The University of Phoenix is now the largest university in America, but this may soon change. This mostly online institution is facing an accreditation sanction, which could force it to lose its Pell Grants, student loans, and other federal subsidies. Not only is the stock price taking a major beating, but massive layoffs are underway.
Although we should not take enjoyment in other people’s job losses, it is important to focus on what happens when higher education is taken over by a soulless corporation. As the founder of the university has become a billionaire and has just received a $5 million retirement package, the school is shedding many of its on-the-ground employees. Like many other for-profit schools, the U. of Phoenix receives most of its funding from public monies, and then uses these funds to enrich administrators and shareholders and hire an army of marketers and recruiters in order to turn mostly under-represented minority students into unemployed debt slaves, and they do this by hiring all of their faculty off of the tenure system. In many ways, this school represents the extreme logic of the online education movement: eliminate tenure for the faculty, develop questionable distance education, cater to private corporations, and make students suffer with high debt levels and bogus degrees (actually very few students ever get their degrees, and very few get their promised jobs).
While online course providers like Coursera and Udacity appear to represent a much more progressive version of this high-tech education promotion, let us look at some of the statements that are coming out of the mouths of these not-for-profit, profit-seeking marketers. Here is Sebastian Thrun, founder of Udacity, from the UCLA forum (these quotes come from the rush transcript on Remaking the University): “Students rarely learn listening . . . or they never learn by listening. The challenge for us is to take this new medium and really bring it to a mode where students do something and learn by doing. And if you look at the broad spectrum of online technology with what happens. It doesn’t really take long time to point to video games. And most of us look down on video games. We’ve also played them. I know there are people in this room who play angry birds. Some people do. Some people don’t admit it. Angry birds is an wonderful learning environment because you get drawn in, you solve the physics problems but the big problem is that it stops at angry birds . . . if the angry birds was good enough to get into the masters students in physics. It would be an amazing experience and you could do this at scale.” The point I want to stress here is the claim that students never learn from listening. Following this logic, most of current education is simply useless, and we should just have students take out their smart phones and play Angry Birds all day.
During Thrun’s presentation at UCLA, this downgrading of traditional learning environments was connected to a downsizing of the faculty: “As we know that higher education is moving at a slower pace compared to the industry moves. We have been funded by a whole bunch of corporations that make the classes with us and there’s a number of classes launching soon on topics to be not covered in academia. If you look at the way the technology turns over, it will be 5-10 years in computer science [and] if you look at the way colleges turn over, it’s much more difficult because [with] tenure they are gonna be with us for 30 years so the national turnover rate for colleges is about 30 years. Industries it’s like 5-10 years. So there’s a disconnect between how the world changes and how colleges are able to keep up. Therefore in computer science it would be hard to find courses that teach technologies that are useful today such as IOS and all the wonderful things that they do. So the industries jumped in and funded us to build these classes.” According to this logic, since tenure requires a thirty-year commitment to the faculty, and industry and technology change at a much faster rate, we need to get rid of the secure faculty and replace them with student mentors and the latest technology.
Thrun’s argument fails to recognize that faculty also develop and change, and most faculty, including his own wife, now teach without tenure. His point of view also pushes the idea that technological change is always for the better, and even if it is not good, there is no way to resist it. As I have previously argued, we need to compare online courses to our best courses and not our worst, and we have to defend and define quality education and push for more funds to be spent on small, interactive classes. However, Thrun and other MOOC celebrators appear to have a disdain for their own teaching: “But in the existing classes, the level of services are often not that great. . . .I talked to numerous instructors and you divide the time the communal time and the personal time you give back to the students in terms of advising and grading . . . you can be lucky as a student for 3 credits class to get 3 hours of personal time. Many people laugh and many say I spend 10 min/student per class and the rest I give to my TAs. Charging $1,000-$4,000 for that to me is gonna be a question going forward.” Although I have often questioned what students are actually paying for in higher education, what Thrun is really questioning is the validity and value of large, impersonal lecture classes, and on this point, we are in agreement; still the question that remains is if large online courses can really provide the quality education they advertise.
At the last Regents meeting, many of these themes were continued as three computer science professors attempted to convince the UC system that online courses would make higher education “better, faster, and cheaper.” In her presentation for Coursera, Daphne Koller insisted that since students now have a very short attention span, the classic lecture has to be broken up into a series of short videos followed by an interactive question and answer system. She argued that this method paradoxically makes mass education personalized as it pushes students to constantly learn and be tested on material before they advance.
Like the other online course providers, in order to differentiate her “product” from the “traditional” model of education, Koller had to constantly put down the current way we educate students. Thus, she derided the “sage on the stage” and the inability of most students to ask questions in their large lecture classes. She also bemoaned the fact that no one wants to read students’ tests with identical questions and answers, and so the whole grading process can be given to computers and fellow students. Once again, this argument not only degrades the value and expertise of faculty, but it also treats students as if they need to be reimagined as programmable machines and free laborers. Yes, let’s have the students’ grade each other’s paper, and while they pay for their education, let us train them to work for free.
Another alarming aspect of the rhetoric of these providers is their constant reference to experimenting on students as they attempt to increase access to higher education. The idea presented at the Regents meeting is that since so many under-represented students cannot find places in the UC system, these students from underfunded high schools should be given an online alternative. Some have called this the Digital Jim Crow because wealthy students will still have access to traditional higher education, while the nonwealthy, under-represented minority students will be sent to an inferior online system. Of course this new form of educational segregation is being pushed under the progressive banner of expanding access
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Times Higher Education Under 50s Rankings
Times Higher Education has now published its ranking of universities less than fifty years old.
The top five are:
1. Phang University of Science and Technology
2. EPF Lausanne
3. Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
4. Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
5. University of California, Irvine
They are quite a bit different from the QS young universities rankings. In a while I hope to provide a detailed comparison.
The top five are:
1. Phang University of Science and Technology
2. EPF Lausanne
3. Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
4. Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
5. University of California, Irvine
They are quite a bit different from the QS young universities rankings. In a while I hope to provide a detailed comparison.
George Washington University
There's no better place to go for your undergrad career if you want to live in a vibrant and cultured city and, to be blunt, grow up. Students who want to be coddled and have everything handed to them don't like NYU (and probably not NYC). But, if you want to grow as an individual and have the best college experience of your life, come to NYU.I was originally in CAS and then transferred to Gallatin. I will say that Gallatin has a more tight knit community, with more professors who seem to care about their students, and more interesting classes.
With that said, it's department by department in CAS. I found that many of my friends liked the sociology, journalism, environmental studies, social and cultural analysis and chemistry departments. I took a majority of my classes in journalism, french and environmental studies - most of my professors were great, attentive and so well-connected! Go to office hours, talk in class, email them and you will enjoy your classes 100x more! I did have bad experiences with the biology department, so premeds and bio majors beware.
As for gallatin, about 90% of the professors are there because they really care about interdisciplinary studies and helping students shape their concentration. But I have certainly run into a few bad apples. I won't name names, but beware of the guy who is a leader in environmental architecture - he didn't bother to learn our names, gave out unfair and unjustifiable grades, and spent most of his class surfing google and talking at us. My adviser, who was a well-meaning guy, was terrible at responding to emails and, well, proofing my rationale, which resulted in me almost missing very important senior year deadlines. Aside from these two duds, everyone else was great! To avoid these problems, ask around and MAKE RATE YOUR PROFESSOR YOUR BEST FRIEND.The gallatin program is truly unparalleled, and it personally gave me a leg up in the job search process. In 2013, I secured a job a little less than one month after graduation. I received my first job offer about 2 days after graduation (but turned it down because it wasn't a good fit). I had 4 offers total, and was able to pick which one I wanted. In this economy, it was truly a blessing. Make the best of your time in gallatin or at nyu by doing A LOT of internships, networking, getting a work-study job (also because the city is expensive), being active in clubs and applying to scholars groups. You'll not only set yourself up to get hired, but you'll have the best academic and social experience of your live.Although I did spend a lot of time at the library, I also had a pretty great social life. My rule of thumb was that I wouldn't study on Friday or Saturday nights unless it was finals or midterms. I made friends doing activities I was passionate about and on my floor freshmen year, and I've kept these friends through my four years at NYU. The nightlife in the village is great - from poetry slams, to great bars, to clubs and comedy clubs. There's something for everyone, as long as you're willing to step out of your shell.
College was crazy, I partyed, I worked and I barely slept. Going to school in the Big City is not an easy thing, but if you get through it you come out with a strong work ethic and with strong determination. When I first left NYU I worked retail at Staples. But the strong core values that NYU provided, I easily grew to Management.While a manager at Staples I made sure I went to every conference, read every article and met as many vendors as I could regarding office supplies. I eventually left Staples to open my own office supply store in Long Island. We had some success and some failures, but it wasn't till my 13th year of out of school when things started to really kick into gear for me. I saw the success of the interent and decided to take my brick and mortar store and turn it completely virtual. www.BulkOfficeSupply.com was born. making over 500,000 a month, with no store overhead or even warehouse charges. So those who worry about your success, don't, it takes time. It has been 23 years since I graduated from NYU and I finally consider myself a success.
