Howard Gardner: Las sociedades desperdician el talento

ORIGINAL: Barcelona Alternativa
ISABEL PERMUY
2015/03/10

El padre de la teoria de las inteligencias multiples advierte de que las sociedades desperdician el talento

Howard Gardner. Foto:Barcelona Alternativa

Howard Gardner, mejor conocido como el padre de la teoría de las inteligencias múltiples, advierte que las sociedades desperdician el talento. Desarrollamos diferentes inteligencias, algunas más que otras. Lo ideal sería que la vocación nos guiara para realizarnos como individuos y sociedad.

Howard Gardner fue nombrado doctor «honoris causa» por la Universidad Camilo José Cela de Madrid

«Es una reunión interesante de diferentes inteligencias. Resulta inusual que un entorno académico reconozca, por ejemplo, el atletismo».

Howard Gardner, laureado psicólogo y profesor de Harvard, pudo ver escenificada la teoría que le hizo famoso, las inteligencias múltiples, el pasado viernes en la entrega de los Premios Príncipe de Asturias, rodeado de personalidades de los campos de las artes, el deporte, la ciencia, la economía… Todos los premiados sobresalen por hacer algo completamente diferente, pero ¿Haile Gebreselassie, considerado el mejor corredor de fondo de todos los tiempos, es menos inteligente que Giacomo Rizzolatti, científico que descubrió las neuronas espejo? Para Gardner, claramente no. Lo que ocurre es que sus inteligencias pertenecen a ámbitos distintos. Este investigador, hijo de alemanes huidos del nazismo, recibía el galardón en la categoría de Ciencias Sociales por mantener, precisamente, que no existe una única inteligencia, sino ocho: 

1. la lingüística, 
2. la lógico-matemática, 
3. la visual-espacial (dibujar, interpretar un mapa), 
4. la musical, 
5. la corporal (danza, deportes), 
6. la intrapersonal (conocimiento de uno mismo), 
7. la interpersonal (conocimiento de los demás) y 
8. la naturalista (observación y clasificación de las cosas). 

Este concepto, además de reconocer al máximo nivel capacidades que antes eran menospreciadas frente a las habilidades académicas tradicionales, ha obligado a replantear el sistema educativo. El sábado fue nombrado doctor Honoris Causa por la Universidad Camilo José Cela de Madrid.

-¿Cómo podemos identificar nuestro potencial?

-Creo que el mejor modo de hacerlo es intentar enseñar algo nuevo a alguien y ver cuánto tarda en aprenderlo. Por ejemplo, enseñamos a un grupo de estudiantes a jugar al ajedrez. Después de 20 partidas, algunos ganarán casi siempre. Claramente esos son los que tienen más potencial.

-¿Hay gente competente en todos los tipos de inteligencia?

-Todo el mundo tiene todas las inteligencias, pero la vida no es justa… Hay gente que brilla en todos los tipos, como Leonardo Da Vinci, y otros… bueno, no las desarrollan igual. Pero lo importante de esta teoría es que existen una serie de perfiles: algunos tienen picos altos en algunas tareas y otros en otras, pero siempre podemos mejorar en las más bajas.

-¿Qué aconsejaría a los padres para potenciar la inteligencia de sus hijos?

-Présteles mucha atención y averigüe qué es lo que les interesa y les apasiona sin proyectar en ellos sus prioridades, pasiones ni debilidades.

-¿Qué opina de los test que miden el coeficiencte intelectual?

-No sirven, es como poner a alguien un sello en la frente: tú eres listo, tú no. Eso es muy negativo.Es mucho mejor descubrir en qué destaca alguien, qué debe aprender y darle ayuda para ello. Y si no es así, probar otra cosa.

-Si tuviera en sus manos la educación de un país, ¿qué es lo primero que cambiaría?

-La educación no debe centrarse únicamente en la escuela: también depende de la familia, los medios de comunicación, el vencindario, todo lo demás… Además, los profesores deben ser profesionales.

-Explíquese.

-Tienen que tener vocación y demostrarlo. Aceptar una responsabilidad, tener estatus y ser respetados.

-¿El sistema educativo actual desperdicia el talento?

