The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), also known as the Shanghai Ranking, is a publication that was founded and compiled by the Shanghai Jiao Tong University to rank universities globally.[1] The rankings have been conducted since 2003 and updated annually. Since 2009, the rankings have been published by the Shanghai Ranking Consultancy.[2] ARWU was the first global ranking of universities published.[3]
The ranking, backed by the Chinese government, was designed "to provide a global benchmark" against the various universities in China so they "could assess their progress."[4] The aim of the ARWU is for Chinese universities to "catch up" on "hard scientific research".[4]
The Academic Ranking of World Universities is considered one of the three most influential and widely observed international university rankings, along with the QS World University Rankings and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings.[5][6][7] Its consistent and objective methodology is praised when compared with other rankings.[8] However, it has also been criticized for its heavier focus on the natural sciences over the social sciences or humanities, and on research over the quality of instruction.[5][6]
Contents [hide]
1 Methodology
2 Influence
3 Criticism
4 Rankings
5 References
6 External links
Methodology[edit]
The ranking compares 1200 higher education institutions worldwide according to a formula that took into account alumni winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (10 percent), staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (20 percent), highly cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories (20 percent), articles published in the journals Nature and Science (20 percent), the Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index (20 percent) and the per capita academic performance (on the indicators above) of an institution (10 percent). The methodology is set out in an academic article by its originators, N.C. Liu and Y. Cheng.[9]
The methodology used by the Shanghai Rankings is entirely academic and research oriented.
Influence[edit]
As the first multi-indicator ranking of global universities, ARWU has attracted a great deal of attention from universities, governments and media. A survey on higher education published by The Economist in 2005 commented ARWU as "the most widely used annual ranking of the world's research universities."[10] In 2010, The Chronicle of Higher Education called ARWU "the best-known and most influential global ranking of universities".[11]
One of the factors in the significant influence of ARWU is that its methodology is said to look globally sound and transparent. EU Research Headlines reported the ARWU's work on 31 December 2003: "The universities were carefully evaluated using several indicators of research performance."[12] Chancellor of Oxford University, Chris Patten, said "the methodology looks fairly solid ... it looks like a pretty good stab at a fair comparison." Vice-Chancellor of Australian National University, Ian Chubb, said "The SJTU rankings were reported quickly and widely around the world… (and they) offer an important comparative view of research performance and reputation." Margison (2007) also commented the ARWU ranking that one of the strengths of "the academically rigorous and globally inclusive Jiao Tong approach" is "constantly tuning its rankings and invites open collaboration in that."[13] Philip G. Altbach named ARWU's "consistency, clarity of purpose, and transparency" as significant strengths.[14]
The ARWU ranking and its content have been widely cited and applied as a starting point for identifying national strengths and weaknesses as well as facilitating reform and setting new initiatives. Bill Destler (2008), the president of the Rochester Institute of Technology, draw reference to the ARWU ranking to analyze the comparative advantages the Western Europe and US have in terms of intellectual talent and creativity in his publication in the journal Nature.[15]
European commissioner of Education, Jan Figel, pointed out in an interview in 2007 that, "If you look at the Shanghai index, we are the strongest continent in terms of numbers and potential but we are also shifting into a secondary position in terms of quality and attractiveness. If we don't act we will see an uptake or overtake by Chinese or Indian universities."[16] Also, Enserink (2007) referred to ARWU and argued in a paper published in Science that "France's poor showing in the Shanghai ranking ... helped trigger a national debate about higher education that resulted in a new law... giving universities more freedom."[17] The world leading think tank Rand Corporation used the ARWU ranking as evidence in their consultancy paper to the European Institute of Innovation and Technology.[18]
In two subsequent research papers[19][20] published by Academic Leadership (2009), then in an article[21] published by the Times Higher Education (2009), Paul Z. Jambor of Korea University established the connection between any unfavorable image/reputation universities may develop (and/or their association, by country, to those universities linked to the wrongdoing) to a halt in their climb or even to a drop in their Times Higher Education–QS World University Rankings. This is because 40% and 10% of THE – QS World Methodology is based on Academic Peer Review and Employer Review respectively. In essence, any unfavorable image developed by a group of universities, associated by country, tends to harm their collective rankings. For this reason, universities worldwide should seriously consider adhering to internationally accepted standards so that they do not run the risk of sliding in the ranks on the international front. Consequently, a number of critics consider this aspect of the Times Higher Education–QS World University Rankings unfair and even biased.[22]
The new Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE-Reuters), published since 2010 is based on a revised Methodology. In the Methodology of the THE-Reuters World University Rankigs, the 'Papers per research and academic staff' {at 4.5%} and the 'Citation impact (normalised average citation per paper)' {at 32.5%} indicators make it evident that a university's ranking heavily relies on the number and quality of research papers written by its faculty. With 95% of research papers written in English, the relationship between English language use and a university's subsequent ranking thus becomes ever more clear. Jambor highlights the connection between actual English use and university rankings in a pair of research papers[23][24] respectively published by the US Department of Education: ERIC and Academic Leadership.
