could be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.200.68 (talk • contribs) 
:I agree, and I removed the bolding. I haven't fully examined this section, but on first glance it seems like it might be more of a rambling essay than an encyclopedic description of cited and reliable criticisms. I will review it (and encourage others) when I have more time. --mtz206 (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but "reputable" encyclopedias, like Wikipedia, cite reliable sources and strive for neutrality in their entries, and I fear this particular section fails in that regard. It needs some work. --mtz206 (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to comment quickly, I think a lot of the recently added material being discussed here is inappropriate for Wikipedia (and, honestly, so might be some of the unsourced material I originally added a long time ago in the "Criticism" section).  I have been meaning to do a pass through to get this article into better compliance with the NPOV and original research policies but haven't yet had the time, and I suspect that doing this will involve cutting a lot of the current material which reads like thinly veiled statements of personal opinion.  How to remedy this?  Find sources to cite published versions of these ideas. -- Rbellin|Talk 02:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about getting rid of that bolding  

message: I removed a large number of links per the guideline.  If there are any that are thought to be of particular value, here's a good spot to discuss it. - brenneman {L}  10:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I have a strong feeling that this passage is strongly flavored with personal opinion. although i share quite some points, i do believe that it should be deleted or altered to reflect objectivity:
Furthermore, there is a strong counter-argument to THES and others' criticism on SJTU ranking, which is claimed to place more emphasis on science. The argument is because even though there are more Nobel Prizes or awards in science, every university has an equal opportunity to win as many Nobel Prizes or awards in any fields, science and non-science. Thus, it is unfair to penalize science because the very purpose of the ranking is to measure both the breadth and the depth of a trully diverse university. A university that only focuses on certain areas then perhaps has not reached the level of diversity required to be qualified as a University. The fact of the matter is that it is very difficult to establish a university that covers and excels in all fields. It takes time, resources and tremendous amount of energy. Thus, the ability of an academic body to reach that level has to be recognized. Weighting should not be an issue because the opportunity for each university to excel is equal in the sense that nobody can stop any university to excel if the very university chooses to do so.
update: i decided to place this passage in the criticism block.
the more i read through this article, the more i think it needs a full overhaul... ranking methodology should be seperated from criticism, in my opinion. 
cheers.
Generalstudent 08:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal comments in this article... 

message: I found this web page that ranks Universities by web popularity at http://www.4icu.org/top200/
Has anybody ever reviewed this web resource before? Is it of any value?
Worldcitizen71 15:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universities ranked by web popularity 

message: Who put that up there?  It's some pay site, and the description reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic entry. Wally 08:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanguard rankings 

message: I believe there should be also a reference to the FSP (faculty scholarly productivity) rankings compiled by Analytical Academics, see 
http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i19/19a00801.htm. 200.177.48.131 01:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FSP rankings 

message: One things left out of the criticism sections, but patently obvious to me when I see university rankings, is that those giving their opinions have usually only attended one, or maybe a few, schools, and have no basis for comparison. If someone ranks a college, faculty, experience, etc., say, a 7, what does this mean? If I attended two schools, doing exactly the same programs, and I rated one a 10 and the other a 6, that might serve as a (albiet subjective) relative measure between those two, and only those two, but if I go to a school and say it is an 8, I may as well say it is a 3 - the numbers don't have any substantive value in themselves, only a relative one; even if I attend 4 schools and rate them all in relation to one another, that means nothing to the thousands of shools I did no attend. Just something that strikes me whenever I read college rankings, but is not mentioned in the still rather lenghtly criticism section. - Matthew238 03:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: student opinions

message: This section should be merged with Academic Ranking of World Universities. --Cory Kohn 02:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: International Rankings from Regional Organizations

message: The section below is largely unreferenced and reads like original research. It needs to be sourced before being restored back into the article - Classicfilms 16:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Is there any reason why the criticism section is in, essentially, reverse chronological order? It seems logical to me that it's a bit backwards that way. -Midnightdreary 23:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Hi Havfunonline2, could you pls. update your table/image "Rankings.PNG" with the new Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings that came out in October 2009? It's a very useful image and it would be nice to see updated. Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanuel Kingsley (talk • contribs) 21:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Please update this image

message: Who the heck is QS?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonclaerbout (talk • contribs) 05:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  QS ? 

message: Is this image not in violation of WP:OR or WP:SYN? CrazyPaco (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's WP:OR and should be removed. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image of spreadsheet

