undergratuate

WORLD UNIVERSITYRANKINGS 2014-15

SUPPLEMENT 2014-15 IN ASSOCIATION WITH

2 October 2014 Times Higher Education 3

The company we keep 7Rankings: not just about competition

Shifting sands 8US loses ground as Asia rises

First in line 13The world top 200 revealed

Visual cues 18, 32Ups, downs and insightful averages

Next in line 21Top 201-400: analysis and tables

Engine of evaluation 34How the rankings are created

Brighter outlook 36Berkeley’s success in a post-crisis environment

Building bridges 39Tsinghua: at the crossroads of East and West

Hardy perennial 40Imperial’s efforts bear collaborative fruit

High targets 42University of the Andes develops global outlook

Invention of tradition 44Queensland has to diversify its income sources

Measure for measure 46TU Dresden gets to grips with the rankings

Extraction methods 48Unpick the data for deeper insights

Be specific 52Six subject tables: who’s on top?

Handle with care 66University rankings: help or hindrance?

WORLDUNIVERSITYRANKINGS

AlAm

y/gE

TTy

218

3936

48

Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2014-15Editor: Phil BatySub-editors: Rob Parr, Sarah WellerArt director: Chris BarberTo advertise, please contact: matthew Clancy on +44 (0)20 3194 3084or email [email protected]

The world’s top universities are revealed here in 66 pages of dataand incisive analysis. go online at www.thewur.com to see thecomplete listings and explore the rankings in further detail


THE World University Rankings 2014-15

The rankings are about competi-tion, right? Of course, univer-sities and the individuals that

make them are driven by a healthycompetitive instinct – the drive tobe first to new knowledge, to bethe best. This is one of the reasonswhy Times Higher Education’sportfolio of global rankings hasbecome so closely watched, not justby prospective students and theirfamilies, but also by scholars, uni-versity leaders and governments.

But they also fulfil another,perhaps even more important func-tion: they promote collaboration.In 2009, a report by the US Insti-

tute for Higher Education Policy,Impact of College Rankings onInstitutional Decision Making,found that they “foster collabora-tion, such as research partnerships,student and faculty exchangeprograms, and alliances. Rankingscan be important starting points toidentify institutions with which tocollaborate and partner.”

This year, Ellen Hazelkorn,director of the Higher EducationPolicy Research Unit at DublinInstitute of Technology, updatedher work on the growing power ofrankings. She writes in this supple-ment (page 66): “A growing num-

ber use rankings to inform decisionsabout international partnerships.”This is as it should be. Our rank-ings were specifically designed tojudge excellence against institu-tions’ own missions: our 13 per-formance indicators cover teaching,research, knowledge transfer andinternational outlook, and arescaled to ensure they are largelysize-independent. The normalisa-tion of the indicators to embraceeach institution’s subject mix (seeMethodology, page 34) means thatthe rankings, while largely stable,do not simply reproduce thetraditional elite hierarchies.

Over time, the THE rankingshave been able to showcaserising stars – those exciting

and dynamic institutions, often indeveloping countries, that havebeen able to make a big impact onthe global stage in a relatively shorttime, often through careful strate-gic focus. As well as mapping shift-ing global sands, our rankings aregiving rising powers greater globalvisibility, helping to create a morevibrant, multicultural academy.

Alice Gast, president of ImperialCollege London, says that as inbiology, where plants become har-dier through cross-breeding, theheterosis of different attributes isvital for world-class universities(see page 40). “Individuals broughtup in different educational systemsand with exposure to different soci-eties and markets approach prob-lems differently: thus, internationalteams broaden and augment indi-vidual thinking,” she writes.

“The future holds great chal-lenges, but great universities willmeet them by joining forces.”

