RIP Wayne Guest

[Shawn0000]

16 hours ago, Fookhaht said:

This ranking process is fraught with conflict-of-interest motives, cronyism and self-congratulations.    It's much like the Oscars--where Hollywood uses it as a showcase to promote itself.  

I've observed the process up close and personal.  
 

First of all, the QS system is made up of the universities that comprise its membership, and is by no means a comprehensive group of world-wide universities.   It is only one of many ranking groups/organizations for universities.   Further, It's a body that ranks itself.  The source data?  Mostly unaudited information supplied by the universities themselves.  I shudder to think of the "smoke and mirrors" data that is supplied across the board by the schools who want to put their best foot forward.  

It's not the only one ranking group---there are MANY university ranking groups and each one has its own spin and membership.   The purpose?  Strictly commercial/economic:  to attract students and boost applications.   

The motivation, membership, and process is a classic case study in conflict-of-interest motives and processes. 

The reliability of rankings?  The operable expression here is:  "grain of salt."    

Probably the best ranking assessment would be to aggregate the data of the 26 or so university ranking organizations in order to get a truer picture of where your particular favorite university stands.  Even then, IMHO, it's not an objective nor necessarily accurate evaluation.  A nearby university ranks at 300 on one list, but at approximately 6,000 on another organization's ranking.  Talk about shaking your faith in the ability to home in on a "true" ranking, whatever that is!  

 

The rankings are on 6 criteria, none of which are manipulable by the university, they are: Academic reputation, taken from an international survey of academics, Employer reputation, taken from an international survey of employers, Citations per faculty, taken from the largest international database of papers, International and Foreign student ratio, well I guess they could lie about that bit but each of those is only worth 5%, the previous 90% of the score all coming from outside of the university.  So what exactly are you on about, and exactly what did you "observe up close and personal"?

[Shawn0000]

10 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

go look again - most are not ranked only grouped

 

They are still grouped according to their rank, they only give a specific numbered rank for the top 400.

[Usernames]

23 hours ago, orchidlady said:

Talk about spin. Don't think those results are anything to brag about. Mahidol appears to have made some progress while the rest stagnate. Thai university staff publish a lot however very rarely in the top international peer reviewed journals. Wonder why? Offer to edit a paper(it's required duty of most foreign teachers at said universities) of Thai university teachers. They do present at local conferences and internationally. But the international conferences are unique.

They travel abroad (paid junket) to Europe to present papers at conferences that are held in hotels by corporations staging simultaneous conferences for diverse subjects. NES colleagues invited to present at an international conference by the leading linguistics association happened to be in same city one time as the Thai colleagues. Went by to see some of their presentations and was surprised either 0-3 people present to listen. Most of.conferences they post on the faculty away board are by this same organization. They can take a weekend travel trip before and after. My university had now added the.requirement that publication must be done within 2 years of.international presentation to be eligible for another paid international presentation. Thus the scramble to get their work published in Thai peer reviewed English language journals. The (lack of) quality astounds. We hired a new foreign teacher who stated on.his.resume he was a reviewer for an esteemed ESL international journal. He is being hounded to see if he can get their papers in.the journal bypassing the system.

"Mahidol appears to have made some progress while the rest stagnate."

 

Six years ago, Mahidol rated at around 236 in the same rankings, I believe.  

[LannaGuy]

1 hour ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

They are still grouped according to their rank, they only give a specific numbered rank for the top 400.

 

exactly so you cannot extrapolate 5%  

Edited September 7, 2016 by LannaGuy

[Fookhaht]

 

The rankings are on 6 criteria, none of which are manipulable by the university, they are: Academic reputation, taken from an international survey of academics, Employer reputation, taken from an international survey of employers, Citations per faculty, taken from the largest international database of papers, International and Foreign student ratio, well I guess they could lie about that bit but each of those is only worth 5%, the previous 90% of the score all coming from outside of the university.  So what exactly are you on about, and exactly what did you "observe up close and personal"?

Nice quotation from their PR material. Apparently that's as deep as you can go.

Without giving away too much personal detail, you see a different side of the coin when you've mixed with the administrators of both the ranking organization and the schools who supply the data; and have sat through QS meetings (with those same administrators) which go through the process in detail.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shawn0000]

14 minutes ago, Fookhaht said:

Nice quotation from their PR material. Apparently that's as deep as you can go.

Without giving away too much personal detail, you see a different side of the coin when you've mixed with the administrators of both the ranking organization and the schools who supply the data; and have sat through QS meetings (with those same administrators) which go through the process in detail.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

How does that work when it isn't the schools who supply the data?  When you say "without giving too much away" are you not wanting to give away the fact that you are making things up?