NYU is a brand name, everyone assumes it is a good school. But truthfully, NYU is not one school; it is many different schools united under one name. Regarding undergraduate programs, their quality is quite different. My recommendations -If you get into...
Tisch (particularly the dance and theater conservatories): very prestigious, great programs, most students don't plan on going to grad school as they are going into the arts, so I say it is worth it for the connections you make
Stern: very hard to get into, known worldwide for its prestige, you get great connections, probably worth the money because most students get incredible jobs that can pay the loans off, but depending on the type of job you seek you may need grad school so keep that in mind
LSP: not worth it at all, I wouldn't be surprised if this program is removed from the university soon, I have not heard one good thing about it
CAS: in my opinion, not worth it. it's basically a typical liberal arts education you could get at any SUNY school
Gallatin: you better know exactly what you want to do, it's very easy to goof off here. plus, you will most likely need to go to grad school if you go to Gallatin, so unless you can for sure afford it, I would advise against it; this prgram tends to attract extremely wealthy people; the plus of this program is that it's the smallest, so you get a better sense of community than the rest of NYU, and you get to take classes in other schools, so you get to socialize with different types of people. but the higher level Tisch and Stern classes are impossible to get into.
Steinhardt: good school, but be realistic; if you're going into education your salary is probably not going to help you pay off loans; only go if money is no issue whatsoever
Poly: great engineering school, and those are the hot jobs to get right now so you can probably land a good job that will pay off the tuition in good time; but keep in mind this school tends to be isolated from the rest of NYU, some people aren't even aware it's part of the school, so social life might be a challenge. I wouldn't know, I have yet to actually meet a Poly student
Shanghai: New program, so far they only have science and business programs. They're giving out good financial aid right now to attract people to come over there, so if you're planning to to into one of those majors and are okay with going that far from home, go for itAbu Dhabi: by far the hardest program to get into, but I haven't the slightest idea of anything about itMy advice is, unless you got into Tisch or Stern or are wealthy enough for money not to be a concern, to save NYU for grad school: you will no longer crave that college social life, will have a job, and friends so NYU's open campus will be perfect (it tends to depress undergrads) plus the quality of the grad programs is much higher
As for gallatin, about 90% of the professors are there because they really care about interdisciplinary studies and helping students shape their concentration. But I have certainly run into a few bad apples. I won't name names, but beware of the guy who is a leader in environmental architecture - he didn't bother to learn our names, gave out unfair and unjustifiable grades, and spent most of his class surfing google and talking at us. My adviser, who was a well-meaning guy, was terrible at responding to emails and, well, proofing my rationale, which resulted in me almost missing very important senior year deadlines. Aside from these two duds, everyone else was great! To avoid these problems, ask around and MAKE RATE YOUR PROFESSOR YOUR BEST FRIEND.The gallatin program is truly unparalleled, and it personally gave me a leg up in the job search process. In 2013, I secured a job a little less than one month after graduation. I received my first job offer about 2 days after graduation (but turned it down because it wasn't a good fit). I had 4 offers total, and was able to pick which one I wanted. In this economy, it was truly a blessing. Make the best of your time in gallatin or at nyu by doing A LOT of internships, networking, getting a work-study job (also because the city is expensive), being active in clubs and applying to scholars groups. You'll not only set yourself up to get hired, but you'll have the best academic and social experience of your live.Although I did spend a lot of time at the library, I also had a pretty great social life. My rule of thumb was that I wouldn't study on Friday or Saturday nights unless it was finals or midterms. I made friends doing activities I was passionate about and on my floor freshmen year, and I've kept these friends through my four years at NYU. The nightlife in the village is great - from poetry slams, to great bars, to clubs and comedy clubs. There's something for everyone, as long as you're willing to step out of your shell.
College was crazy, I partyed, I worked and I barely slept. Going to school in the Big City is not an easy thing, but if you get through it you come out with a strong work ethic and with strong determination. When I first left NYU I worked retail at Staples. But the strong core values that NYU provided, I easily grew to Management.While a manager at Staples I made sure I went to every conference, read every article and met as many vendors as I could regarding office supplies. I eventually left Staples to open my own office supply store in Long Island. We had some success and some failures, but it wasn't till my 13th year of out of school when things started to really kick into gear for me. I saw the success of the interent and decided to take my brick and mortar store and turn it completely virtual. www.BulkOfficeSupply.com was born. making over 500,000 a month, with no store overhead or even warehouse charges. So those who worry about your success, don't, it takes time. It has been 23 years since I graduated from NYU and I finally consider myself a success.
NYU is a brand name, everyone assumes it is a good school. But truthfully, NYU is not one school; it is many different schools united under one name. Regarding undergraduate programs, their quality is quite different. My recommendations -If you get into...
Tisch (particularly the dance and theater conservatories): very prestigious, great programs, most students don't plan on going to grad school as they are going into the arts, so I say it is worth it for the connections you make
Stern: very hard to get into, known worldwide for its prestige, you get great connections, probably worth the money because most students get incredible jobs that can pay the loans off, but depending on the type of job you seek you may need grad school so keep that in mind
LSP: not worth it at all, I wouldn't be surprised if this program is removed from the university soon, I have not heard one good thing about it
CAS: in my opinion, not worth it. it's basically a typical liberal arts education you could get at any SUNY school
Gallatin: you better know exactly what you want to do, it's very easy to goof off here. plus, you will most likely need to go to grad school if you go to Gallatin, so unless you can for sure afford it, I would advise against it; this prgram tends to attract extremely wealthy people; the plus of this program is that it's the smallest, so you get a better sense of community than the rest of NYU, and you get to take classes in other schools, so you get to socialize with different types of people. but the higher level Tisch and Stern classes are impossible to get into.
Steinhardt: good school, but be realistic; if you're going into education your salary is probably not going to help you pay off loans; only go if money is no issue whatsoever
Poly: great engineering school, and those are the hot jobs to get right now so you can probably land a good job that will pay off the tuition in good time; but keep in mind this school tends to be isolated from the rest of NYU, some people aren't even aware it's part of the school, so social life might be a challenge. I wouldn't know, I have yet to actually meet a Poly student
Shanghai: New program, so far they only have science and business programs. They're giving out good financial aid right now to attract people to come over there, so if you're planning to to into one of those majors and are okay with going that far from home, go for itAbu Dhabi: by far the hardest program to get into, but I haven't the slightest idea of anything about itMy advice is, unless you got into Tisch or Stern or are wealthy enough for money not to be a concern, to save NYU for grad school: you will no longer crave that college social life, will have a job, and friends so NYU's open campus will be perfect (it tends to depress undergrads) plus the quality of the grad programs is much higher
New York University Reviews
There's no better place to go for your undergrad career if you want to live in a vibrant and cultured city and, to be blunt, grow up. Students who want to be coddled and have everything handed to them don't like NYU (and probably not NYC). But, if you want to grow as an individual and have the best college experience of your life, come to NYU.I was originally in CAS and then transferred to Gallatin. I will say that Gallatin has a more tight knit community, with more professors who seem to care about their students, and more interesting classes.
With that said, it's department by department in CAS. I found that many of my friends liked the sociology, journalism, environmental studies, social and cultural analysis and chemistry departments. I took a majority of my classes in journalism, french and environmental studies - most of my professors were great, attentive and so well-connected! Go to office hours, talk in class, email them and you will enjoy your classes 100x more! I did have bad experiences with the biology department, so premeds and bio majors beware.
As for gallatin, about 90% of the professors are there because they really care about interdisciplinary studies and helping students shape their concentration. But I have certainly run into a few bad apples. I won't name names, but beware of the guy who is a leader in environmental architecture - he didn't bother to learn our names, gave out unfair and unjustifiable grades, and spent most of his class surfing google and talking at us. My adviser, who was a well-meaning guy, was terrible at responding to emails and, well, proofing my rationale, which resulted in me almost missing very important senior year deadlines. Aside from these two duds, everyone else was great! To avoid these problems, ask around and MAKE RATE YOUR PROFESSOR YOUR BEST FRIEND.The gallatin program is truly unparalleled, and it personally gave me a leg up in the job search process. In 2013, I secured a job a little less than one month after graduation. I received my first job offer about 2 days after graduation (but turned it down because it wasn't a good fit). I had 4 offers total, and was able to pick which one I wanted. In this economy, it was truly a blessing. Make the best of your time in gallatin or at nyu by doing A LOT of internships, networking, getting a work-study job (also because the city is expensive), being active in clubs and applying to scholars groups. You'll not only set yourself up to get hired, but you'll have the best academic and social experience of your live.Although I did spend a lot of time at the library, I also had a pretty great social life. My rule of thumb was that I wouldn't study on Friday or Saturday nights unless it was finals or midterms. I made friends doing activities I was passionate about and on my floor freshmen year, and I've kept these friends through my four years at NYU. The nightlife in the village is great - from poetry slams, to great bars, to clubs and comedy clubs. There's something for everyone, as long as you're willing to step out of your shell.