Accordingly, the World Univer-sity Rankings will continue toprovide trusted, rigorous data toencourage healthy competition andinform exciting collaborations.l

The World University Rankings are competitive, of course, but they alsopromote the partnerships vital to a vibrant global academy, says Phil Baty

Collaborate and listenWORLDUNIVERSITYRANKINGS

Country Number ofinstitutionsin top 200

Top institution Rank

US 74 California Institute of Technology 1UK 29 University of Oxford 3

Germany 12 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München =29Netherlands 11 Leiden University 64Australia 8 University of Melbourne 33Canada 8 University of Toronto 20France 7 École Polytechnique =61Switzerland 7 ETH Zürich-Swiss Federal Institute

of Technology Zurich13

Japan 5 University of Tokyo 23Sweden 5 Karolinska Institute 44Belgium 4 Katholieke Universiteit Leuven =55Hong Kong 4 University of Hong Kong 43South Korea 4 Seoul National University 50Turkey 4 Middle East Technical University 85China 3 Peking University 48Denmark 3 Technical University of Denmark =121Singapore 2 National University of Singapore 25Austria 1 University of Vienna =182Finland 1 University of Helsinki =103Israel 1 Tel Aviv University =188Italy 1 Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa 63New Zealand 1 University of Auckland =175Norway 1 University of Oslo =186Republic of Ireland 1 Trinity College Dublin 138Russian Federation 1 Lomonosov Moscow State University =196South Africa 1 University of Cape Town =124Spain 1 Pompeu Fabra University =165Taiwan 1 National Taiwan University 155

Phil BatyEditor, Times Higher EducationWorld University Rankings

8 Times Higher Education 2 October 2014


Leading Asian universities con-tinue their steady progress inthis year’s Times Higher Educa-

tion World University Rankings asNorth American dominance wanes.

Although Asia’s progress maybe more modest than the region’sdramatic research and develop-ment spending might have sug-gested, two of its institutions (theUniversity of Tokyo and theNational University of Singapore)now make the world top 25, com-pared with one last year and nonein 2011-12, when THE adoptedthe current rankings methodology.

As in 2013-14, six East Asianuniversities (from Japan, Singa-pore, Hong Kong, China and SouthKorea) are represented in the top50, two more than in 2011-12,while several institutions in theregion make dramatic strides upthe table. In total, Asia now boasts24 universities in the top 200, com-pared with 20 last year.

In contrast, the US, althoughstill the rankings superpower, losesground, dropping from 77 repre-sentatives last year to 74. It is asimilar tale of woe for its NorthAmerican neighbour: six of Cana-da’s eight top 200 universities haveslipped down the table.

“East Asia and Singapore havearrived as the third great region ofhigher education and research,alongside North America andEurope,” says Simon Marginson,professor of international highereducation at the UK’s Institute ofEducation, University of London.“Soon we will take this for granted.

“In the countries shaped by thetraditions of Confucian self-cultivation through education,there is an especially deep commit-ment to higher education andscholarship – and the investmentto match that commitment.”

Overall, this year’s rankings arecharacterised by their stability,especially towards the top of thetable: no university in the top 20,for example, has moved by morethan two places. The California

Institute of Technology remainsnumber one (the fourth year in arow it has worn the crown), withHarvard University in secondplace.

As was the case last year, the top10 includes seven US universities.The other three places are occupiedby UK institutions: the Universityof Oxford moves from joint secondlast year to third, while its ancientrival, the University of Cambridge,rises two places to fifth. ImperialCollege London moves up oneplace to joint ninth.

Perhaps the most striking devel-opment at the summit is the factthat Yale University makes the top10 for the first time under thecurrent methodology. The IvyLeague stalwart pushes the Univer-sity of Chicago into 11th position.

However, for Marginson, the2014-15 rankings’ stand-outperformers are East Asian.

“Some of the most impressiverising stars in higher education arefrom the post-Confucian systems:take the Hong Kong University ofScience and Technology, which hasevolved into a brilliant science andtechnology institution in just twodecades – a short span indeed inwhich to become a leading univer-sity,” he says.

HKUST has risen six places to51st in the world this year – andin total has climbed 11 places since2011-12. The University of HongKong retains 43rd spot, while theCity University of Hong Kongreturns to the top 200 after a year’sabsence (192nd).

Also on Marginson’s star chart isthe National University of Singa-pore, “which already producesabout two-thirds as many high-citation research papers as Cam-bridge and arguably has the mostsuccessful global strategy of anyuniversity in the world”, he says.

Indeed, its rise up the rankingshas been clear and consistent. Itmakes the top 25 for the first timethis year, moving up one place. The

university was in 40th position in2011-12.