Criticism[edit]
College and university rankings often stimulate controversy (see Criticism of college and university rankings (North America) and Criticism of college and university rankings (2007 United States)) and the ARWU is no exception. A 2007 paper published in the journal Scientometrics found that the results from the Shanghai rankings could not be reproduced from raw data using the method described by Liu and Cheng.[25]
In a report from April 2009, J-C. Billaut, D. Bouyssou and Ph. Vincke analyze how the ARWU works, using their insights as specialists of Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM). Their main conclusions are that the criteria used are not relevant; that the aggregation methodology has a number of major problems; and that insufficient attention has been paid to fundamental choices of criteria.[26]
The ARWU researchers themselves, N.C Liu and Y Cheng,[27] think that the quality of universities cannot be precisely measured by mere numbers and any ranking must be controversial. They suggest that university and college rankings should be used with caution and their methodologies must be understood clearly before reporting or using the results.
Others have pointed out, the ARWU is known for "relying solely on research indicators", and "the ranking is heavily weighted toward institutions whose faculty or alumni have won Nobel Prizes": it does not measure "the quality of teaching or the quality of humanities."[6][28]
Ioannides et al. suggested that (in common with all ranking systems they reviewed), the ranking lacked construct validity modest concordance between the Shanghai and Times rankings. They highlighted measurement precision, and transparent methodology as important issues.[29]
Like the Times Higher Education's rankings, the ARWU has been criticized by the European Commission as well as some EU member states for "favour[ing] Anglo-Saxon higher education institutions".[30] For instance, ARWU is repeatedly criticized in France, where it triggers an annual controversy, focusing on its ill-adapted character to the French academic system.[31]
Rankings[edit]
The table below contains the overall rankings as ordinal numbers (i.e., 1 is best, 2 is second best, etc.) from 2003 to 2013 for all universities that ranked in the top 100 in one of the years tabulated.[1] The ranking is omitted for years in which the school did not land within the top 100. Note the full ranking contains over 500 universities. If a university is not listed in this table, it did not rank in the top 100 in any of the years tabulated.
Harvard University has been ranked first in the world every year since ARWU was first published in 2003.
Top 100 world universities
Country University 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Denmark Aarhus University 93 97 98 86 86 86
USA Arizona State University 100 96 93 94 81 78 79 81
Australia Australian National University 49 53 53 54 57 59 59 59 70 64 66
USA Boston University 98 87 81 81 85 83 74 77 76 71 75
USA Brown University 49 82 86 85 70 71 69 65 65 65 67
USA California Institute of Technology 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
USA Carnegie Mellon University 61 62 62 56 60 62 59 58 55 51 52
USA Case Western Reserve University 51 65 65 70 78 83 87 97 97 99 99
USA Columbia University 10 9 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8
USA Cornell University 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13
USA Duke University 33 31 31 31 32 33 31 35 35 36 31
France École normale supérieure – Paris 85 93 99 83 73 70 71 69 73 71
USA Emory University 99 100 100
Germany Free University of Berlin 95 99 83
Germany Goethe University Frankfurt 100
USA Harvard University 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Israel Hebrew University of Jerusalem 94 90 90 60 64 65 64 52 57 53 59
Germany Humboldt University of Berlin 95 95
UK Imperial College London 17 23 23 23 23 27 26 26 24 24 24
USA Indiana University Bloomington 97 90 92 93 90 82 84 85
USA Johns Hopkins University 24 22 19 20 19 20 19 18 18 17 17