-Nuestras comunidades desperdician el talento porque solo los privilegiados tienen opciones. Una de las cosas más interesantes de los sistemas educativos de Finlandia y Singapur, los mejores del mundo ahora mismo, es que son totalmente planos y justos. Es decir, no hay manera de saber cuánto dinero tiene la familia de cada estudiante en un colegio. En un sistema realmente justo, los alumnos con desventajas tendrían a los mejores profesores y las mejores escuelas.

-España tiene una alta tasa de fracaso escolar. ¿Qué nos recomienda?

-Mejorar la educación debería ser una de las prioridades principales de un gobierno. Y un consejo: aprovechar los medios digitales es muy importante. No sirve de nada hacer que los estudiantes memoricen las cosas si todo está aquí (saca un smartphone del bolsillo) Vamos a enseñarles cómo utilizar las fuentes de información y también a cuestionarlas. En cuanto a los jóvenes, si no hay oportunidades de empleo, la motivación es mucho más difícil, pero no se pueden quedar en casa. Pueden seguir mejorando sus destrezas y ayudar a otras personas. En el futuro, cuidar a nuestros mayores va a ser la mayor fuente de trabajo.

-Estamos cerca de unas elecciones generales en España y elegimos nuevo presidente. ¿A qué tipo de inteligencia deberíamos votar?

-No hay una receta de las inteligencias perfectas para un presidente, porque depende muchísimo de las circunstancias. Obama parecía tener un potencial enorme, pero ha heredado una situación económica muy complicada y no pudo comprender que la oposición no iba a ayudarle. Churchill fue un primer ministro brillante en la época de la guerra, porque fue capaz de levantar el país, pero durante un período económico difícil no hubiera tenido tanto éxito. Una vez pregunté a Sorensen, la mano derecha del presidente Kennedy, exactamente la misma pregunta.

-¿Y qué le contestó?

-Me dijo que lo más importante de un líder es que tenga buen juicio. ¿Y cómo podemos saberlo? Por las personas que asigna a cada puesto. Cuando John McCain eligió a Sarah Palin, probablemente en ese momento perdió las elecciones.

-En su teoría de inteligencias múltiples, ¿dónde colocaría la intuición?

-Cuando alguien puede hacer algo bien o pensar de forma correcta, pero es incapaz de explicar cómo lo consigue. Eso es la intuición. La gente puede tener muy buena intuición en un área, pero no en otras. Un matemático puede ver claramente la resolución de un problema muy complicado, pero no tener ni idea de cómo detener una pelea entre dos niños.

-¿Cuál es su definición de genio? Mucha gente consideraba que el recién fallecido Steve Jobs lo era.

-Un genio es alguien que descubre algo nuevo del mundo, y creo que él lo hizo. Así que, de acuerdo con esa definición, efectivamente, fue un genio.

ISABEL PERMUY

The World's Most Talent Competitive Countries

Paul Evans, Academic Director of the INSEAD Global Talent Competitiveness Index and Bruno Lanvin, INSEAD Executive Director for Global Indices with Sarah Wachter, Knowledge Contributor

INSEAD’s Global Talent Competitiveness Index shows high-income countries leading in fostering knowledge and vocational talent pools. Low-income countries are struggling in both areas.

Talent is the V8 engine of competitiveness and innovation for today’s globally connected mobile economy. Those that have mastered the development of skills inside their countries and lowered the barriers to entry for foreign talent are creating vibrant and sustainable economies. Those that haven’t are facing a wide array of challenges, from skills shortages to high joblessness.

INSEAD, in partnership with Singapore’s Human Capital Leadership Institute and Adecco, has created the first ranking of 103 countries on their ability to attract and incubate talent. The index shows the top ten slots mostly populated by European and rich countries, plus Singapore and the United States and a wide gap between prosperous and low-income countries.

The top-ranked 20 countries in the Global Talent Competitiveness Index (GTCI) shows countries need both skill sets - global knowledge and vocational - to build a cutting edge, knowledge-based society, a complex undertaking that in some cases relies on strong educational traditions, and in others on immigration policies.

Swiss formula

By INSEAD

At the top of the GTCI league table sits Switzerland. What sets Switzerland apart is its strength in both vocational and global knowledge skills, and across the entire gamut of indicators, said Paul Evans, Academic Director of the INSEAD GTCI. At the same time, Switzerland has two local specificities, added Bruno Lanvin, INSEAD Executive Director for Global Indices:

1. a thriving apprenticeship programme, and 
2. a system where workers can move back and forth from classroom to workplace.