Its local rival, Nanyang Techno-logical University, has made farmore dramatic progress, albeitfrom a lower starting point. It hasjumped 15 places to joint 61st thisyear, continuing its remarkableupward trend: four years ago itwas joint 169th.

Bertil Andersson, NTU’s presi-dent, attributes the institution’ssuccess to a number of factors:international recruitment of toptalent at the senior and post-doctoral levels; “top-level infra-structure”; partnerships withleading high-tech multinationals;and a “complete revamp of oureducational programmes”.

But he adds that all these reasonsfor NTU’s rapid advance – whathe calls the “kinetics of change”– are underpinned by the “commit-ment to and financial support forhigher education and research bythe Singapore government”.

The 2014-15 World University Rankings continuethe trends of US decline and Asian ascent,writes Phil Baty

Tectonic shifts point to As



Tsinghua University is anothername singled out for praise byMarginson. The Chinese institu-tion moves only one place to 49ththis year, but has risen 22 placessince 2011-12.

Tsinghua has moved withintouching distance of its giantBeijing rival, Peking University,which slips three places this yearto 48th, but which has held steadysince 2011-12, when it was joint49th.

Significantly, China gains anadditional top 200 representativethis year: Fudan University (joint193rd). Four years ago, it was amember of the 226-250 group.

As in Singapore, state backinghas been vital: Ying Cheng, execu-tive director of the Center forWorld-Class Universities at Shang-hai Jiao Tong University, says thatthe government has played an“essential role” in China’s success.

“It provided considerableadditional funding to a group of

universities, enabling them toimprove infrastructure, buyadvanced instruments, and set [up]endowed chairs and professorshipsto attract world-class scholars,” hesays.

And this is just the start, headds. “I’m optimistic about theprospects for China’s leadinguniversities: I believe there will bemore and more of them in therankings.”

South Korea’s stars are also inthe ascendant for the mostpart. Although Seoul National

University slips from 44th to 50th,the Korea Advanced Institute ofScience and Technology moves upfour places to a position tantalis-ingly close to the top 50 (and hasrisen 42 places since 2011-12).

Sungkyunkwan University(SKKU) leaps up the tables to joint148th, making the top 200 for thefirst time. Asked to explain thisrapid rise, SKKU’s president Jun

Young Kim rattles off a list ofimpressive achievements, includinga series of international researchand teaching collaborations; areputation-boosting number oneposition in the domestic rankings;and a string of prestigious state-funded research projects.

Paralleling the Singaporean andChinese experience, Kim acknow-ledges the importance of strongstate support.

“Governmental initiatives forthe development of higher educa-tion, including a world-class uni-versities programme, have had abig impact on the improvement ofKorean universities’ overall quality.SKKU is one of the biggest benefi-ciaries,” he says.

East Asia’s steady progress haspotentially been boosted by thesuccess of its Pacific neighbour,Australia: after all, collaborativeties between the two are strength-ening all the time.

Australia gains an additional

East Asia andSingapore havearrived as the thirdgreat region ofhigher educationand research

Asia taking on the mantle

reuT

erS



top 200 representative this year, theUniversity of Adelaide, whichenters at 164th. Most of the coun-try’s institutions, led by the Univer-sity of Melbourne (up one place to33rd), have gained ground.

Asia’s success has not beenfuelled by the high-spending EastAsian nations alone: Turkey hashad an exceptional year, too. Itnow boasts four top 200 univer-sities – with some spectacular risesin the ranks.

The Middle East Technical Uni-versity jumps from outside the top200 to 85th, thanks to strongimprovements in its reputation,international outlook and researchimpact scores. Istanbul TechnicalUniversity enters the top 200 injoint 165th place and SabancıUniversity debuts at joint 182nd.Thomson Reuters, THE’s rankingsdata partner, says that some ofTurkey’s improvement has been theresult of its campaign to improvethe attribution of its researchpapers to the correct institutions.But the country has also beenincreasing its spending on research.

Asia’s general success has madefurther inroads into the US’traditional dominance, althoughthis can be overstated: after all,the superpower takes seven ofthe top 10, 15 of the top 20 and45 of the top 100 positions(down from 46 last year).