Sweden Karolinska Institutet 39 46 45 48 53 51 50 42 44 42 44
UK King's College London 75 77 77 83 83 81 65 63 68 68 67
Japan Kyoto University 30 21 22 22 22 23 24 24 27 26 26
Sweden Lund University 93 92 92 90 97 97
USA Massachusetts Institute of Technology 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 4
Canada McGill University 79 61 61 62 63 60 65 61 64 63 58
Canada McMaster University 86 88 88 90 87 89 91 88 89 92 92
USA Michigan State University 87 80 80 80 80 83 86 86 92 96 92
Russia Moscow State University 66 66 70 76 70 77 74 77 80 79
Japan Nagoya University 68 97 97 98 94 82 79 94 96
USA New York University 55 32 32 29 30 31 32 31 29 27 27
USA North Carolina State University 99
USA Northwestern University 29 30 30 33 29 30 30 29 30 30 30
USA Ohio State University 81 73 73 66 61 62 62 59 63 65 65
Japan Osaka University 53 54 54 61 67 68 71 75 82 83 85
USA Pennsylvania State University 40 43 43 42 43 42 45 43 45 49 54
USA Princeton University 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7
USA Purdue University 80 71 71 73 68 65 65 69 61 56 57
USA Rice University 61 75 75 87 87 97 99 99 93 91 92
USA Rockefeller University 28 29 29 30 30 32 32 34 33 32 34
USA Rutgers University 38 44 44 46 47 54 55 54 59 61 61
USA Stanford University 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2
Sweden Stockholm University 97 97 84 86 86 88 79 81 81 82
Switzerland ETH Zurich 25 27 27 27 27 24 23 23 23 23 20
Germany Technische Universität München 60 45 52 54 56 57 57 56 47 53 50
Israel Technion – Israel Institute of Technology 78 77
USA Texas A&M University 70 88 91 88 88 95 100 93
Japan Tohoku University 64 69 69 76 76 79 84 84 97
Japan Tokyo Institute of Technology 89 99
USA Tufts University 83 99 99
USA University of Arizona 55 76 76 76 74 77 77 78 80 77 78
Switzerland University of Basel 96 91 91 81 82 87 85 86 89 85 83
UK University of Birmingham 93 93 90 92 91 94 99
Germany University of Bonn 99 99 99 97 98 93 94
UK University of Bristol 55 60 60 62 62 61 61 66 70 70 64
Canada University of British Columbia 35 36 36 36 36 35 36 36 37 39 40
USA University of California, Berkeley 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 4 4 3
USA University of California, Davis 36 42 42 42 43 48 49 46 48 47 47
USA University of California, Irvine 44 55 55 44 45 46 46 46 48 45 45
USA University of California, Los Angeles 15 16 14 14 13 13 13 13 12 12 12
USA University of California, Riverside 88
USA University of California, San Diego 14 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 14
USA University of California, San Francisco 13 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 17 18 18
USA University of California, Santa Barbara 26 35 35 35 35 36 35 32 33 34 35
UK University of Cambridge 5 3 2 2 4 4 4 5 5 5 5
USA University of Chicago 11 10 9 8 9 9 8 9 9 9 9
UK University College London 20 25 26 26 25 22 21 21 20 21 21
USA University of Colorado 31 34 34 34 34 34 34 32 32 33 33
Denmark University of Copenhagen 65 59 59 56 46 45 43 40 43 44 42
UK University of Edinburgh 43 47 47 52 53 55 53 54 53 51 51
USA University of Florida 75 67 67 53 51 58 58 68 72 72 71
Germany University of Freiburg 88 88 93 94 96 99 100
Switzerland University of Geneva 73 69 69
Belgium Ghent University 99 90 89 89 85
Germany University of Göttingen 91 79 79 85 87 90 90 93 86
Netherlands University of Groningen 84 92
Germany Heidelberg University 58 64 64 66 65 67 63 63 62 62 54
Finland University of Helsinki 74 72 72 74 73 68 72 72 74 73 76
USA University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign 45 25 25 25 26 26 25 25 25 25 25
USA University of Illinois at Chicago 96
USA University of Iowa 90 95 97
Netherlands Leiden University 78 63 63 72 71 76 72 70 65 73 74
UK University of Manchester 89 78 53 50 48 40 41 44 38 40 41
USA University of Maryland, College Park 75 57 57 37 37 37 37 36 38 38 38
Australia University of Melbourne 92 82 82 78 79 73 75 62 60 57 54