College was crazy, I partyed, I worked and I barely slept. Going to school in the Big City is not an easy thing, but if you get through it you come out with a strong work ethic and with strong determination. When I first left NYU I worked retail at Staples. But the strong core values that NYU provided, I easily grew to Management.While a manager at Staples I made sure I went to every conference, read every article and met as many vendors as I could regarding office supplies. I eventually left Staples to open my own office supply store in Long Island. We had some success and some failures, but it wasn't till my 13th year of out of school when things started to really kick into gear for me. I saw the success of the interent and decided to take my brick and mortar store and turn it completely virtual. www.BulkOfficeSupply.com was born. making over 500,000 a month, with no store overhead or even warehouse charges. So those who worry about your success, don't, it takes time. It has been 23 years since I graduated from NYU and I finally consider myself a success.
NYU is a brand name, everyone assumes it is a good school. But truthfully, NYU is not one school; it is many different schools united under one name. Regarding undergraduate programs, their quality is quite different. My recommendations -If you get into...
Tisch (particularly the dance and theater conservatories): very prestigious, great programs, most students don't plan on going to grad school as they are going into the arts, so I say it is worth it for the connections you make
Stern: very hard to get into, known worldwide for its prestige, you get great connections, probably worth the money because most students get incredible jobs that can pay the loans off, but depending on the type of job you seek you may need grad school so keep that in mind
LSP: not worth it at all, I wouldn't be surprised if this program is removed from the university soon, I have not heard one good thing about it
CAS: in my opinion, not worth it. it's basically a typical liberal arts education you could get at any SUNY school
Gallatin: you better know exactly what you want to do, it's very easy to goof off here. plus, you will most likely need to go to grad school if you go to Gallatin, so unless you can for sure afford it, I would advise against it; this prgram tends to attract extremely wealthy people; the plus of this program is that it's the smallest, so you get a better sense of community than the rest of NYU, and you get to take classes in other schools, so you get to socialize with different types of people. but the higher level Tisch and Stern classes are impossible to get into.
Steinhardt: good school, but be realistic; if you're going into education your salary is probably not going to help you pay off loans; only go if money is no issue whatsoever
Poly: great engineering school, and those are the hot jobs to get right now so you can probably land a good job that will pay off the tuition in good time; but keep in mind this school tends to be isolated from the rest of NYU, some people aren't even aware it's part of the school, so social life might be a challenge. I wouldn't know, I have yet to actually meet a Poly student
Shanghai: New program, so far they only have science and business programs. They're giving out good financial aid right now to attract people to come over there, so if you're planning to to into one of those majors and are okay with going that far from home, go for itAbu Dhabi: by far the hardest program to get into, but I haven't the slightest idea of anything about itMy advice is, unless you got into Tisch or Stern or are wealthy enough for money not to be a concern, to save NYU for grad school: you will no longer crave that college social life, will have a job, and friends so NYU's open campus will be perfect (it tends to depress undergrads) plus the quality of the grad programs is much higher
As for gallatin, about 90% of the professors are there because they really care about interdisciplinary studies and helping students shape their concentration. But I have certainly run into a few bad apples. I won't name names, but beware of the guy who is a leader in environmental architecture - he didn't bother to learn our names, gave out unfair and unjustifiable grades, and spent most of his class surfing google and talking at us. My adviser, who was a well-meaning guy, was terrible at responding to emails and, well, proofing my rationale, which resulted in me almost missing very important senior year deadlines. Aside from these two duds, everyone else was great! To avoid these problems, ask around and MAKE RATE YOUR PROFESSOR YOUR BEST FRIEND.The gallatin program is truly unparalleled, and it personally gave me a leg up in the job search process. In 2013, I secured a job a little less than one month after graduation. I received my first job offer about 2 days after graduation (but turned it down because it wasn't a good fit). I had 4 offers total, and was able to pick which one I wanted. In this economy, it was truly a blessing. Make the best of your time in gallatin or at nyu by doing A LOT of internships, networking, getting a work-study job (also because the city is expensive), being active in clubs and applying to scholars groups. You'll not only set yourself up to get hired, but you'll have the best academic and social experience of your live.Although I did spend a lot of time at the library, I also had a pretty great social life. My rule of thumb was that I wouldn't study on Friday or Saturday nights unless it was finals or midterms. I made friends doing activities I was passionate about and on my floor freshmen year, and I've kept these friends through my four years at NYU. The nightlife in the village is great - from poetry slams, to great bars, to clubs and comedy clubs. There's something for everyone, as long as you're willing to step out of your shell.
College was crazy, I partyed, I worked and I barely slept. Going to school in the Big City is not an easy thing, but if you get through it you come out with a strong work ethic and with strong determination. When I first left NYU I worked retail at Staples. But the strong core values that NYU provided, I easily grew to Management.While a manager at Staples I made sure I went to every conference, read every article and met as many vendors as I could regarding office supplies. I eventually left Staples to open my own office supply store in Long Island. We had some success and some failures, but it wasn't till my 13th year of out of school when things started to really kick into gear for me. I saw the success of the interent and decided to take my brick and mortar store and turn it completely virtual. www.BulkOfficeSupply.com was born. making over 500,000 a month, with no store overhead or even warehouse charges. So those who worry about your success, don't, it takes time. It has been 23 years since I graduated from NYU and I finally consider myself a success.
NYU is a brand name, everyone assumes it is a good school. But truthfully, NYU is not one school; it is many different schools united under one name. Regarding undergraduate programs, their quality is quite different. My recommendations -If you get into...
Tisch (particularly the dance and theater conservatories): very prestigious, great programs, most students don't plan on going to grad school as they are going into the arts, so I say it is worth it for the connections you make
Stern: very hard to get into, known worldwide for its prestige, you get great connections, probably worth the money because most students get incredible jobs that can pay the loans off, but depending on the type of job you seek you may need grad school so keep that in mind
LSP: not worth it at all, I wouldn't be surprised if this program is removed from the university soon, I have not heard one good thing about it
CAS: in my opinion, not worth it. it's basically a typical liberal arts education you could get at any SUNY school
Gallatin: you better know exactly what you want to do, it's very easy to goof off here. plus, you will most likely need to go to grad school if you go to Gallatin, so unless you can for sure afford it, I would advise against it; this prgram tends to attract extremely wealthy people; the plus of this program is that it's the smallest, so you get a better sense of community than the rest of NYU, and you get to take classes in other schools, so you get to socialize with different types of people. but the higher level Tisch and Stern classes are impossible to get into.
Steinhardt: good school, but be realistic; if you're going into education your salary is probably not going to help you pay off loans; only go if money is no issue whatsoever
Poly: great engineering school, and those are the hot jobs to get right now so you can probably land a good job that will pay off the tuition in good time; but keep in mind this school tends to be isolated from the rest of NYU, some people aren't even aware it's part of the school, so social life might be a challenge. I wouldn't know, I have yet to actually meet a Poly student
Shanghai: New program, so far they only have science and business programs. They're giving out good financial aid right now to attract people to come over there, so if you're planning to to into one of those majors and are okay with going that far from home, go for itAbu Dhabi: by far the hardest program to get into, but I haven't the slightest idea of anything about itMy advice is, unless you got into Tisch or Stern or are wealthy enough for money not to be a concern, to save NYU for grad school: you will no longer crave that college social life, will have a job, and friends so NYU's open campus will be perfect (it tends to depress undergrads) plus the quality of the grad programs is much higher
The University of Florida Reviews
One description I heard of UF students (by a professor) was "bright but naive." I agree -- students were bright, curious but often lacked knowledge/experiences more sophisticated students would take for granted. Most are from Florida and publicly schooled but there is more diversity than you would expect from the remaining to 20 to 25 percent that are out of state/internationals. Professors can be top notch -- I had one Professor who had his PhD from Princeton and another from Oxford, England -- others were top in their field and highly published and regarded. Some students will take on the world, others will get married and stay in Florida. Of the many top notch programs at UF, funding from sports plus the huge college intake in education and allied health sciences helps keep the coffers filled but makes the place appear less intellectual. It's a mix and the Greek system, while influential in student government, is dilute thanks to the large campus and many student activities.
In high school I was told I wouldn't get into UF. It was as if UF was on the plan of an Ivy league school, but its far from a decent school for my major. I went to a community college where I pulled all As and Bs and got into UF. Not without trouble though, these people aren't the brightest. They rejected me because I failed to answer an email of theirs regarding what class I was going to take... Really? Send something that important in an email and not a letter? Why did that matter anyway? I told them several times my option anyway and they simply didn't listen. I had to deal with this while I was in Germany doing an independent study and had internet maybe 1 time every other week.Other majors may have better resources, but mine was so horribly poorly funded I couldn't complete my major here. Language requires a lot of resources and money. I choose UF for its apparent "budget", its reputation, study abroad, club, faculty reviews, library, and language lab.
