When we published the 2009 rankings last month, there was a lively online debate about the methodology. Comments included:
- "The tables seem to be based mainly on people's perceptions, so the best-known universities are at the top."
- "This method favours universities of huge size, while there is nothing to prove that education is better in bigger institutions."
- "The number of reviewers involved in the peer-review survey should be well-represented globally."
- "The data collected should be made more transparent."
- "UCL and Imperial above UC Berkeley and Princeton? Give me a break."
- "This method favours big commercial universities with huge propaganda machines and lavish intellectual property offices."
- "Germany and France are doing most research in special institutions outside of the universities. Therefore, the ranking for France and Germany is nonsense."
- "International students should not be directly translated to an absolute measure of quality."
Help us develop our methodology. What makes a world-class university? What have we got wrong? What criteria would you use? Join the debate at http://tinyurl.com/yap542l.