Canadian Universities' Ranking 2013

[Seeking]

See link below - 

 

http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/tag/canadas-best-schools/

 

Perhaps those who have studied in Canada can comment.

[MissMoneyJenny]

Macleans is biased, they give bad ratings to Universities who do not participate in the ranking system. I believe the Times Higher Education Ranking is probably the best regarded ranking system; at least, most Universities brag about their ranking on this site more than their Maclean's Ranking. 

 

The top three on this ranking are generally considered the best schools in Canada anyway, although I have heard that McGill is slipping. Queen's is a lot of talk for their undergrads, I don't know much about their research levels. I know the University of Ottawa (my alma mater) is attempting to make leaps upwards in their research capacity. 

I really have no idea how comprehensive these ranking systems are though. 

[Seeking]

MissmoneyJenny,

 

Thanks for your comment.

 

I don't have much idea about the ranking of Canadian schools - except the top three on this list. You certainly know better than I do.

 

Queen's doesn't seem to be much represented on Gradcafe and I wonder why. The other top 3 are of course very well represented.

[booksnlooks]

Totally agree with MissMoneyJenny! Macleans is biased for rankings. Their descriptions of each school, however, are really useful if you want to get a sense of campus life.

 

Seeking - Queen's may not be well-represented because it's a pretty small school to begin with, both in terms of grads and undergrads. I looked up the number of grad students for the top schools, just out of curiosity, and Queen's has roughly 1/3 to 1/4 of the grad student population at McGill, UBC, and U of T.

[Seeking]

Thanks, booksnlooks,

 

I wasn't aware that Queen's is much small than the other top 3.

 

I wonder what would be a better ranking for the Canadian schools - as seen from the perspective from other countries such as the US and the UK.

 

Also, I don't know if ranking matters much within Canada.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Seeking

[Seeking]

Here is Collegesage ranking - 

 

http://www.collegesage.com/ranking/top-10-canadian-university-rankings/

[Roquentin]

Here is Collegesage ranking - 

 

http://www.collegesage.com/ranking/top-10-canadian-university-rankings/

 

Equal parts funny and sad. But shouldn't the U of S be in the #1 spot? After all, it received perfect marks across the board, owing to one very happy reviewer. Meaningless ranking.

 

(trying hard not to launch into full rant mode......)

[Seeking]

Roquentin,

 

That's what I also found puzzling - perhaps they took into account factors other than overly enthusiastic responses. 

 

I also wonder why Queen's is lower than UBC on this scale.

 

I any case, in Canada, a US degree seems to rank higher than any Canadian degree. Please read this other thread - 

 

Edited May 23, 2013 by Seeking

[Roquentin]

(shrugs)

 

It's a crummy ranking based on a few undergraduate reviews. Frankly, I don't see how it is relevant to this site.

 

I any case, in Canada, a US degree seems to rank higher than any Canadian degree. Please read this other thread - 

 

 

(trying hard not to launch into full rant mode......)

Edited May 23, 2013 by Roquentin

[Seeking]

They haven't said they asked only the Undergraduates.

 

Besides, I don't have much faith in the Professors' rankings either, considering what kind of politics they play when it comes to ranking.

 

I only posted the links to get people's perceptions about what they think of the various Canadian schools, since we don't have much discussion on that.

 

I neither agree nor disagree with these rankings.

 

But we are only having people telling us these rankings are biased, without saying what they consider as better ways to look at Canadian universities.

[Roquentin]

They haven't said they asked only the Undergraduates.

 

Besides, I don't have much faith in the Professors' rankings either, considering what kind of politics they play when it comes to ranking.

 

I only posted the links to get people's perceptions about what they think of the various Canadian schools, since we don't have much discussion on that.

 

I neither agree nor disagree with these rankings.

 

But we are only having people telling us these rankings are biased, without saying what they consider as better ways to look at Canadian universities.

 

 

The rankings are prefaced by a blurb that says:

 

"The team at CollegeSage interviewed 100 undergrad students and asked them to rank their top schools in terms of campus life, education, and employability. Here are the results.”

 

Should grad students worry about what 100 snowflakes think? No!

 

(unless, of course, they want to know that the UofA campus is cold during the winter (duh), that UBC offers a beer and whiskey tasting course, or that Dalhousie is a “fun” school)

 

Here is a better way of looking at Canadian universities: focus on individual departments instead of on entire universities.

 

Perhaps the most pernicious, misleading idea that published lists perpetuate is that university rankings should matter equally to grad students working in different departments across the spectrum of academia (well, rankings do matter from a propagandistic marketing perspective, I suppose). I believe that aspiring students are far better off when they compare departments rather than universities writ large.

 

I’m probably already preaching to the choir, but to help make my point I’ll give an example. University X consists of two departments: a brick-laying department staffed by dozens of Nobel laureates with money and facilities up the wazoo, and a pencil-sharpening department that is run by a single baby sloth who works in of the back of an El Camino that may or may not contain a pencil-sharpener. University X is consistently ranked as one of the top schools in the world based on the strength of its brick-laying department. But, as an aspiring grad student, my interests are in the field of pencil-sharpening. Should I follow the wafting musk of prestige and be supervised in pencil-sharpening by a baby sloth at University X because its brick-laying department is fabulous? No!

