dario consoli country manager, unit · the top 27 or so in webometrics are us institutions, the top...

$: Dario Consoli Country Manager, Unit · The top 27 or so in Webometrics are US institutions, the top 15 \൩n HEEACT are US institutions. Ours is the most geographically diverse but$
Copyright © 2012 QS Intelligence Unit

Dario ConsoliCountry Manager,

QS Intelligence Unit

January 2013

2

3

4

Shanghai Rankings emerge

2003

QS (initially with THES) and Webometrics Rankings launched

2004

Employer component added to QS ranking

2005

QS University Rankings: Asia launched2009

URAP rankings begin

2010

QS University Rankings: Latin America launchOctober 2011

QS Best Student Cities published

February 2012

Improved subject tables extended to embrace 29 disciplinesJune 2012

HEEACT ranking published for the first time2007

Times Higher Education go their own way2010

Higher education costs increasing

Number of students increasing

Number of international students increasing

More universities actively recruiting

Flooded with information

Employers increasingly dissatisfied with graduate skill sets

Need for discernment

Need for navigation tools

5

6

7

Source: OECD 2012

Relatore

Note di presentazione

OECD Data – 2000-2010

8

9

A UNIQUE LENS

QS the only global ranking authority to

consider it

Central to the life goals of most prospective

students

An essential inclusion in every QS assessment

World Class University

10

40%

20%

20%

10%

5%

5%

11

12

Based on the world’s largest survey of academics

Good geographical balance

Strong representation from experienced academics

Operated in 13 languages

Faculty areas carry equal weight (i.e. discipline independent)

Generates over 400,000 statistical observations

Ask only questions with realistic probability of qualified response

Responding for own institution is prohibited

13

Data drawn from Elsevier’s SciVal Scopus (since 2007)

Better journal coverage

Better coverage of content in other languages

Better access to data

More usable platform for verification

Better affiliation tracking

Rapid development rate

[Considerably more Italian journals]

14

Relatore


Includes 99% of journals included in Web of Science whereas WoS (according to Elsevier) covers only 40% of the journals in Scopus (might have been 60% - check with Ina/Shadi)

Beware unsubstantiated claims…

Source: Alexa.com

15

Official (known) policy recognition in

16

Though of course we recognize limitations of all league table methodologies, we greatly value QS for the clarity and quality of the data you use and for the stability which enables us to

see and understand trends over time.

This, we think, gives your rankings a comparative advantage and considerable

authority.

David EastwoodVice-Chancellor, University of

Birmingham

17

Relatore


Also mean’s that around 10% of international students are studying at the world’s top 0.5% of universities

2011-2012: TOP 20

18

19

UK: A surge before the fall?IRELAND: Holding despite challenging economySOUTH KOREA: Asia’s new starCHINA: Huge research volumesCANADA:

A major international destination

MIDDLE EAST: Major investment seeing returnsAUSTRALIA:

Facing new levels of competition

20

Relatore


UK – strong growth in international students and citations Korea – big gains and a sixth university in the top 200 China – 14 of the top 100 most productive universities in the world

TAIWAN: Best performance everUS:

Gradual erosion of leading position

LATIN AMERICA: Not just a new source marketFRANCE:

Reforms taking time to crystallize

HONG KONG:

Ramping up for double cohortSINGAPORE:

A winning formula?

EURASIA:

More universities thinking global

21

ARWU QS Webometrics THE

1 Harvard MIT Harvard Caltech

2 Stanford Cambridge MIT Oxford

3 MIT Harvard Stanford Stanford

4 Berkeley UCL Berkeley Harvard

5 Cambridge Oxford Cornell MIT

6 Caltech Imperial Minnesota Princeton

7 Princeton Yale Pennsylvania Cambridge

8 Columbia Chicago Wisconsin Imperial

9 Chicago Princeton UIUC Berkeley

10 Oxford Caltech Michigan State Chicago

22

August 2012 September 2012 October 2012July 2012

Relatore


These are the top 10 in the four systems talked about earlier. When I went to get the new results for SJTU I had to make no changes to their list here. Their exercise is extremely static – the only way to easily influence it is to spend an obscene amount of money to hire Nobel Prize winners or highly cited authors. The top 27 or so in Webometrics are US institutions, the top 15 in HEEACT are US institutions. Ours is the most geographically diverse but still concludes that the US is where the majority of the world’s best universities are to be found. 58 of our top 200 are US institutions.

23

August 2012 September 2012 October 2012July 2012

ID Institution Country QS ARWU HEEACT Webometrics THE

61 Università di Bologna (UNIBO) Italy 194 226 112 61 226-250

532Sapienza - Università di Roma

Italy 216 127 116 200 301-350

407 Politecnico di Milano Italy 244 299 296 301-350

480 Università degli Studi di Milano Italy 256 161 99 355 226-250

499 Università di Padova Italy 298 181 104 175 226-250

533 Universitá di Pisa Italy 314 144 219 192 301-350

1873Università di Roma Tor Vergata

Italy 336 386 226 488

208Università degli Studi di Firenze (UNIFI)

Italy 401-450 229 189 301

493Università degli Studi di Pavia (UNIPV)

Italy 401-450 484 308 370

632Università degli Studi di Torino (UNITO)

