6 of top 10 universities in the world for science are Chinese universities.

[shockedcanadian]

When you water down your schools to create activists rather than scientists, I suppose this is the outcome.

MSS are to be commended for their efforts. How they have hurt Western priorities and their domestic institutions is unmatched in history.

China’s universities just grabbed 6 of the top 10 spots in one worldwide science ranking – without changing a thing

China surges in new academic rankings based on open-access research

China’s universities just grabbed 6 of the top 10 spots in one worldwide science ranking – without changing a thing

Science rankings rely on papers in academic journals. Broadening the view to include many more open-access journals will upend the usual order – thanks to China’s vast number of publications.

theconversation.com

University leaders pay close attention to comparative rankings such as those offered by Times Higher Education, ShanghaiRanking Consultancy and others. Rankings influence student matriculation numbers, attract talented faculty and justify donations from wealthy donors. University leaders rail against them, and some schools “withdraw” from them, but rankings are influential.

A radical shift in the data underlying rankings is about to upend the rankings world – largely in favor of China’s position.

For instance, in early 2024, the Leiden University Center for Science and Technology Studies CWTS group issued new university rankings that add open-data sources to the traditional curated list of elite journals that has been the standard. The results show a world turned upside down for university rankings.

 

[rampart]

When you water down your schools to create activists rather than scientists, I suppose this is the outcome.

MSS are to be commended for their efforts. How they have hurt Western priorities and their domestic institutions is unmatched in history.

China’s universities just grabbed 6 of the top 10 spots in one worldwide science ranking – without changing a thing

China surges in new academic rankings based on open-access research

China’s universities just grabbed 6 of the top 10 spots in one worldwide science ranking – without changing a thing

Science rankings rely on papers in academic journals. Broadening the view to include many more open-access journals will upend the usual order – thanks to China’s vast number of publications.

theconversation.com

University leaders pay close attention to comparative rankings such as those offered by Times Higher Education, ShanghaiRanking Consultancy and others. Rankings influence student matriculation numbers, attract talented faculty and justify donations from wealthy donors. University leaders rail against them, and some schools “withdraw” from them, but rankings are influential.

A radical shift in the data underlying rankings is about to upend the rankings world – largely in favor of China’s position.

For instance, in early 2024, the Leiden University Center for Science and Technology Studies CWTS group issued new university rankings that add open-data sources to the traditional curated list of elite journals that has been the standard. The results show a world turned upside down for university rankings.

america has the best schools of theology, so take a message to god from us please

"temple not built. no need to return."

 

[pknopp]

What a lame summation of the article. It's notes the way rankings are created in some circles has changed. That means nothing has actually changed other than what they use to rank the institute.

That has absolutely nothing to do with "activists". Yours was another Pavlovian response we often times see. You see an article on Universities and have been trained to reply "Activists".

Good job.

 

[JLW]

While the Chinese are taking the lead in the sciences in this country moronic Trumpists want religious biblical studies in school while at the same time bashing the sciences.

That is why we need to vote Democratic. Look to the future not to the past.

 

[frigidweirdo]

When you water down your schools to create activists rather than scientists, I suppose this is the outcome.

MSS are to be commended for their efforts. How they have hurt Western priorities and their domestic institutions is unmatched in history.

China’s universities just grabbed 6 of the top 10 spots in one worldwide science ranking – without changing a thing

China surges in new academic rankings based on open-access research

China’s universities just grabbed 6 of the top 10 spots in one worldwide science ranking – without changing a thing

Science rankings rely on papers in academic journals. Broadening the view to include many more open-access journals will upend the usual order – thanks to China’s vast number of publications.

theconversation.com

University leaders pay close attention to comparative rankings such as those offered by Times Higher Education, ShanghaiRanking Consultancy and others. Rankings influence student matriculation numbers, attract talented faculty and justify donations from wealthy donors. University leaders rail against them, and some schools “withdraw” from them, but rankings are influential.

A radical shift in the data underlying rankings is about to upend the rankings world – largely in favor of China’s position.

For instance, in early 2024, the Leiden University Center for Science and Technology Studies CWTS group issued new university rankings that add open-data sources to the traditional curated list of elite journals that has been the standard. The results show a world turned upside down for university rankings.

One ranking has 6 out of 10 Chinese universities, another has zero.

Why?

Because it's very difficult to quantify education.