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on College and university rankings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120708021219/http://www.conacyt.gob.mx:80/SNI/Index_SNI.html to http://www.conacyt.gob.mx/SNI/Index_SNI.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101010061257/http://president.arizona.edu:80/highlight_ranking/324 to http://president.arizona.edu/highlight_ranking/324
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on College and university rankings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130117051444/http://www.mon.gov.mk:80/en/academic-ranking to http://mon.gov.mk/en/academic-ranking
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on College and university rankings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100708013357/http://www.globaluniversitiesranking.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63&Itemid=66 to http://www.globaluniversitiesranking.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63&Itemid=66
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100708013336/http://www.globaluniversitiesranking.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68&Itemid=128 to http://www.globaluniversitiesranking.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68&Itemid=128
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120207155621/http://up.edu.ph/upnewsletter.php?issue=33&i=511 to http://www.up.edu.ph/upnewsletter.php?issue=33&i=511
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110625105352/http://www.reitor.ru:80/ru/observatory/raitings/ to http://reitor.ru/ru/observatory/raitings/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070622122211/http://www.dt.ua:80/projects/top200/59129/ to http://www.dt.ua/projects/top200/59129/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120422075409/http://www.conacyt.gob.mx:80/Calidad/Becas_ProgramasPosgradosNacionalesCalidad.html to http://www.conacyt.gob.mx/Calidad/Becas_ProgramasPosgradosNacionalesCalidad.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070702010802/http://www.coneau.gov.ar/index.php?idioma=en to http://www.coneau.gov.ar/index.php?idioma=en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110729021956/http://www.universite.cl:80/ranking_de_universidades_revista_que_pasa_2009-2010.html to http://www.universite.cl/ranking_de_universidades_revista_que_pasa_2009-2010.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on College and university rankings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101008003617/http://www.forbes.ru:80/rating/luchshie-universitety-rossii-novyi-reiting-forbes to http://www.forbes.ru/rating/luchshie-universitety-rossii-novyi-reiting-forbes/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131101180602/http://yourhub.denverpost.com/lakewood/national-study-ranks-colorado-christian-university-top-2/1j3EFzk1CWbTLFU4yJNioN-ugc to http://yourhub.denverpost.com/lakewood/national-study-ranks-colorado-christian-university-top-2/1j3EFzk1CWbTLFU4yJNioN-ugc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on College and university rankings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620223714/http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/documents/research/Business%20School%20Prestige.pdf to http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/documents/research/Business%20School%20Prestige.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110521210513/http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities to http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cucas.edu.cn/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120523231935/http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20061113_136532_136532 to http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20061113_136532_136532
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120822073300/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=876f5f10-322a-4e74-b768-0018ee6ecd55&k=11624 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=876f5f10-322a-4e74-b768-0018ee6ecd55&k=11624
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on College and university rankings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160505033356/http://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities to http://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122065258/http://www.ensmp.fr:80/Actualites/PR/EMP-ranking.html to http://www.ensmp.fr/Actualites/PR/EMP-ranking.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101121155654/http://www.scimagoir.com/pdf/sir_2010_world_report.pdf to http://www.scimagoir.com/pdf/sir_2010_world_report.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160505033356/http://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities to http://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207155621/http://www.up.edu.ph/upnewsletter.php?issue=33&i=511 to http://www.up.edu.ph/upnewsletter.php?issue=33&i=511
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150804170439/http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges to http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120617210050/http://mup.asu.edu:80/research.html to http://mup.asu.edu/research.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on College and university rankings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ensmp.fr/Actualites/PR/EMP-ranking.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313183844/http://www.toyokeizai.net/business/industrial/detail/AC/7ca97f085eda34ce139f6d1210cef898/page/1/ to http://www.toyokeizai.net/business/industrial/detail/AC/7ca97f085eda34ce139f6d1210cef898/page/1/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100812034401/http://www.hec.gov.pk/insidehec/divisions/QALI/Others/RankingofUniversities/Pages/Default.aspx to http://www.hec.gov.pk/insidehec/divisions/QALI/Others/RankingofUniversities/Pages/Default.aspx
*Added  tag to ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/indicators/docs/3rd_report_snaps10.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120611081433/http://www.univer-rating.ru/ to http://www.univer-rating.ru/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://mup.asu.edu/research.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140209052825/http://www.guidetoonlineschools.com/online-colleges to http://www.guidetoonlineschools.com/online-colleges
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on College and university rankings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100605071751/http://www.scimagoir.com/press_en.php to http://www.scimagoir.com/press_en.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090720004952/http://www.topuniversities.com/worlduniversityrankings/ to http://www.topuniversities.com/worlduniversityrankings/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130627110556/http://www.universitetslisten.dk/ to http://www.universitetslisten.dk/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131025003448/http://www.shanghairanking.com//Macedonian_HEIs_Ranking/index.html to http://www.shanghairanking.com/Macedonian_HEIs_Ranking/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140108151821/http://www.finansmag.ru/96369/ to http://www.finansmag.ru/96369/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120625123714/http://promep.sep.gob.mx/cuerpos.html to http://promep.sep.gob.mx/cuerpos.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070718083449/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.collegeguide.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.collegeguide.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on College and university rankings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100110070226/http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2009/Page/Methodology to http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2009/page/methodology
*Added  tag to http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2010%20by%20Field/Page/Methodology
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150407010515/http://www.cesaer.org/en/news-items/news/u-multirank-the-start-of-multi-dimensional-international-ranking to http://www.cesaer.org/en/news-items/news/u-multirank-the-start-of-multi-dimensional-international-ranking/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930174236/http://www.mon.gov.ua/education/higher to http://www.mon.gov.ua/education/higher
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120509165528/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.collegechart.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.collegechart.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141011011932/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/2014.php to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/2014.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Surprising lack of any mention of the Oceanic region i.e. ANZ  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.130.37.12 (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Oceania

