>>7809217
IDK, what's in the methodology tab?

Yeah dude. Oxford and MIT have totally gone downhill. They're pretty much trash schools now, their degrees will be completely worthless in a few years.

>>7809217
Oxford is kind of shit for natsci and MIT isn't know for physics either only engineering.

>>7809243
That still doesn't explain why Caltech is where Caltech is, it's literally Natural Science: The Institute

>>7809217
i dont know what you mean, OP...
the strength and breadth of Berkeley's physics faculty can most definitely compare to any other top level institution

>>7809252
Compare =/= Trump over other top tier institutes

Why are you interested, OP? What's got you splitting hairs?

>>7809247
Have to agree, but honestly maybe you should just stop caring about ratings.

You do realize that most of it is based on "surveys" and shit like assuming industrial grants implies more "innovative" research than public grants right? The former is also concerned total monetary value which gives universities recieving American dollar grants an obviously huge boost; the ratings are obviously biased to keep private commercial brand names on top. Actual research quality doesn't play a role at all, often you'll find random third world departments outperform top-tier universities in certain research fields.

And finally the best part of all is that education quality doesn't factor at all, the ratings are for research, not education. The only advantage is that if you're lucky and the world class researcher isn't autistic you might get some solid mentorship, but profs rarely care about undergrads anyway.