Society European university ranking 2013/14

Italy got a lot of scientists and are Romance speakers.
Sweden compared to Norway got a lot more scientists.
I do not think is relevant to what group of people your ethnicity belongs,in how good a University is .
For example,Russians and Ukrainians are almost same people,but education is a lot more developed in Russia,compared to Ukraine.
As for your note that Eastern Europe Universities are not in the top ,that is really not important for me,because this is only a measurement done by some people way of seeing things.
A more fair measurement of how good education+how people in a country are is the number of medals at international Olimpics,where things are quite different.
Here for example the results of International Mathematical Olympiad:
https://www.imo-official.org/results.aspx

Yes, I was about to post something similar. Also ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest shows that the winners of the past 13 years always came from either Russia, Poland or China.
Before the winners were always from english-speaking countries and the contest itself was founded in the US. The shift to the east happened around year 2000. Interesting again is the absense of south europeans.
The university ranking posted by Maciamo seems to incorporate also past performances (prices, publications, citations), so one should be cautious as the contest results might change the ranking if these eastern countries catch-up economically. I think the university ranking indeed does reflect economic power because intellectual capacity must be applied in an organized way in order to be successful.

YearCountryInstitution
2013 RussiaSaint Petersburg State University of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics
2012 RussiaSaint Petersburg State University of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics
2011 ChinaZhejiang University
2010 ChinaShanghai Jiao Tong University
2009 RussiaSaint Petersburg State University of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics
2008 RussiaSaint Petersburg State University of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics
2007 PolandUniversity of Warsaw
2006 RussiaSaratov State University
2005 ChinaShanghai Jiao Tong University
2004 RussiaSaint Petersburg State University of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics
2003 PolandUniversity of Warsaw
2002 ChinaShanghai Jiao Tong University
2001 RussiaSt. Petersburg State University
2000 RussiaSt. Petersburg State University
1999 CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
1998 Czech RepublicCharles University
1997 United StatesHarvey Mudd College
1996 United StatesUniversity of California, Berkeley
1995 GermanyAlbert-Ludwigs-Universität
1994 CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
1993 United StatesHarvard University
1992 AustraliaUniversity of Melbourne
1991 United StatesStanford University
1990 New ZealandUniversity of Otago
1989 United StatesUniversity of California, Los Angeles
1988 United StatesCalifornia Institute of Technology
1987 United StatesStanford University
1986 United StatesCalifornia Institute of Technology
1985 United StatesStanford University
1984 United StatesJohns Hopkins University
1983 United StatesUniversity of Nebraska
1982 United StatesBaylor University
1981 United StatesUniversity of Missouri–Rolla
1980 United StatesWashington University in St. Louis
1979 United StatesWashington University in St. Louis
1978 United StatesMassachusetts Institute of Technology
1977 United StatesMichigan State University
 
Last edited:
This has nothing to do with religion and it has nothing to do with haplogroups. It has to do with the concentration of capital, as has been pointed out upthread. Just follow the money, and not the money in the individual pocket, but the money that is concentrated for investment. Money that comes from some quasi-feudal system of land ownership also doesn't count.

Were the ancient Greeks Protestants and predominantly U-106 when they established the academies and western philosophy, history and science in Athens, and Sicily, and Alexandria? I don't think so.

Were the Arabs of Baghdad and Al-Andalus Protestant Christians and predominantly U-106 when they created the centers of learning for the world of that period?

Were the Renaissance Italians who established the first universities in 'modern' Europe, the first medical school, the elements of modern banking, and rediscovered and applied the science and the medicine of the ancients U-106, and Protestant?

I don't think so. If a hypothesis is going to be proposed, it has to account for all of this, all of these people of myriad religious traditions and genetic make-ups, not just the last three hundred years. That's a blip in the history of mankind.

You can actually follow the concentration of capital, and the formation of universities, through modern European history...Italy, France and the Low Countries, Britain, the U.S., and now the Far East has been added. Before the Renaissance, as I stated, the picture was quite different.

The Italian education system was still quite good until fairly recently, surprisingly so given the lack of funds and the rigor and stultifying effect of the university tenure system, when it fell prey to the stupidities of various socialistic ideas, such as the open admissions policies at the universities that was adopted only a few decades ago. The result is that tremendous sums of money are expended on students who will never finish university because they are incapable of doing the work.

And, as was mentioned upthread, you need the sustained effort of an organized body both to concentrate capital and to develop top notch universities. In an era of industrialization, you also need need large quantities of natural resources, which usually means large nation states, i.e. the U.S. Russia, China. England has managed to hang on even though the glory days when it dominated the world are over, (which ended, btw, when its access to the natural resources of other countries came to an end), but some of that has to do with the position of London in terms of the world markets.