message: According to Wikipedia:No_original_research, 
(Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.
The table includes the part of ...any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material... Also, the table needs a citation. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. we do not need to break wiki policy.
How is that breaking a wikipedia rule? The table was based on published materials, namely ARWU, THES, Newsweek and Maclean's. There was no personal opinion involved whatsoever. How do you justify that the maker of the table was trying to advance an argument? How you regard the table as an 'original research' is absurd. It was just an arrangement of data from publishd articles. Wisdompower (wisdompower) 11:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada Ranking Table 

message: There seemed to be an implied criticism in the statement about the THES/QS rankings that they contain more non-US institutions than other surveys, as it then went on to mention other criticisms of the rankings. I can't see why this could possibly seen as a flaw in the survey. In fact it implies that the survey is fairer than those which focus on US institutions. I have edited to remove the implication. LP 210.184.34.203 (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-US institutions

message: The first reference does not link to a specific article; rather, it brings you to the Newsweek homepage. Not helpful at all. If someone could actually find the article, that would be great. The Fwanksta (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: That external link for "Top 100 Global" schools leads only to Newsweek's homepage. A more complex URL needs to be added.Fdssdf (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Newsweek entry

message: Is anyone else sickened by the fact Vanguard is charging people between $14 and $49 for 30-day access to publicly available (and paid for) information on PhD programs from data collected in 1993?  I have edited that entry to clarify where their information comes from. I have also removed the direct link to their website because of what is, in my opinion, not only questionable business practices, but what also seems at the time of the original insertion of that part of the article as a possible violation of  WP:NOTADVERTISING by the proprietor of the Vanguard website himself (seen here). It is my belief that the Vanguard portion of the article should be either eliminated or, failing that, replaced with information on the National Research Council surveys of 1982 and 1993 which Vanguard is simply regurgitating and is freely available here. CrazyPaco (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Endorse removal of the Vanguard ranking section. I also think we should include a brief description and a link to the freely available survey data. Logain2006 (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

text: (Assuming the allegations presented above are correct, and they seem to do so to me) I go further than simply endorsing removal of this section and have actually removed it.  If we want to include the NRC survey results in this article then let's do so.  --ElKevbo (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, the NRC rankings should be included, because at the time, they were highly regarded and respected.  Budgetary concerns at the NRC have prevented a timely update to those rankings.  I would also say the gif for the webometric rankings should be removed.  It seems more appropriate for inclusion in the actual wikipedia article on Webometrics Ranking of World Universities, but for this article it seems to draw undue attention and adds undue detail to a relatively obscure ranking with highly debatable metrics.CrazyPaco (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The gif does offer some comparison to the other methods of ranking. Unfortunately, with a quick glimpse, I noticed that it is not entirely correct - there is no such thing as a 40% score for "Academic reputation" in the methodology of the THES ranking. There is a 40% score for peer review, but that’s not the same. Also, it does look like an advertisement. So, I will once again agree. Logain2006 (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vanguard rankings

message: The Institute for Higher Education Policy, an American non-profit, has just created a Ranking Systems Clearinghouse on their website.  This may be a useful for this and similar article.  --ElKevbo (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: IHEP rankings resource

message: Mychances.net has a rankings system ( http://college.mychances.net/college-rankings.php ) based on the choices of students admitted to US colleges. As far as I know, these are the only active college rankings using the revealed preference method. The Avery study, mentioned in this article, was a one-time study that used 1999 data. The most recent Mychances.net rankings used data from this year (applicants who received decisions in 2009). 69.87.208.16 (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mychances.net rankings