What has changed in ten years? Comment on the ranking of materials science and engineering in the fourth subject evaluation

On the afternoon of the 28th, the editor’s circle of friends was full of the performance of the latest subject evaluation released by major universities. So, who is happy and who is worried about the ranking of materials science and engineering disciplines? Compared with ten years ago, how have the rankings changed?

The following is the 2017 and 2012 discipline evaluation rankings of 29 universities that have recently been rated as first-class disciplines in materials science and engineering

Obviously, most subjects rated as first-class subjects in materials science and engineering still scored well in the latest subject evaluation. However, there are more than 50 colleges and universities rated as B-level or above. This can only mean that the selection and evaluation of first-class disciplines should not be a standard.

Let’s take a look at the results of the 17 colleges and universities that have been rated as A-level or above (inclusive) in the past ten years:

If you look at the rankings alone, a lot has changed in ten years.

There are three significant declines in rankings, namely Northeastern University, Central South University, and University of Science and Technology Beijing. The three universities have been important training bases for materials science and engineering talents (especially in metal materials) since the founding of the People’s Republic of China.

In 2007, the two universities, Beijing University of Science and Technology and Central South University, tied for second place, the two old-famous materials schools regressed significantly in the second selection. Central South University dropped from the second place in 2007 to the 8th place in 2012, and then to the top 17 place in 2017 (A- etc., tied for 9th, the best score is 9th, and the worst is the 9th. XVII). Although the University of Science and Technology Beijing retained its second place in 2012, it also retreated to the top 8 in 2017 (A grade, tied for 4th, the best results are also fourth, and the worst is 8th).

Northeastern University, another veteran material school, has also regressed significantly in the second ranking, from 8th to 16th, and then to the top 17 (A- etc., tied for 9th, the best score is 9th, and the worst is 17th. ).

This time the ranking has risen the most, and the two most dazzling ones are Wuhan University of Technology and Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics rose from No. 9 in 2007 to No. 8 in 2012, and then soared to tied for No. 1 this year. Wuhan University of Technology rose from fifth in 2012 to tied for first this year.

Otherwise, Wuhan University of Technology and Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics have made great progress in high-end talents. In 2017, two teachers from Wuhan University of Technology, Zhang Qingjie and Zhang Lianmen, were evaluated as academicians, and the total number of academicians in the field of materials has 4. In recent years, Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics has also been named two academicians Xu Huibin and Wang Huaming, and there are 5 academicians in total.

As for the echelon of young talents like the Thousand Young Talents, Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics has even introduced dozens of talents over the years. From the standpoint of reserve forces, Beihang will not only be tied for first place this time, but it may not be worse next time.

The two universities, Fudan University and Peking University, are basically ranked among the top ten in the world’s material science rankings. And in the subject rankings of the Ministry of Education… this can only be said that the ranking standards of materials science and engineering are probably not the same as those used in foreign materials science rankings.

In the next subject evaluation, which one is happy and which one is the best?

Attachment: Ranking of Materials Science and Engineering in the Fourth Subject Assessment

Note: The comparative data of subject rankings over the years is manual comparison. If there are any errors, please correct me.