davidjamesweir’s avatardavidjamesweir’s Twitter Archive—№ 4,958

  1. I don’t dismiss rankings out of hand, but when I see one, I always wonder what the motivations are and who stands to benefit from it. And much of the time, I doubt anyone really does. It’s meaningless competition. James_S_Murphy/1338638253856071681
    On twitter.com Twitter logo davidjamesweir’s avatar ♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 5 Favorites Mood -1 🙁
    1. …in reply to @davidjamesweir
      University rankings often include number of Nobel Prize/Fields Medal winners. That’s like evaluating a navy’s strength by counting the number of aircraft carriers it has. Not meaningless, but quite daft. mathbabe.org/2014/08/15/i-love-math-and-i-hate-the-fields-medal/
      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo davidjamesweir’s avatar Mood +9 🙂
      1. …in reply to @davidjamesweir
        Another measure often bundled in is the number of 'highly cited researchers' - like prizewinning faculty, this is a (flawed) measure of individual success rather than of the universities as team with breadth and depth. Plus, it favours men in many fields: nature.com/articles/s41550-017-0141
        Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo davidjamesweir’s avatar ❤️ 2 Favorites Mood +3 🙂
        1. …in reply to @davidjamesweir
          At least 50% of the Shanghai ranking comes from such individual measures being used as a pars pro toto for the quality of the whole institution (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Ranking_of_World_Universities#Methodology). So how far have we really come from the original intention of rankings measuring "great men in science"? 🤔
          Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo davidjamesweir’s avatar ❤️ 1 Favorite Mood +5 🙂
          1. …in reply to @davidjamesweir
            Or, if you want a longer take by a professor of statistics and a research policy manager, try this: signmagazine/1556542015290089479
            Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo davidjamesweir’s avatar Mood +1 🙂