The culture of a country is formed by the accretion of customs over time as the result of different historical events. Genetics may play some role, but a country's culture is not deterministically mapped in the genomes of its people. Otherwise, Germans would still be the large creatures incapable of sustained hard work who seemed to spend all their time lolling around in a drunken stupor, as described by Tacitus.

Oh, and to my knowledge I don't believe any of the snps involved in intelligence, or the capacity for hard work for that matter, have been found to be located on the y chromosome.
 
The Nordic countries, Ireland and Austria all have relatively small populations, so even though they all have relatively high GDP per capita, that doesn't mean that they have the kinds of large pools of capital necessary to pay for the creation and maintenance of elite educational institutions. And the Nordic countries were poor until the 20th century and Ireland was quite poor until a few decades ago. However, Austria was the head of a large empire until about 100 years ago, so if it never was a world leader in terms of elite universities, we'd have to look at some other factor, such as the catholic versus protestant issue meaning less individualism and perhaps less admiration for learning.

Switzerland has a smaller population than Austria or Sweden. That did not prevent it from outranking even large countries like France, Italy and Spain. Actually the Netherlands outranked even Germany, which is five times more populous.

Looking at it from another angle, small countries like Ireland, Denmark or Finland all perform better than Italy, Spain or Poland, and almost as well as France.

So size doesn't mean anything. England and the Netherlands outrank all other countries in per capita figures too.
 
I like the use of the word "foreign", like the Americans are really natives in the place that they live. Take for example yourself, who may believe that you are an American (may be true in papers), but you may be only a second generation migrant, so far away from the fathers who created the U.S.

As far as the students are concerned. Of course they should help their countries when they will go back. After all education is for that reason, to make our lives better and help our people. Eventually I hope for convergence, and not divergence.

P.S. Why do you specifically mention MIT and probably other IVY leagues? If they deserve to go there what is the problem? Or you simply want the prerogatives to stay in the U.S.A so that the dominance will continue? Well, eventually this is not going to happen, especially nowadays where information is global. And apart from that, have you ever considered how many international students are doing PhDs compared to the Americans? Just a reminder ...

I'm European born and 'partly' bred and proud of it; I'm also a proud American. The two are not incompatible. Many Europeans seem to have a very limited understanding of America and what it means to be an "American"; it is not based on bloodlines. In fact, it's been my experience that often those of us who have some basis for comparison with other countries are "more" appreciative of what this country has to offer, and what things make it unique. I don't give a **** whether somebody is descended from Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln combined, it doesn't make them more "American" than I am. Nor has it ever been suggested or even hinted to me that I'm in any way a "second class" American because I chose to become a citizen, rather than having been born one.

This isn't the Balkans, you know. Most Americans have quite happily put the worst aspects of these ethnic differences behind us. The kind of tribal bickering, and "trash talk", and more so, the outright warfare, including mass rapes and ethnic cleansing that periodically break out between the different European ethnicities is incomprehensible to most Americans, and contributes to the distrust of Europe and to the large strain of isolationism that is just beneath the surface.

As for foreign students, it would be nice if they showed some appreciation, if not gratitude, for the opportunities they are being afforded. I'm also a great believer in copyright and intellectual property rights...people and institutions should get to keep the benefit of the intellectual property they have fostered and developed. If those people choose to share it, that's their decision, not one that should be made for them. So, were the decision up to me, I would not be particularly inclined to educate a foreign national whose country doesn't recognize those norms.
 
A lot from the success of an University is about what teachers it has.
It is very normal that for an Eastern European Country,except Russia,teachers are not great since salaries are low.
Russia has much better salaries at teachers.
One of the reasons US has best Universities in what the students from there are achieving is because they have very good teachers,since teachers are paid very well and are very respected there.
 
A lot from the success of an University is about what teachers it has.
It is very normal that for an Eastern European Country,except Russia,teachers are not great since salaries are low.
Russia has much better salaries at teachers.
One of the reasons US has best Universities in what the students from there are achieving is because they have very good teachers,since teachers are paid very well and are very respected there.

Exactly;
In the USA most Universities are Private (i.e. costs lot of money ~tens of thousands of $ to get in) which is of course used for the experts and libraries and research centers etc.; In Germany for example the Unis. are Public and only some areas are required to pay a fee of ~200-500 Euros and the courses are usually in German which doesnt make it attractive for International students unlike Britain and USA; Which are also factors for these rankings; Prague and Krakow should not be forgotten as for the great Medieval/Renaissance Unis. Prague was in fact the first German speaking University;
 
Switzerland has a smaller population than Austria or Sweden. That did not prevent it from outranking even large countries like France, Italy and Spain. Actually the Netherlands outranked even Germany, which is five times more populous.

