buffet rule not wrote:
the shanghai list is a joke because it is completely skewed towards big universities that fund a lot of research that has absolutely no impact on what goes on at the undergrad level.
Any attempt to rate schools on "what goes on at the undergraduate level" is likely to be even more of a joke. What are they gonna do to figure out where undergrad education is best?
Also-- in the US-- while university-funded research does indeed exist (especially in the schools with huge endowments like Harvard)-- for the most part research is government- or even foundation-funded. These are third parties that-- to at least some extent-- objectively decide where to fund research on a case-by-case basis.
This is certainly a better approach than any alternative that I can come up with. The biggest problem is actually comparing universities in different countries.
If you think it's a joke-- what do you think should be done instead?