Ben Sowter Head of Division QS Intelligence Unit › wp-content › uploads › 2011 › 05 › air2_portable1.pdf · 2013-07-04 · Trusted. Independent. Global. 7 . Academic Reputation

Ben Sowter

Head of Division

QS Intelligence Unit

1 Trusted. Independent. Global.

To ENABLE motivated people around the WORLD achieve their POTENTIAL by fostering international MOBILITY, educational ACHIEVEMENT and career DEVELOPMENT Trusted. Independent. Global. 2

Howard Davies

Director, London School of Economics


Trusted. Independent. Global. 4




Academic Reputation Employer Reputation Faculty Student International Faculty International Students Citations per Faculty

Alumni Awards Faculty Awards HiCis Nature & Science SCI/SSCI Articles Size

Articles (11 yrs) Articles (1 yr) Citations (11 yrs) Citations (2 yrs) Citations / Yr H-index HiCi Papers Top Journals Subjects

Size Rich Files Scholar Visibility

Teaching Reputation PhDs per academic Undergrads per academic Income per academic PhDs/Bachelors

Citations Public research income Papers per academic Research income Research reputation

International Staff International Students Industry income

Other rankings…

Mines ParisTech

Global Universities Ranking

Leiden

Scimago

U-Multirank

CHE

High Impact Universities

ARWU QS Webometrics HEEACT THE

1 Harvard Cambridge Harvard Harvard Harvard

2 Berkeley Harvard MIT Stanford Caltech

3 Stanford Yale Stanford Johns Hopkins MIT

4 MIT UCL Berkeley Washington Stanford

5 Cambridge MIT Cornell UCLA Princeton

6 Caltech Oxford Michigan Berkeley Cambridge

7 Princeton Imperial Minnesota MIT Oxford

8 Columbia Chicago Washington Michigan Berkeley

9 Chicago Caltech Wisconsin Toronto Imperial

10 Oxford Princeton UT Austin Oxford Yale


August 2010 8 September 2010 15 September 2010 16 September 2010 July 2010

26

12

32

19

ARWU Webo QS THE

Language


201

242

80 86

ARWU Webo QS THE

Focus

9

4

12

13

ARWU Webo QS THE

Geography

Non-English

speaking

institutions in

Top 100

Top institution

with main focus

on Arts or

Social Sciences

Number of

countries

represented in

Top 50


1 University of Cambridge 1

2 Harvard University 2

3 Yale University 3

4 UCL – University College London 4

5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5

6 University of Oxford 6

7 Imperial College London 7

8 University of Chicago 8

9 California Institute of Technology (Caltech) 9

10 Princeton University 10

11 Columbia University 11

12 University of Pennsylvania 12

13 Stanford University 13

14 Duke University 14

15 University of Michigan 15

16 Cornell University 16

17 Johns Hopkins University 17

18 ETH Zurich 18

19 McGill University 19

20 Australian National University 20






Arts &

Humanities

Engineering &

Technology

Life Sciences &

Medicine

Natural

Sciences

Social Sciences

& Management

1 Oxford MIT Harvard Cambridge Harvard

2 Cambridge Stanford Cambridge Harvard Oxford

3 Harvard Berkeley Oxford Oxford Cambridge

4 Berkeley Cambridge Stanford MIT LSE

5 Yale Caltech Berkeley Berkeley Berkeley

6 Princeton Imperial Tokyo Stanford Stanford

7 UCLA Tokyo Johns Hopkins Princeton Chicago

8 Stanford ETH Zurich MIT Caltech Yale

9 Chicago Oxford Yale Tokyo Columbia

10 Columbia NUS UCLA ETH Zurich Princeton


School Selection

VC Bonus Schemes

Government Funding Allocation

Immigration Policy

Admissions Requirements

Partnership Identification

Faculty Performance Evaluation

International Marketing

Leverage for implementation of performance management

Lobbying for additional funding for sector


Prospective Student

Social networks

Fairs

Email marketing

Print advertising

Campus visits

Brochures

Websites

Agents Blogs

Forums

Parents

Alumni

Branding

Scholarships

Posters & billboards

CRM


Strengths of rankings

Simple and accessible

Over 50 million people have

viewed QS’ results in 12

months

Provides a basis for

benchmarking performance

across borders

Limitations of rankings

Performance is relative to

others

Limited data available for

rankings globally

Specialist strength often

overlooked

Difficult to capture the

diversity of higher education

institutions




0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Phys

ics

& A

stro

nom

y

Busi

ness

Com

pute

r Sc

ience

Mat

hem

atic

s

Bio

logi

cal Sc

ience

s

Eco

nom

ics

& E

conom

etr

ics

Engi

neeri

ng

- Ele

ctri

cal

His

tory

Educa

tion

Medic

ine

Geogr

aphy

Chem

istr

y

Polit

ics

& Int'l Stu

die

s

Law

Engi

neeri

ng

- M

ech

anic

al

Lin

guis

tics

Acc

ounting

& F

inan

ce

Psy

cholo

gy

Envi

ronm

enta

l Sc

ience

s

Engl

ish

Com

munic

atio

n &

Media

Engi

neeri

ng

- C

ivil

Philo

sophy

Soci

olo

gy

Stat

istics

Modern

Lan

guag

es

Arc

hitect

ure

Agr

iculture

& F

ore

stry

Engi

neeri

ng

- C

hem

ical

Meta

llurg

y &

Mat

eri

als

Perf

orm

ing

Art

s

Art

& D

esi

gn

Ear

th &

Mar

ine S

cience

s

Academic Count Employer Count


Art

& D

esi

gn

Modern

Lan

guag

es

Perf

orm

ing

Art

s

Engl

ish

Philo

sophy

Acc

ounting

& F

inan

ce

His

tory

Lin

guis

tics

Polit

ics

& Int'l Stu

die

s

Law

Soci

olo

gy

Com

munic

atio

n &

Media