USA University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 21 19 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 23
USA University of Minnesota, Twin Cities 37 33 33 32 33 28 28 28 28 29 29
Germany University of Munich 48 51 51 51 53 55 55 52 54 60 61
USA University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 52 56 56 59 58 38 39 41 42 41 43
UK University of Nottingham 80 80 79 81 82 83 84 85 86 83
Norway University of Oslo 63 68 68 68 69 64 65 75 75 67 69
UK University of Oxford 9 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
France Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University (Paris 6) 65 41 41 45 39 42 40 39 41 42 37
France University of Paris-Sud 11 72 48 48 64 52 49 43 45 40 37 39
USA University of Pennsylvania 18 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 15
USA University of Pittsburgh 53 48 48 48 49 52 50 56 57 58 61
Australia University of Queensland 86 90 85
Italy Sapienza University of Rome 70 93 97 100
USA University of Rochester 72 52 52 74 75 73 77 82 84 86 90
UK University of Sheffield 68 69 69 69 72 77 81 88 97
USA University of Southern California 40 48 48 47 50 50 46 46 46 46 47
France University of Strasbourg 82 82 96 99 97
Australia University of Sydney 97 94 92 96 93 97
USA University of Texas at Austin 47 40 40 39 38 39 38 38 35 35 36
USA University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center 34 36 36 38 39 41 48 49 51 48 46
Japan University of Tokyo 19 14 20 19 20 19 20 20 21 20 21
Canada University of Toronto 23 24 24 24 23 24 27 27 26 27 28
USA University of Utah 81 95 95 94 93 79 80 82 79 82 85
Netherlands Utrecht University 40 39 39 40 42 47 52 50 48 53 52
Austria University of Vienna 84 86 86
USA University of Virginia 67 95 91 96
USA University of Washington 16 20 17 17 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
Australia University of Western Australia 96 91
USA University of Wisconsin–Madison 27 18 16 16 17 17 17 17 19 19 19
Switzerland University of Zurich 45 57 57 58 58 53 54 51 56 59 60
Sweden Uppsala University 59 74 74 65 66 71 76 66 67 73 73
USA Vanderbilt University 32 38 38 41 41 42 41 53 52 50 49
USA Washington University in St. Louis 22 28 28 28 28 29 29 30 31 31 32
Israel Weizmann Institute of Science 93 92
USA Yale University 8 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Soulja Boy - Super Dope - (www.SongsLover.com).zip - 133.1 MBThe ranking, backed by the Chinese government, was designed "to provide a global benchmark" against the various universities in China so they "could assess their progress."[4] The aim of the ARWU is for Chinese universities to "catch up" on "hard scientific research".[4]
The Academic Ranking of World Universities is considered one of the three most influential and widely observed international university rankings, along with the QS World University Rankings and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings.[5][6][7] Its consistent and objective methodology is praised when compared with other rankings.[8] However, it has also been criticized for its heavier focus on the natural sciences over the social sciences or humanities, and on research over the quality of instruction.[5][6]
Contents [hide]
1 Methodology
2 Influence
3 Criticism
4 Rankings
5 References
6 External links
Methodology[edit]
The ranking compares 1200 higher education institutions worldwide according to a formula that took into account alumni winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (10 percent), staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (20 percent), highly cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories (20 percent), articles published in the journals Nature and Science (20 percent), the Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index (20 percent) and the per capita academic performance (on the indicators above) of an institution (10 percent). The methodology is set out in an academic article by its originators, N.C. Liu and Y. Cheng.[9]
The methodology used by the Shanghai Rankings is entirely academic and research oriented.
