Canada has 4 out 100 of best universities on plane

[mirror]

Cambridge climbs to second in world university rankings

Harvard remains the leader of the top 500 universities, a list compiled by Shanghai Jiao Tong University which is now widely quoted as a measure in the academic world.

Canada has 4 universities in the top 100

U of T

UBC

McGill

McMaster

How do you think Canada is doing in the world scheme of academia particularly science academia?

[Toro]

Allright, UofT!

Do you have the actual rank? Or link?

[mirror]

Sorry, it was in the Guardian article:

Link

U of T - 24th

UBC - 37th

[Shady]

I have a HUGE problem with that list. Where the hell is WESTERN?

[mirror]

Have you checked all 500 schools?

[mirror]

Western is on the list in the 203-300 section. Remember it focuses on science.

[Guest eureka]

The problem I have is that (unless it is in the criteris somewhere), there seems to be an emphasid on quantity while not relating it to size of student bodies. For instance, Oxford and Cambridge Universities in the days of not so long ago, had enrollments of only 7000 where the American Universities were very much larger, Those two are still much smaller than the major American, or Canadian universities.

How does number of Nobel Prize winners relate to that? And, I look at quality in terms more of the Liberal Arts Programmes and there effect on quality of life rather than just technology.

[Toro]

Western, pfft!

Actually, the knock against Western is that it isn't a particularly well known school outside of Canada.

[RB]

all the universities have their niches

Western is a top business school in canada

Waterloo is a top technology

York is Law and business

UofT is Medicine, business and law

McMaster is Medicine

[Argus]

And, I look at quality in terms more of the Liberal Arts Programmes and there effect on quality of life rather than just technology.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

God save us.

One of the many social problems of the Muslim world is that by far, by FAR the biggest area of study in Muslim universities is - the Koran, Islam. Most students at Muslim schools are studying the Koran instead of something useful.

And one of the problems aflicting Canada at the moment is too many students wasting their time on arts programs instead of learning something useful. Canada is graduating too many people in English, Social Science, Political Science, and other useless areas, most of which never find work in their area anyway. The junior temp secretary upstairs is a Social Sciences Grad. The junior clerk across from me is a Poli Sci grad. The junior purchasing clerk we hired who was unemployed for ten months prior to that, is a double major in Psychology and Political Science. None of these clerk jobs, btw, requires more than high school, so they basically wasted their four or five years on learning crap. And finding no work, they were delighted, ecstatic to finally get hired with us.

What Canada needs to maintain or enhance its position in the world is more engineers, more computer science majors and fewer psychology majors, more architects and scientists and fewer art history graduates. What students need is for someone to tell them a few realities of life; like that I've yet to interview or even see an application from a physics major or an industrial designer or a mechanical engineer for one of these jobs. They all seem able to get jobs in their field - unlike all these soft sciences people.

And in case you ask - Business Administration - so at least I'm doing what I studied for.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Canada is graduating too many people in English, Social Science, Political Science, and other useless areas, most of which never find work in their area anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I like your little shift from unemployable to "useless." Is everything that doesn't result in financial reward useless?

What Canada needs to maintain or enhance its position in the world is more engineers, more computer science majors and fewer psychology majors, more architects and scientists and fewer art history graduates.

Actually, most computer related fields are so over saturated at the moment that a degree in english will likely lead to better job prospects. 99% of post-secondary science students will contribute absolutely nothing in terms of scientific or technological advancement. In short, their degrees carry the exact same weight as one of those "useless" liberal arts degrees. Basically, the degree demonstrates that they were willing to work at something for 4 years, do what they were told (on schedule), and are able to read and write at least reasonably well. Heck, they may have even developed problem solving and communication skills.

[Canuck E Stan]

Basically, the degree demonstrates that they were willing to work at something for 4 years, do what they were told (on schedule), and are able to read and write at least reasonably well.

Heck, they may have even developed problem solving and communication skills.

So what happened to Paul Martin?

[geoffrey]

Let the people graduate with poli sci and english degrees. Leaves more jobs for the rest of us that understand where there is real money to be had. Plus it creates tons of teachers.