The GTCI measures countries, using 48 variables, split into two groups. The outputs are

• vocational and technical skills for jobs in fields such as health and engineering; and global knowledge skills, which encompasses a range of positions, including entrepreneurs, researchers, managers and other professionals. 
• The second group addresses how countries enable, attract, grow, and retain talent to foster these output skills.

Small-country advantage
Lanvin said the rankings reflect three distinct types of situation in the leading countries studied.  

• Countries and city states in the top ten employ a strategy that emphasises drawing in talent. These countries include second-ranked Singapore, followed by Denmark, and joined by the Nordic countries, Sweden, Finland and Iceland; plus Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the U.K. Many of these countries, especially in Europe, have a long history of fostering strong education systems. “They have the income, they have the resources, they have the infrastructure. They just need the people that their demography does not generate,” Lanvin said.
• The second is large industrial countries clustered further down in the top 20, which have a well-established tradition of immigration to attract talent, such as the U.S. (9th), Canada (11th) and Australia (15th).
• And the third situation is seen in emerging countries that need talent to build infrastructure, develop their economy, and lift GDP growth. Such talent champions such as Montenegro and Malaysia were ranked 26th and 37th respectively for their focus on skills that their neighbours lack and developing human capital that is in particular demand.

Innovation link
Lanvin notes, as expected, the talent competitiveness performance of countries and GDP per person were tightly correlated in the GTCI - rich countries rose to the top of the GTCI, poor countries ranked at the bottom. But what was surprising was an even stronger correlation between talent competitiveness and innovation performance, he added.

Fast learners
In each world region, there were countries that stood out. For example, even though Germany is ranked 20th and is often lauded for its strong industrial base, Belgium is ranked slightly above Germany in the GTCI index, largely on the merits of its education system which leads to a stronger global knowledge workforce, whereas Germany is more weighted toward vocational skills.

Among developing countries, there were emerging economies that bettered their regional peers. In sub-Saharan Africa, which falls at the bottom of the table in GDP per person, South Africa stood out for its large share of women in parliament, a measure of a country’s commitment to growing and attracting talent. In Latin America, Chile was noteworthy because of its high social mobility and its open borders. In Asia, China outperforms other countries in the region due to its ongoing efforts to strengthen its higher education system.

The strong performance of these countries indicates that “global competition for talent is going to remain a rapidly-moving field, in which comparative advantages may be hard to keep,” the authors point out.

Minding the gap
The GTCI shows the global spread of talent competitiveness is indeed lopsided. Clustered at the top are rich countries that need to nurture both global knowledge and vocational skills, contrasted with lower-ranked emerging economies. The gap is widest on global knowledge skills, where rich countries are much stronger due to their well-developed ecosystem of universities and institutions that spur innovation, which are difficult for developing countries to replicate in the short term.

There is a virtuous feedback loop in operation in rich countries, which are able to develop, attract and hold onto talent. By contrast, the GTCI shows poor countries may not be able to keep the skilled workers they have developed and attracted. What is more, many of these emerging countries are striving to expand their pool of the vocationally skilled.

The draw of the metropolis 
The index suggests another front is emerging in the global war for talent. To sharpen its competitive edge, a large country can better match the agility of the best-performing small countries and city-states, through strengthening competition among cities within its borders, Evans said.

Evans cites several examples of the increasing clout of cities as top talent draws: Barcelona, which has fashioned itself into a hub for information technology; the fashion industry, where there are now several capitals of “la mode”, with Paris no longer predominant, including London, Milan, New York, and Tokyo; and Singapore, which despite its modest market size, has positioned itself as the gateway to Asia, through building world-class infrastructure and striking partnerships.

“Ten years ago, if you worked for a large U.S. company… people would say are you interested in moving to a management position in China? Today, typically the answer to the question is, are you sending me to Beijing, to Shanghai, to Guangzhou, or to the western provinces?” Evans said.

Redressing imbalances
The authors note that to address the skills gaps evident worldwide, and most acutely in some countries and regions, will require more cross-border mobility of talent, greater access to education for women, the disabled, marginalised ethnic and poor populations, and for companies to reinvigorate apprenticeship programmes to retain skilled workers and create local jobs.