Well, they cut out a massive amount of their programs and classes from the language department and several other departments. They include the computer science, philosophy, arts, music, and humanities. I can not even remain a full time student because they simply don't have enough classes that count toward my major. The TA's tend to be awesome, but its really a 50/50 shot. One of them was mediocre (knew her stuff but didn't know how to teach) and the other was simply amazing and the best so far. I learned more from him than I did the Dr. Professor. The funds simply go to sports or their research.
The rep it has is really inflated. Its only good in its sciences and sports. That also depends on the science. Most of the professors suck, plan and simple. Experts who can't communicate or teach. The good ones are hard to get classes with because everyone flocks to them. Are they all bad? Of course not, some amazing professors! But not without its poor ones. This is typical of most schools though, the good and the bad. The problem is, with its reputation, this school shouldn't have that problem on the same level.
Now the study abroad opportunities are a mixed bag as well. The semester long programs are VERY good and well worth it. Depending on your major or language preference, the head of department for that can affect the quality. Most of the Language abroad programs are excellent. The shorter ones though are nearly as expensive and last only a week to 6 weeks and that is much less cost effective and generally too rushed. Unless its the only ones available in the department, try for longer studies.
My language was suppose to have a club. Many of them are not very active and some are so inactive they are impossible to get a benefit from because they don't do anything.
I researched the program prior to applying. I knew all the credentials of my professors in the department. I decided that a few inexperienced or poor student reviews were expected of any school. The problem is that many of the language programs are underfunded and the format of the class has to change. Many are now "hybrid" classes although they say its an in-class lecture. This simply doesn't work for many students. Your paying and working to interact with these experts in their field... Instead your wallowing around talking to someone who knows as much (if that) as you and not improving your accent. I learned nothing in higher classes besides how to expect a bad grade and no help. The rules that are set down, the professors must follow it, regardless if the students are benefiting.
For the most part, the library is amazing. Study rooms, computers, amazing collection for the most part. Awesome in 95% of the subjects you can study at UF. If you are in a major with a small population of students, the library is largely useless. Most of the minority languages have no updated material.
For those that are language majors, go visit the language lab before enrolling. Ask for the material. There was NOTHING for me of updated material. They handed me an ancient dictionary and grammar book that contains such old language I got marked wrong for using it. Other languages are worse off.
If you are accepted into a major that has good funding and population, then if you can afford it and don't mind the quality not living up to the rep, then at least you will get the name of UF on it. If you are not in a popular major beware. The money and budget is horribly abused and wasted on non-vital stuff when VITAL things need fixing. Poor management.The campus is okay as far as safety. I did not live on campus but if you pay for the better housing it is pretty safe. I hear of problems in the more communal living. Still, crimes are pretty regular. Your get them sent to your phone. There is rape, sexual assault, etc. on campus. If you're irresponsible about yourself, you bet somethings going to happen. Act responsible to avoid these people and keep cautious and you'll be fine. Campus security is poor in my opinion. The city of Gainesville isn't safe nor horrible, just kinda typical city crime. Lots of beggars and petty theft. I wouldn't over worry if you use your common sense.Overall its an okay school. If your in one of their popular majors then you will be fine. Don't expect the best, but it will be good. If your aren't, then find somewhere else. Tuition hikes are every year, so prepare for that. If you don't mind being a number, like me, you will enjoy relatively small class sizes except in the most popular classes.
I've recently transferred from UF to another state school. HS counselors pump this school up like it's MIT or Harvard, when in realty, they're not even in the same league as Ivy league schools. This school is soo freaking big and you're just another number. Most of the dorms are like 60 yrs old with no AC and most of the faculty doesn't speak English and you feel like they have no time for you because they're doing research. Sure..UF has good athletics, but I didn't come to college to party 24/7 or live for college football. Interestingly enough, everybody underage drinks here, the cops don't care on game-day. Don't believe the hype about UF, go visit other schools in the state before you pull the trigger. I'm now a senior at the University of Miami and loving it. More expensive but worth every penny.
In high school I was told I wouldn't get into UF. It was as if UF was on the plan of an Ivy league school, but its far from a decent school for my major. I went to a community college where I pulled all As and Bs and got into UF. Not without trouble though, these people aren't the brightest. They rejected me because I failed to answer an email of theirs regarding what class I was going to take... Really? Send something that important in an email and not a letter? Why did that matter anyway? I told them several times my option anyway and they simply didn't listen. I had to deal with this while I was in Germany doing an independent study and had internet maybe 1 time every other week.Other majors may have better resources, but mine was so horribly poorly funded I couldn't complete my major here. Language requires a lot of resources and money. I choose UF for its apparent "budget", its reputation, study abroad, club, faculty reviews, library, and language lab.
Well, they cut out a massive amount of their programs and classes from the language department and several other departments. They include the computer science, philosophy, arts, music, and humanities. I can not even remain a full time student because they simply don't have enough classes that count toward my major. The TA's tend to be awesome, but its really a 50/50 shot. One of them was mediocre (knew her stuff but didn't know how to teach) and the other was simply amazing and the best so far. I learned more from him than I did the Dr. Professor. The funds simply go to sports or their research.
The rep it has is really inflated. Its only good in its sciences and sports. That also depends on the science. Most of the professors suck, plan and simple. Experts who can't communicate or teach. The good ones are hard to get classes with because everyone flocks to them. Are they all bad? Of course not, some amazing professors! But not without its poor ones. This is typical of most schools though, the good and the bad. The problem is, with its reputation, this school shouldn't have that problem on the same level.
Now the study abroad opportunities are a mixed bag as well. The semester long programs are VERY good and well worth it. Depending on your major or language preference, the head of department for that can affect the quality. Most of the Language abroad programs are excellent. The shorter ones though are nearly as expensive and last only a week to 6 weeks and that is much less cost effective and generally too rushed. Unless its the only ones available in the department, try for longer studies.
My language was suppose to have a club. Many of them are not very active and some are so inactive they are impossible to get a benefit from because they don't do anything.
I researched the program prior to applying. I knew all the credentials of my professors in the department. I decided that a few inexperienced or poor student reviews were expected of any school. The problem is that many of the language programs are underfunded and the format of the class has to change. Many are now "hybrid" classes although they say its an in-class lecture. This simply doesn't work for many students. Your paying and working to interact with these experts in their field... Instead your wallowing around talking to someone who knows as much (if that) as you and not improving your accent. I learned nothing in higher classes besides how to expect a bad grade and no help. The rules that are set down, the professors must follow it, regardless if the students are benefiting.
For the most part, the library is amazing. Study rooms, computers, amazing collection for the most part. Awesome in 95% of the subjects you can study at UF. If you are in a major with a small population of students, the library is largely useless. Most of the minority languages have no updated material.
For those that are language majors, go visit the language lab before enrolling. Ask for the material. There was NOTHING for me of updated material. They handed me an ancient dictionary and grammar book that contains such old language I got marked wrong for using it. Other languages are worse off.
If you are accepted into a major that has good funding and population, then if you can afford it and don't mind the quality not living up to the rep, then at least you will get the name of UF on it. If you are not in a popular major beware. The money and budget is horribly abused and wasted on non-vital stuff when VITAL things need fixing. Poor management.The campus is okay as far as safety. I did not live on campus but if you pay for the better housing it is pretty safe. I hear of problems in the more communal living. Still, crimes are pretty regular. Your get them sent to your phone. There is rape, sexual assault, etc. on campus. If you're irresponsible about yourself, you bet somethings going to happen. Act responsible to avoid these people and keep cautious and you'll be fine. Campus security is poor in my opinion. The city of Gainesville isn't safe nor horrible, just kinda typical city crime. Lots of beggars and petty theft. I wouldn't over worry if you use your common sense.Overall its an okay school. If your in one of their popular majors then you will be fine. Don't expect the best, but it will be good. If your aren't, then find somewhere else. Tuition hikes are every year, so prepare for that. If you don't mind being a number, like me, you will enjoy relatively small class sizes except in the most popular classes.
I've recently transferred from UF to another state school. HS counselors pump this school up like it's MIT or Harvard, when in realty, they're not even in the same league as Ivy league schools. This school is soo freaking big and you're just another number. Most of the dorms are like 60 yrs old with no AC and most of the faculty doesn't speak English and you feel like they have no time for you because they're doing research. Sure..UF has good athletics, but I didn't come to college to party 24/7 or live for college football. Interestingly enough, everybody underage drinks here, the cops don't care on game-day. Don't believe the hype about UF, go visit other schools in the state before you pull the trigger. I'm now a senior at the University of Miami and loving it. More expensive but worth every penny.
