could that be true? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/opinion/sunday/why-college-rankings-are-a-joke.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Feducation&action=click&contentCollection=education®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0
"You can't learn in here. This is the classroom!" The rankings don't say enough about what a student will learn.
The trouble with all rankings is that one-size-fits-all methodology doesn't actually fit anyone. The only ranking that would be worthwhile would be where you start by saying which criteria are important to you and how much to weigh them, then get a personalized ranking that corresponds with that.
It's too bad that in many cases, ranking methodologies are either a bit...questionable (I know of some graduate program rankings that are put together solely based on reviews from peer programs...what could go wrong?!!?) or can be manipulated (school's raising tuition AND financial aid packages/award amounts in order to achieve a higher percentage of students being granted aid, which is oftentimes a ranking factor). However, I'm not quite sure how a more universally effective ranking methodology could be constructed.
My personal rule of thumb for ranking is very simple. As long as the university is top in that particular country, no matter what it has very high probability to be a good university. Simple, THE, QS rank my university around the top, when come to Shanghai ARWU, the ranking changes a lot. Many top universities I observed also the same. Of course for marketing and maintaining certain quality of the university, competing in ranking system do helps. Controversial, I know.
This is probably a pretty decent rule of thumb, but it can be a bit more complicated in larger countries where universities outside of the top 5, 10, 20, etc. could still be great universities, but are not the "top" university due to sheer numbers.