 

Instead, I’ll go to University Y, which has a perfunctory brick-laying department and is thus ranked lower overall than X. Its lesser ranking notwithstanding, University Y has a pencil-sharpening department that meets all of my key requirements – it’s not staffed by sloths, my supervisor can teach me how to sharpen pencils in a really fantabulous way, it’s located in a pleasant corner of the world, I’ll have opportunities to publicly showcase my sharpened pencils, and so forth. It’s the right choice.

 

So, when I was applying to Canadian PhD programs, I did my homework, and I realized that hey! – the pencil-sharpening department at the top-ranked university in the country does not employ any faculty / potential supervisors with expertise in my area of research. I didn’t apply there. And hey! – this department treats their TAs like slaves, and this department has a student-run journal I can be involved in, and this department has some cool research opportunities for me. As folks do, I considered any number of variables other than rank.

 

Now, I’ve heard that prestige matters more in some fields than in others, and I’ve heard that prestige is important to hiring committees. I’ve heard a lot of myths about prestige. But I believe that achievements are paramount, and that sometimes universities that don’t rank highly contain hidden gems – departments in which students mature professionally and succeed individually. At the same time, some prestigious universities have poor pencil-sharpening departments that don’t give students the best opportunities to flourish and establish themselves on their own merits.

 

In my search for a home, major published university-wide rankings told me nothing about the specific strengths and weaknesses, and pros and cons, that I needed to consider before making my decision. In the end, after some research, I picked the bowl of porridge that was just right for me. In my humble opinion, rankings like the ones you’ve posted don’t help students do that. They have to taste the bowls of porridge for themselves.

 

 

tl;dr Snowflakes, departments, a baby sloth, sharpened pencils, departments, departments, departments

[Seeking]

Well, that's an overly simplistic comparison. Prestige really matters - more in the Humanities and Social Sciences than in STEM - when you have a choice of two or more universities with equal strength of faculty in your field of interest, comparable funding and comparable resources.

 

All other things being equal, when you go for job interviews, the candidate from a higher-prestige university will always top a candidate from a lower department.

 

Your description still doesn't say what would you regard a better ranking of Canadian universities - the top 4 at least seem to be the same in all rankings across the board. And it's usually these top 4 that make the difference - unless the candidates from these top 4 are competing against candidates from the T-20 from the US or from the top UK universities. 

 

So, since the top 4 are the same in all these rankings, what would you regard a better ranking and why are these lists biased?

 

I do agree with your argument that departmental ranking may differ from the university ranking and in many cases it's the departmental ranking that matters. So, perhaps they should publish a department-wise ranking list.

 

I would also say that they should not club together the Undergraduate and Graduate rankings. They should have separate lists for these 2 categories. But these points need to be considered in other global rankings as well. 

[Roquentin]

Of course it’s a simplistic comparison, but I’m glad that you agree with my point that university rankings are an inadequate means of judging discrete departments. I’m not sure that moving to a system of departmental rankings produced by Macleans and the like is the answer, though, as you suggest.

 

One of the biases in university-wide lists, as others have identified, is that universities choose to participate differently in ranking processes – if the onus of providing info to Macleans were moved onto the shoulders of departments there would be a backlash. Some departments would comply while others would not, and the exercise would ultimately be futile when considered at a national level.

 

So, there’s that. Also, departments are tremendously flexible things – people get hired, people leave, funding is approved, funding is withheld.  Keeping on top of the vicissitudes of many hundreds of departments is beyond the grasp of any ranking body. I’m not confident that it could be done at that level.

 

As I’ve said, the rankings that should matter most to students who are deciding which school to attend are the rankings that they themselves are able to determine based on any number of personal and professional variables that matter to them. I’ve never encountered a situation that forced a student to choose between two schools distinguished only by their ranking. Talk about simplistic comparisons! There are always other differences and other variables to consider beyond the three you’ve provided – faculty, funding, and resources – and even those three are never identical between departments. In the end, personal, professional fit is essential to the stability that fosters grad student success.

 

I’ll address another fallacy in your argument – the idea that two candidates could be equal in everything that counts (ie. “all other things being equal”) and be distinguished only by the ranking of their graduating universities. No. Again, there are always other differences between applicants that will make them more or less suitable for a position. That’s why interview processes are so rigorous. More competition means more scrutiny and greater attention to detail.

 

But let’s bring it back to the question faced by an aspiring grad student. He might be inclined to think, hey! – I’ll be able to produce the same work (papers, presentations, etc.) and professionalize in the same ways regardless of whether I attend University X, which is very highly ranked, or University Y, which is not, so I’ll go with University X because, all other things being equal, I’ll have an easier time finding a job after my degree. No – it doesn’t work that way. Different universities bring students into contact with different ideas, people, and opportunities. If one undergrad were split into two people to attend two different schools, they would emerge as very different scholars with different aptitudes, capabilities, areas of teaching and research expertise, etc, based on the differences between any number of factors including their supervisors, instructors, peers, mentors, and the opportunities at their availability during their programs. They would look very differently to hiring committees for reasons unrelated to the rank of their schools. So, as one person forced to choose only one school, it behooves an aspiring grad student to pick the school that will give her the best chances to develop her abilities and prove herself on her own merits.