To address the complex and inter-connected challenges necessary to boost talent competitiveness will require government, business, organised labour, educators and individuals to collaborate through forging partnerships, the authors note.

ORIGINAL: INSEAD

November 26, 2013

The World's Top Universities 2013

1. California Institute of Technology United States:2012 ranking: 1

2. Harvard (tie) United States: 2012 ranking: 4

2. University of Oxford (tie) United Kingdom: 2012 ranking: 2 (tie)

4. Stanford United States: 2012 ranking: 2 (tie)

5. Masachussetts Institute of Technology United States: 2012 ranking: 5

6. Princeton University United States: 2012 ranking: 6

7. University of Cambridge England: 2012 ranking: 7

8. University of California, Berkeley United States: 2012 ranking: 9

9. University of Chicago United States:2012 ranking: 10

10. Imperial College, London United Kingdom: 2012 ranking:8

The California Institute of Technology, a private institution with just 2,200 students, takes the number one slot again this year in the tenth annual World University Rankings, put out by Times Higher Education (THE), a London magazine that tracks the higher ed market. Two years ago Cal Tech bumped Harvard out of first place. Last year Harvard slipped down three slots, to No. 4, behind the University of Oxford in the U.K. and Stanford, which tied for second place. But this year Harvard is back in the No. 2 slot, tied with Oxford. Stanford slipped to fourth place in THE’s list of 400 schools.

Unlike Forbes’ own ranking, which measures only U.S. schools, or the much-read U.S. News & World Report’s lists of U.S. and international institutions, THE does not consider measures like

• entry requirements, 
• graduation rates, 
• professor ratings by students, or 
• alumni salaries post-graduation. 

Instead its methodology emphasizes global scholarship and reputation. “We put the heaviest weight on research and innovation, research productivity and research excellence,” explains THE rankings editor Phil Baty. “Our list is really about producing new ideas, about innovating, about attracting skills and talented people into a country,” he adds. “It’s also about bringing business money into the higher education center.”

 The Top Universities In The Asia-Pacific Region 2013 
 Susan Adams Forbes Staff

The Top Universities In Europe 2013
Susan Adams Forbes Staff

The Universities That Produce The Most CEOs 
Susan Adams Forbes Staff

The World's Best New Universities 2013
Susan Adams Forbes Staff

There is one other international university ranking, the ten-year-old Academic Ranking of World Universities, put out by Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China. It focuses on science and nature citations and awards, especially Nobel prizes, and it counts the number of articles published by faculty members in journals about nature and science. ARWU’s top three schools: Harvard, Stanford and U.C. Berkeley. Cal Tech rates sixth and Oxford, tenth.

We think THE’s rankings are worth a story in part because universities and governments are taking them seriously. This week THE is hosting its first-ever World Academic Summit in Singapore. The conference is bringing together 200 senior university staffers from 31 countries. In addition, Baty says that the Japanese government has been tapping the rankings to plan the prime minister’s growth strategy and the Russian and Indian governments have invited THE staffers to talk about how those countries can make their universities more competitive. While Japan has five schools on THE’s top-200 list, Russia and India have none.

To compile its ranking, THE looked at 13 different “performance indicators” to evaluate whether schools are achieving their core missions of teaching, research, knowledge transfer and “international outlook.”

Thirty percent of the ranking score comes from citations of a university’s scholarship. Thomson Reuters, which did the data crunching for THE, combed through more than 6 million journal articles published over a six-year period and then calculated how many times those articles were cited by other scholars. Another 30% of the score comes from the volume of institutions’ research, and the reputation and income it generates. While THE also looks at teaching to derive 30% of a school’s score, it does not query students. Rather it examines measures like staff -to-student ratios and what percent of the faculty have PhDs. THE also tallied survey results from 10,500 academics around the world, who answered questions about the best departments in their disciplines, specialists in their fields, and where they would recommend their graduates go for further study. To put together its metrics, THE measured the experiences of all university students, not just undergrads. (To read more details about the methodology, click here).