Influence[edit]
As the first multi-indicator ranking of global universities, ARWU has attracted a great deal of attention from universities, governments and media. A survey on higher education published by The Economist in 2005 commented ARWU as "the most widely used annual ranking of the world's research universities."[10] In 2010, The Chronicle of Higher Education called ARWU "the best-known and most influential global ranking of universities".[11]
One of the factors in the significant influence of ARWU is that its methodology is said to look globally sound and transparent. EU Research Headlines reported the ARWU's work on 31 December 2003: "The universities were carefully evaluated using several indicators of research performance."[12] Chancellor of Oxford University, Chris Patten, said "the methodology looks fairly solid ... it looks like a pretty good stab at a fair comparison." Vice-Chancellor of Australian National University, Ian Chubb, said "The SJTU rankings were reported quickly and widely around the world… (and they) offer an important comparative view of research performance and reputation." Margison (2007) also commented the ARWU ranking that one of the strengths of "the academically rigorous and globally inclusive Jiao Tong approach" is "constantly tuning its rankings and invites open collaboration in that."[13] Philip G. Altbach named ARWU's "consistency, clarity of purpose, and transparency" as significant strengths.[14]
The ARWU ranking and its content have been widely cited and applied as a starting point for identifying national strengths and weaknesses as well as facilitating reform and setting new initiatives. Bill Destler (2008), the president of the Rochester Institute of Technology, draw reference to the ARWU ranking to analyze the comparative advantages the Western Europe and US have in terms of intellectual talent and creativity in his publication in the journal Nature.[15]
European commissioner of Education, Jan Figel, pointed out in an interview in 2007 that, "If you look at the Shanghai index, we are the strongest continent in terms of numbers and potential but we are also shifting into a secondary position in terms of quality and attractiveness. If we don't act we will see an uptake or overtake by Chinese or Indian universities."[16] Also, Enserink (2007) referred to ARWU and argued in a paper published in Science that "France's poor showing in the Shanghai ranking ... helped trigger a national debate about higher education that resulted in a new law... giving universities more freedom."[17] The world leading think tank Rand Corporation used the ARWU ranking as evidence in their consultancy paper to the European Institute of Innovation and Technology.[18]
In two subsequent research papers[19][20] published by Academic Leadership (2009), then in an article[21] published by the Times Higher Education (2009), Paul Z. Jambor of Korea University established the connection between any unfavorable image/reputation universities may develop (and/or their association, by country, to those universities linked to the wrongdoing) to a halt in their climb or even to a drop in their Times Higher Education–QS World University Rankings. This is because 40% and 10% of THE – QS World Methodology is based on Academic Peer Review and Employer Review respectively. In essence, any unfavorable image developed by a group of universities, associated by country, tends to harm their collective rankings. For this reason, universities worldwide should seriously consider adhering to internationally accepted standards so that they do not run the risk of sliding in the ranks on the international front. Consequently, a number of critics consider this aspect of the Times Higher Education–QS World University Rankings unfair and even biased.[22]
The new Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE-Reuters), published since 2010 is based on a revised Methodology. In the Methodology of the THE-Reuters World University Rankigs, the 'Papers per research and academic staff' {at 4.5%} and the 'Citation impact (normalised average citation per paper)' {at 32.5%} indicators make it evident that a university's ranking heavily relies on the number and quality of research papers written by its faculty. With 95% of research papers written in English, the relationship between English language use and a university's subsequent ranking thus becomes ever more clear. Jambor highlights the connection between actual English use and university rankings in a pair of research papers[23][24] respectively published by the US Department of Education: ERIC and Academic Leadership.
Criticism[edit]
College and university rankings often stimulate controversy (see Criticism of college and university rankings (North America) and Criticism of college and university rankings (2007 United States)) and the ARWU is no exception. A 2007 paper published in the journal Scientometrics found that the results from the Shanghai rankings could not be reproduced from raw data using the method described by Liu and Cheng.[25]
In a report from April 2009, J-C. Billaut, D. Bouyssou and Ph. Vincke analyze how the ARWU works, using their insights as specialists of Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM). Their main conclusions are that the criteria used are not relevant; that the aggregation methodology has a number of major problems; and that insufficient attention has been paid to fundamental choices of criteria.[26]
The ARWU researchers themselves, N.C Liu and Y Cheng,[27] think that the quality of universities cannot be precisely measured by mere numbers and any ranking must be controversial. They suggest that university and college rankings should be used with caution and their methodologies must be understood clearly before reporting or using the results.
Others have pointed out, the ARWU is known for "relying solely on research indicators", and "the ranking is heavily weighted toward institutions whose faculty or alumni have won Nobel Prizes": it does not measure "the quality of teaching or the quality of humanities."[6][28]
Ioannides et al. suggested that (in common with all ranking systems they reviewed), the ranking lacked construct validity modest concordance between the Shanghai and Times rankings. They highlighted measurement precision, and transparent methodology as important issues.[29]
Like the Times Higher Education's rankings, the ARWU has been criticized by the European Commission as well as some EU member states for "favour[ing] Anglo-Saxon higher education institutions".[30] For instance, ARWU is repeatedly criticized in France, where it triggers an annual controversy, focusing on its ill-adapted character to the French academic system.[31]
Rankings[edit]
The table below contains the overall rankings as ordinal numbers (i.e., 1 is best, 2 is second best, etc.) from 2003 to 2013 for all universities that ranked in the top 100 in one of the years tabulated.[1] The ranking is omitted for years in which the school did not land within the top 100. Note the full ranking contains over 500 universities. If a university is not listed in this table, it did not rank in the top 100 in any of the years tabulated.
