美国申请大学也是看家长啊!哪儿都是学得好不如有个好老爸 中国韩国无一所大学进入“世界100强大学” 中国韩国没有一所大学进入美国时事周刊《新闻周刊》13日评选的“世界100强大学”。“世界100强大学”是《新闻周刊》分析大学的开放性、多样性和研究性等之后评选的。主要的评价标准是，刊登在科学杂志《自然》和《科学》上的论文数，社会科学论文引用指数——SSCI和艺术、人文科学论文引用指数——A&HCI数值，外国教授和外国学生人数，学生对教授的比率以及图书馆藏书量。 排在“世界100强大学”前五位的分别是美国的哈佛大学、斯坦福大学、耶鲁大学、加利福尼亚工学院和柏克莱加州大学。排在6～10位的分别是英国剑桥大学、美国麻省理工大学、英国牛津大学、美国加利福尼亚旧金山大学和美国哥伦比亚大学。 在亚洲的大学中，日本东京大学排在第16位，被评为亚洲最全球化的大学。日本除东京大学外还有京都大学（第29位）、大阪大学（第57位）、东北大学（第68位）和名古屋大学（第94位）等共有5所大学入围。香港有香港科技大学（第60位）和香港中文大学（第96位），而新加坡则有新加坡国立大学（第36位）和南洋理工大学（第71位）等分别有两所大学入选。但是，中国内地和韩国没有1所大学进入“世界100强大学”之列。 《新闻周刊》报道，随着美国的高考竞争日益激烈，除了东部名门——美国常青藤盟校（哈佛大学、耶鲁大学、哥伦比亚大学、普林斯顿大学、宾夕法尼亚大学、康奈尔大学、达特茅斯学院和布朗大学）外还出现了许多学生非常向往的新名牌大学。包括常青藤盟校8所大学在内，被称为“新常青藤盟校”的25所大学中还有艾莫里大学、密歇根大学、纽约大学、北卡罗来纳州大学、里德大学、美国赖斯大学、罗彻斯特大学、UCLA大学、弗吉尼亚州大学和华盛顿大学。 但是，美国《时代》杂志就常青藤盟校等美国名门大学谴责说，对于社会名流或同门子女给予特殊入学优惠。该杂志报道称，“对于父母承诺捐助巨额资金或社会名流、有影响力的同门的子女，即便在满分1600分的学术水平测验考试（SAT）中只得到300分，也可进入名门大学。特惠入学的学生人数占全体学生的三分之一。” The Complete List: The Top 100 Global Universities Aug. 13, 2006 - In response to the same forces that have propelled the world economy toward global integration, universities have also become more self-consciously global: seeking students from around the world who represent the entire spec trum of cultures and values, sending their own students abroad to prepare them for global careers, offering courses of study that address the challenges of an inter connected world and collaborative research programs to advance science for the benefit of all humanity. To capture these developments, NEWSWEEK devised a ranking of global universities that takes into account openness and diversity, as well as distinction in research. We evaluated schools on some of the measures used in well-known rankings published by Shanghai Jiaotong University and the Times of London Higher Education Survey. Fifty percent of the score came from equal parts of three measures used by Shanghai Jiatong: the number of highly-cited researchers in various academic fields, the number of articles published in Nature and Science, and the number of articles listed in the ISI Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities indices. Another 40 percent of the score came from equal parts of four measures used by the Times: the percentage of international faculty, the percentage of international students, citations per faculty member (using ISI data), and the ratio of faculty to students. The final 10 percent came from library holdings (number of volumes). Here is our ranking: 1. Harvard University 2. Stanford University 3. Yale University 4. California Institute of Technology 5. University of California at Berkeley 6. University of Cambridge 7. Massachusetts Institute Technology 8. Oxford University 9. University of California at San Francisco 10. Columbia University 11. University of Michigan at Ann Arbor 12. University of California at Los Angeles 13. University of Pennsylvania 14. Duke University 15. Princeton Universitty 16. Tokyo University 17. Imperial College London 18. University of Toronto 19. Cornell University 20. University of Chicago 21. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich 22. University of Washington at Seattle 23. University of California at San Diego 24. Johns Hopkins University 25. University College London 26. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne 27. University Texas at Austin 28. University of Wisconsin at Madison 29. Kyoto University 30. University of Minnesota Twin Cities 31. University of British Columbia 32. University of Geneva 33. Washington University in St. Louis 34. London School of Economics 35. Northwestern University 36. National University of Singapore 37. University of Pittsburgh 38. Australian National University 39. New York University 40. Pennsylvania State University 41. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 42. McGill University 43. Ecole Polytechnique 44. University of Basel 45. University of Maryland 46. University of Zurich 47. University of Edinburgh 48. University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign 49. University of Bristol 50. University of Sydney 51. University of Colorado at Boulder 52. Utrecht University 53. University of Melbourne 54. University of Southern California 55. University of Alberta 56. Brown University 57. Osaka University 58. University of Manchester 59. University of California at Santa Barbara 60. Hong Kong University of Science and Technology 61. Wageningen University 62. Michigan State University 63. University of Munich 64. University of New South Wales 65. Boston University 66. Vanderbilt University 67. University of Rochester 68. Tohoku University 69. University of Hong Kong 70. University of Sheffield 71. Nanyang Technological University 72. University of Vienna 73. Monash University 74. University of Nottingham 75. Carnegie Mellon University 76. Lund University 77. Texas A&M University 78. University of