Clemson University Review
Clemson is a good school, no doubt about it. The campus is pretty and most of the students are friendly. However, there are the occasional snooty students that think their so brilliant/better than everyone. There are also kids that nobody knows how in the world they got accepted. Transfer students for the most part are a joke. Some transfer for financial purposes, but a lot are unintelligent and end up at Clemson somehow. If you're the outdoorsy type, you'll like Clemson. There is a lake on campus, the mountains are 45 minutes away, and beaches are 4-5 hours away. There really isn't anything to do in Clemson. The closest small city is 30 minutes away, and Charlotte and Atlanta are 2 hours away. Overall, the academics are good, the athletics are also good. Clemson football has recently become very good. Except USC has become better. Clemson will always be the best school in the state of South Carolina. I would recommend it for the most part.
I love clemson to death. I am an instate student who always knew what college i was going to be attending. I would honestly never want to be at any other college. There is some major draw backs to clemson though. This college is we over priced. Both with materials for class(books, eclickers, etc) and housing on campus. I mean why do i want to pay 7,000 dollers for a 2 person apartment thats been there for 30 years. They will nickle and dime you every step of the way. IF you can get past the huge price tag on the this school, everything else is great. The capus is very diverse. With that in mind, i get tired of non american TA's that i have to strain to understand or that can not understand me.
Okay, so I'm literally just writing this review to warn/help/advise others on what to do if you're thinking about coming here. Background about me: in-state, engineering major, seriously still can't decide how I feel about this place and I'm not sure if I ever will. There are some truly great things about Clemson in my opinion. The campus is well-laid out, the school runs well, systematically run campus. For some people, this school has everything you will ever want in a university. However, this school may 'shrink your world' in the process. I believe that a university setting should expand your world. Unfortunately, that's not the case with Clemson (the majority of the time.)Clemson may not be a good fit for you if you...
-love sports -- love watching them, playing them, whatever
-love the idea of Greek Life - Greek life here is huge - I personally don't know too much about how it works on the inside, but from the outside - everyone that's in it seems to think the world of it. In fact, it seems to be their world.
-are very focused on maintaining your faith. This definitely isn't a negative aspect. Religion helps people remain grounded. Again, the majority of these are religious organizations are Christian. So, if this is something truly important to you, you'll find friends.
Clemson may not be a good fit for you if you...
-are used to a more cultured atmosphere - if you've spent your life interacting with people who are extremely knowledgeable about affairs in the modern world, you might be surprised by the lack of open-minded thinking here. Many people are going to hold the same, conservative opinions. I'm not saying everyone's like that..I've met plenty of people that are extremely knowledgable, cultured, etc, but it's not as common. This is coming from someone who considers themselves to be conservative.
-aren't so enthusiastic about the outdoors. Clemson is hardly a town - it's not even really a village. Literally, downtown is one street. AGAIN, plenty of people love going downtown, drinking, but there's no active 'night scene.' People go to frat parties and such, but if you're looking for entertainment elsewhere, the closest 'city' is Greenville, which is quite popular.
-are looking for a college with a lot of diversity. Whether it's good or bad or really doesn't matter, Clemson is not diverse. It's one of the least diverse campuses in the nation. This really isn't a big issue to most people. I suppose the only people that would really notice are the people that aren't white...but whatever. That's a fact you should take into account.
Clemson has great weather, great sports, and some fantastic students. It all depends on what you're looking for. I tried to make this review as helpful as I can. I don't want to bash Clemson. It really has some positives, but there are negatives. If you really want to come here, make sure you understand what it's like.If you're out-of-state, I'm not sure why you would come here if you weren't planning on rushing, playing a sport, or didn't have some national scholarship. I'm sure the schools in your state are great.If you're in-state, you're still getting a good education for a reasonable price comparatively. Just know what kind of your atmosphere you're looking for in a college
I love clemson to death. I am an instate student who always knew what college i was going to be attending. I would honestly never want to be at any other college. There is some major draw backs to clemson though. This college is we over priced. Both with materials for class(books, eclickers, etc) and housing on campus. I mean why do i want to pay 7,000 dollers for a 2 person apartment thats been there for 30 years. They will nickle and dime you every step of the way. IF you can get past the huge price tag on the this school, everything else is great. The capus is very diverse. With that in mind, i get tired of non american TA's that i have to strain to understand or that can not understand me.
Okay, so I'm literally just writing this review to warn/help/advise others on what to do if you're thinking about coming here. Background about me: in-state, engineering major, seriously still can't decide how I feel about this place and I'm not sure if I ever will. There are some truly great things about Clemson in my opinion. The campus is well-laid out, the school runs well, systematically run campus. For some people, this school has everything you will ever want in a university. However, this school may 'shrink your world' in the process. I believe that a university setting should expand your world. Unfortunately, that's not the case with Clemson (the majority of the time.)Clemson may not be a good fit for you if you...
-love sports -- love watching them, playing them, whatever
-love the idea of Greek Life - Greek life here is huge - I personally don't know too much about how it works on the inside, but from the outside - everyone that's in it seems to think the world of it. In fact, it seems to be their world.
-are very focused on maintaining your faith. This definitely isn't a negative aspect. Religion helps people remain grounded. Again, the majority of these are religious organizations are Christian. So, if this is something truly important to you, you'll find friends.
Clemson may not be a good fit for you if you...
-are used to a more cultured atmosphere - if you've spent your life interacting with people who are extremely knowledgeable about affairs in the modern world, you might be surprised by the lack of open-minded thinking here. Many people are going to hold the same, conservative opinions. I'm not saying everyone's like that..I've met plenty of people that are extremely knowledgable, cultured, etc, but it's not as common. This is coming from someone who considers themselves to be conservative.
-aren't so enthusiastic about the outdoors. Clemson is hardly a town - it's not even really a village. Literally, downtown is one street. AGAIN, plenty of people love going downtown, drinking, but there's no active 'night scene.' People go to frat parties and such, but if you're looking for entertainment elsewhere, the closest 'city' is Greenville, which is quite popular.
-are looking for a college with a lot of diversity. Whether it's good or bad or really doesn't matter, Clemson is not diverse. It's one of the least diverse campuses in the nation. This really isn't a big issue to most people. I suppose the only people that would really notice are the people that aren't white...but whatever. That's a fact you should take into account.
Clemson has great weather, great sports, and some fantastic students. It all depends on what you're looking for. I tried to make this review as helpful as I can. I don't want to bash Clemson. It really has some positives, but there are negatives. If you really want to come here, make sure you understand what it's like.If you're out-of-state, I'm not sure why you would come here if you weren't planning on rushing, playing a sport, or didn't have some national scholarship. I'm sure the schools in your state are great.If you're in-state, you're still getting a good education for a reasonable price comparatively. Just know what kind of your atmosphere you're looking for in a college
Francis Marion University Review
Francis Marion University is a really great school. As people quoted that it is easy to get into but hard to get out. It is what a person does with his or her major that counts. The university prepares the student to go out into the real world and start a great career. There may be some professors that may appear as slackers but there are some really great professors at FMU who care and want to see the students progress. For the negative reviews about FMU, I am a graduate from FMU and have met lots of students who were slackers. Therefore, if a student does not put in the effort then what can FMU do if the student is not willing to put their best foot forward.
My time at FMU generally positive. I am not sure why there are so many negative reviews about the school, but I have been gone for a while and do not know if things have changed that much. I cam to FMU the first year that Dr. Carter took over and witnessed many changed to the school and its physical presence in Florence until I move away in 2007. I enjoyed my time in the History Dept. The Professors were engaging and worked with students. They expected students to make an effort in their studies and were not tolerant of slackers. I also was involved in the School of Education. It focused mainly on education theory and not enough on practical classroom issues. I have come to learn that this is fairly normal for most colleges and universities.
I am outraged at what happened to me while I was a student at FMU. They couldn't find me an advisor while I was a marketing major so I had to get my schedule made by a woman in one of the offices in the school of business. Well turns out she gave me a biology 105 class with a biology 103 lab. Once I found out about this mistake, I informed her and she said she made no such mistake and I was given an F because of that.They also have HORRIBLE chemistry teachers, especially that Anderson guy. He moved way too quickly and was in no way a good professor. Most of the students in my class were failing and complained about his teacher. Why isn't he fired yet?One last thing. I had a C in spanish 101 and when grades came in, there was a D there instead. Well that caused my gpa to be a little lower than I wanted to be, but the following semester, that C I had miraculously appeared in place of the D and I hadn't retaken the course. I will never recommend anyone go to FMU (Frauds Merging University)
My time at FMU generally positive. I am not sure why there are so many negative reviews about the school, but I have been gone for a while and do not know if things have changed that much. I cam to FMU the first year that Dr. Carter took over and witnessed many changed to the school and its physical presence in Florence until I move away in 2007. I enjoyed my time in the History Dept. The Professors were engaging and worked with students. They expected students to make an effort in their studies and were not tolerant of slackers. I also was involved in the School of Education. It focused mainly on education theory and not enough on practical classroom issues. I have come to learn that this is fairly normal for most colleges and universities.