Looking at it from another angle, small countries like Ireland, Denmark or Finland all perform better than Italy, Spain or Poland, and almost as well as France.

So size doesn't mean anything. England and the Netherlands outrank all other countries in per capita figures too.

Switzerland can be explained away by the availability of large amounts of capital out of all proportion to its population. A lot of rich people choose to live in Switzerland. But I'll admit that my theory doesn't explain why Holland performs so well.

Perhaps the real issue is elitism. I know that the average Canadian university is better than the average American university but none of our universities compare to the top American universities. The emphasis here in Canada is more on making sure that all universities are up to a certain standard, rather than on sifting for the best, whereas the Americans seem to strive to have a few really excellent universities and throw the rest of their students into lesser institutions without worrying as much about quality in those places. As a result, while University of Toronto is a very good university, it's not really in the same class as Harvard, whereas our smaller provincial universities provide a better education than what you could get at a post-secondary institution in Sheep's Butt, Montana or Deliverance, Alabama.

I don't know how that theory would play out in Europe, except that I do know that Oxford and Cambridge are reputed to be quite elitist.

In Europe, the north/south divide does seem to be real, at least at the present. Although Angela is correct in pointing out that wasn't always the case, it certainly seems to be true now. As for religion, Ireland is almost as Catholic as Spain but outperforms it.
 
I'm European born and 'partly' bred and proud of it; I'm also a proud American. The two are not incompatible. Many Europeans seem to have a very limited understanding of America and what it means to be an "American"; it is not based on bloodlines. In fact, it's been my experience that often those of us who have some basis for comparison with other countries are "more" appreciative of what this country has to offer, and what things make it unique. I don't give a **** whether somebody is descended from Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln combined, it doesn't make them more "American" than I am. Nor has it ever been suggested or even hinted to me that I'm in any way a "second class" American because I chose to become a citizen, rather than having been born one.

This isn't the Balkans, you know. Most Americans have quite happily put the worst aspects of these ethnic differences behind us. The kind of tribal bickering, and "trash talk", and more so, the outright warfare, including mass rapes and ethnic cleansing that periodically break out between the different European ethnicities is incomprehensible to most Americans, and contributes to the distrust of Europe and to the large strain of isolationism that is just beneath the surface.

As for foreign students, it would be nice if they showed some appreciation, if not gratitude, for the opportunities they are being afforded. I'm also a great believer in copyright and intellectual property rights...people and institutions should get to keep the benefit of the intellectual property they have fostered and developed. If those people choose to share it, that's their decision, not one that should be made for them. So, were the decision up to me, I would not be particularly inclined to educate a foreign national whose country doesn't recognize those norms.

Okay, I understand the point.
Now assume the hypothetical scenario in which USA and Italy are at war and you are at an age and both countries call you to fight. Which country will you fight for? This will give you an answer of what you really are. It is clear that you have to make a choice, especially if you are a male.

BTW, the notion of citizenship (e.g., being an American) has nothing to do with ethnicity (e.g., being an Italian). And could you please share a couple of thoughts of what does it mean to be an American?

And also, what is your point in education: someone comes in the USA and gets educated. I find it quite normal for someone, should he go back, or wherever he goes actually, to use the knowledge he acquired, his human capital in order to have a good work and help the society where he lives. Why should he not use his knowledge outside the US?
 
I'm going to take a stab in the dark, and say the English language has to do with the ranking of European colleges. I don't have numbers and this is just an educated guess, but I bet countries with large populations that speak both their native tongue and English have more prestigious colleges. The economical and social world order is dominated by the English language, and I bet as well (I don't have statistics) that those who speak English and their native tongue have on average a higher per capita.

It's quite obvious that a prestigious college is cyclical in funding and recruitment. If on average the top paying professions require knowledge of the English language, then countries that support English bilingualism will attract college funding from their successful bilingual citizens. More funding equates to better professors, better recruitment, more money for research and development, highly educated graduates, successful graduates, and back to alumni funding (directly or indirectly).

This could be completely BS, but seemed to make sense.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorieclark/2012/10/26/english-the-language-of-global-business/

- "Instead, English will maintain and grow its dominance, moving from “a marker of the elite” in years past to “a basic skill needed for the entire workforce, in the same way that literacy has been transformed in the last two centuries from an elite privilege into a basic requirement for informed citizenship.”"
 

This thread has been viewed 21947 times.

Back
Top