There is simply too many people in universities anyways, and we can't have an over abundance of professionals. We should be raising tution rates and standards to exclude more people so we aren't wasting our resources on people that will not use those resources to contribute back to society. Like Argus said, most of these arts majors spend 4 or 5 years to become a clerk. That is money better invested in our business schools, medical schools, sciences and engineering.

I'd be interested in knowing the government's portion of tution payments, or more correctly worded, their contribution per undergrad. I would not be shocked if we are spending millions if not billions on these, yes, useless graduates.

My U of C is 174, it will be nice to see that improve with the latest major investment from Ralph and the 700mil in additional improves they plan over the next couple years.

[Guest eureka]

When I left school, Argus, at fifteen years of age, I was artiled to a Chartered Accountant. Thus, by the age of nineteen I would have had the equivalent of a Bachelor of Commerce. That is what a business degree is worth: exemption from the intermediate exams for an Accountant.

At tthat time, most of what are called scientists and engineers; that would encompass computer scientists had there been such, went not to Universities but to technical colleges. Most lacked the intellectual capacity to cope with the real purpose of universities which is to educate people in the "proper study of mankind."

We are a little broader minded noawadays and let these inferior classes call themselves university graduates. It doesn't really matter that universities have had to be dumbed down considerably to accomplish that. What matters is keeping the plebes happy.

[Argus]

At tthat time, most of what are called scientists and engineers; that would encompass computer scientists had there been such, went not to Universities but to technical colleges. Most lacked the intellectual capacity to cope with the real  purpose of universities which is to educate people in the "proper study of mankind."

Sorry, Eureka, but I've spent far too much time on campus and around graduates to not snicker at that kind of suggestion, even though I'm pretty sure you don't mean it at all seriously. The fact is that virtually anyone can get through a Canadian university liberal arts program. There's nothing particularly challenging to the intellect in any of them. It's just listening, reading, and regurgitating. Nor have I observed among liberal arts grads (or others, come to that) any great degree of intellectual enlightenment or stimulation which has widened the thinking, opened the minds, or allowed for more logical and coherent consideration of problems. That's not to say some of them aren't very bright, liberal arts or not, but it seems to me that most get through university without ever being taught how to think.

Now I'm not one of those who believes that universities should be simple trade schools. I'd like to see young minds be stimulated into full growth mode, whether they're liberal arts majors or computer geeks. Most grads I know come out of university knowing a lot about their particular specialty and virtually nothing about anything else. The self-righteous political stands taken by liberal arts majors, for example, could do with the knowledge gained in a few basic economics classes, while the computer geeks could stand to learn a little about humanity. But I digress...

As I said, there is simply nothing challenging about most liberal arts courses. But computer courses, programming and analysis, that can get mentally trying, and higher level mathematics and science courses are certainly challenging. In fact, the kind of applied mathematics neccesary to most engineering, architectural courses gives me a headache.

Reading poetry, on the other hand, just puts me to sleep.

I do enjoy history, but most history is taught by idiots, badly, and in a way calculated to bore people. And, like English is for people who never intend to leave university.

As for teachers - it seems to me that if you don't know what to do in life, aren't too smart, and think the world owes you a living, you become a teacher. Again, it's not hard. You don't have to be smart to be a teacher. You just need to be able to memorise large chunks of text and regurgitate them. Some of the most eye-blinkingly dumbest people I know are teachers. We made the mistake of having a teaching student as a summer hire for a couple of years. God, she was dumb. Nor could she be trusted with the simplest tasks. I can remember trying to find work for her to do and going around asking clerks "Are you busy, need any help?". They'd always answer yes, until I told them who the help would be, then they'd refuse it. Better to do it themselves. It took less effort than browbeating this lazy girl, and at least it'd be done right. She graduated and was hired by a school in her last summer, and she sent around an email telling us all about it. I replied "God help those kids". She thought I was joking.

