Australia, Canada, UK in 2100

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Yeah, people in the US generally don't go to college in Canada so they're just not familiar with them.

McGill has traditionally drawn heavily from the Northeast Corridor states. It's certainly on the radar in NYC and Boston. But, yeah, outside of McGill, there probably isn't an enormous U.S. presence.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Actually, no, that makes no objective sense. Germany has the world's fourth largest economy, and doesn't have a single university as good as Toronto. Even puny Switzerland has better universities than Germany. There are probably 10 British universities better than any German university, even though Germany is presently much richer and more powerful.

University prestige obviously isn't strongly correlated with point-in-time national wealth or population, especially given that university populations are global. It isn't like someone from China decides to attend a Canadian university based on the Canadian population or GDP.

There may be bureaucratic reasons why German universities tend to be ranked lower, at least in research output. Much of German research scientifiic research happens outside of the Universities at the Max-Planck Institutes. Of course this is true to some extent in every country, but I have a feeling this is a bigger effect in Germany. Like, everyone I know who has gone to Heidelberg hasn't gone to the eponymous university, but rather MPIA or MPIK there.

[MolsonExport]

qed

[lio45]

At first sight, by the time Lagos is at 88.3 million, Okotoks' got to be at least 50 million.

[Acajack]

In a lot of countries, universities don't typically pursue "excellence" on the same metrics that those in the American and British models do - and which leads to impressive rankings on these lists.

To many people, a university is a place to educate your people, to give them a good life and allow them to play a positive role in your society. It's not about winning some theoretical race to building a better mousetrap before the other guys. Germany's approach is like this. So is France's.

And all of these different approaches are fine. I mean, we all appreciate those mousetraps devised by the people at MIT and Stanford too.

Another thing is that these lists also often have linguistic and cultural biases.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by lio45

At first sight, by the time Lagos is at 88.3 million, Okotoks' got to be at least 50 million.

Yes, but because "Stats Canada" has a hate-on for Alberta, Okotoks will still not be amalgamated into the CMA of Calgary, denying the people of Calgary a well-earned WOOT WOOT!
At least there is a number of things to do in Okotoks. Unlike stagnant, land-locked Montreal, which is on track to fall out of "The Big Four" soon.

cbc

Is Okotoks sinking beneath the waves? They got seabirds too!

[mhays]

Okotoks looks like a place worth visiting. While the center of town appears to be a mall, it almost has a main street on Elizabeth!

Calgary...biggest Canadian city I haven't been to. I'm impressed how crisp the edges are...it might be western-type densish sprawl out to a point, but then it stops. Industry appears to be almost entirely in a few industrial zones among the city, each used efficiently, including an orderly expansion zone on the east.

[lio45]

That seabird and those waves... I'm getting the clear impression Okotoks is a major seaport. Surely anyone who claims it's landlocked is just a biased Alberta Hater!

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Yes, but because "Stats Canada" has a hate-on for Alberta, Okotoks will still not be amalgamated into the CMA of Calgary, denying the people of Calgary a well-earned WOOT WOOT!

Most times Chad posts a picture of the Calgary skyline, I find myself shaking my head at the missed opportunity and thinking "this view would immediately feel bigger and taller if only Okotoks was included in the CMA"

[MolsonExport]

I know. Waking up in the morning and knowing you are in a metro of 1.5 million (instead of 1.45 million b/c stats canada "hates" Calgary) is just the boss. Counting the same things differently leads to different counts, I guess.

ah-ah-ah-ah!

[Razor]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Yes, but because "Stats Canada" has a hate-on for Alberta, Okotoks will still not be amalgamated into the CMA of Calgary, denying the people of Calgary a well-earned WOOT WOOT!
At least there is a number of things to do in Okotoks. Unlike stagnant, land-locked Montreal, which is on track to fall out of "The Big Four" soon.
Is Okotoks sinking beneath the waves? They got seabirds too!