 

I’ll wrap up with one last point. If you look at the hiring rate of students from highly ranked schools, you will see that they tend to be quite successful. That is because highly ranked schools attract lots of bright students who have what it takes to make it, not because those students are able to coast by on institutional prestige. It’s equally important to stress that lots of bright students attend lower ranked schools and achieve success on the tenure track. Individual merit, from what I’ve seen in my field, is what wins the day.

[Guest |||]

Equal parts funny and sad. But shouldn't the U of S be in the #1 spot? After all, it received perfect marks across the board, owing to one very happy reviewer. Meaningless ranking.

 

(trying hard not to launch into full rant mode......)

 

How can they possibly think McMaster is a better school than McMaster

[Seeking]

Roquentin,

 

First, I didn't say if two candidates are equal - I said if two universities are equal in resources, funding, faculty strength etc. No two people can be equal ever - every individual has different strengths.

 

Now, about what you say about candidate's own ranking - You are talking about an ideal world, where everything is done by fair play.

 

This is not an ideal world. People don't do things by fair play. Professors and hiring committees least of all.

 

Yes, ideally a student should choose a university that answers best to their own needs and criteria. It's also correct that lots of bright students attend lower-ranked schools - and I have always spoken for them - that they should get their fair due.

 

But it's not correct that top-ranked schools attract lots of bright students. Believe me I have taught, interact with and read the writings of the products of the topmost schools in the world. And the amount of mediocrity I have found in the top schools is not funny.

 

And the way I have seen all this mediocrity getting a tenure-track, sidelining the bright students from the lower-ranked school is also not funny.

 

If I didn't have a first-hand experience of all this mediocrity coming from top-schools getting tenure-track at the expense of way better candidates from lower-ranked schools, I myself would have argued like you. It came as a shock to me initially, but gradually I saw that this was a norm. And the bigger injustice is that all this mediocrity is promoted at the expense of better candidates from other schools.

 

I don't believe in any kind of ranking of universities. I only believe in the personal strengths of candidates. There are bright candidates in all kinds of schools. Similarly, there are mediocre and below-mediocre candidates in all kinds of schools.

 

The hiring committees should begin to assess the candidates by their academic strengths, not by the gloss on their degrees. If the gloss on the degrees is the sole criteria then there is no need for the hiring committees. From the pool of applicants, the candidate with the glossiest degree can be automatically appointment.

[Roquentin]

This conversation would have been so much easier to have in person!

 

I assumed, wrongly it seems, from your earlier posts in this thread that you do believe in the merit of university rankings.

 

Also, I took your statement that “All other things being equal, when you go for job interviews, the candidate from a higher-prestige university will always top a candidate from a lower department” to mean that you were attempting to compare two equal candidates, when, as you’ve clarified, that situation never occurs.

 

I absolutely agree that mediocrity can be found anywhere. It’s sad to see PhD dissertations that are little more than extended master’s theses (and poorly conceived ones at that). I worry that every level of education is taking a step back (with bachelor’s degrees spent on material that could be learned in high school, masters degrees that accomplish what bachelor’s degrees should, and so on). I’d be interested to know what you think about university rankings in relation to postdoc and adjunct work, but perhaps that can wait for another conversation.

 

I’ll say, though, that I haven’t seen mediocrity trump quality to the extent that you describe. Of course, I’m mainly familiar with the situation in my field and in my past and present departments. Maybe, with time and experience, my cynicism will grow, but I hope not. In any case, getting through grad school requires some idealism. Because this is a site that caters mainly to aspiring and early grad students, and because, as you know, I believe that university rankings should be approached critically and with caution (if at all), I had to add my two cents to the thread. So thank you, I’ve enjoyed our conversation!

 

Now back to conference paper abstracts and travel grant applications!

[YepUrsi]

Phew.. I don't at these national rankings. These days higher education is a global thing, so why  bother with national rankings? Basically there are three international rankings, QS, THE and ARWU which people look to. These are the ones I care.

[victorydance]

I mean, most rankings in Canada are going to go like this:

 

U of T

McGill

UBC

 

----

 

The rest.

 

Not to say that the others are not good schools, but the top 3 are a cut above everyone else in practically every discipline. There are some exceptions, for example, the University of Waterloo is actually one of the best schools for engineering in the country (in fact, among the best in the world) despite it being relatively lower ranked in other disciplines. 

 

However, speaking generally, UBC, UofT, and McGill pull in the most money, usually have the highest quality and depth of faculty, and have much larger cohorts than the rest of the schools; they also place grad students the best as well.

 

As far as a Canadian degree being worth less than an American one; this is not true. Take some third tier state school student and a graduate from UofT and the quality of education isn't even comparable.