Firs of all I want to clarify that I don't have any sort of affliction with any of those institute in discussion, they are just taken as an example based on the facts that most of us already know them.
Now coming to discussion:
Minimum definition of "reputed data" in scientific world is, its generated or gathers by independent reliable sources(preferably more then one) and its quality is assured by independent internal and external parties along with open or peer-review fashion.
Few people advise to belief in "their data" or "their reputed data" but no one provide reason for such a belief. How they got data (other then functionary input), have any other secondly source of data? and how it become reputable. The only thing I can think of is data maturity in the process. One possible way to collect such data (scientific output) as a secondly source is data mining.
Let takes the first case of "their well reputed data"; fundamental question is what is the source of data other then functionary input?
(I don't wanna go in any particular case of NUST/GIKI QA process or functionary input) but if ranking completely rely upon data provided by the party then its again questionable source( as you are party in ranking). Some data can not be verified or simply don't have access at all.
In those cases which I pointed out in my first email, even googling does the job better then this ranking.
As Asif Mufti pointed out Peterson Guide is more or less stander, here is snip from CRELL report
The main findings of the report are the following. "Both rankings (SJTU and THES) are only robust in the identification of the top 15 performers on either side of the Atlantic, but unreliable on the exact ordering of all other institutes. And, even when combining all twelve indicators in a single framework, the space of the inference is too wide for about 50 universities of the 88 universities we studied and thus no meaningful rank can be estimated for those universities. "
P.S: Please don't stereotype people or nation. Its not a clash of interest issue either it is a simple question of belief.
Few reference:
http://globalhighered.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/crell-critiquing-global-university-rankings-and-their-methodologies/
http://libguides.csuchico.edu/rankings
Regards,
ISHTIAQ AHMAD
Now coming to discussion:
Minimum definition of "reputed data" in scientific world is, its generated or gathers by independent reliable sources(preferably more then one) and its quality is assured by independent internal and external parties along with open or peer-review fashion.
Few people advise to belief in "their data" or "their reputed data" but no one provide reason for such a belief. How they got data (other then functionary input), have any other secondly source of data? and how it become reputable. The only thing I can think of is data maturity in the process. One possible way to collect such data (scientific output) as a secondly source is data mining.
Let takes the first case of "their well reputed data"; fundamental question is what is the source of data other then functionary input?
(I don't wanna go in any particular case of NUST/GIKI QA process or functionary input) but if ranking completely rely upon data provided by the party then its again questionable source( as you are party in ranking). Some data can not be verified or simply don't have access at all.
In those cases which I pointed out in my first email, even googling does the job better then this ranking.
As Asif Mufti pointed out Peterson Guide is more or less stander, here is snip from CRELL report
The main findings of the report are the following. "Both rankings (SJTU and THES) are only robust in the identification of the top 15 performers on either side of the Atlantic, but unreliable on the exact ordering of all other institutes. And, even when combining all twelve indicators in a single framework, the space of the inference is too wide for about 50 universities of the 88 universities we studied and thus no meaningful rank can be estimated for those universities. "
P.S: Please don't stereotype people or nation. Its not a clash of interest issue either it is a simple question of belief.
Few reference:
http://globalhighered.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/crell-critiquing-global-university-rankings-and-their-methodologies/
http://libguides.csuchico.edu/rankings
Regards,
ISHTIAQ AHMAD
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Uzair Sukhera <uzairasif@hotmail.com> wrote:
If LUMS and other universities decide not to report on their ranking whose fault is it? The data is certainly not by googling. Its well reputed. We have a habit of turning down anything which is not as per our wishes!
NUST started its QA reporting more than 5 years ago and with consistent reporting, feedback, course evaluations, teacher evaluations and a lots of other reporting systems are in place.
Though i'm not the right person to comment on natural sciences ranking but i do know that NUST offers several degrees which have overlapping areas with many natural sciences fields. It has strong and established mathematics, modeling, virology & Immunology, Urban Planning & transportation, environmental sciences, material science programs. They have overlapping areas. Maybe this accounts for the ranking in this section.
If LUMS and GIKI are not in ranking the question should be directed to their QA offices instead of just dismissing the rankings altogether. For NUST QA can be reached at dqa@nust.edu.pk
Uzair Sukhera
Systems Engineering Grad '11
Cornell University
To: pakgrid@yahoogroups.com
From: unique7187@yahoo.com
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 23:46:29 -0700
Subject: Re: [pakgrid] Which university is at what ranking in the world: New world ranking of universities
the data and information submitted by the university officials to QS top universities play a vital role in ranking
From: ISHTIAQ AHMAD <ishtiaq.ahmad@gmail.com>
To: pakgrid@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [pakgrid] Which university is at what ranking in the world: New world ranking of universitiesThese ranking stuff screwed up badly. I'm wondering how they do this ranking (I mean data collection), just google??
I'm not talking over raking, data is in question over which this raking is done.
is it not funny that LUMS is not listed at all, and NUST don't have any thing in natural science. m I the only one here who is missing some thing?
http://www.topuniversities.com/institution/lahore-university-management-sciences-lums
Apart from Pakistani universities example I also looked for Dutch universities which I know well, result is almost same
Which remind me scientific publication score, putting Pakistan even lower then Mongolia
Regards,
ISHTIAQ AHMAD
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Qamar Mahboob <qamar_mahboob@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
AOA
Please visit the link below for new ranking of the world universities, published yesterday. It provides useful information to scientific researchers around the world.
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings
Best Regards
Qamar Mahboob
__._,_.___
MARKETPLACE
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment