Talk:Times Higher Education

list size

I think the general rank list should go up to 50.--Zereshk 23:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

New list

A new list has been released, but you have to be a subscriber to access it from the official website. Is there anyone with access to it? Some updates are probably due. --Brendanfox 09:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The Engineering / IT toplist

Can you please stop changing the Engineering/IT list? Last time I looked at the THE website (2004 version), the number one and two were the University of California, Berkeley and MIT, respectively. Editing a Wikipedia article to give incorrect information that suits your taste is nothing but childish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Till Sawala~enwiki (talk • contribs) 16:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Update the 2005 rankings

Could someone update the 2005 THES rankings into the chart, so its not just a list above the 2004 rankings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.149.70 (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

University of Texas at Austin at #9 in North America? Are they kidding? Neutrality^talk 04:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the top post, although I understand that THES used a particular ranking formula, Having UT Austin ranked top ten in North America is bordering on ridiculous. With all due respect, I am sure the sensible students and faculty at UT Austin would agree that it is not in the league of the Havards and Stanfords. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.140.207 (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The THES rankings list is seriously flawed in many aspects. Australian universities are over-rated, whereas Canadian and British institutions (aside from Oxbridge) are very under-rated. The ranking methodology is not consistent and comprehensive to rate universities worldwide. A better alternative to this set of rankings is the Shanghai JiaoTong Top 500 list. However, even that list has its limitations. 218.111.50.181 01:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do you say that Australian universities are overrated and that Canadian and British institutions are underrated? Can I ask you what university you attend(ed) or work at? Just James 10:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"A better alternative to this set of rankings is the Shanghai JiaoTong Top 500 list." I disagree. The Shanghai ranking is laughably flawed in its criteria which is heavily biased against institutions which do not cater or specialise in Science/Engineering. If i remember correctly the LSE (for one exmaple) did not even make the ranking when it first came out which is an absolute joke. I honestly find it hard to accept the accusations of bias with regard to the criteria used. siarach 10:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh? Really? SJTU ranking is more flawed than this one (which says Hong Kong University> Stanford)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.52.179 (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I added universities 26-200 from the THES 2005. They gave a trial membership for 14 days, i downloaded the list ages ago. Aslate 23:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

staffing level table footnote

i don't understand the footnote to this table. the table doesn't score all the faculty or all the students. just the international ones. but the student/faculty score is for internation and domestic, right? --jashar 22:29, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

Removal of =199, University of Georgia

Someone added the following row to the table:

199= University of Georgia, Athens USA 20.8

This doesn't appear of my list from the THES, i have removed this until there is proof it should be there. Aslate 17:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

university list

number 10: "ecole polytechnique" is located in switerland NOT in France!!! And the official name is ETH (german: Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule; englisch: swiss federal institute of technology) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.170.91.146 (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

But the ecole polytechnique in Paris is rather better known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.229.246 (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

ETH is Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and well known as ETH. "Ecole Polytechnique" is situated in Paris. For more information, you better have a look on the original ranking published by Times. Niaz bd 21:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Peking University

The official name of "Beijing University" is "Peking University". However rumour has it that the authority has proposed to change the offical name to "The University of Beijing" in 2006, "Peking University" is still used in its offical webpage. So, I change it to its official name accordingly. Powermac 02:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The ranking is generally criticized for its ranking basis that favors British universities.

I have cut this unreferenced assertion. My research doesn't show that the ranking is generally criticised. Most references simply accept it. Can anyone find any other references?--Duncan 09:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The only reference which ive seen provided is a poorly written, infantile, unrepentantly POV and laughably ignorant ( it refers to the wrong bloody newspaper for goodness sake!) link to some media indian media website or other. In the 3 or so years these rankings have been going ive yet to see any genuine criticism of them - unlike the Shanghai rankings for example which were immediately heavily criticised upon their inception for their huge bias against institutions which do not specialise or favour Science/Engineering. Unless some decent references can be provided to show that there is widespread condemnation of the THES world rankings no mention of this apparent phenomenon should be made. siarach 10:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Favours british universities, why are so many US ones on the list then --58.161.113.85 03:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is absurd. Your logic is that there're still some US universities remained, this shows not biased? If you look at any other rankings which are based on objective data, there should be 50-60% US universities in top 100, and 80-90% in top 20. If you look into the data provided by Wuhan University based on publication quality and quantity, Cambridge is only comparable to US 15-20 University, not to mention Oxford. This QS ranking shamelessly put Ox and Cam at world #2 in general ranking, and claim that they are world No 1 in Science! Isn't this called favours UK university? ~~plmunich

"I am a Wikipedia contributor training at the Tavistock Clinic, in London, mainly contributing on aspects of socialism." OK, I see that you have a good reason to defend this ranking and unmatched reputation of UK universities in the world. You can keep blind on the data which demontrate the great distance UK universities are behind of the US. You can keep calling them "poorly written, infantile, unrepentantly POV and laughably ignorant".

I don't want to waste my time to figure out all links refute your claim that "Most references simply accept it, other rankings are heavily critisized", even if I make such efforts you still dischard them simply wih youur insulting words, rather than any reasoning.

This is data provided by Wuhan University http://rccse.whu.edu.cn/SmallClass.asp?BName=大学评价&BType=0&SName=世界大学评价2007

General ranking: http://rccse.whu.edu.cn/college/sjdxkyjzl.htm

Specialized ranking: http://rccse.whu.edu.cn/college/sjkyjgxkjzlphb2007/sjkyjgxkjzlphb2007.htm

For social science you may be interested: http://rccse.whu.edu.cn/college/sjkyjgxkjzlphb2007/shkx.htm

Hope those data doesn't hurt you much. Anyway, you may still believe what you want to believe, and reject what you don't want to believe as crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.52.179 (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you ever consider the fact that Oxford and Cambridge are actually quite good and deserve to be in the No 2 place? No, you didn't, did you? Also, if you had bothered to read the full pamphlet, they go in some detail explaining about how BOTH US and UK universities together dominate the results and why this is. But you didn't read it, did you? --69.123.112.18 (talk) 05:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Penn?

Stupid brits ranked Cornell above the venerable U Penn? Have they not heard of Penn's #1 business school (Wharton) and #3&4 Law and Med schools (USNews)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.224.210 (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think its undergraduate rankings, and Wharton nor UPenn Law nor UPenn medicine are undergrad. Meanwhile, Cornell is much mor e undergrad oriented.--69.123.112.18 (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

UCL #1??

Why is University College London in first place... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.56.64 (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Because somebody vandalised this article. You have to clear your browser cache to see the correct list. Valentinian ^{T / C} 10:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Table sorting does not work

If I click on the column head to sort by, say, 2005 ranking, the results are not sorted numerically, but rather alphabetically, so "10" follows "1". This should be fixed, could anyone tell the programmer-in-charge? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.161.144.74 (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Rankings are Great

They start so many unnecessary flame wars.

"OMG My School isn't #1?!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quanticles (talk • contribs) 00:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Where to see details

There are numerous ways to access the rankings without paying. If your just interested in top 200, goto (http://www.paked.net/higher_education/rankings/times_rankings.htm) for the rankings. But if you need full info like top USA, top UK, top science, top medicine etc, goto thes.co.uk and register for a free trial. Simply copy and paste all rankings in a safe place (like Excel or Word, or save as images) since the trial expires after 15 days. If you are interested in the new rankings I recommend you do not register for the free trial just now but wait till the 2007 rankings become available (this summer). This paragraph has been contributed by Ahsan Rahim, Pakistan.

I've moved the section above from the article space. The tone is not encyclopedic enough. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Date of each annual ranking publication

It would be great if the month and day of each annual ranking publication was clearly indicated. I saw that the first 2004 ranking came out in November (according to your article) but is that the month of every offical ranking publication? Also, is there a certain day of the month that it happens? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.17.65.14 (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Addition of ownership structure

Hello - I have created a new Ownership section for the Times Higher Education entry as the publication has changed ownership several times over the past few years and has now been split up from TES Global by its latest owners. Additionally, I have also included a mention of THE's recent moves to enter the for-profit international student recruitment and housing markets. Finally, I updated the Company entry in the description summary box on the right from TES Global to Inflexion. Happy to discuss further should any wiki experts here feel the page could be improved further. Thank you, HEwonk (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Request edit on 15 February 2021

• What I think should be changed: Times Higher Education (THE), formerly The Times Higher Education Supplement (THES), is a magazine supplement reporting specifically on news and issues related to higher education. SHOULD BE CHANGED TO, ‘Times Higher Education (THE), is a UK higher education data provider [1], providing insights, analysis and news on universities worldwide.’

• Why it should be changed: I am a Communications Executive working for THE, and have made this amend to coincide with our updated company definition, as per the recent Forbes article I have referenced. There are also a number of errors and outdated data in the rest of the article which we'd like to fix. Is there a Wikipedia editor I could speak to directly to sort this? Thank you.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

SilkTHE (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

References

@SilkTHE: Let start by saying I've never heard of this publication before which isn't terribly surprising nor important — I only mention it to explain why I might ask questions what you think are fairly obvious.

