Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

What, why and how? World University Rankings Presented by: Andrew King, Global Head of Business Development, QS Intelligence Unit Date: 22 February 2009.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "What, why and how? World University Rankings Presented by: Andrew King, Global Head of Business Development, QS Intelligence Unit Date: 22 February 2009."— Presentation transcript:

1 What, why and how? World University Rankings Presented by: Andrew King, Global Head of Business Development, QS Intelligence Unit Date: 22 February 2009

2 Objectives  Establish QS background & credentials  Explain research methodology  New and future developments  Understand limitations of rankings  Collect feedback and input Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 2

3 Session Flow Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 3 QS The Context Available Global Rankings The Methodology The FutureThe Results

4 Session Flow Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 4 QS The Context Available Global Rankings The Methodology The FutureThe Results

5 Founded 1989/1990  Nunzio Quacquarelli  MBA Wharton  MBA Career Guide  Approximately 100 staff in 2008  Principal offices in London, Paris & Singapore  Associates in Washington, Johannesburg, Beijing & Sydney Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 5

6 QS Mission… …to enable motivated people around the world to fulfill their potential, by fostering international mobility, educational achievement and career development Our Channels  primary research  leading-edge editorial & publications  developmental events  web solutions Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 6

7 7

8  Over 3,219,000 visits in 2008  Over 8,500 visits per day in 2008  Increasingly strong prominence in Google & Yahoo searches  Ranked as high as 23,388 in Alexa  Home of the THE – QS World University Rankings  Institution Profiles  Detailed study abroad information Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 8

9 Top Universities Guide New streamlined edition available soon Contains much information not available on web Order online at Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 9

10 Other QS Initiatives  QS World Grad School Tour  QS Top Grad School Guide  QS World MBA Tour  QS Top MBA Career Guide  QS APPLE – Kuala Lumpur November 2009  QS Top Apply  QS Education Trust  QS Intelligence Unit Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 10

11 QS Offices & Events Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 11

12 Session Flow Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 12 QS The Context Available Global Rankings The Methodology The FutureThe Results

13 Why rank universities?  Interest in ranking things and people  Hospitals  Schools  Local authorities  Rich lists; Britain, world, Asian British, footballers  Universities: The Times / US News etc… Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 13

14 Why World Rankings?  Higher education becoming more global  Knowledge the key driver of international competitiveness  Increasing desire for comparative information  Unique positions of THE and QS as international and independent experts in higher education  Raises awareness of all 500+ universities involved in the project Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 14

15 International Study Trends  Worldwide, the demand for international education is forecast to increase rapidly  In 2003, an estimated 3.1 million students studied internationally  There are likely to be in excess of 5.8 million international students in 2010  Two-thirds of this global demand will be Asians  US domination of international student recruitment has begun to falter – tight Visas, increased competition (IIE, NAFSA, CCE)  Bologna Accord will create an ‘explosion in English-language based postgraduate courses in Europe’ Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 15

16 Student Mobility on the Rise Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 16 Source: UNESCO Global Education Digest

17 International Study Trends  Government funding of tertiary education being cut (per capita) in most countries around the world (IFC)  Many governments targeting international students as a source of tertiary sector funding  Australia has estimated that international students are more important to their economy than manufacturing & mining  The UK Government estimates that 270,000 students contribute $3 billion in fees & a further $3 billion in other spending Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 17

18 International Study Trends  By 2010 The European Commissions Bologna Accord will make room for over 500,000 first degree graduates to study in other EU nations for a Masters degree  By 2016 In the USA, recent Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad legislation aims to encourage 1 million students to study overseas  By 2020 Over 3 million Asians are expected to study outside their home country (Source: IDP – British Council) Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 18

19 In 10 years we will think nothing of students going off to study anywhere in the world Tony Blair Labour Party Conference, September 2006 Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 19

20 Session Flow Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 20 QS The Context Available Global Rankings The Methodology The FutureThe Results

