30% of the ranking's rating is based on nobel laureate/fields medal in alumni or staff. 20% based just on amount of publications in Nature and Science.
I never know why people rate these rankings so highly when there are such unimpressive metrics like these.
Not to mention that this particular ranking does not seem to consider education at all anyway, which is what the GP was talking about.
I never know why people rate these rankings so highly when there are such unimpressive metrics like these.
Not to mention that this particular ranking does not seem to consider education at all anyway, which is what the GP was talking about.