Expensive and mediocre garbage
Comment on An American city has been without power for 2 weeks, unacceptable.
DupaCycki@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Most advanced in what? The US is not even the top dog in military tech anymore.
sudoer777@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
chunes@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I know it’s fashionable to claim that the US sucks at everything here on lemmy, but is this really a serious question? The US dominates in academia and scientific research and it’s not even close. e.vnexpress.net/…/us-universities-dominate-global…
DupaCycki@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I have to admit I did not expect the US to still perform so well after losing thousands of academics this and last year.
However, reading the article you linked, it strikes me as a pointless victory. A statistic that won’t lead to anything meaningful.
Sure, it’s cool that academics and scientists publish a lot of articles, but does it really matter if nobody reads them because access is paywalled? And does it really matter if government institutions, as well as private companies, will just go against the research, because they could not care less?
Personally, I’d be much more interested in something that tracks public access to academia, and its impact on society, especially government’s decision making. Because to me, this just feels like GDP. Good for bragging about being top 1, and nothing else.
Still, I have to give the empire at least a little credit for its universities’ performance.
3abas@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
That criteria is weighed at 40% of the ranking.
The number of US universities that switched to “research university” and the pressure on all academic staff to publish publish publish probably has something to do with the rankings…
Is the ranking rigged? No, it’s published by a Chinese university. I’m saying US universities are gaming it.
Is doesn’t judge quality of published work, just quantity of published works and number citations. GIGO? It’s hard to tell on a short term.
From Wikipedia: “The ranking has been criticised for “relying too much on award factors” thus undermining the importance of quality of instruction and humanities.”
In a report from April 2009, J-C. Billaut, D. Bouyssou and Ph. Vincke analyse how the ARWU works, using their insights as specialists of Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM). Their main conclusions are that the criteria used are not relevant; that the aggregation methodology has a number of major problems; and that insufficient attention has been paid to fundamental choices of criteria.[27]
The ARWU researchers themselves, N.C. Liu and Y. Cheng, think that the quality of universities cannot be precisely measured by mere numbers and any ranking must be controversial. They suggest that university and college rankings should be used with caution and their methodologies must be understood clearly before reporting or using the results. ARWU has been criticised by the European Commission as well as some EU member states for “favour[ing] Anglo-Saxon higher education institutions”. For instance, ARWU is repeatedly criticised in France, where it triggers an annual controversy, focusing on its ill-adapted character to the French academic system[28][29] and the unreasonable weight given to research often performed decades ago.[30] It is also criticised in France for its use as a motivation for merging universities into larger ones.[31]
There’s more criticism. Take the ranking with a cup of salt.
emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Shanghai rankings account for the number of Nobel Prize / Fields Medal winners, meaning they look at how good the institution was historically, rather than purely how good it is now. If you rank universities by current research output, such as the Leiden Ranking, it’s a very different picture.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
Unfortunately while there are many alternative approaches of equal or greater value than the Shanghai rankings, citation analysis really isn’t a great alternative. It’s one of the most criticized methodologies for some very good reasons and, while Leiden does better than most at controlling for things like citation mills, their methodology has some real flaws (their criteria for designating “core journals,” for example). This is one of the most interesting topics in meta-academics right now, and as can be shown in this somewhat infamous paper from fudan university the reason is that impact is a great deal more complicated than any simple metric can represent.