[RB]

geoffrey Posted Today, 02:12 AM

Like Argus said, most of these arts majors spend 4 or 5 years to become a clerk. That is money better invested in our business schools, medical schools, sciences and engineering.

Universities aim to promote smart and critical thinking people. If you didn't know it, this means in terms of employer-university relation unrevealed to one another that to alienate less educated and less privileged people and this separation might include those who are intelligent and could not afford a good education would also promote economics and status divide.

I work in the area of labor and can say that many of the folks who possess only high school diploma but has years of experience are astound when a twenties year old move up the ranks in a zap with monetary raises to match. We are educating far too many people who have above marginal intelligence with public monies, with no result or contribution to this economy except personal gain.

Well, I sometimes think that the education requirements for a clerk post is hugely inflated and hence the universities need to keep up with the demands of some artificial departments like liberal art studies that have no impact in an occupational context.

[I Miss Trudeau]

The fact is that virtually anyone can get through a Canadian university liberal arts program. There's nothing particularly challenging to the intellect in any of them. It's just listening, reading, and regurgitating.

Sadly, that describes virtually every area of study these days.

The self-righteous political stands taken by liberal arts majors, for example, could do with the knowledge gained in a few basic economics classes, while the computer geeks could stand to learn a little about humanity. But I digress...

Honestly, there is nothing to be gained in terms of real world understanding by 90% of economics classes. The focus is invariably on perfect systems, ie. the type of systems that are mathematical constructs and nothing more.

As I said, there is simply nothing challenging about most liberal arts courses. But computer courses, programming and analysis, that can get mentally trying, and higher level mathematics and science courses are certainly challenging.

I would agree that graduate level and honors level math and science courses are challenging. Most, however, are not. Much like any other area of study.

In fact, the kind of applied mathematics neccesary to most engineering, architectural courses gives me a headache.

Applied mathematics is rote memorization.

Reading poetry, on the other hand, just puts me to sleep.

I never thought we'd agree on something.

I do enjoy history, but most history is taught by idiots, badly, and in a way calculated to bore people.

In short, in a way that demands factual accuracy and study, rather than ideological commitment.

And, like English is for people who never intend to leave university.

Much like, say, cccphysics.

As for teachers - it seems to me that if you don't know what to do in life, aren't too smart, and think the world owes you a living, you become a teacher.

Or a government employee.

[kimmy]

In fact, the kind of applied mathematics neccesary to most engineering, architectural courses gives me a headache.

Applied mathematics is rote memorization.

That is an utterly laughable comment.

-k

[ceemes]

I take it that my Alma Mater, BCIT did not make that list? Now that really really sucks, especially now that BCIT has degree certified programmes as well as diploma only programmes and is widely considered to be the priemier Technical School in Canada, on par with MIT in the states, especially in the fields of robotics.

I studied Logistics there years and years ago, and out of a original intake of of 26 students, only 13 survived to graduate. (Only the top 26 of over a thousand applicants were accepted each year....how I got accepted, god only knows) Of my original intake, we had two UBC Poli-Sci (isn't Political Science an oxymoron on the scale of Military Intelligence?) grads who bailed after the first semister, seems our work load was a tad bit too insane for them. Most of those who bailed from the Logistics programme went into easier programmes, Management Systems, Human Resource Managment, Marketing or even Financial Management.

Although I am extremely proud and pleased with myself at having not only survived and but also graduated from the BCIT Logistics programme with a fairly respectable placing, I was a bit browned off as well.

The work load at BCIT is staggering. The year starts right after Labour Day and continues well into May with finals. On average, BCIT students have between 30 to 40 hours of class and lab time per week(depending on the programme and term), after which they have to make time for studies and projects, of which there is usually three major projects per term. What most BCIT students accomplish in their two years programme, most SFU and UBC students will not nor are expected to accomplish in their four years at Uni...and for all that effort, BCIT students walk away with only a diploma and not a degree...bummer.....

[I Miss Trudeau]

That is an utterly laughable comment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Apply X theory at Y time is really all you need to know. You want difficult math, do mathematical logic or number theory.