The Shanghai rankings use publications. The other one which has lots of Chinese universities has "open-data sources". In other words, things that are more than likely bullshit.

People in Chinese universities are under pressure to publish.

Why fake research is rampant in China

Eleven students aim to set a better example

www.economist.com

"Why fake research is rampant in China"

"Huang feiruo was once a respected scientist who studied ways to make pigs gain weight more quickly. He ran government-funded research projects at Huazhong Agricultural University in the central city of Wuhan. But last month 11 of his graduate students accused him of plagiarising the work of other academics and fabricating data."

Essentially China has got someone to put their universities in the list by including something that Chinese universities do. They probably paid loads of money, or got political favors for this.

So now they're justified in having AI write their scientific articles which nobody needs to ever read. I've read about this in places and literally the articles will have huge chunks of the article which are plagiarized and might not even have anything to do with science.

So, essentially this article of yours probably doesn't understand the situation in China.

 

[shockedcanadian]

What a lame summation of the article. It's notes the way rankings are created in some circles has changed. That means nothing has actually changed other than what they use to rank the institute.

That has absolutely nothing to do with "activists". Yours was another Pavlovian response we often times see. You see an article on Universities and have been trained to reply "Activists".

Good job.

Are you going to pretend that there isn't a focus on activism, pronouns, efforts to distort facts and reality? Take the age old question "what is a man and what is a woman"? No serious response should start with, "well, it depends..."

If you look at the innovation and sheer will of invention that Americans used to produce out of universities from the 1970s on, it was unmatched. It is now being matched by a nation far larger and more on peer economically and militarily than any other nation on earth. This goes for scientific publications/white papers in these schools too by the way.

Do your research, the tables have turned from the period in which communist Russia used to trail American innovation by leaps and bounds. The new communism with "Chinese characteristics" is the greatest force America has had to face down since WWII.

What drove American innovation was creativity that a free market system encourages and produces, with a focus on the facts, the data, the hard math and sciences, NOT on social engineering of terms. Perhaps some of these great minds in history would have been denied access to the best schools due to artificial quotas.

You keep you head in the sand, just as people in positions of power kept their heads in the sand in the 1990s and early 2000s as China grew rapidly until they started to apply these funds to their military power. These experts dismissed any potential for the Chinese communist state to innovate and compete on even a few industries let alone multiple industries. Sacrificing short term profits for long term national security losses. Everything from manufacturing to the theft of the U.S 5th generation jets.

Keep dismissing and denigrating my position as a dog whistle. The reality of what is going on right now as I type this in theatres of actual military expansion and build up is one that Americas most critical allies in the East. Education reform that rewards the most deserving is a critical component of long term success for the West.

 

[pknopp]

Are you going to pretend that there isn't a focus on activism, pronouns, efforts to distort facts and reality? Take the age old question "what is a man and what is a woman"? No serious response should start with, "well, it depends..."

Yes that is what America's Scientific Universities teach students on day one.

Sheesh, how did I miss this.

Again, I'll note, you didn't even understand the article.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Yes that is what America's Scientific Universities teach students on day one.

Sheesh, how did I miss this.

Again, I'll note, you didn't even understand the article.

The method isn't the question, the trajectory is. These theories and production of talented scientists is being shown in their national and even international infrastructure and patents.

I believe the top degree in the CCP members is engineering though I could be wrong.

How many engineer grads do our political systems produce within their ranks?

 

[pknopp]

The method isn't the question, the trajectory is.

No trajectory changed. Nothing changed other than the method. That's exactly what the article is saying. It even notes that some of the papers considered in the rankings are crap but now still figure in.

 

[rampart]

Are you going to pretend that there isn't a focus on activism, pronouns, efforts to distort facts and reality? Take the age old question "what is a man and what is a woman"? No serious response should start with, "well, it depends..."

If you look at the innovation and sheer will of invention that Americans used to produce out of universities from the 1970s on, it was unmatched. It is now being matched by a nation far larger and more on peer economically and militarily than any other nation on earth. This goes for scientific publications/white papers in these schools too by the way.

Do your research, the tables have turned from the period in which communist Russia used to trail American innovation by leaps and bounds. The new communism with "Chinese characteristics" is the greatest force America has had to face down since WWII.

What drove American innovation was creativity that a free market system encourages and produces, with a focus on the facts, the data, the hard math and sciences, NOT on social engineering of terms. Perhaps some of these great minds in history would have been denied access to the best schools due to artificial quotas.