I am outraged at what happened to me while I was a student at FMU. They couldn't find me an advisor while I was a marketing major so I had to get my schedule made by a woman in one of the offices in the school of business. Well turns out she gave me a biology 105 class with a biology 103 lab. Once I found out about this mistake, I informed her and she said she made no such mistake and I was given an F because of that.They also have HORRIBLE chemistry teachers, especially that Anderson guy. He moved way too quickly and was in no way a good professor. Most of the students in my class were failing and complained about his teacher. Why isn't he fired yet?One last thing. I had a C in spanish 101 and when grades came in, there was a D there instead. Well that caused my gpa to be a little lower than I wanted to be, but the following semester, that C I had miraculously appeared in place of the D and I hadn't retaken the course. I will never recommend anyone go to FMU (Frauds Merging University)
Bad Mood Rising
n 2006 I tried to get an article published in the Education section of the Guardian, that fearless advocate of radical causes and scourge of the establishment, outlining the many flaws and errors in the Times Higher Education Supplement -- Quacquarelli Symonds (as they were then) World University Rankings, especially its "peer review". Unfortunately, I was told that they would be wary of publishing an attack on a direct rival. That was how University Ranking Watch got started.
Since then QS and Times Higher Education have had an unpleasant divorce, with the latter now teaming up with Thomson Reuters. New rankings have appeared, some of them to rapidly disappear -- there was one from Wuhan and another from Australia but they seem to have vanished. The established rankings are spinning off subsidiary rankings at a bewildering rate.
As the higher education bubble collapses in the West everything is getting more competitive including rankings and everybody -- except ARWU -- seems to be getting rather bad-tempered.
Rankers and academic writers are no longer wary about "taking a pop" at each other. Recently, there has been an acrimonious exchange between Ben Sowter of QS and Simon Marginson of Melbourne University. This has gone so far as to include the claim that QS has used the threat of legal action to try to silence critics.
"[Ben] Sowter [of QS] does not mention that his company has twice threatened publications with legal action when publishing my bona fide criticisms of QS. One was The Australian: in that case QS prevented my criticisms from being aired. The other case was University World News, which refused to pull my remarks from its website when threatened by QS with legal action.
If Sowter and QS would address the points of criticism of their ranking and their infamous star system (best described as 'rent a reputation'), rather than attacking their critics, we might all be able to progress towards better rankings. That is my sole goal in this matter. As long as the QS ranking remains deficient in terms of social science, I will continue to criticise it, and I expect others will also continue to do so."
Meanwhile the Leiter Reports has a letter from "a reader in the UK".
THES DID drop QS for methodological reasons. The best explanation is here:http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/03/15/baty
But there may have been more to it? Clearly QS's business practices leave an awful lot to be desired. See: http://www.computerweekly.com/news/1280094547/Quacquarelli-Symonds-pays-80000-for-using-unlicensed-software
Also I understand that the "S" from QS -- Matt Symonds -- walked out on the company due to exasperation with the business practices. He has been airbrushed from QS history, but can be foud at: https://twitter.com/SymondsGSB
And as for the reputation survey, there was also this case of blantant manipulation:http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/04/08/irish-university-tries-recruit-voters-improve-its-international-ranking
And of course there's the high-pressure sales:http://www.theinternationalstudentrecruiter.com/how-to-become-a-top-500-university/
And the highly lucrative "consultancy" to help universities rise up the rankings:http://www.iu.qs.com/projects-and-services/consulting/
There are "opportunities" for branding -- a snip at just $80,000 -- with QS Showcase:http://qsshowcase.com/main/branding-opportunities/
Or what about some relaxing massage, or a tenis tournament and networking with the staff who compile the rankings: http://www.qsworldclass.com/6thqsworldclass/
Perhaps most distribing of all is the selling of dubious Star ratings:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/world/europe/31iht-educlede31.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Keep up the good work. Its an excellent blog.
All of this is true although I cannot get very excited about using pirated software and the bit about relaxing massage is rather petty -- I assume it is something to do with having a conference in Thailand. Incidentally, I don't think anyone from THE sent this since the reader refers to THES (The S for Supplement was removed in 2008).
This is all a long way from the days when journalists refused to take pops at their rivals, even when they knew the rankings were a bit rum.
Since then QS and Times Higher Education have had an unpleasant divorce, with the latter now teaming up with Thomson Reuters. New rankings have appeared, some of them to rapidly disappear -- there was one from Wuhan and another from Australia but they seem to have vanished. The established rankings are spinning off subsidiary rankings at a bewildering rate.
As the higher education bubble collapses in the West everything is getting more competitive including rankings and everybody -- except ARWU -- seems to be getting rather bad-tempered.
Rankers and academic writers are no longer wary about "taking a pop" at each other. Recently, there has been an acrimonious exchange between Ben Sowter of QS and Simon Marginson of Melbourne University. This has gone so far as to include the claim that QS has used the threat of legal action to try to silence critics.
"[Ben] Sowter [of QS] does not mention that his company has twice threatened publications with legal action when publishing my bona fide criticisms of QS. One was The Australian: in that case QS prevented my criticisms from being aired. The other case was University World News, which refused to pull my remarks from its website when threatened by QS with legal action.
If Sowter and QS would address the points of criticism of their ranking and their infamous star system (best described as 'rent a reputation'), rather than attacking their critics, we might all be able to progress towards better rankings. That is my sole goal in this matter. As long as the QS ranking remains deficient in terms of social science, I will continue to criticise it, and I expect others will also continue to do so."
Meanwhile the Leiter Reports has a letter from "a reader in the UK".
THES DID drop QS for methodological reasons. The best explanation is here:http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/03/15/baty
But there may have been more to it? Clearly QS's business practices leave an awful lot to be desired. See: http://www.computerweekly.com/news/1280094547/Quacquarelli-Symonds-pays-80000-for-using-unlicensed-software
Also I understand that the "S" from QS -- Matt Symonds -- walked out on the company due to exasperation with the business practices. He has been airbrushed from QS history, but can be foud at: https://twitter.com/SymondsGSB
And as for the reputation survey, there was also this case of blantant manipulation:http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/04/08/irish-university-tries-recruit-voters-improve-its-international-ranking
And of course there's the high-pressure sales:http://www.theinternationalstudentrecruiter.com/how-to-become-a-top-500-university/
And the highly lucrative "consultancy" to help universities rise up the rankings:http://www.iu.qs.com/projects-and-services/consulting/
There are "opportunities" for branding -- a snip at just $80,000 -- with QS Showcase:http://qsshowcase.com/main/branding-opportunities/
Or what about some relaxing massage, or a tenis tournament and networking with the staff who compile the rankings: http://www.qsworldclass.com/6thqsworldclass/
Perhaps most distribing of all is the selling of dubious Star ratings:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/world/europe/31iht-educlede31.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Keep up the good work. Its an excellent blog.
All of this is true although I cannot get very excited about using pirated software and the bit about relaxing massage is rather petty -- I assume it is something to do with having a conference in Thailand. Incidentally, I don't think anyone from THE sent this since the reader refers to THES (The S for Supplement was removed in 2008).
This is all a long way from the days when journalists refused to take pops at their rivals, even when they knew the rankings were a bit rum.
Competition and controversy in global rankings
Higher education is becoming more competitive by the day. Universities are scrambling for scarce research funds and public support. They are trying to recruit from increasingly suspicious and cynical students. The spectre of online education is haunting all but the most confident institutions.
Rankings are also increasingly competitive. Universities need validation that will attract students and big-name researchers and justify appeals for public largesse. Students need guidance about where to take their loans and scholarships. Government agencies have to figure out where public funds are going.
It is not just that the overall rankings are competing with one another, but also that a range of subsidiary products have been let loose. Times Higher Education (THE) and QS have released Young University Rankings within days of each other. Both have published Asian rankings. THE has published reputation rankings and QS Latin American rankings. QS’s subject rankings have been enormously popular because they provide something for almost everybody.
There are few countries without a university somewhere that cannot claim to be in the top 200 for something, even though these rankings sometimes manage to find quality in places lacking even departments in the relevant fields.
QS’s academic survey
Increasing competition can also be seen in the growing vehemence of the criticism directed against and between rankings, although there is one ranking organisation that so far seems exempt from criticism. The QS academic survey has recently come under fire from well-known academics although it has been scrutinised byUniversity Ranking Watch and other blogs since 2006.
It has been reported by Inside Higher Ed that QS had beensoliciting opinions for its academic survey from a US money-for-surveys company that also sought consumer opinion about frozen foods and toilet paper.
The same news story revealed that University College Cork had been trying to find outside facultyto nominate the college in this year’s academic survey.
QS has been strongly criticised by Professor Simon Marginson of the University of Melbourne, who assigns it to a unique category among national and international ranking systems, saying, “I do think social science-wise it’s so weak that you can’t take the results seriously”.
This in turn was followed by a heated exchange between Ben Sowter of QS and Marginson.
Although it is hard to disagree with Marginson’s characterisation of the QS rankings, it is strange he should consider their shortcomings to be unique.
U-Multirank and the Lords
Another sign of intensifying competition is the response toproposals for U-Multirank. This is basically a proposal, sponsored by the European Union, not for a league table in which an overall winner is declared but for a series of measures that would assess a much broader range of features, including student satisfaction and regional involvement, than rankings have offered so far.