[Fookhaht]

 

How does that work when it isn't the schools who supply the data?  When you say "without giving too much away" are you not wanting to give away the fact that you are making things up?

#1. Don't misquote me to make your point.

#2. Nice try, but I'm not going to take the bait.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shawn0000]

23 minutes ago, Fookhaht said:

#1. Don't misquote me to make your point.

#2. Nice try, but I'm not going to take the bait.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It's hardly a misquote.  Anyway, don't worry too much about it, lots of people on here try to make themselves sound important, you are nothing unusual.

[Fookhaht]

 

It's hardly a misquote.  Anyway, don't worry too much about it, lots of people on here try to make themselves sound important, you are nothing unusual.

Skeptics, naysayers, and those who are content to parrot the public relations-level of information fed to them are "a dime a dozen" in today's world.

Don't fret. I'm not worried. It's more like "sadly amused."

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fookhaht]

A helpful primer for those who swallow university rankings hook-line-and-sinker.

This discusses just one controversy in the much wider world of self-serving organizations that rank universities. However, it does include the organization which is central to this thread.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/9584155/University-rankings-which-world-university-rankings-should-we-trust.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shawn0000]

2 minutes ago, Fookhaht said:

A helpful primer for those who swallow university rankings hook-line-and-sinker.

This discusses just one controversy in the much wider world of self-serving organizations that rank universities.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/9584155/University-rankings-which-world-university-rankings-should-we-trust.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

They speak of the fact that the rankings use different criteria and that this is useful to prospective students, that is not a controversy it is just difference in their systems, QS being more aimed at foreign students.  I really have no idea what your beef is, you claim to have inside information on some sort of fraud at QS but wont give any information for "fear of giving too much away", when of course there would be nothing to be afraid of, you could sell a story like that to the press, all that can be assumed is that don't really have one.

[Shawn0000]

13 minutes ago, Fookhaht said:

Skeptics and naysayers are "a dime a dozen" in today's world. Don't fret. I'm not worried.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Only a fool would not be skeptical of someone claiming to have seen something which they refuse to describe.

[Fookhaht]

Rather than constant reliance on the red herring or poisoning-the-well, one should try to focus on the argument at hand: the verifiability, accountability and transparency of university ranking organizations.

A simple Google of "university rankings" and "truth" can open a whole new world to the skeptic. At least it would help one get out of their rut of trying to discredit one poster who is an obvious charlatan. Go ahead and try it. It shouldn't hurt too badly.

On the other hand, I may be dealing with "the good old boy" network here. Possibly a lost cause. Oops, don't want to also add poison to the well. Sorry.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shawn0000]

9 minutes ago, Fookhaht said:

Rather than constant reliance on the red herring or poisoning-the-well, you should try to focus on the argument at hand: the verifiability, accountability and transparency of university ranking organizations.

A simple Google of "university rankings" and "truth" can open a whole new world to the skeptic. At least it would help you get out of your rut of trying to discredit one poster who is an obvious charlatan. Go ahead and try it. It shouldn't hurt too badly.

On the other hand, I may be dealing with "the good old boy" network here. Possibly a lost cause. Oops, don't want to also add poison to the well. Sorry.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Either present your "evidence" or shut up, simples.

[Usernames]

On 9/6/2016 at 8:03 AM, webfact said:

Eight Thai universities make world rankings

 

I guess the rest of them were just out of this world.

[Fookhaht]

Already done (as much as one can do under an avatar on a public forum).

Hope, at the least, I've goaded some into doing their own homework. Those who aren't lazy, that is. I know. It's easier to simply try to stifle discussion with challenges to shut up. Same as the leftists' tactics to curb free discussion on American college campuses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fookhaht]

 

I guess the rest of them were just out of this world.

...or having rankings between 2,000 - 6,000 (colleges/universities in my town). Yes, basically out of this world.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shawn0000]

9 minutes ago, Fookhaht said:

Already done (as much as one can do under an avatar on a public forum).

Hope, at the least, I've goaded some into doing their own homework. Those who aren't lazy, that is. I know. It's easier to simply try to stifle discussion with challenges to shut up. Same as the leftists' tactics to curb free discussion on American college campuses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It was not an attempt to stifle anything, quite the contrary, if you actually say something then we can discuss it, as you have only claimed to have witnessed something but fail to specify just what that was, there is no opportunity to discuss anything, is there?  You posted a link to something a moment ago with a comment claiming that it told of a controversy, although in the article there was none, you are not coming across as terribly bright.