You keep you head in the sand, just as people in positions of power kept their heads in the sand in the 1990s and early 2000s as China grew rapidly until they started to apply these funds to their military power. These experts dismissed any potential for the Chinese communist state to innovate and compete on even a few industries let alone multiple industries. Sacrificing short term profits for long term national security losses. Everything from manufacturing to the theft of the U.S 5th generation jets.

Keep dismissing and denigrating my position as a dog whistle. The reality of what is going on right now as I type this in theatres of actual military expansion and build up is one that Americas most critical allies in the East. Education reform that rewards the most deserving is a critical component of long term success for the West.

i don't have to pretend anything.

of you want to spend your college years insisting on pronouns or drinking to oblivion at the frat house it is nothing to the students who take this opportunity to educate themselves.

"you get out of college exactly what you put into it. " rampart

 

[shockedcanadian]

No trajectory changed. Nothing changed other than the method. That's exactly what the article is saying. It even notes that some of the papers considered in the rankings are crap but now still figure in.

No, it is you that perhaps misses the point. It is the Shanhai Index that is providing smoke and mirrors. At the very least, a narrow definition of top tier. Primarily or at the very least, secondarily to increase tuition and international student enrollment I imagine.. I get it, money talks.

That's the problem with the Shanghai Index. You need to be in a "major publication" to qualify. So it may tell a story, but not the full story. Which is what the CWTS attempts to do.

Neither are perfect, but the gains China has made at such a rapid pace is startling and should raise alarm bells with anyone who cares.

Bottom line, we need a meritocracy to determine who succeeds, be it educational institutions, business or politics.

 

[pknopp]

No, it is you that perhaps misses the point.

You have no point to make.

It is the Shanhai Index that is providing smoke and mirrors. All to increase tuition and international student enrollment. I get it, money talks.

So the problem is "money" not "activism"?

That's the problem with the Shanghai Index. You need to be in a "major publication" to qualify. So it may tell a story, but not the full story. Which is what the CWTS attempts to do.

Neither are perfect, but the gains China has made at such a rapid pace is startling and should raise alarm bells with anyone who cares.

Bottom line, we need a meritocracy to determine who succeeds, be it educational institutions, business or politics.

We've never had that in politics.

 

[rampart]

The method isn't the question, the trajectory is. These theories and production of talented scientists is being shown in their national and even international infrastructure and patents.

I believe the top degree in the CCP members is engineering though I could be wrong.

How many engineer grads do our political systems produce within their ranks?

our political system does not produce engineers. china's does. that does not make them good engineers, though i have met some very impressive chinese engineers.
plenty of chinese teach engineering in american universities. .

our economic system produces what supply and demand require. i am an engineer. the smart guys became lawyers or stockbrokers, or condo salesmen or opened a fake university and started a pyramid scheme.

 

[shockedcanadian]

You have no point to make.




So the problem is "money" not "activism"?




We've never had that in politics.

Really? We ALL have it in the West, hence our decline.

Re-read the point I made about engineers in the CCP. Here is an article that links some of this to the Chinese Military Industrial Complex.

It is about to get very dangerous in the world.

Aerospace Engineers to Communist Party Leaders: The Rise of Military-Industrial Technocrats at China’s 20th Party Congress

Aerospace Engineers to Communist Party Leaders: The Rise of Military-Industrial Technocrats at China’s 20th Party Congress

Guoguang Wu writes about the emergence of military-industrial technocrats among China's top leaders and what it means for the country's future.

asiasociety.org

When the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) closed its 20th Party Congress in October 2022, 13 new members joined the 24-member Politburo, the party’s top leadership body. Five of these rising stars share notable similarities, including an educational background in military-industrial engineering, professional experience in China’s military-industrial sector, and a career transformation from engineer-managers to local (and now national) political leaders. A shared military-industrial background makes this group of leaders distinct and significant in the new Politburo, accounting for almost 40 percent of the new members.

Moreover, their relatively young age compared with most of the top CCP leaders is noteworthy. With an average age of 59.6 at the 20th Party Congress — five years younger than the average age of all other Politburo members (64.5) — they represent a new generation within the CCP leadership. In fact, the youngest member of the 20th Politburo (aged 57) belongs to this group. All these factors make this group of rising stars — who we will call the “Military-Industrial Five,” or simply “The Five” — worth analyzing in detail.