There are obviously problems with this, especially with the reliance on data generated by universities themselves, but the disapproval of the British educational establishment has been surprising and perhaps just a little self-serving and hypocritical.
In 2011, the European Union Committee of the House of Lords took evidence from a variety of groups about various aspects of European higher education, including U-Multirank. Among the witnesses was the Russell Group of elite research intensive universities, formed after many polytechnics were upgraded to universities in 1992.
The idea was to make sure that research funding remained in the hands of those who deserved it. The group, named after the four-star Russell Hotel in a “prestigious location in London” where it first met, is not an inexpensive club: recently the Universities of Exeter, Durham and York and Queen Mary College paid £500,000 apiece to join.
The Lords also took evidence from the British Council, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the UK and Scottish governments, the National Union of Students and Times Higher Education.
The committee’s report was generally negative about U-Multirank, stating that the Russell Group had said "ranking universities is fraught with difficulties and we have many concerns about the accuracy of any ranking”.
“It is very difficult to capture fully in numerical terms the performance of universities and their contribution to knowledge, to the world economy and to society,” the report said. “Making meaningful comparisons of universities both within, and across, national borders is a tough and complex challenge, not least because of issues relating to the robustness and comparability of data.”
Other witnesses claimed there was a lack of clarity about the proposal’s ultimate objectives, that the ranking market was too crowded, that it would confuse applicants and be “incapable of responding to rapidly changing circumstances in institutional profiles”, that it would “not allow different strengths across diverse institutions to be recognised and utilised” and that money was better spent on other things.
The committee also observed that the UK Government’s Department of Business Innovation and Skills was “not convinced that it [U-Multirank] would add value if it simply resulted in an additional European ranking system alongside the existing international ranking systems” and the minister struck a less positive tone when he told us that U-Multirank could be viewed as "an attempt by the EU Commission to fix a set of rankings in which [European universities] do better than [they] appear to do in the conventional rankings”.
Just why should the British government be so bothered about a ranking tool that might show European (presumably they mean continental here) universities doing better than in existing rankings?
Finally, the committee reported that “(w)e were interested to note that THES (sic) have recently revised their global rankings in 2010 in order to apply a different methodology and include a wider range of performance indicators (up from six to 13)”.
The committee continued: “They told us that their approach seeks to achieve more objectivity by capturing the full range of a global university's activities – research, teaching, knowledge transfer and internationalisation – and allows users to rank institutions (including 178 in Europe) against five separate criteria: teaching (the learning environment rather than quality); international outlook (staff, students and research); industry income (innovation); research (volume income and reputation); and citations (research influence).”
It is noticeable the Lords showed not the slightest concern, even if they were aware of it, about the THE rankings’ apparent discovery in 2010 that the world’s fourth most influential university for research was Alexandria University.
The complaints about U-Multirank seem insubstantial, if not actually incorrect. The committee’s report says the rankings field is overcrowded. Not really: there are only two international rankings that make even the slightest attempt to assess anything to do with teaching. The THE World University Rankings included only 178 European universities in 2011 so there is definitely a niche for a ranking that aims at including up to 500 European universities and includes a broader range of criteria.
All of the other complaints about U-Multirank, especially reliance on data collected from institutions, would apply to the THE and QS rankings, although perhaps in some cases to a somewhat lesser extent. The suggestion that U-Multirank is wasting money is ridiculous; €2 million would not even pay for four subscriptions to the Russell Group.
Debate
In the ensuing debate in the Lords there was predictable scepticism about the U-Multirank proposal, although Baroness Young of Hornsey was quite uncritical about the THE rankings, declaring that “ (w)e noted, however, that existing rankings, which depend on multiple indicators such as the Times Higher Educationworld university rankings, can make a valuable contribution to assessing the relative merits of universities around the world”.
In February, the League of European Research Universities, or LERU, which includes Oxford, Cambridge and Edinburgh, announced it would have nothing to do with the U-Multirank project.
Its secretary general said "(w)e consider U-Multirank, at best an unjustifiable use of taxpayers' money and at worst a serious threat to a healthy higher education system". He went on to talk about "the lack of reliable, solid and valid data for the chosen indicators in U-Multirank”, about the comparability between countries, about the burden put upon universities to collect data and about “the lack of 'reality-checks' in the process thus far".
In May, the issue resurfaced when the UK Higher Education International Unit, which is funded by British universities and various government agencies, issued a policy statement that repeated the concerns of the Lords and LERU.
Since none of the problems with U-Multirank are in any way unique, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that higher education in the UK is turning into a cartel and is extremely sensitive to anything that might undermine its market dominance.
And what about THE?
What is remarkable about the controversies over QS and U-Multirank is that Times Higher Education and Thomson Reuters, its data provider, have been given a free pass by the British and international higher education establishments.
Imagine what would happen if QS had informed the world that, in the academic reputation survey, its flagship indicator, the top position was jointly held by Rice University and the Moscow State Engineering Physics Institute (MEPhI)! And that QS argued this was because these institutions were highly focused, that they had achieved their positions because they had outstanding reputations in their areas of expertise and that QS saw no reason to apologise for uncovering pockets of excellence.
Yet THE has put Rice and MEPhI at the top of its flagship indicator, field- and year- normalised citations, given very high scores to Tokyo Metropolitan University and Royal Holloway London among others, and this has passed unremarked by the experts and authorities of university ranking.
For example, a recent comprehensive survey of international rankings by Andrejs Rauhvargers for the European University Association describes the results of the THE reputation survey as “arguably strange” and “surprising”, but it says nothing about the results of the citation indicator, which ought to be much more surprising.
Let us just look at how MEPhI got to be joint top university in the world for research influence, despite its lack of research in anything but physics and related fields. It did so because one of its academics was a contributor to two multi-cited reviews of particle physics. This is a flagrant case of the privileging of the citation practices of one discipline which Thomson Reuters andTHE supposedly considered to be unacceptable. The strange thing is that these anomalies could easily have been avoided by a few simple procedures which, in some cases, have been used by other ranking or rating organisations.
They could have used fractionalised counting, for example, the default option in the Leiden ranking, so that MEPhI would get 1/119th credit for its 1/119th contribution to the Review of Particle Physics for 2010. They could have excluded narrowly specialised institutions. They could have normalised for five or six subject areas, which is what Leiden University and Scimagodo. They could have used several indicators for research influence drawn from the Leiden menu.
There are other things they could do that would not have had much effect, if any, on last year’s rankings, but that might pre-empt problems this year and later on. One is to stop counting self-citations, a step already taken by QS. This would have prevented Alexandria University getting into the world’s top 200 in 2010 and it might prevent a similar problem next year.
Another sensible precaution would be to count only one affiliation per author. This would prevent universities benefitting from signing up part-time faculty in strategic fields. Something else they should think about is the regional adjustment for the citations indicator, which has the effect of giving universities a boost just for being in a low-achieving county.
To suggest that two universities in different countries with the same score for citations are equally excellent – when, in fact, one of them has merely benefitted from being in a country with a poor research profile – is very misleading. It is in effect conceding, asJohn Stuart Mill said of a mediocre contemporary, that its eminence is “due to the flatness of the surrounding landscape”.
Finally, if THE and Thomson Reuters are not going to change anything else, at the very least they could call their indicator a measure of research quality instead of research influence. Why should THE and Thomson Reuters have not taken such obvious steps to avoid such implausible results?
Probably it is because of a reluctance to deviate from their InCites system, which evaluates individual researchers.
THE and Thomson Reuters may be lucky this year. There will be only two particle physics reviews to count instead of three so it is likely that some of the places with inflated citation scores will sink down a little bit.
But in 2014 and succeeding years, unless there is a change in methodology, the citations indicator could look very interesting and very embarrassing. There will be another edition of the Review of Particle Physics, with its massive citations for its 100-plus contributors, and there will be several massively cited multi-authored papers on dark matter and the Higgs Boson to skew the citations indicator.
It seems likely that the arguments about global university rankings will continue and that they will get more and more heated.
Rankings are also increasingly competitive. Universities need validation that will attract students and big-name researchers and justify appeals for public largesse. Students need guidance about where to take their loans and scholarships. Government agencies have to figure out where public funds are going.
It is not just that the overall rankings are competing with one another, but also that a range of subsidiary products have been let loose. Times Higher Education (THE) and QS have released Young University Rankings within days of each other. Both have published Asian rankings. THE has published reputation rankings and QS Latin American rankings. QS’s subject rankings have been enormously popular because they provide something for almost everybody.
There are few countries without a university somewhere that cannot claim to be in the top 200 for something, even though these rankings sometimes manage to find quality in places lacking even departments in the relevant fields.
QS’s academic survey
Increasing competition can also be seen in the growing vehemence of the criticism directed against and between rankings, although there is one ranking organisation that so far seems exempt from criticism. The QS academic survey has recently come under fire from well-known academics although it has been scrutinised byUniversity Ranking Watch and other blogs since 2006.
