Cambridge flounders in 6th place on The Times world university rankings, despite coming top in two other league tables.

The Times has ranked Cambridge in a shocking sixth place on its World University Rankings, despite last week’s US league tables claiming that Cambridge is the best uni in the world.

To make matters worse, Cambridge was beaten to top spot by four American universities and The Other Place.

Oxford came 4th in the Times Higher Education world university rankings, a whole two places above Cambridge.

See for yourself- The Times‘ top 10

Students from Cambridge have reacted with fury. Papatya Sutcliffe of Corpus Christi, Cambridge, hit out at the result, calling The Times:the lovechild of Rupert Murdoch and the devil.”

She went on to rubbish their verdict: “As the QS world rankings show, Cambridge is and always will be the best university in the world”.

It would seem that The Times are outnumbered, with both the QS rankings and US News asserting Cambridge’s international supremacy.

But the challenge posed by The Times’ league table, published last Thursday, will inevitably add fuel to the burning rivalry between the UK’s two top unis.

  • Universityo Zaragoza

    6th is ok.

    confident of making the play off final at wembley

  • lol

    There is no FUCKING way Cal Tech is the top uni in the world. What were they thinking ?

    • Well

      Caltech is statistically ( number of applicants per place) and on average SAT scores of incoming students very difficult to get in- I would think more so than Cambridge anyway.

  • Cantabrigian

    Haters gon' hate.

  • Steve

    I just love the button labelled "Change Criteria" on the Overall Score column. If only my degree came with one of those.

  • Just saying

    The US News is based on QS- so Time's isn't being outnumbered. In fact the ARWU table (which was the first ever World University rankings and quite consist over the years) is similar to the Time's because both are based on objective criteria, while QS is based on dodgy 'subjective' questionaires.

    • Pedant

      It's not called the Time's.

      • Just Saying

        What difference does that make? US News is based on QS, and the tab is factually mistaken. I am typographically incorrect, so what? Besides I probably spent less than 5 seconds writing that. I'm not writing an online news article but rather being an anonymous-pointer-out-of-relevant-facts -after-reading-the- article person

  • Incredulous

    WTF!

  • Tab Writer

    Papatya Sutcliffe is a huge name, her views added a lot to the article.

  • realist

    "“I’m proud to be at Oxford – I always knew we were the best.”
    Emm, you came 4th you retard.

  • Poo Man

    We all seem to be missing the point here everyone. It is not a question of who finishes first and who finishes sixth, rather we should appreciate the fine variety of poos that result from such a mix within the Times Top Ten. I've handled and sampled the faeces of students from the likes of Harvard, Stanford, Oxford and Cambridge University and the fantastic array of flavours sends my taste-buds a-tingling. One cocktail was particularly sumptuous – a full-bodied Cambridge log belonging to a Classics professor, garnished with the chocolatey sticky treat of a female Stanford student. Nutty on the pallet, this mélange slid smoothly down my oesophagus leaving but a faint hint of Green Giant's finest sweetcorn and runny shit on my tongue – utterly delicious. So, you see everyone, we should embrace variety, and more importantly, revel in the sheer variety of nutty brown lumps that we have at our fingertips.

    I've been Poo Man, thanks for reading and remember folks, if a turd should land upon your toe, flick it up and swallow slow.

    Happy poo debauchery,

    PM

    • Shut It

      I think I speak for everyone when I say that your craic is one of the worst things I have ever witnessed.

      • Hater hater

        Clearly you opt to put down others in order to make it seem like you have superior chat.

        • Hater hater hater

          Clearly you opt to put down those who put down others in order to make it seems like you have superior chat

          • Hater hater hater ha

            Ah damn, my name doesn't fit into the 20 character limit.

  • (hater)^n

    Clearly you opt to put down those who put down others in order to make it seems like you have superior chat