[Fookhaht]

44 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

It was not an attempt to stifle anything, quite the contrary, if you actually say something then we can discuss it, as you have only claimed to have witnessed something but fail to specify just what that was, there is no opportunity to discuss anything, is there?  You posted a link to something a moment ago with a comment claiming that it told of a controversy, although in the article there was none, you are not coming across as terribly bright.

You missed the controversy in that article?  My goodness, and at the same time, you can identify not-terribly-bright posters?  Except by sharing common traits, possibly?  

Your continued method of "debate" (red herring and poisoning the well) show that you missed freshman Debate101. 

 

Edited September 7, 2016 by Fookhaht

[Shawn0000]

1 minute ago, Fookhaht said:

You missed the controversy in that article?  My goodness, and you can identify not-terribly-bright posters?  

 

Yup, because there isn't any, the entire premise of the article is to remove the controversy over these different rankings that exists in some peoples minds merely because they show different results, as they do of course serve different purposes and thus compliment each other.

[Shawn0000]

8 minutes ago, Fookhaht said:

You missed the controversy in that article?  My goodness, and at the same time, you can identify not-terribly-bright posters?  Except by sharing common traits, possibly?  

Your continued method of "debate" (red herring and poisoning the well) show that you missed freshman Debate101. 

 

 

Lol, all I want you to do is support your initial claim with just any little scrap of information that could give some indication that you are not merely a fantasist, failing that you could admit that you were lying, neither of these simple requests are the red herring nor the poisoning of the well.

[Fookhaht]

14 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Yup, because there isn't any, the entire premise of the article is to remove the controversy over these different rankings that exists in some peoples minds merely because they show different results, as they do of course serve different purposes and thus compliment each other.

Confirmation that you missed it.  Further, what do compliments have to do with the article? Good job, Bright One.

 

Edited September 7, 2016 by Fookhaht

[Fookhaht]

4 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Lol, all I want you to do is support your initial claim with just any little scrap of information that could give some indication that you are not merely a fantasist, failing that you could admit that you were lying, neither of these simple requests are the red herring nor the poisoning of the well.

Already answered this.  Now you prefer to fly in circular logic.   Not going to join you.    I bet you're a good fisherman.  You really know how to cast the bait.  However, some of us fish have more experience than you allow. 

Edited September 7, 2016 by Fookhaht

[Shawn0000]

5 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

 

exactly so you cannot extrapolate 5%  

 

Complement.  I don't think you have to be bright at all to not waste your time hanging on to a typo, but I guess that's the best you can do.  I note you again fail to explain yourself and just insist that it is so, you're clearly not capable of having a conversation.

[Shawn0000]

1 hour ago, Fookhaht said:

Already answered this.  Now you prefer to fly in circular logic.   Not going to join you.    I bet you're a good fisherman.  You really know how to cast the bait.  However, some of us fish have more experience than you allow. 

 

No, your comments are all above, you have not explained what the QS do that is outside of their claims, you are accusing them of being fraudulent but fail to state exactly what this mystery process that you claim to have witnessed consists of.  How whatever this is could be going on in thousands of universities without anyone reporting it is beyond me, perhaps it is because you made it up?

[Shawn0000]

 

2 hours ago, Fookhaht said:

Already answered this.  Now you prefer to fly in circular logic.   Not going to join you.    I bet you're a good fisherman.  You really know how to cast the bait.  However, some of us fish have more experience than you allow. 

 

I think a worm makes for a better analogy for your side of the argument.

[LannaGuy]

2 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Complement.  I don't think you have to be bright at all to not waste your time hanging on to a typo, but I guess that's the best you can do.  I note you again fail to explain yourself and just insist that it is so, you're clearly not capable of having a conversation.

 

I think you are a rude and arrogant individual and I was polite and simply pointed out that it's not 5%

[Shawn0000]

27 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

I think you are a rude and arrogant individual and I was polite and simply pointed out that it's not 5%

 

It was meant to be a reply to the comment two above yours, your comment was actually correct, i wasn't aware of exactly how it works but it turns out their system is a little odd in how they group the ones who do not make the top.

[Shawn0000]

31 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

I think you are a rude and arrogant individual and I was polite and simply pointed out that it's not 5%

 

It was meant to be a reply to the comment two above yours, your comment was actually correct, i wasn't aware of exactly how it works but it turns out their system is a little odd in how they group the ones who do not make the top.

[LannaGuy]

23 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

It was meant to be a reply to the comment two above yours, your comment was actually correct, i wasn't aware of exactly how it works but it turns out their system is a little odd in how they group the ones who do not make the top.

 

ah ok i thought it was a little odd... thank you for your integrity