It has been reported by Inside Higher Ed that QS had beensoliciting opinions for its academic survey from a US money-for-surveys company that also sought consumer opinion about frozen foods and toilet paper.
The same news story revealed that University College Cork had been trying to find outside facultyto nominate the college in this year’s academic survey.
QS has been strongly criticised by Professor Simon Marginson of the University of Melbourne, who assigns it to a unique category among national and international ranking systems, saying, “I do think social science-wise it’s so weak that you can’t take the results seriously”.
This in turn was followed by a heated exchange between Ben Sowter of QS and Marginson.
Although it is hard to disagree with Marginson’s characterisation of the QS rankings, it is strange he should consider their shortcomings to be unique.
U-Multirank and the Lords
Another sign of intensifying competition is the response toproposals for U-Multirank. This is basically a proposal, sponsored by the European Union, not for a league table in which an overall winner is declared but for a series of measures that would assess a much broader range of features, including student satisfaction and regional involvement, than rankings have offered so far.
There are obviously problems with this, especially with the reliance on data generated by universities themselves, but the disapproval of the British educational establishment has been surprising and perhaps just a little self-serving and hypocritical.
In 2011, the European Union Committee of the House of Lords took evidence from a variety of groups about various aspects of European higher education, including U-Multirank. Among the witnesses was the Russell Group of elite research intensive universities, formed after many polytechnics were upgraded to universities in 1992.
The idea was to make sure that research funding remained in the hands of those who deserved it. The group, named after the four-star Russell Hotel in a “prestigious location in London” where it first met, is not an inexpensive club: recently the Universities of Exeter, Durham and York and Queen Mary College paid £500,000 apiece to join.
The Lords also took evidence from the British Council, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the UK and Scottish governments, the National Union of Students and Times Higher Education.
The committee’s report was generally negative about U-Multirank, stating that the Russell Group had said "ranking universities is fraught with difficulties and we have many concerns about the accuracy of any ranking”.
“It is very difficult to capture fully in numerical terms the performance of universities and their contribution to knowledge, to the world economy and to society,” the report said. “Making meaningful comparisons of universities both within, and across, national borders is a tough and complex challenge, not least because of issues relating to the robustness and comparability of data.”
Other witnesses claimed there was a lack of clarity about the proposal’s ultimate objectives, that the ranking market was too crowded, that it would confuse applicants and be “incapable of responding to rapidly changing circumstances in institutional profiles”, that it would “not allow different strengths across diverse institutions to be recognised and utilised” and that money was better spent on other things.
The committee also observed that the UK Government’s Department of Business Innovation and Skills was “not convinced that it [U-Multirank] would add value if it simply resulted in an additional European ranking system alongside the existing international ranking systems” and the minister struck a less positive tone when he told us that U-Multirank could be viewed as "an attempt by the EU Commission to fix a set of rankings in which [European universities] do better than [they] appear to do in the conventional rankings”.
Just why should the British government be so bothered about a ranking tool that might show European (presumably they mean continental here) universities doing better than in existing rankings?
Finally, the committee reported that “(w)e were interested to note that THES (sic) have recently revised their global rankings in 2010 in order to apply a different methodology and include a wider range of performance indicators (up from six to 13)”.
The committee continued: “They told us that their approach seeks to achieve more objectivity by capturing the full range of a global university's activities – research, teaching, knowledge transfer and internationalisation – and allows users to rank institutions (including 178 in Europe) against five separate criteria: teaching (the learning environment rather than quality); international outlook (staff, students and research); industry income (innovation); research (volume income and reputation); and citations (research influence).”
It is noticeable the Lords showed not the slightest concern, even if they were aware of it, about the THE rankings’ apparent discovery in 2010 that the world’s fourth most influential university for research was Alexandria University.
The complaints about U-Multirank seem insubstantial, if not actually incorrect. The committee’s report says the rankings field is overcrowded. Not really: there are only two international rankings that make even the slightest attempt to assess anything to do with teaching. The THE World University Rankings included only 178 European universities in 2011 so there is definitely a niche for a ranking that aims at including up to 500 European universities and includes a broader range of criteria.
All of the other complaints about U-Multirank, especially reliance on data collected from institutions, would apply to the THE and QS rankings, although perhaps in some cases to a somewhat lesser extent. The suggestion that U-Multirank is wasting money is ridiculous; €2 million would not even pay for four subscriptions to the Russell Group.
Debate
In the ensuing debate in the Lords there was predictable scepticism about the U-Multirank proposal, although Baroness Young of Hornsey was quite uncritical about the THE rankings, declaring that “ (w)e noted, however, that existing rankings, which depend on multiple indicators such as the Times Higher Educationworld university rankings, can make a valuable contribution to assessing the relative merits of universities around the world”.
In February, the League of European Research Universities, or LERU, which includes Oxford, Cambridge and Edinburgh, announced it would have nothing to do with the U-Multirank project.
Its secretary general said "(w)e consider U-Multirank, at best an unjustifiable use of taxpayers' money and at worst a serious threat to a healthy higher education system". He went on to talk about "the lack of reliable, solid and valid data for the chosen indicators in U-Multirank”, about the comparability between countries, about the burden put upon universities to collect data and about “the lack of 'reality-checks' in the process thus far".
In May, the issue resurfaced when the UK Higher Education International Unit, which is funded by British universities and various government agencies, issued a policy statement that repeated the concerns of the Lords and LERU.
Since none of the problems with U-Multirank are in any way unique, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that higher education in the UK is turning into a cartel and is extremely sensitive to anything that might undermine its market dominance.
And what about THE?
What is remarkable about the controversies over QS and U-Multirank is that Times Higher Education and Thomson Reuters, its data provider, have been given a free pass by the British and international higher education establishments.
Imagine what would happen if QS had informed the world that, in the academic reputation survey, its flagship indicator, the top position was jointly held by Rice University and the Moscow State Engineering Physics Institute (MEPhI)! And that QS argued this was because these institutions were highly focused, that they had achieved their positions because they had outstanding reputations in their areas of expertise and that QS saw no reason to apologise for uncovering pockets of excellence.
Yet THE has put Rice and MEPhI at the top of its flagship indicator, field- and year- normalised citations, given very high scores to Tokyo Metropolitan University and Royal Holloway London among others, and this has passed unremarked by the experts and authorities of university ranking.
For example, a recent comprehensive survey of international rankings by Andrejs Rauhvargers for the European University Association describes the results of the THE reputation survey as “arguably strange” and “surprising”, but it says nothing about the results of the citation indicator, which ought to be much more surprising.
Let us just look at how MEPhI got to be joint top university in the world for research influence, despite its lack of research in anything but physics and related fields. It did so because one of its academics was a contributor to two multi-cited reviews of particle physics. This is a flagrant case of the privileging of the citation practices of one discipline which Thomson Reuters andTHE supposedly considered to be unacceptable. The strange thing is that these anomalies could easily have been avoided by a few simple procedures which, in some cases, have been used by other ranking or rating organisations.
They could have used fractionalised counting, for example, the default option in the Leiden ranking, so that MEPhI would get 1/119th credit for its 1/119th contribution to the Review of Particle Physics for 2010. They could have excluded narrowly specialised institutions. They could have normalised for five or six subject areas, which is what Leiden University and Scimagodo. They could have used several indicators for research influence drawn from the Leiden menu.
There are other things they could do that would not have had much effect, if any, on last year’s rankings, but that might pre-empt problems this year and later on. One is to stop counting self-citations, a step already taken by QS. This would have prevented Alexandria University getting into the world’s top 200 in 2010 and it might prevent a similar problem next year.
Another sensible precaution would be to count only one affiliation per author. This would prevent universities benefitting from signing up part-time faculty in strategic fields. Something else they should think about is the regional adjustment for the citations indicator, which has the effect of giving universities a boost just for being in a low-achieving county.
To suggest that two universities in different countries with the same score for citations are equally excellent – when, in fact, one of them has merely benefitted from being in a country with a poor research profile – is very misleading. It is in effect conceding, asJohn Stuart Mill said of a mediocre contemporary, that its eminence is “due to the flatness of the surrounding landscape”.
Finally, if THE and Thomson Reuters are not going to change anything else, at the very least they could call their indicator a measure of research quality instead of research influence. Why should THE and Thomson Reuters have not taken such obvious steps to avoid such implausible results?
Probably it is because of a reluctance to deviate from their InCites system, which evaluates individual researchers.
THE and Thomson Reuters may be lucky this year. There will be only two particle physics reviews to count instead of three so it is likely that some of the places with inflated citation scores will sink down a little bit.
But in 2014 and succeeding years, unless there is a change in methodology, the citations indicator could look very interesting and very embarrassing. There will be another edition of the Review of Particle Physics, with its massive citations for its 100-plus contributors, and there will be several massively cited multi-authored papers on dark matter and the Higgs Boson to skew the citations indicator.
It seems likely that the arguments about global university rankings will continue and that they will get more and more heated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)