 

[pknopp]

Really? We ALL have it in the West, hence our decline.

Re-read the point I made about engineers in the CCP. Here is an article that links some of this to the Chinese Military Industrial Complex.

It is about to get very dangerous in the world.

Aerospace Engineers to Communist Party Leaders: The Rise of Military-Industrial Technocrats at China’s 20th Party Congress

Aerospace Engineers to Communist Party Leaders: The Rise of Military-Industrial Technocrats at China’s 20th Party Congress

Guoguang Wu writes about the emergence of military-industrial technocrats among China's top leaders and what it means for the country's future.

asiasociety.org

When the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) closed its 20th Party Congress in October 2022, 13 new members joined the 24-member Politburo, the party’s top leadership body. Five of these rising stars share notable similarities, including an educational background in military-industrial engineering, professional experience in China’s military-industrial sector, and a career transformation from engineer-managers to local (and now national) political leaders. A shared military-industrial background makes this group of leaders distinct and significant in the new Politburo, accounting for almost 40 percent of the new members.

Moreover, their relatively young age compared with most of the top CCP leaders is noteworthy. With an average age of 59.6 at the 20th Party Congress — five years younger than the average age of all other Politburo members (64.5) — they represent a new generation within the CCP leadership. In fact, the youngest member of the 20th Politburo (aged 57) belongs to this group. All these factors make this group of rising stars — who we will call the “Military-Industrial Five,” or simply “The Five” — worth analyzing in detail.

I see you have disregarded your "activists" argument. I'm done.

 

[shockedcanadian]

our political system does not produce engineers. china's does. that does not make them good engineers, though i have met some very impressive chinese engineers.
plenty of chinese teach engineering in american universities. .

our economic system produces what supply and demand require. i am an engineer. the smart guys became lawyers or stockbrokers, or condo salesmen or opened a fake university and started a pyramid scheme.

No, it doesnt make them engineers, it ensures they are analytical thinkers. They have vision and a hard science/math background.

Those are quality characteristics to have in leaders, no?

Compare educational achievements of Western politicians compared to Chinas. Does that no concern you?

 

[Moonglow]

When you water down your schools to create activists rather than scientists, I suppose this is the outcome.

MSS are to be commended for their efforts. How they have hurt Western priorities and their domestic institutions is unmatched in history.

China’s universities just grabbed 6 of the top 10 spots in one worldwide science ranking – without changing a thing

China surges in new academic rankings based on open-access research

China’s universities just grabbed 6 of the top 10 spots in one worldwide science ranking – without changing a thing

Science rankings rely on papers in academic journals. Broadening the view to include many more open-access journals will upend the usual order – thanks to China’s vast number of publications.

theconversation.com

University leaders pay close attention to comparative rankings such as those offered by Times Higher Education, ShanghaiRanking Consultancy and others. Rankings influence student matriculation numbers, attract talented faculty and justify donations from wealthy donors. University leaders rail against them, and some schools “withdraw” from them, but rankings are influential.

A radical shift in the data underlying rankings is about to upend the rankings world – largely in favor of China’s position.

For instance, in early 2024, the Leiden University Center for Science and Technology Studies CWTS group issued new university rankings that add open-data sources to the traditional curated list of elite journals that has been the standard. The results show a world turned upside down for university rankings.

As of the 2022–2023 academic year, 289,526 Chinese students were studying in the United States, which is a decrease from the 2019–2020 school year when there were over 370,000. Chinese students are the largest group of international students in the United States, and an estimated three million students from China have studied in the US since the late 1970s

 

[shockedcanadian]

I see you have disregarded your "activists" argument. I'm done.

It is a relative comparison. One which you clearly reject without understanding the broader thesis and ultimately threat to the West.

 

[justoffal]

What a lame summation of the article. It's notes the way rankings are created in some circles has changed. That means nothing has actually changed other than what they use to rank the institute.

That has absolutely nothing to do with "activists". Yours was another Pavlovian response we often times see. You see an article on Universities and have been trained to reply "Activists".

Good job.

Meh .... American universities have become centers of political correctness rather than schools of technical excellence. It's bound to catch up to them.

 

[pknopp]

It is a relative comparison. One which you clearly reject without understanding the broader thesis and ultimately threat to the West.

We see nearly everything as a threat to the west. It's difficult for many to grasp but people in other parts of the world want and seek the same things we do and there is nothing wrong with that.