[Argus]

The fact is that virtually anyone can get through a Canadian university liberal arts program. There's nothing particularly challenging to the intellect in any of them. It's just listening, reading, and regurgitating.

Sadly, that describes virtually every area of study these days.

I disagree. Memorization skills are all you need to get through law school, but there are sterner requirements for physics

Honestly, there is nothing to be gained in terms of real world understanding by 90% of economics classes. The focus is invariably on perfect systems, ie. the type of systems that are mathematical constructs and nothing more.

Again, I disagree. You don't intuitively understand the link between monetary policy and inflation, or the underlying reasons why trade subsidies and tariff walls are a bad thing for a country. I agree that the mathematical constructs are unrealistic in the real world, but you still learn a lot about how an economy functions from taking a few economics courses. I think that's a good thing for a citizen to have.

As I said, there is simply nothing challenging about most liberal arts courses. But computer courses, programming and analysis, that can get mentally trying, and higher level mathematics and science courses are certainly challenging.

I would agree that graduate level and honors level math and science courses are challenging. Most, however, are not. Much like any other area of study.

I guess you're just a genius "Miss Trudeau" because all those formulas in Mathematics of Finance, not to mention Marketing and Economics were something of a trial to me.

In fact, the kind of applied mathematics neccesary to most engineering, architectural courses gives me a headache.

Applied mathematics is rote memorization.

You can memorize some formulas, it's true, but to be any good you need to understand what those formulas mean, the basis of why the X is equal to Y/4 (multiplied a hundredfold of course). If you are taught that a Welshman named JD Farnsworth invented Pastries in 1402 you simply need to memorize that. You don't need to understand it on any kind of level. But you do need to understand what lies behind the formulas and the reasoning behind their logic.

As for teachers - it seems to me that if you don't know what to do in life, aren't too smart, and think the world owes you a living, you become a teacher.

Or a government employee.

No, you become a government employee because you want job security and some protection against arbitrary management styles. But you don't study to become a government employee. There is no university course you can go into to become a government employee. This, of course, leaves aside the fact that teachers ARE government employees - just with a lot more holidays and no way to measure their skill level, knowledge, or productivity, and no way to punish them if they are dreadfully bad.

[I Miss Trudeau]

I disagree. Memorization skills are all you need to get through law school, but there are sterner requirements for physics

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To get through law school, you not only have to learn and memorize a vast amount of case law, but also how to apply precedents to individual cases. In physics, you do much the same thing. Start with a body of knowledge, and try to build out from it in a logical way.

Again, I disagree. You don't intuitively understand the link between monetary policy and inflation, or the underlying reasons why trade subsidies and tariff walls are a bad thing for a country. I agree that the mathematical constructs are unrealistic in the real world, but you still learn a lot about how an economy functions from taking a few economics courses. I think that's a good thing for a citizen to have.

Thats what I'm getting at, though. In the currently fashionable economic theory, subsidies and tariff walls are a bad thing for country. It doesn't explain why the list of the wealthiest nations in the world is composed primarily of protectionist states.

I guess you're just a genius "Miss Trudeau" because all those formulas in Mathematics of Finance, not to mention Marketing and Economics were something of a trial to me.

And learning and applying sociological theories is a challenge for some people, too. Perhaps you chose a major that didn't match your skill set? Likely because you didn't want a "useless" degree.

You can memorize some formulas, it's true, but to be any good you need to understand what those formulas mean, the basis of why the X is equal to Y/4 (multiplied a hundredfold of course). If you are taught that a Welshman named JD Farnsworth invented Pastries in 1402 you simply need to memorize that. You don't need to understand it on any kind of level. But you do need to understand what lies behind the formulas and the reasoning behind their logic.

No university level history course I have ever taken has ever been quite so simple as you suggest. It was never enough to say "Farnsworth invented pastries in 1402." Students were always expected to be able to explain and understand the larger forces at work that lead pastries to be invented in 1402, instead of 1424, and in Wales rather than Austria. Ok, pastries are an admittedly bad example here, but you get the idea.