21 Academic Ranking of World Universities  Operated by Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China  Focuses entirely on research factors  Nobel Prizes & Fields Medals  Citations  HiCis  Strongly correlated with educational reputation  Historical dependency  Available on Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 21

22 Shanghai Jiao Tong Criteria CriteriaIndicatorWeight Quality of Education Alumni of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals 10% Quality of Faculty Staff of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals 20% Highly cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories 20% Research Output Articles published in Nature and Science* 20% Articles in Science Citation Index-expanded, Social Science Citation Index 20% Size of Institution Academic performance with respect to the size of an institution 10% Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 22

23 Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 23  Launched in 2007  Operated by HEEACT (Higher Education Evaluation & Accreditation Council of Taiwan)  Strong scientific research focus  Attempts to present a more contemporary picture than Shanghai  Results and methodology available at

24 Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities CriteriaIndicatorWeight Research productivity Number of articles in the last 11 years ( ) 10 20% Number of articles in the current year (2006) 10 Research impact Number of citations in the last 11 years ( ) 10 30% Number of citations in the last 2 years ( ) 10 Average number of citations (per year) in the last 11 years ( ) 10 Research excellence H-index of the last 2 years ( ) 20 50% Number of Highly Cited Papers ( ) 10 Number of articles in high-impact journals in the current year (2006) 10 Number of subject fields where the university demonstrates excellence ( ) 10 Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 24 *All decisions regarding the allocation of weightings are the responsibility of the Times Higher Education Supplement

25 Webometrics Ranking of World Universities  Focuses on web profile  Research productivity using Google Scholar  Search Engine performance  Site popularity  Good practices in web management  Fully automated  Tracks in the realm of 14,000 institutions  Prone to anomaly  A university domain change can be disastrous  Available on Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 25

26 Webometrics Criteria IndicatorWeight Size Number of pages recovered from four engines: Google, Yahoo, Live Search and Exalead. 20% Rich Files After evaluation of relevance to academic and publication activities and considering the volume of the different file formats, the following were selected: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), Adobe PostScript (.ps), Microsoft Word (.doc) and Microsoft Powerpoint (.ppt). These data were extracted using Google, Yahoo Search, Live Search and Exalead. 15% Scholar Google Scholar provides the number of papers and citations for each academic domain. These results from the Scholar database represent papers, reports and other academic items. 15% Visibility The total number of unique external links received (inlinks) by a site can be only confidently obtained from Yahoo Search, Live Search and Exalead. 50% Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 26

27 World University Rankings

28 THE - QS World University Rankings  Began in 2004  Collaboration between Times Higher Education (THE) & QS  THE running since 1971  THE is a weekly magazine distributed to academics in the UK and internationally  Formerly associated with The Times  Published annually in the fall 28 Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit

29 Session Flow Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 29 QS The Context Available Global Rankings The Methodology The FutureThe Results

30 Our Approach Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 30 World Class University? Research Quality Graduate Employability International Outlook Teaching Quality

31 Ranking Criteria & Weights Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 31 Peer Review – 40% Composite score drawn from peer review (which is divided into five subject areas). 6,354 responses. Recruiter Review – 10% Score based on responses to recruiter survey. 2,339 responses International Faculty – 5% Score based on proportion of international faculty International Students – 5% Score based on proportion of international students Student Faculty Ratio – 20% Score based on student faculty ratio PeerReview Citations per Faculty RecruiterReview Int’l Faculty Int’l Students StudentFacultyRatio Citations per Faculty– 20% Score based on research performance factored against the size of the research body.