Cal Tech landed at No. 1 because it scored well across the board. Its small faculty of 300 professors and 600 “research scholars” has won 31 Nobel prizes. Baty also points to the fact that Cal Tech manages the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the federally funded NASA research and development center that has been in the news for its Mars Rover robotic space mission. While this doesn’t affect the rankings, Cal Tech has gotten some attention as a home to nerds with a sense of humor because the hit sitcom “Big Bang Theory” is set there.

As for Stanford’s slip in the rankings, Baty says there are marginal differences between the schools at the top of the list. “There’s only a tiny fraction of a single point separating the very top universities,” he notes. Stanford’s research productivity and research reputation scores edged down slightly, which tipped the balance this year.

One piece of news: Baty says that U.S. schools have regained their footing and are dominating this year’s ranking with little sign of decline. Of the top 200 schools on the list, 77 are in the U.S. Last year Baty cautioned that Asian schools, which were getting substantial support from their governments, looked like they might impinge on the dominance of the U.S., because of shrinking funds, especially for major public research universities. Last year U.S. schools dropped on average six places each. Now Baty says that U.S. universities have stopped their slide, in part by increasing the enrollment of international students who can pay full tuition. Example: U.C.L.A. (No. 12 on THE’s list) admitted 2,544 international students in 2013, up from 672 in 2009. (It also admitted far more out-of-state American students, 4,094 in 2013, compared to 1,545 four years ago.) Non-Californians pay $22,900 more in annual tuition than in-staters.

Three U.S. schools are new to the top-200 list this year: Florida Institute of Technology in Melbourne, FLA, Northeastern University in Boston and Brandeis in Waltham, MA.

Baty emphasizes that THE’s list gives the highest marks to schools that reflect the notion that, as he puts it, “the best teaching is done by those who are absolutely at the forefront of their fields.” The idea is that students will be inspired by superstar researchers. “One moment the professor may be curing cancer and the next moment he is in the classroom inspiring students,” he says.

But does the best, most engaging teaching come from top scholars? That might be true for graduate-level courses. But if a professor really is working on a cure for cancer, he or she might prefer to be in the lab rather than a lecture hall filled with undergraduates. Professors with the greatest passion for teaching devote themselves to just that—teaching—as opposed to research. Because of its emphasis on scholarship , by design THE’s list includes no colleges, missing out on many of the best schools in the U.S., like Pomona, No. 2 on the Forbes list, or Swarthmore, Forbes’ No. 8.

That said, THE provides a valuable list of the world’s universities that are producing the best, most innovative and widely respected scholarship. For a complete list of the 400 schools rated by THE, click here.

VIEW BY:

OR:

The Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2013-2014 powered by Thomson Reuters are the only global university performance tables to judge world class universities across all of their core missions - teaching, research, knowledge transfer and international outlook. The top universities rankings employ 13 carefully calibrated performance indicators to provide the most comprehensive and balanced comparisons available, which are trusted by students, academics, university leaders, industry and governments.