Harvard University has been ranked first in the world every year since ARWU was first published in 2003.
Top 100 world universities
Country University 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Denmark Aarhus University 93 97 98 86 86 86
USA Arizona State University 100 96 93 94 81 78 79 81
Australia Australian National University 49 53 53 54 57 59 59 59 70 64 66
USA Boston University 98 87 81 81 85 83 74 77 76 71 75
USA Brown University 49 82 86 85 70 71 69 65 65 65 67
USA California Institute of Technology 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
USA Carnegie Mellon University 61 62 62 56 60 62 59 58 55 51 52
USA Case Western Reserve University 51 65 65 70 78 83 87 97 97 99 99
USA Columbia University 10 9 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8
USA Cornell University 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13
USA Duke University 33 31 31 31 32 33 31 35 35 36 31
France École normale supérieure – Paris 85 93 99 83 73 70 71 69 73 71
USA Emory University 99 100 100
Germany Free University of Berlin 95 99 83
Germany Goethe University Frankfurt 100
USA Harvard University 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Israel Hebrew University of Jerusalem 94 90 90 60 64 65 64 52 57 53 59
Germany Humboldt University of Berlin 95 95
UK Imperial College London 17 23 23 23 23 27 26 26 24 24 24
USA Indiana University Bloomington 97 90 92 93 90 82 84 85
USA Johns Hopkins University 24 22 19 20 19 20 19 18 18 17 17
Sweden Karolinska Institutet 39 46 45 48 53 51 50 42 44 42 44
UK King's College London 75 77 77 83 83 81 65 63 68 68 67
Japan Kyoto University 30 21 22 22 22 23 24 24 27 26 26
Sweden Lund University 93 92 92 90 97 97
USA Massachusetts Institute of Technology 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 4
Canada McGill University 79 61 61 62 63 60 65 61 64 63 58
Canada McMaster University 86 88 88 90 87 89 91 88 89 92 92
USA Michigan State University 87 80 80 80 80 83 86 86 92 96 92
Russia Moscow State University 66 66 70 76 70 77 74 77 80 79
Japan Nagoya University 68 97 97 98 94 82 79 94 96
USA New York University 55 32 32 29 30 31 32 31 29 27 27
USA North Carolina State University 99
USA Northwestern University 29 30 30 33 29 30 30 29 30 30 30
USA Ohio State University 81 73 73 66 61 62 62 59 63 65 65
Japan Osaka University 53 54 54 61 67 68 71 75 82 83 85
USA Pennsylvania State University 40 43 43 42 43 42 45 43 45 49 54
USA Princeton University 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7
USA Purdue University 80 71 71 73 68 65 65 69 61 56 57
USA Rice University 61 75 75 87 87 97 99 99 93 91 92
USA Rockefeller University 28 29 29 30 30 32 32 34 33 32 34
USA Rutgers University 38 44 44 46 47 54 55 54 59 61 61
USA Stanford University 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2
Sweden Stockholm University 97 97 84 86 86 88 79 81 81 82
Switzerland ETH Zurich 25 27 27 27 27 24 23 23 23 23 20
Germany Technische Universität München 60 45 52 54 56 57 57 56 47 53 50
Israel Technion – Israel Institute of Technology 78 77
USA Texas A&M University 70 88 91 88 88 95 100 93
Japan Tohoku University 64 69 69 76 76 79 84 84 97
Japan Tokyo Institute of Technology 89 99
USA Tufts University 83 99 99
USA University of Arizona 55 76 76 76 74 77 77 78 80 77 78
Switzerland University of Basel 96 91 91 81 82 87 85 86 89 85 83
UK University of Birmingham 93 93 90 92 91 94 99
Germany University of Bonn 99 99 99 97 98 93 94
UK University of Bristol 55 60 60 62 62 61 61 66 70 70 64
Canada University of British Columbia 35 36 36 36 36 35 36 36 37 39 40
USA University of California, Berkeley 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 4 4 3
USA University of California, Davis 36 42 42 42 43 48 49 46 48 47 47
USA University of California, Irvine 44 55 55 44 45 46 46 46 48 45 45
USA University of California, Los Angeles 15 16 14 14 13 13 13 13 12 12 12