Italy 401-450 223 168 350

633 Politecnico di Torino Italy 401-450 433 523 351-400

432Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II

Italy 451-500 329 196 312

623 Università degli Studi di Trento Italy 451-500 546 276-300

624Università degli Studi di Trieste (UNITS)

Italy 451-500 270 701 226-250

406Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

Italy 451-500 448 408 2265

Relatore


These are the top 10 in the four systems talked about earlier. When I went to get the new results for SJTU I had to make no changes to their list here. Their exercise is extremely static – the only way to easily influence it is to spend an obscene amount of money to hire Nobel Prize winners or highly cited authors. The top 27 or so in Webometrics are US institutions, the top 15 in HEEACT are US institutions. Ours is the most geographically diverse but still concludes that the US is where the majority of the world’s best universities are to be found. 58 of our top 200 are US institutions.

24

0

10

20

30

40AR

ER

FS

CF

IF

IS

Year on year indicator performance:Italy

2012 2011

01020304050

AR

ER

FS

CF

IF

IS

Average indicator performance:Italy vs. Global

Italy Global

25

0

5

10

15

20AH

ET

LSNS

SS

Year on year faculty area performance:Italy

2012 2011

0

5

10

15

20AH

ET

LSNS

SS

Average faculty area performance:Italy vs. Global

Italy Global

26Trusted. Independent. Global.

27

28

29

30

Submit your own employers’ list

Submit your own peers’ list

Remind your peers & employers of the importance of citations

One head, one vote

31

Copyright © 2012 QS Intelligence Unit

Dario ConsoliCountry Manager,

QS Intelligence Unit

January 2013

Rankings have many faults and do not adequately describe universities and cannot show whether one institution is better than

another…

…but I am very happy when Cambridge is rated as the top university in the world

Alison RichardFormer Vice-Chancellor, University of

Cambridge

33

Relatore


Also mean’s that around 10% of international students are studying at the world’s top 0.5% of universities

UNIVERSITY RANKINGS

34

MORE DIMENSIONSMORE CONTEXTS

29 subject tables in 2012

MORE SUBJECTS

35

Trusted. Independent. Global. 36

Faculty Level Rankings

Faculty Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Arts & Humanities 23 263 225 300 46 Engineering & Technology 485 48 53 43 130 Life Sciences & Medicine 111 82 114 123 153 Natural Sciences 171 139 149 144 71 Social Sciences & Management 160 177 111 202 28

2011 QS World University Rank®

51Overall Ranking

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 84 144 153 51 50

Academic Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 105 111 65 15 57

Employer Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 705 104 33 42 4

Faculty Student

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 381 114 56 11 185 Citations per Faculty

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 387 441 33 22 337 International Faculty

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 256 293 335 400 86 International Students

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 421 480 489 566 24


38

39

Radial bar chart depicting overall performance by discipline

Arts & Humanities

Engineering & Technology

Life Sciences & Medicine

Natural Sciences

Social Sciences & Management

Strongest Discipline

Chem

istry

70*

43

44

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

45

A way to address many criticisms of rankings

A broad based rating system, designed to identify, evaluate and recognize universities for their diverse and specialist strengths.

Once evaluated, universities are awarded with a star rating, based on their performance.

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

Benefits institutions looking to increase international presence

Trusted. Independent. Global.46


Points Available – 1000

Facilities 6 indicators Facilities

6 indicators

Online/Distance 6 indicators

Online/Distance 6 indicators

Discipline Ranking 2 indicators

Discipline Ranking 2 indicators

Accreditation 2 indicators

Accreditation 2 indicators

Teaching 6 indicators Teaching

6 indicators

Employability 3 indicators

Employability 3 indicators

Research5 indicatorsResearch5 indicators

Internationalization7 indicators

Internationalization7 indicators

Innovation 3 indicators Innovation 3 indicators

Culture 3 indicators

Culture 3 indicators

Access4 indicators

Access4 indicators

Engagement4 indicators

Engagement4 indicators

Version 4.0

+

+

+

+

OR OR

OR

OR

Relatore


Reason/justification for choice of indicators: We have to pick things that are feasible to collect, we want to evaluate the broadest range of university activity that we can but keep the audit process feasible. It is likely other measures will b added in the future. Allocation of points: We have attempted to place a focus on the aspects of university strength that are considered conventionally more central – research, teaching etc. Then a read has been taken as to how effectively the indicator in question evaluates that aspect. To a certain extent the scores have been assigned based on the collective experience behind the Intelligence Unit – ... we have run this by a number of externals and presented in a number of places to seek feedback – which has been largely positive.

48

New regions?

Results online at www.topuniversities.com

Detailed methodologies and survey response analysis at www.iu.qs.com

New library www.iu.qs.com/library

49

FEBRUARY MAYAPRIL SEPTEMBER

http://www.topuniversities.com/

http://www.iu.qs.com/

http://www.iu.qs.com/library

Results: www.topuniversities.com

Methodology & Comment: www.iu.qs.com

Twitter: @worlduniranking

Facebook: www.facebook.com/universityrankings

Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

50

http://www.topuniversities.com/

http://www.iu.qs.com/

http://www.facebook.com/universityrankings

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

dario consoli country manager, unit · the top 27 or so in webometrics are us institutions, the top...

Documents