Your proposed edit implicitly suggests removing "formerly The Times Higher Education Supplement (THES)". I don't think we have a formal standard for when such a clause should be included or more importantly when it should be removed. Very casually speaking, it seems useful shortly after a change in name, and ought to be retired eventually. Can you fill me in on when the change in name occurred? I glanced through the article and think it is been some time but I'm not fully sure.

The current wording, "reporting specifically on news and issues related to higher education" is neutral and hopefully accurate. The proposed wording "providing insights, analysis and news on universities worldwide" is less neutral. It's potentially acceptable if it is commonly stated in multiple reliable sources, but in my opinion simply finding one or two publications referencing insights an analysis is not enough. I also note the addition of "worldwide".

The Forbes reference is not remotely useful. While portions of Forbes are acceptable as a high quality reference, Forbes permits contributed articles which are barely better than advertisements. I'm fairly certain that the general consensus is that contributed articles do not qualify as reliable sources.

I would be happy to help correct errors and outdated data.

Ping me specifically and make sure to provide:

• existing wording
• proposed wording
• a link to a reliable source

In each case.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I fully concur with Sphilbrick’s assessment of this request. I am very familiar with Times Higher Education; it was, and is, a British education news publication.

Since new owners took over the publication in 2019, they have pushed to add more revenue streams. Fair enough, it’s a business. Hence my addition of the publication’s last three significant business ventures (SI-UK, Capita and StudyPortals tie-ups) into this wiki.

For users with COI -- I believe future edit requests should focus on expanding the History section so we can keep this encyclopaedic, whilst keeping in mind that not everything the publication does is necessarily notable. Requests to modify the WP:LEAD itself with any such product expansion marketing spin would simply contravene WP:SOAP.

Thanks, HEwonk (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Thanks for your feedback, but we disagree on multiple points and do not believe that this Wikipedia article is in any way accurate as to what our business is or how it operates. The publication still exists and is part of our offer, particularly in the United Kingdom but we have, since 2004 been a provider of global international rankings and are globally better known in this space than as a publisher. Our rankings business has grown to compile data from 3,500+ universities, comprising 9 million datapoints, and is used by universities and governments around the world in support of their HE strategies. I appreciate that Wikipedia will only state the facts, and that is all we ask, but at present this article is misleading and erroneous. In this regard, how can we best move to get this amended in a way that is satisfactory for Wikipedia while ensuring accuracy?

In terms of citations, most media sources accept sponsored content, but this is nearly always flagged as such so I'm not sure how we can get to a necessary threshold of citations if we are unable to use media as a source for this? Perhaps we could leave this page to be purely about the publication (as I said, one stream of our business but not by any stretch the largest globally), and start a new page about the business itself that is factually accurate and fair? Any advice you can give in this regard would be helpful - we only seek to ensure information is up to date and relevant.

@Hewonk: Are you able to assist with the above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilkTHE (talk • contribs) 10:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding 'THE Campus' to Times Higher Education's page

• What I think should be changed: 'On 4 February 2021, Times Higher Education (in collaboration with Microsoft, Arizona State University, and Cintana Education), announced the launch of THE Campus. THE Campus provides global university educators with peer-to-peer knowledge sharing and resources to help them address the challenges of online teaching and study.

• Why it should be changed: THE Campus went live on February 4th.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SilkTHE (talk • contribs) 12:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Changing 'Frequency' section from 'Weekly' to 'Fortnightly'

What I think should be changed: "Frequency - Weekly" needs to be changed to "Frequency - Fortnightly"

Why it should be changed: The print version of the THE magazine is delivered to subscribers on a fortnightly basis, not weekly.

References supporting the possible change: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/store — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilkTHE (talk • contribs) 12:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Why no early history?

"Interesting" that the first 37 years are reduced to a single sentence. Surprisingly no mention of the many illustrious journalists who worked on the Times Higher Education Supplement in its newspaper incarnation, including founding editor Brian MacArthur, his successor (Sir) Peter Scott, Lord (Peter) Hennessy, Christopher Hitchens, David Hencke, David Walker, Judith Judd and others. 146.90.130.179 (talk) 08:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Archive?

Any suggestions where I can find online a source from 2013 THES? It doesn't appear to be covered by Newsbank or PressReader, available from my local library. Specifically I'm looking for this 2013 article to help source the Burston entry in List of fictional British and Irish universities. PamD 08:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)