Educa

tion

Geogr

aphy

Eco

nom

ics

& E

conom

etr

ics

Arc

hitect

ure

Engi

neeri

ng

- C

ivil

Stat

istics

Busi

ness

Psy

cholo

gy

Engi

neeri

ng

- C

hem

ical

Mat

hem

atic

s

Engi

neeri

ng

- M

ech

anic

al

Ear

th &

Mar

ine S

cience

s

Envi

ronm

enta

l Sc

ience

s

Agr

iculture

& F

ore

stry

Chem

istr

y

Engi

neeri

ng

- Ele

ctri

cal

Meta

llurg

y &

Mat

eri

als

Phys

ics

& A

stro

nom

y

Com

pute

r Sci

ence

Bio

logi

cal Sc

ience

s

Medic

ine

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Paper Threshold Paper Count


Engl

ish

Perf

orm

ing

Art

s

His

tory

Lin

guis

tics

Philo

sophy

So

cio

logy

Art

& D

esi

gn

Modern

Lan

guag

es

Arc

hit

ect

ure

Geogr

aphy

Sta

tist

ics

Law

Agr

icult

ure

& F

ore

stry

Ear

th &

Mar

ine S

cience

s

Envi

ronm

enta

l Sci

ence

s

Meta

llurg

y &

Mat

eri

als

Acc

ounti

ng

& F

inan

ce

Co

mm

unic

atio

n &

Media

Polit

ics

& Int'l Stu

die

s

Educa

tion

Eco

nom

ics

& E

conom

etr

ics

Engi

neeri

ng

- C

ivil

Psy

cho

logy

Chem

istr

y

Phys

ics

& A

stro

nom

y

Bio

logi

cal Sci

ence

s

Medic

ine

Busi

ness

Mat

hem

atic

s

Engi

neeri

ng

- C

hem

ical

Engi

neeri

ng

- Ele

ctri

cal

Engi

neeri

ng

- M

ech

anic

al

Co

mpute

r Sci

ence


In response to Berlin Principle #3

Recognize the diversity of institutions and take the different missions and goals of institutions into account. Quality measures for research-oriented institutions, for example, are quite different from those that are appropriate for institutions that provide broad access to underserved communities. Institutions that are being ranked and the experts that inform the ranking process should be consulted often.

A simple contextual reference to other evaluation results, categorising institutions by subject spread size and research level

Users can thus understand their position relative to like institutions


Size

Very Large >=30,000 Students

Large >=12,000 Students

Medium >= 5,000 Students

Small < 5,000 Students


Focus

Fully Comprehensive All 5 faculty areas + medical school

Comprehensive All 5 faculty areas

Focused > 2 faculty areas

Specialist <= 2 faculty areas

Research Output

Very High Threshold relative to size and focus

High Threshold relative to size and focus

Moderate Threshold relative to size and focus

Limited or None Threshold relative to size and focus

Shining a light on excellence


UCT could be 107 this year and make significant

improvements such as recruiting more post-doctoral scholars and

leading international scientists, increasing further its research

articles and so on.

But if the university at position 110 has improved slightly

more than UCT, the UCT will drop- though this will not reflect any

deterioration.

A better system would be to have categories – such as

five-star, four star ratings with no limit on how many universities

may qualify for five star rating if they meet the top-notch criteria.

“Do university rankings matter” Dr Max Price, Vice Chancellor, University of Cape Town

28


A new university evaluation system.

Evaluates institutions using a ratings method

Once evaluated, universities are awarded with Stars, based their score in the evaluation.

Can include ALL universities—including those not in the rankings or low ranked

Benefits institutions looking to increase international presence.

Ratings are not dependent on the performance of other institutions

Performance measured against preset thresholds

The evaluation of each participating institution can be more thorough

Ratings can be more adaptive

Highlights the institutions specialties “Shining a light on Excellence”

Ratings can include components not included in rankings


Trusted. Independent. Global.

QS Stars

1000

Core Criteria

550

Research Quality – 150 – 4 indicators

Graduate Employability – 150 – 3 indicators

Teaching Quality – 150 – 3 indicators

Infrastructure – 100 – 6 indicators

Advanced Criteria

250

Internationalisation – 150 – 5 indicators

Innovation & Knowledge Transfer – 50 3 indicators

Third Mission – 50 – 2 indicators

Specialist Criteria

200 Rank in Specialist Subject – 200 – 2 indicators

31



World’s largest survey of international academics

Increasingly sophisticated international institutional benchmarking

Custom international institutional research assignments

Increasing opportunities to work with international government

Increasingly in depth international institutional profiles

International training and support visits

International workshops, seminars and webinars

International recruitment targeting for employers


Results: www.topuniversities.com

Blog: iu.qs.com

Email: [email protected] / [email protected]

Twitter: @bensowter, @worlduniranking

Facebook: www.facebook.com/universityrankings


http://www.topuniversities.com/

http://iu.qs.com/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.facebook.com/universityrankings

Documents

Ben Sowter Head of Division QS Intelligence Unit › wp-content › uploads › 2011 › 05 › air2_portable1.pdf · 2013-07-04 · Trusted. Independent. Global. 7 . Academic Reputation