World University Rankings 2013-2014

Rank	Institution	Location	Overall score change criteria
1	California Institute of Technology	United States	94.9
2	Harvard University	United States	93.9
2	University of Oxford	United Kingdom	93.9
4	Stanford University	United States	93.8
5	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	United States	93.0
6	Princeton University	United States	92.7
7	University of Cambridge	United Kingdom	92.3
8	University of California, Berkeley	United States	89.8
9	University of Chicago	United States	87.8
10	Imperial College London	United Kingdom	87.5
11	Yale University	United States	87.4
12	University of California, Los Angeles	United States	86.3
13	Columbia University	United States	85.2
14	ETH Zürich – Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich	Switzerland	84.5
15	Johns Hopkins University	United States	83.7
16	University of Pennsylvania	United States	81.0
17	Duke University	United States	79.3
18	University of Michigan	United States	79.2
19	Cornell University	United States	79.1
20	University of Toronto	Canada	78.3
21	University College London	United Kingdom	77.6
22	Northwestern University	United States	77.1
23	The University of Tokyo	Japan	76.4
24	Carnegie Mellon University	United States	76.0
25	University of Washington	United States	73.4
26	National University of Singapore	Singapore	72.4
27	University of Texas at Austin	United States	72.2
28	Georgia Institute of Technology	United States	71.6
29	University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign	United States	71.4
30	University of Wisconsin-Madison	United States	71.1
31	University of British Columbia	Canada	70.8
32	London School of Economics and Political Science	United Kingdom	69.8
33	University of California, Santa Barbara	United States	68.4
34	University of Melbourne	Australia	68.2
35	McGill University	Canada	68.1
36	Karolinska Institute	Sweden	67.8
37	École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne	Switzerland	67.7
38	King's College London	United Kingdom	67.6
39	University of Edinburgh	United Kingdom	67.5
40	New York University	United States	67.4
40	University of California, San Diego	United States	67.4
42	Washington University in St Louis	United States	67.2
43	The University of Hong Kong	Hong Kong	65.3
44	Seoul National University	Republic of Korea	65.2
45	Peking University	China	65.0
46	University of Minnesota	United States	64.9
47	University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill	United States	64.5
48	Australian National University	Australia	64.4
49	Pennsylvania State University	United States	64.2
50	Tsinghua University	China	63.5
50	Boston University	United States	63.5
52	Kyoto University	Japan	63.2
52	Brown University	United States	63.2
52	University of California, Davis	United States	63.2
55	Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München	Germany	63.1
56	Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology	Republic of Korea	62.9
57	Hong Kong University of Science and Technology	Hong Kong	62.5
58	University of Manchester	United Kingdom	62.3
59	Ohio State University	United States	62.0
60	Pohang University of Science and Technology	Republic of Korea	61.7
61	KU Leuven	Belgium	61.3
62	Purdue University	United States	60.7
63	Georg-August-Universität Göttingen	Germany	59.9
63	University of Queensland Australia	Australia	59.9
65	Rice University	United States	59.8
65	École Normale Supérieure	France	59.8
67	Leiden University	Netherlands	59.4
68	Universität Heidelberg	Germany	59.2
69	Delft University of Technology	Netherlands	59.1
70	University of Southern California	United States	59.0
70	École Polytechnique	France	59.0
72	University of Sydney	Australia	58.8
73	Erasmus University Rotterdam	Netherlands	58.1
74	Universität Basel	Switzerland	57.7
74	Utrecht University	Netherlands	57.7
76	Nanyang Technological University	Singapore	57.2
77	Wageningen University and Research Center	Netherlands	56.8
78	University of Pittsburgh	United States	56.7
79	University of Bristol	United Kingdom	56.3
80	Emory University	United States	56.1
80	Durham University	United Kingdom	56.1
80	Tufts University	United States	56.1
83	University of Amsterdam	Netherlands	55.9
83	Michigan State University	United States	55.9
85	Ghent University	Belgium	55.5
86	Freie Universität Berlin	Germany	55.3
87	Technische Universität München	Germany	55.2
88	Case Western Reserve University	United States	55.0
88	Vanderbilt University	United States	55.0
90	University of Notre Dame	United States	54.7
91	Monash University	Australia	54.6
92	McMaster University	Canada	54.5
93	University of California, Irvine	United States	54.1
94	Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin	Germany	53.8
95	University of Rochester	United States	53.6
96	Université Pierre et Marie Curie	France	53.5
97	University of Colorado Boulder	United States	53.4
98	University of Groningen	Netherlands	52.9
98	Maastricht University	Netherlands	52.9
100	University of Helsinki	Finland	52.6
100	University of York	United Kingdom	52.6
102	Royal Holloway, University of London	United Kingdom	52.5
103	Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey	United States	52.4
103	Stockholm University	Sweden	52.4
103	University of Arizona	United States	52.4