32 PeerReview Citations per Faculty RecruiterReview Int’l Faculty Int’l Students StudentFacultyRatio Ranking Criteria & Weights Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 32  All decisions regarding the allocation of weightings remain the responsibility of Times Higher Education  Importance of criteria offset by appropriateness of indicators

33 Selection of Initial List  Began in 2004 with list of the top 500 world institutions by research impact  Excludes single-faculty institutions  Excludes postgraduate-only institutions  Added on recommendation from certain countries where English publication culture is not strong (e.g. Germany)  Each year list is re-evaluated  Omitted institutions are welcome to make a case for inclusion with supporting evidence for their inclusion relative to an included institution  604 universities considered in 2008 Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 33

34 Peer review is an effective way to evaluate universities. It takes smart people to recognise smart people Sir Richard Sykes Former Rector, Imperial College Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 34

35 Peer Review of Research Output  Centrepiece of this ranking  6,354 respondents (3,069 new or updated responses in 2007)  International spread  Weighted Results  Subject spread  Arts & Humanities  Engineering & IT  Life Sciences & Biomedicine  Natural Sciences  Social Sciences  Overall score built up from each faculty area  Active academics  3 year “latest response” 2008 Top Responding Countries United States638 United Kingdom563 Australia286 Italy277 Canada239 India236 Indonesia228 Philippines201 Germany182 Malaysia Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit

36 Peer Review – Selection of Peers  3 year latest response  Invitation to previous respondents  World Scientific Database (180,000)  Singapore Headquarters   Mardev Database (12,000+)  Part of Reed Elsevier  UK Headquarters   Academic Sign-up facility  Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 36

37 Who are the peers? Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 37

38 Employer Review  Another group who have knowledge of university quality  Key relevance to “graduate employability” criteria  Introduced for 2005 rankings  Sourced from QS database and media and university referrals (over 150 lists received for 2008)  2,339 responses used for Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 2008 Top Responding Countries United States346 United Kingdom269 Australia178 Mexico75 Netherlands75 Singapore74 Russia69 India64 Argentina60 Greece59

39 Who are the employers? Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 39

40 Quantitative Measures  Aim to measure universities in terms of -Student commitment -Student Faculty Ratio -“Classic measure” -Research commitment -Citations per Faculty -International commitment and competitiveness -International students and faculty -Is this somewhere that people want to be? 40 Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit

41 Citations per Faculty Score  Classic measure of research quality  Citations per staff member (not per paper)  5 year score (changed from 10 in 2006 to increase “topicality”)  Source: Scopus 41 Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit

42 2008 Indicator Correlations Peer Review / Recruiter Review0.68 (0.59)Large Peer Review / Faculty Students0.30 (0.32)Medium Peer Review / Citations Faculty0.56 (0.45)Large Peer Review / Int'l Faculty0.30 (0.28)Medium Peer Review / Int'l Students0.31 (0.35)Medium Recruiter Review / Faculty Students0.30 (0.27)Medium Recruiter Review / Citations Faculty0.28 (0.12)Small Recruiter Review / Int'l Faculty0.43 (0.33)Medium Recruiter Review / Int'l Students0.42 (0.37)Medium Faculty Students / Citations Faculty0.24 (0.21)Small Faculty Students / Int'l Faculty0.14 (0.15)Small Faculty Students / Int'l Students0.20 (0.23)Small Citations Faculty / Int'l Faculty0.21 (0.15)Small Citations Faculty / Int'l Students0.18 (0.19)Small Int'l Faculty / Int'l Students0.67 (0.66)Large Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 42

43 World University Rankings - Issues?  The ranking has limitations. Lack of data on:  Teaching quality  Student satisfaction  Investment in infrastructure  The ranking relies on the best comparable data available Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 43

44 Session Flow Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 44 QS The Context Available Global Rankings The Methodology The Future

45 Online Database  Submit a broad range of quantitative and qualitative data (including those we need for the rankings) about your institution using our online interface   Populate and enrich your profile on  Educate visitors on other aspects of your institution Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 45

46 Recruiter Review  Supply us with lists of employer contacts for the recruiter review  Exclusive single use only  Benefit your institution in recruiter review  Improve the overall strength of recruiter review Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 46