As a history enthusiast, the accurate Okotoks origin goes back to the 2006 census. It was on that date, when the Saddledome emptied out with deflated souls, and limp pom poms after learning once again that Ottawa retained the Ms. Congeniality distinction of remaining Canada's 4th largest Metro. The mantra at that time was a subdued "we'll get em in 2011"..Fast forward to 2011, when Ottawa once again held that coveted distinction. It was at that time, that the mention of Okotoks and the injustices towards Calgary's count were bandied around.it was then that the Okotoks movement and denials started..Even The Wiki page was attempted to be changed at that point, but to no avail...Fast forward to the 2016 census, when the Saddledome lit up and The festivities must of lasted several weeks, when lo and Behold!. Calgary was deemed the 4th largest metro in Canada!..It was unofficially the 4th largest since 1996 anyways as rumour had it, but now both Stats Can and the Calgary Wiki facts page now righted their errors that were in play for 2 decades..Since then, the mention of including Okotoks in the numbers have significantly died down, but are in the "back pocket' for any future injustices..Sadly and ironically, the real injustices are actually towards Ottawa, where outlying "almost" official commuter towns such as Carleton Place, Kemptville, and Arnprior aren't included in Ottawa's metro population numbers..That and we all know that Jocelyn In Gatneau was only standing on one foot during that historical 2016 count .Ottawa doesn't care though, because a dinner in old Montreal is only a 2 hour drive away.

[nito]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The NY Times isn't the English paper of record because it's old. The UK's Times isn't a globally prominent publication; the BBC and Guardian are the UK's global news sources.

The standing of the New York Times and The Times, or using a nebulous concept such as ’paper of record’ (which has been attributed to both) is pretty much irrelevant in relation to the point made by you. My challenge to your original point was that your insular thinking blinded you to the fact that the Times Higher Education is named as such because it was once part of The Times, the New York Times has nothing to do with it. Also questioning my understanding of irony… :lol:

Originally Posted by Crawford

And, yeah, we consistently have these UK-originating lists where the UK is overestimated. London is always the world's financial and business center, even though its banks and corps are mostly European branches of U.S. HQ operations and its overall economy would only be 3rd within the U.S. and 2nd within Europe

I wouldn’t agree that London is always placed at the top of the rankings that you refer to, but the size of the UK economy is pretty irrelevant when there is globalisation and international trade. I’ll just accept that as just another example of your insular thinking and perhaps limited insight of finance and business. Take the foreign exchange market; global turnover is in the region of c.$8 trillion each day, of which some 43% goes through London, 2.5x more US Dollars are traded in the London market than in the US. London is also a leader in other areas, and the case can be made for New York and other cities in other markets, but the limited domestic market size is one of the key drivers behind London’s success, it had to become internationally focused.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Oxbridge is always at the top of university rankings, even though endowment, research output, admissions rates and student yield are nowhere near the U.S. elites, and relatively minor cities like Manchester and Birmingham are consistently ranked above non-British cities with 5x the economic output.

There are three rankings that I’ve seen referenced repeatedly (there could be others); the QS World University Rankings by Quacquarelli Symonds, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings by THE, and the Academic Ranking of World Universities by Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. Their methodology is available to critique online and focuses on various indicators with weighting covering teaching quality, academic standing, research and citations. Perhaps there could be a discussion around the various indicators and weighting, but those are sound attempts to look at international comparisons.

As for the claims of potential bias, that Oxford and Cambridge are always at the top of these rankings:
- QS’s ranking places Oxford 4th and Cambridge 7th (having fluctuated/dropped in recent years).
- THE’s ranking puts Oxford 1st and Cambridge 3rd (go back several years and both were joint 6th).
- Shanghai Ranking Consultancy ranks Cambridge 3rd and Oxford 7th (both have risen over the years).

The majority of these lists are still dominated by US institutions and the accusations of bias come across as desperate.

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by Crawford

McGill has traditionally drawn heavily from the Northeast Corridor states. It's certainly on the radar in NYC and Boston. But, yeah, outside of McGill, there probably isn't an enormous U.S. presence.

Not my experience: having attended too many years of Canadian university at all levels, and having taught at two, I have studied with many american students, under many american profs, and to/with many of the same.

This includes: UofT, Carleton, UVic, Concordia, McGill, Western, and UBC; and RISD in the US.

The US by no means holds its weight for international students, but certainly does on the teaching/research side of things.

[Marshal]

I just wasted my time reading the nonsense spouted over the last few pages of this thread. (I have a side, but don't care who's right and wrong.)

People who actually work in the academic realm would laugh at the arguments. Ranking and arguing about the status of universities is a superficial exercise at best. Understandable, maybe fun, but ultimately embarrassing, because silly. (By the way, the above noted University Rankings are real research: they offer real information based on their stated statistical evaluation of the parameters that can quantify what universities do. Like any analysis, they are open, indeed invite, discussion. But to write them off is to close your eyes to a topic.)