USA University of California, Riverside 88
USA University of California, San Diego 14 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 14
USA University of California, San Francisco 13 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 17 18 18
USA University of California, Santa Barbara 26 35 35 35 35 36 35 32 33 34 35
UK University of Cambridge 5 3 2 2 4 4 4 5 5 5 5
USA University of Chicago 11 10 9 8 9 9 8 9 9 9 9
UK University College London 20 25 26 26 25 22 21 21 20 21 21
USA University of Colorado 31 34 34 34 34 34 34 32 32 33 33
Denmark University of Copenhagen 65 59 59 56 46 45 43 40 43 44 42
UK University of Edinburgh 43 47 47 52 53 55 53 54 53 51 51
USA University of Florida 75 67 67 53 51 58 58 68 72 72 71
Germany University of Freiburg 88 88 93 94 96 99 100
Switzerland University of Geneva 73 69 69
Belgium Ghent University 99 90 89 89 85
Germany University of Göttingen 91 79 79 85 87 90 90 93 86
Netherlands University of Groningen 84 92
Germany Heidelberg University 58 64 64 66 65 67 63 63 62 62 54
Finland University of Helsinki 74 72 72 74 73 68 72 72 74 73 76
USA University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign 45 25 25 25 26 26 25 25 25 25 25
USA University of Illinois at Chicago 96
USA University of Iowa 90 95 97
Netherlands Leiden University 78 63 63 72 71 76 72 70 65 73 74
UK University of Manchester 89 78 53 50 48 40 41 44 38 40 41
USA University of Maryland, College Park 75 57 57 37 37 37 37 36 38 38 38
Australia University of Melbourne 92 82 82 78 79 73 75 62 60 57 54
USA University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 21 19 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 23
USA University of Minnesota, Twin Cities 37 33 33 32 33 28 28 28 28 29 29
Germany University of Munich 48 51 51 51 53 55 55 52 54 60 61
USA University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 52 56 56 59 58 38 39 41 42 41 43
UK University of Nottingham 80 80 79 81 82 83 84 85 86 83
Norway University of Oslo 63 68 68 68 69 64 65 75 75 67 69
UK University of Oxford 9 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
France Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University (Paris 6) 65 41 41 45 39 42 40 39 41 42 37
France University of Paris-Sud 11 72 48 48 64 52 49 43 45 40 37 39
USA University of Pennsylvania 18 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 15
USA University of Pittsburgh 53 48 48 48 49 52 50 56 57 58 61
Australia University of Queensland 86 90 85
Italy Sapienza University of Rome 70 93 97 100
USA University of Rochester 72 52 52 74 75 73 77 82 84 86 90
UK University of Sheffield 68 69 69 69 72 77 81 88 97
USA University of Southern California 40 48 48 47 50 50 46 46 46 46 47
France University of Strasbourg 82 82 96 99 97
Australia University of Sydney 97 94 92 96 93 97
USA University of Texas at Austin 47 40 40 39 38 39 38 38 35 35 36
USA University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center 34 36 36 38 39 41 48 49 51 48 46
Japan University of Tokyo 19 14 20 19 20 19 20 20 21 20 21
Canada University of Toronto 23 24 24 24 23 24 27 27 26 27 28
USA University of Utah 81 95 95 94 93 79 80 82 79 82 85
Netherlands Utrecht University 40 39 39 40 42 47 52 50 48 53 52
Austria University of Vienna 84 86 86
USA University of Virginia 67 95 91 96
USA University of Washington 16 20 17 17 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
Australia University of Western Australia 96 91
USA University of Wisconsin–Madison 27 18 16 16 17 17 17 17 19 19 19
Switzerland University of Zurich 45 57 57 58 58 53 54 51 56 59 60
Sweden Uppsala University 59 74 74 65 66 71 76 66 67 73 73
USA Vanderbilt University 32 38 38 41 41 42 41 53 52 50 49
USA Washington University in St. Louis 22 28 28 28 28 29 29 30 31 31 32
Israel Weizmann Institute of Science 93 92
USA Yale University 8 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
0 comments:
Post a Comment