Talk:Times Higher Education World University Rankings
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Times Higher Education World University Rankings article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Criticism and Praise?
editIt seems that "criticism" occupies a lot of space in this article. The antonym of criticism being praise, I believe a "Praise" section should be started to balance this article. Emanuel Kingsley (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- That section was duplicated word-for-word in the QS World University Rankings, which owns the previous data and methodology, and is continuing its publication. The THE ranking hasn't even been published yet, and thus has no criticisms and therefore old ones specific to the THE-QS, now called only QS, do not apply.CrazyPaco (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Ad-like statement.
editI think that for such ad-like statements as:
- "Thomson Reuters has the largest citation database available", as well as:
- "is the only true cited index reference"
should be source cited, which is different than company's own website.
Also, what does it mean: "the only true" ? Whats true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.86.5 (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- unnecessary spam and now removed. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Misleading?
editThis article implies that the rankings that will be produced by Times Higher Education from 2010 onwards are a continuation of those that it published from 2004-2009. In fact these rankings were produced by QS, which retains the intellectual property and will continue to publish them according to the same methodology on the website www.topuniversities.com as well as in other media partners. They are now known as the QS World University Rankings. The Times Higher Education World University Rankings is a new exercise, and will be the first time that Times Higher Education has produced a ranking of its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannybyrne (talk • contribs) 13:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Not misleading
editIt's factually accurate that between 2004 and 2009 Times Higher Education published the world university rankings with data supplied from QS. These were known as the Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings. After deciding to end the partnership with QS, Times Higher Education will be publishing the rankings with data provider Thomson Reuters from 2010 and beyond. These will be known as the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. It will be the 7th year that Times Higher Education has printed a world university rankings; however the data provider and methodology will be new. Times Higher Education are very happy to clarify that QS has no involvement whatsoever in the new Times Higher Education World University rankings. - Jellybub (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Germany
editThis entire ranking system seems risible when German universities aren't getting a look-in against the English-speaking universities here. A paltry 6 German universities - the highest ranking at No. 29 - appear in the Top 100 for 2014-2015. 11 UK universities appear, the highest at No. 3., in the Top 100. Given that Germany is easily the greatest industrial and economic power in the EU, and has produced so many of the world's greatest philosophers and composers, is it possible that this ranking has enormous cultural bias in favour of the anglophone world? 188.141.10.11 (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Have no doubt about it. Anglo-Saxon propaganda can be really gross. Ping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5EC0:FC2D:39B7:CBEE:7BF5 (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
please check ranking
editHi,
it seems the ranking has been vandalised several times. I reverted a bunch of changes, but may have missed some - would appreciate if someone checks. Nathijs (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Shrinking the Coverage
editTo facilitate regular updates, I suggest that we reduce the coverage of the global table from top 50 to simply top 10, like those regional ones. It's quite hard to rearrange all those institutions for the right places while at the same time filling in all the previous ranks for new comers. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 18:39 Tuesday, 6 September 2016 (UTC)