47 Current & Future Developments  Greater transparency  Recruiter Review Breakdown  More detail on the methodology  Preview Access to Recruiter Survey  More relevance  Subject Focuses  Personalised Rankings  Better response  Academic Sign Up Facility  More partners  New Analyses  Developing world  National system strength  Asian University Rankings  New indicators?  Global student and graduate survey  Related ideas  Star Ratings  Innovation Showcase  Engagement Database  Entry Requirements Translator  PhD Matching Engine 47 Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit

48 Session Flow Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 48 QS The Context Available Global Rankings The Methodology The FutureThe Results BREAK

49 I imagine that all university heads broadly share my own view of these [league] tables. They are terrific and unquestioned when you score well and better than last time. They are fatally flawed and fundamentally unfair when you move in the opposite direction. Howard Davies Director, London School of Economics Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 49

50 Comparing Results THE – QS 1Harvard 2Yale 3Cambridge 4Oxford 5Caltech 6Imperial 7UCL 8Chicago 9MIT 10Columbia HEEACT 1.Harvard 2.Johns Hopkins 3.Washington 4.Stanford 5.UCLA 6.Michigan 7.Berkeley 8.UCSD 9.Columbia 10.MIT 50 WEBOMETRICS 1.MIT 2.Harvard 3.Stanford 4.Berkeley 5.Penn State 6.Michigan 7.Cornell 8.Minnesota 9.UW Madison 10.UT Austin SHANGHAI 1.Harvard 2.Stanford 3.Berkeley 4.Cambridge 5.MIT 6.Caltech 7.Columbia 8.Princeton 9.Chicago 10.Oxford Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit

51 Key Findings  The top 200 in 2008 includes universities in 33 states up from 28 in 2007  US, UK, Canada, Australia, Netherlands  Korea, China, Japan, Singapore  Thailand, Malaysia  Continental Europe  Developing world small but improving (1 in 2004, 2 in 2005, only UNAM in 2006, 3 in 2007, 5 in 2008) Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 51

52 Where are the top universities? Top 20 Top 50 Top 100 Region/Country N. America Europe Asia/Australia USA UK Australia Canada Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 52

53 Consistency of Results Harvard 2YaleCambridge MITBerkeley 3CambridgeYaleOxfordCambridgeMIT 4Oxford MITOxfordCaltech 5 ImperialYaleStanfordOxford 6ImperialPrincetonStanfordBerkeleyCambridge 7UCLChicagoCaltechYaleStanford 8ChicagoCaltechBerkeleyCaltechYale 9MITUCLImperialPrinceton 10ColumbiaMITPrincetonEcole PolytechniqueETH Zurich Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 53

54 Global Top RANK 2007 RANK INSTITUTION NAMECOUNTRY PEER REVIEW RECRUITER REVIEW FACULTY STUDENT CITATIONS PER FACULTY INT'L FACULTY INT'L STUDENTS OVERALL 11HARVARD UniversityUnited States =YALE UniversityUnited States =University of CAMBRIDGEUnited Kingdom =University of OXFORDUnited Kingdom =CALIFORNIA Institute of TechnologyUnited States IMPERIAL College LondonUnited Kingdom UCL (University College London)United Kingdom =University of CHICAGOUnited States MASSACHUSETTS Institute of TechnologyUnited States COLUMBIA UniversityUnited States University of PENNSYLVANIAUnited States PRINCETON UniversityUnited States =13DUKE UniversityUnited States =15JOHNS HOPKINS UniversityUnited States =CORNELL UniversityUnited States AUSTRALIAN National UniversityAustralia STANFORD UniversityUnited States =University of MICHIGANUnited States University of TOKYOJapan MCGILL UniversityCanada Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 54