But, the main point is: academics don't look at things in that way. Sure the general quality of a university is always on the radar, but real academic leaders think in terms of programs and specific research/expertise. An example: in general, the University of Vienna runs as a large (90,000) social access, general educator kind of institution. In that regard it shares some similarity with Concordia in Montreal, maybe NYU, its not important. I haven't recently looked at the rankings above, but I think UofV ranks in the 150-200th range.

But, in a few fields the University of Vienna runs some of the best research/graduate programs on the planet. The example I am best acquainted with is: not the Physics department, but within it: 2 research groups 1) Quantum Optics, Quantum Nanophysics and Quantum Information, and 2) Nanomagnetism and Magnonics. Go to the physics dept. at MIT and bring these up and they will drool, though they don't need to because they do research in tandem and they sometimes trade staff/grad students for various terms. The guys at MIT don't know UofV beyond the name, but they know the work and people who are their leading colleagues. That's how this works.

So: think of all the dozens of departments of full universities, along with all the specializations within each of them, and understand that these people know everyone and every program around the world that impacts their own work. So it misses the point to think American or English or Canadian universities 'think' anything about each other. It also misses the point to think that your less-informed opinions on the matter are worth fighting about. Those of you who really know what your talking about, know who you are.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Marshal

By the way, the above noted University Rankings are real research:

Well isn't that convenient. Of the dozens of available university rankings, the outlier rankings posted by homers to support their unusual arguments are the only "real research". The rest are fakenews, or entirely subjective, of course.

Harvard is no better the than fifth most prestigious university in the U.S.; the most prestigious university is one unknown to even most educated people, even unknown to people living in proximity. Makes perfect sense...

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Well isn't that convenient. Of the dozens of available university rankings, the outlier rankings posted by homers to support their unusual arguments are the only "real research". The rest are fakenews, or entirely subjective, of course.

Harvard is no better the than fifth most prestigious university in the U.S.; the most prestigious university is one unknown to even most educated people, even unknown to people living in proximity. Makes perfect sense...

Thanks, you seem to have inserted the word "only" into my sentence. I appreciate the correction. That always a good way to start a discussion. Your issue is a little one-tracked, and repetitive, no? Look up "hobbyhorse" and "idee fixe" and get over it. I will not be arguing with you.

[park123]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

interesting, south korea has no immigration and is one of the fastest growing and diversifying economies. how did that happen?

Most of South Korea's growth was already behind it by 2000, certainly by 2010. People act like 30 years ago (1990) S Korea was just making cheap plastic toys. By 1990, S Korea was already the world's largest ship maker, a major global manufacturer of consumer electronics, and with a strong and rapidly growing semiconductor industry.

And even with all that growth and long work hours, outside of a few central districts, S Korea still feels quasi-developing, with shabby concrete block buildings making up most of its building stock. The salaries are well below the leading developed countries, and economic growth is below the USA, Australia, Canada, and much of Europe, forget about China or Vietnam. The infrastructure is excellent though.

The interesting thing about developed Asia, after the fact that it did in fact develop like it did, is how Japan and Taiwan and S Korea are stuck at about a half-rung below the leading countries of the West.

[Rational Plan3]

Originally Posted by park123

Most of South Korea's growth was already behind it by 2000, certainly by 2010. People act like 30 years ago (1990) S Korea was just making cheap plastic toys. By 1990, S Korea was already the world's largest ship maker, a major global manufacturer of consumer electronics, and with a strong and rapidly growing semiconductor industry.

And even with all that growth and long work hours, outside of a few central districts, S Korea still feels quasi-developing, with shabby concrete block buildings making up most of its building stock. The salaries are well below the leading developed countries, and economic growth is below the USA, Australia, Canada, and much of Europe, forget about China or Vietnam. The infrastructure is excellent though.

The interesting thing about developed Asia, after the fact that it did in fact develop like it did, is how Japan and Taiwan and S Korea are stuck at about a half-rung below the leading countries of the West.

Well Korea did grow very quickly out of the wreckage of war. Combined with mega growth in Seoul. Lots of cheap buildings were thrown up very quickly and they have mostly hung around. These days lots of these older neighbourhoods are being comprehensibly redeveloped in that old 1960's sense. Everyone is bought out, a neighbourhood demolished and replaced by a mall, offices and high rise apartments. It's often a plot feature for shady dealings in Korean drama's.