106	University of Montreal	Canada	52.3
106	Eindhoven University of Technology	Netherlands	52.3
108	University of Maryland, College Park	United States	52.2
109	Chinese University of Hong Kong	Hong Kong	52.0
109	University of Alberta	Canada	52.0
111	Uppsala University	Sweden	51.9
112	University of Virginia	United States	51.8
112	University of Sheffield	United Kingdom	51.8
114	University of New South Wales	Australia	51.7
114	Université Paris-Sud	France	51.7
114	Queen Mary, University of London	United Kingdom	51.7
117	KTH Royal Institute of Technology	Sweden	51.6
117	University of St Andrews	United Kingdom	51.6
117	Technical University of Denmark	Denmark	51.6
117	University of Glasgow	United Kingdom	51.6
121	University of Sussex	United Kingdom	51.2
121	University of Zürich	Switzerland	51.2
123	Lund University	Sweden	51.1
124	University of Geneva	Switzerland	51.0
125	Tokyo Institute of Technology	Japan	50.8
126	Dartmouth College	United States	50.5
126	University of Cape Town	South Africa	50.5
128	University of Florida	United States	50.4
129	RWTH Aachen University	Germany	50.3
129	Trinity College Dublin	Republic of Ireland	50.3
131	Radboud University Nijmegen	Netherlands	50.2
132	Université de Lausanne	Switzerland	50.1
132	Indiana University	United States	50.1
132	University of Massachusetts	United States	50.1
135	Boston College	United States	50.0
136	University of California, Santa Cruz	United States	49.9
137	Lancaster University	United Kingdom	49.7
138	Aarhus University	Denmark	49.6
139	University of Leeds	United Kingdom	49.5
139	Colorado School of Mines	United States	49.5
141	University of Warwick	United Kingdom	49.4
142	National Taiwan University	Taiwan	49.2
143	University of Utah	United States	49.1
144	Osaka University	Japan	49.0
144	VU University Amsterdam	Netherlands	49.0
146	University of Southampton	United Kingdom	48.9
146	Arizona State University	United States	48.9
148	University of Exeter	United Kingdom	48.7
148	University of California, Riverside	United States	48.7
150	Tohoku University	Japan	48.5
150	University of Copenhagen	Denmark	48.5
152	Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg	Germany	48.4
153	University of Birmingham	United Kingdom	48.3
154	Karlsruhe Institute of Technology	Germany	48.0
155	Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble	France	47.8
156	École Normale Supérieure de Lyon	France	47.5
157	University of Bern	Switzerland	47.4
157	University of Nottingham	United Kingdom	47.4
159	Texas A&M University	United States	47.2
160	Georgetown University	United States	47.0
161	University of Iowa	United States	46.7
161	University College Dublin	Republic of Ireland	46.7
161	University of Leicester	United Kingdom	46.7
164	University of Antwerp	Belgium	46.6
164	Pompeu Fabra University	Spain	46.6
164	Brandeis University	United States	46.6
164	University of Auckland	New Zealand	46.6
168	University of Western Australia	Australia	46.4
169	University of Liverpool	United Kingdom	46.3
170	University of Twente	Netherlands	46.2
170	University of Vienna	Austria	46.2
172	Yeshiva University	United States	46.1
172	Université Catholique de Louvain	Belgium	46.1
174	University of Delaware	United States	46.0
174	University of East Anglia	United Kingdom	46.0
176	University at Buffalo	United States	45.9
176	Université Libre de Bruxelles	Belgium	45.9
178	Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7	France	45.8
178	Stony Brook University	United States	45.8
180	Wake Forest University	United States	45.7
181	Universität Bonn	Germany	45.6
181	Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute	United States	45.6
183	Iowa State University	United States	45.5
184	Northeastern University	United States	45.4
185	University of Oslo	Norway	45.3
185	University of Miami	United States	45.3
185	University of Ottawa	Canada	45.3
188	University of Aberdeen	United Kingdom	45.2
188	The University of Texas at Dallas	United States	45.2
190	Yonsei University	Republic of Korea	45.1
191	Hebrew University of Jerusalem	Israel	45.0
191	University of Illinois at Chicago	United States	45.0
193	Mines ParisTech	France	44.9
194	University of Reading	United Kingdom	44.8
194	George Washington University	United States	44.8
196	University of Dundee	United Kingdom	44.7
197	Florida Institute of Technology	United States	44.6
198	Newcastle University	United Kingdom	44.5
199	Boğaziçi University	Turkey	44.3
199	Tel Aviv University	Israel	44.3

World rankings - South America

The Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2013-2014 powered by Thomson Reuters are the only global university performance tables to judge world class universities across all of their core missions - teaching, research, knowledge transfer and international outlook. The top universities rankings employ 13 carefully calibrated performance indicators to provide the most comprehensive and balanced comparisons available, which are trusted by students, academics, university leaders, industry and governments.

Rank	Institution	Location	Overall score
226-250	University of São Paulo	Brazil	Data withheld by THE
251-275	University of the Andes	Colombia	Data withheld by THE
301-350	State University of Campinas	Brazil	Data withheld by THE

ORIGINAL: Forbes