21–30 of 35 posts
In the top 50 of the referenced global rankings[1], there are 5 non-western universities. The highest one ranked at 13 (Japan), then 27 (Japan), then 31 (South Korea), and finally 44 and 49 (China). [1] https://cwur.org/2023.php
In the top 50 of the referenced global rankings[1], there are 5 non-western universities. The highest one ranked at 13 (Japan), then 27 (Japan), then 31 (South Korea), and finally 44 and 49 (China). [1] https://cwur.org/2023.php
You forgot the University of Tokyo, ranked 13.
I recently spent about a month total in Cambridge and Oxford, just as a remote worker / tourist. Having previously visited Harvard, Yale, MIT, Princeton, etc. it was my impression that American universities have an order of magnitude more resources than UK ones. Even an average state school campus in the US appears larger and better funded. Of course, Oxford and Cambridge have a centuries-old historical legacy (and a…
From a UK perspective, the US "throws money" at everything, both culturally and because you are a larger economy. Education, sports, healthcare, industry, space, science to name a few. The UK also has an opposing culture, we don't invest in the long term in infrastructure or people. Even in your case, you visited the two richest universities (by a long margin) in the UK.
That's not really so different from the United States!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
University funding varies wildly in the UK and it mostly correlates with ranking, at least the 'higher-up' universities generally have more disposal income to give to researchers. Unfortunately, it's a vicious circle because it's the difference between "you can go to this conference" or "we'll pay the article fee" and "we have no money, sorry". Allowing researchers those sorts of freedoms means you tend to get better…
> University funding varies wildly in the UK and it mostly correlates with ranking, at least the 'higher-up' universities generally have more disposal income to give to researchers. This is how the entirety of the UK works. All the funding goes to London, everywhere else gets nothing. All the laws are written to benefit the landlord and investor classes, everyone else gets nothing etc. Little recognition that the ent…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> University funding varies wildly in the UK and it mostly correlates with ranking, at least the 'higher-up' universities generally have more disposal income to give to researchers. This is how the entirety of the UK works. All the funding goes to London, everywhere else gets nothing. All the laws are written to benefit the landlord and investor classes, everyone else gets nothing etc. Little recognition that the ent…
I completely agree about the colonial mindset and an inherent bias towards self-perpetuating elitism in the UK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While good amenities may matter for certain types of research (biotech), what about disciplines such as maths, which require good thinking, a piece of paper to draw on, and that's about it? If you look at the results of the International Mathematical Olympiad, many of the really successful countries (Russia, Hungary, Romania, Iran) aren't very rich. A possible explanation would be brain-drain: talented mathematicians…
I think the number of purely mental fields is fairly small, especially in technology. More than that, though, are how amenities affect future applicants. If I was a prospective student choosing between Oxford and say, Princeton, the quality of the campus and amount of resources available would affect my decision. My impression was that Oxbridge is very much about maintaining and continuing the traditions of the UK mo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely agree about the colonial mindset and an inherent bias towards self-perpetuating elitism in the UK.
I’m in the process of getting rid of all my stuff and so I’m in the process of shredding old school work and it’s mad how much of is centred on the royal family, the UK military and the romans. The indoctrination starts early.
> aims to ensure that all pupils:
> - know and understand the history of these islands as a coherent, chronological narrative, from the earliest times to the present day: how people’s lives have shaped this nation and how Britain has influenced and been influenced by the wider world
> - know and understand significant aspects of the history of the wider world: the nature of ancient civilisations; the expansion and dissolution of empires; characteristic features of past non-European societies; achievements and follies of mankind
You should have covered from the stone age right through to "Britain’s place in the world since 1945". The Romans, military and royal family are part of that.
None of that says you must approve of Roman Britain, the military or the royal family.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curricul...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the number of purely mental fields is fairly small, especially in technology. More than that, though, are how amenities affect future applicants. If I was a prospective student choosing between Oxford and say, Princeton, the quality of the campus and amount of resources available would affect my decision. My impression was that Oxbridge is very much about maintaining and continuing the traditions of the UK mo…
As a tourist in Oxford or Princeton, how can you tell what resources are available?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
University funding varies wildly in the UK and it mostly correlates with ranking, at least the 'higher-up' universities generally have more disposal income to give to researchers. Unfortunately, it's a vicious circle because it's the difference between "you can go to this conference" or "we'll pay the article fee" and "we have no money, sorry". Allowing researchers those sorts of freedoms means you tend to get better…
> University funding varies wildly in the UK and it mostly correlates with ranking, at least the 'higher-up' universities generally have more disposal income to give to researchers. This is how the entirety of the UK works. All the funding goes to London, everywhere else gets nothing. All the laws are written to benefit the landlord and investor classes, everyone else gets nothing etc. Little recognition that the ent…
and
"Every Londoner provided £3,070 more in tax revenues than they received in public spending, while people living in the south-east ran a surplus of £1,670 per head."
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/23/uk-budget-d...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> University funding varies wildly in the UK and it mostly correlates with ranking, at least the 'higher-up' universities generally have more disposal income to give to researchers. This is how the entirety of the UK works. All the funding goes to London, everywhere else gets nothing. All the laws are written to benefit the landlord and investor classes, everyone else gets nothing etc. Little recognition that the ent…
"London’s thriving economy generates a £26.5bn surplus that is recycled by the government to provide financial help to Britain’s less well-off regions, according to an official breakdown of the public finances." and "Every Londoner provided £3,070 more in tax revenues than they received in public spending, while people living in the south-east ran a surplus of £1,670 per head." https://www.theguardian.com/business/20…
And that “thriving economy” is in large part to the £125 billion pounds of dirty money that is flowing through London every year, not to mention selling half of the housing stock to dodgy oligarchs. It’s a crooked city.
https://www.ft.com/video/d3bafb94-9dbd-4c1e-8016-8cd8331960f...