No, you become a government employee because you want job security and some protection against arbitrary management styles. But you don't study to become a government employee. There is no university course you can go into to become a government employee. This, of course, leaves aside the fact that teachers ARE government employees - just with a lot more holidays and no way to measure their skill level, knowledge, or productivity, and no way to punish them if they are dreadfully bad.

Most degrees are a fairly good ticket into the civil service. That reason alone is why a lot of people decide to major in an area of interest, rather than something "useful." The government doesn't care if the clerk they're hiring has a degree in Classics or electrical engineering. What does it matter?

I will agree that teachers need to be monitored and tested far more than they currently are.

[RB]

I Miss Trudeau,Oct 9 2005, 02:09 AM]

Argus,Oct 8 2005, 11:42 PM]I disagree. Memorization skills are all you need to get through law school, but there are sterner requirements for physics

To get through law school, you not only have to learn and memorize a vast amount of case law, but also how to apply precedents to individual cases. In physics, you do much the same thing. Start with a body of knowledge, and try to build out from it in a logical way.

If memorization is the only skill needed to get through law school why don't you folks try and lobby for those arts students and others to enter into law school huh?

There is something called application of relevant law when you have accurately identified your issues. It also calls for abilities, smarts and interpretation - usage of common sense.

Law school is not only about memorization - sorry.

[Yaro]

Law school is not only about memorization - sorry.

Depends on what kind of law, but yes a great deal of Law school is memorization.

There is something called application of relevant law when you have accurately identified your issues. It also calls for abilities, smarts and interpretation - usage of common sense.

Lawyers do not use a significant amount of common sense, which is the ability to predict the response of ones surrounding in a reasonable way and applying it continually. What lawyers do is apply a specific logical construct that is represented by the legal system and through the use of specific language.

That is an utterly laughable comment.

I don't see why, a good 99% of mathematics is rote memorization. I could go into a diatribe out higher mathematics but less then .0000001% of the population participates in the use of any kind of developmentry mathematics while a good 20 or so % of the population uses mathematics in a rote way.

I guess you're just a genius "Miss Trudeau" because all those formulas in Mathematics of Finance, not to mention Marketing and Economics were something of a trial to me.

If the mathematics of Finance and the generally applied non doctoral level marketing and economics mathematics were a trial for you then I would suggest that your basic understanding of mathematics was lacking because those three topics are some of the most simplistic mathematics you will ever find anywhere.

I take it that my Alma Mater, BCIT did not make that list? Now that really really sucks, especially now that BCIT has degree certified programmes as well as diploma only programmes and is widely considered to be the priemier Technical School in Canada, on par with MIT in the states, especially in the fields of robotics.

BCIT is a fine school, and I have in my employee a half dozen of there robotics and electronics graduates in my employee. But they are a step below both MIT and Waterloo (which is the most accomplished school in Canada).

At tthat time, most of what are called scientists and engineers; that would encompass computer scientists had there been such, went not to Universities but to technical colleges. Most lacked the intellectual capacity to cope with the real purpose of universities which is to educate people in the "proper study of mankind."

WTH does this mean exactly? that engineers and scientists are lower grade of intellectual then liberal arts graduates? I really hope that’s not what you’re saying...

In the end this list is utter crap, the insanely skewed mechanics used in developing this list which are incredibly biased towards Ivy league and other named institutions and towards western universities as well as those with political clout and away from technical institutions (where most of the most pure intellectuals go) is obvious. Take a look at the names on 80 or so of the last 100 noble laureates and you will find they are names that hold a great deal of political sway.

[Guest eureka]

I agree that the list is crap, Yaro: I also meant what I said about the various schoolings. In my day and in my system, only 4% of the population went to "Grammar" school and only 1% went on to University.

Of that, most were Liberal Arts scholars. Most of what are today called engineers or scientists would have attended technical schools not those at higher levels who would first have been through Liberal Arts programmes. Most Accountants, Lawyers, and so on would have learned on the job." Doctors, many of them, would first have received a Liberal Arts education.

Perhaps this is why there was such a better level of understanding in sociey than there is today.