Western Australia 79. Ecole Normale Super Paris 80. University of Virginia 81. Technical University of Munich 82. Hebrew University of Jerusalem 83. Leiden University 84. University of Waterloo 85. King's College London 86. Purdue University 87. University of Birmingham 88. Uppsala University 89. University of Amsterdam 90. University of Heidelberg 91. University of Queensland 92. University of Leuven 93. Emory University 94. Nagoya University 95. Case Western Reserve University 96. Chinese University of Hong Kong 97. University of Newcastle 98. Innsbruck University 99. University of Massachusetts at Amherst 100. Sussex University http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14321230/site/newsweek/ How VIPs Get In By NATHAN THORNBURGH Posted Sunday, Aug. 13, 2006 Growing numbers of kids may be discovering that they no longer need Harvard, but according to Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Golden, the Ivies still feel a need for certain kinds of kids. Golden won a Pulitzer Prize in 2004 for his articles on the admissions advantage élite schools give to the children of alumni (known as legacies) and to the sons and daughters of big donors and celebrities. His book on that practice, The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges--and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates, will be published in September. He spoke with TIME's Nathan Thornburgh about the myth of college meritocracy. HOW MUCH EASIER IS IT TO GET INTO A TOP SCHOOL IF YOU HAVE THESE SPECIAL PREFERENCES? If the parent pledges enough money or is a big enough celebrity or powerful enough alumnus, the break can amount to 300 SAT points out of 1600, which is as much or more than a typical affirmative-action preference would be. About a third of the kids at the typical élite university would probably not be there if not for those preferences. WHAT'S SO WRONG WITH A PRIVATE SCHOOL'S GIVING THE KIDS OF ALUMNI A LEG UP? You have to remember that college admissions is a zero-sum game. For every kid who's admitted, there's another kid who doesn't get the space. There's a cost there. It hurts the quality of intellectual discussion in the classroom, the vitality of the university. These universities are nonprofits whose mission should be to identify the best and brightest students. Their mission shouldn't be to perpetuate aristocracy in America. THE TOP SCHOOLS INSIST THAT THEY ARE EXPANDING THEIR OUTREACH. ARE THEY ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM? Colleges do a lot of marketing to ensure that they bring in a huge number of applications, only to turn down most of them to make room for rich kids. It's true that many top colleges have announced expanded financial-aid opportunities for low-income kids. But none of these élite private colleges have announced any diminution of the preferences they have for wealthy kids or legacies, and they're not willing to give up their preferences for athletes in élite sports like squash, sailing, polo and crew. The losers here are the middle-class kids. All they bring is brilliance, hard work and achievement. Apparently that's not enough. WHO HAS BEEN USING THIS IVY-LEAGUE BACK DOOR? Lots of people. Take the example of Harrison Frist, the oldest son of [Senate majority leader] Bill Frist. His father is a Princeton alumnus and a very powerful politician. The family has given $25 million for Princeton's Frist Campus Center. Harrison wasn't in the Cum Laude Society, which is the top 20% of students at his prep school, St. Albans, but my research indicated that Princeton considered Harrison a very high priority for admission. [A Princeton spokesman says Frist was accepted on his own merit.] HOW DID HE DO WHEN HE GOT TO PRINCETON? He joined an eating club that is kind of notorious for rambunctiousness and was eventually arrested for drunk driving. He graduated this year but without academic honors. Now Harrison's youngest brother was just admitted to Princeton. He's entering in the fall. And he wasn't in the Cum Laude Society at St. Albans either. [The Frist family declined to comment.] AND YET BILL FRIST OPPOSES AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. I think it suggests that he's glad to take advantage of one type of affirmative action for his own family while opposing it for people of a different race or of lesser means. YOU WENT TO HARVARD AS AN UNDERGRAD. WERE YOU A LEGACY? No. My dad went to City College of New York, and my mom went to Skidmore. In fact, my parents were both immigrants, exemplars of the kind of meritocracy that I believe in. YOU'VE GOT A SON IN HIGH SCHOOL. WILL HIS LEGACY STATUS HELP HIM GET INTO HARVARD? No, he's not applying to Harvard. Given this book and how colleges feel about me, I'm thinking of sending him to college in Canada. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1226164,00.html