55 Indonesia Results THE - QSWebometrics 1University of Indonesia (287)1Universitas Gadjah Mada (623) 2Bandung Institute of Technology (315)2Bandung Institute of Technology (676) 3Universitas Gadjah Mada (316=)3University of Indonesia (906) 4Airlangga University (501+)4Gunadarma University (1604) 5Bogor Agricultural University (501+)5Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (1762) 6University of Brawijaya (501+)6Sekolah Tinggi Teknologi Telkom (1960) 7Diponegoro University (501+)7Petra Christian University (2013) 8Bogor Agricultural University (2063) 9University of Brawijaya (2152) 10Sebelas Maret University (2159) 11Airlangga University (2672) 12Universitas Padjadjaran (2730) 13Electronic Engineering Polytechnic Institute of Surabaya (3016) 14Bina Nusantara University (3026) 15Diponegoro University (3138) Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 55

56 Trend Analysis by Indicator – Indonesia Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 56

57 Faculty Level Data  Peer opinion  Citations per paper  Not aggregated Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 57

58 2008 Faculty Level Arts & Humanities Engineering & IT Life Sciences & Biomedicine Natural Sciences Social Sciences Harvard Berkeley Oxford Cambridge Yale Princeton Columbia Stanford Chicago UCL Toronto ANU McGill Cornell NYU MIT Berkeley Stanford Caltech Cambridge Carnegie Mellon Imperial Georgia Tech Tokyo Toronto NUS Tsinghua ETH Zurich Oxford Princeton Harvard Cambridge Johns Hopkins Berkeley Oxford Stanford Yale MIT UC San Diego McGill Imperial UCLA Toronto British Columbia Tokyo MIT Berkeley Cambridge Harvard Oxford Princeton Caltech Stanford Toronto Tokyo Cornell Chicago Kyoto Imperial ETH Zurich Harvard Berkeley Stanford LSE Cambridge Oxford Yale Chicago Princeton MIT Columbia British Columbia UCLA ANU McGill Copyright © 2008 QS Quacquarelli Symonds Limited (www.qsnetwork.com) 58

59 2008 Faculty Level - Indonesia Arts & Humanities Engineering & IT Life Sciences & Biomedicine Natural Sciences Social Sciences Indonesia (173) Gadjah Mada (178=) Bandung ( ) Airlangga ( ) Diponegoro ( ) Bogor ( ) Brawijaya (501+) Bandung (90) Indonesia (206) Gadjah Mada (234) Diponegoro ( ) Bogor ( ) Airlangga ( ) Brawijaya (501+) Gadjah Mada (106) Indonesia (207) Bandung (210) Airlangga ( ) Diponegoro ( ) Brawijaya ( ) Bogor (501+) Bandung (143) Gadjah Mada (220) Indonesia ( ) Bogor ( ) Diponegoro (500+) Brawijaya (501+) Airlangga (501+) Indonesia (131) Gadjah Mada (167) Bandung ( ) Airlangga ( ) Diponegoro ( ) Bogor ( ) Brawijaya (501+) Copyright © 2008 QS Quacquarelli Symonds Limited (www.qsnetwork.com) 59

60 Trend Analysis by Faculty – Indonesia Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 60

61 System Strength Rank CountrySystemAccessFlagshipEconomicOverall 1United States100 2United Kingdom Australia Germany Canada Japan France Netherlands Korea, South Sweden Switzerland Italy Belgium New Zealand China Hong Kong Ireland Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 61 Lisbon Australia United Kingdom Denmark Finland USA Sweden Ireland Portugal Italy France Poland Hungary Netherlands Switzerland Germany Austria Spain 32Indonesia

62 The Results  Available at  Top 100 for the following subject areas  Arts & Humanities  Engineering & IT  Life Sciences & BioMedicine  Natural Sciences  Social Sciences  World’s oldest universities  Year on year results Copyright © 2008 QS Intelligence Unit 62

63 Andrew King Presentation slides available on Thank You


Download ppt "What, why and how? World University Rankings Presented by: Andrew King, Global Head of Business Development, QS Intelligence Unit Date: 22 February 2009."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google