But four US institutions exit thetop 200, including the Universityof Illinois at Chicago (equal 191stin 2013-14) and the University ofTexas at Dallas (equal 188th). Andalthough the appearance offirst-time participant Syracuse Uni-versity (177th) mitigates theselosses to a degree, there is plentyof evidence of a downward shift:of the 77 US institutions in the top200 last year, 46 (60 per cent) havelost ground – an average fall of5.34 places.

The list of the fallen reads like awho’s who of flagship US stateinstitutions, which are more

dependent than their private coun-terparts on public funding: Penn-sylvania State University (downnine places to 58th); Ohio StateUniversity (down nine to 68th); theUniversity of Pittsburgh (falling 13positions to joint 91st – and fromjoint 59th spot in 2011-12); andPurdue University (down 40 placesto 102nd).

The following have alsodeclined: the University of Virginia;the University of Maryland, Col-lege Park; Rutgers, the State Uni-versity of New Jersey; IndianaUniversity; the University of Utah;the University of Iowa; ArizonaState University; and the Universityat Buffalo.

Philip Altbach, director of the

Center for International HigherEducation at Boston College, says:“It is not surprising that the vari-ations between public and privateresearch universities here are grow-ing. The reasons are simple: mostUS states cut back on funding forpublic higher education during therecession and by and large have notrestored it. In some cases, statesupport for public ‘flagship’research universities now accountsfor under 10 per cent of the totalbudget.

“These trends have hit theresearch universities hard. Basicresearch is hard to sustain withoutsteady funding and once the topfaculty are gone and facilities arenot maintained, it is very difficultto rebuild research capacity and thehuman resources that go alongwith it.”

For Altbach, the implicationscould be profound. He argues:“The US is weakening its publicuniversities with inevitable conse-quences for the public good aswell as the nation’s research capac-ity. We can expect continuingdeclines in the rankings of USpublic universities and a gradualweakening of American researchover time if the situation is notreversed.”l

Phil Baty is editor, Times HigherEducation Rankings.

It is not surprisingthat the variationsbetween private andpublic researchuniversities in theUS are growing

alam

y


Rank

2014

-15

Rank

2013

-14

Inst

itutio

n

Coun

try

Teac

hing

Rese

arch

Cita

tions

Indu

stry

inco

me

Inte

rnat

iona

lout

look

Over

alls

core

1 1 California Institute of Technology US 92.2 98.1 99.7 89.1 67.0 94.32 =2 Harvard University US 92.9 98.6 98.9 44.0 67.6 93.33 =2 University of Oxford UK 88.6 97.7 95.5 72.9 90.7 93.24 4 Stanford University US 91.5 96.7 99.1 63.1 69.0 92.95 7 University of Cambridge UK 89.7 95.6 95.2 51.1 87.8 92.06 5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology US 89.1 88.2 100.0 95.7 84.3 91.97 6 Princeton University US 86.6 94.7 99.6 82.7 61.2 90.98 8 University of California, Berkeley US 84.2 96.7 99.1 44.8 58.5 89.5

=9 10 Imperial College London UK 84.6 88.3 89.4 72.7 92.7 87.5=9 11 Yale University US 88.5 90.8 94.0 42.0 59.8 87.511 9 University of Chicago US 83.9 89.9 97.3 36.8 65.2 87.112 12 University of California, Los Angeles US 82.4 90.5 95.3 – 49.2 85.513 14 ETH Zürich-Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich Switzerland 78.2 90.2 83.5 73.2 96.6 84.614 13 Columbia University US 83.9 79.4 95.3 – 68.3 84.415 15 Johns Hopkins University US 75.6 84.2 93.6 100.0 59.7 83.016 16 University of Pennsylvania US 79.0 82.0 94.4 43.0 43.8 81.017 18 University of Michigan US 77.0 86.5 88.9 55.7 49.8 80.918 17 Duke University US 73.5 75.2 96.6 100.0 50.5 79.919 19 Cornell University US 71.6 83.8 91.5 33.7 59.0 79.420 20 University of Toronto Canada 74.4 85.1 83.0 46.1 71.2 79.321 22 Northwestern University US 72.7 78.9 96.9 77.0 36.7 79.222 21 University College London UK 70.4 80.4 85.1 46.2 90.6 78.723 23 University of Tokyo Japan 81.4 85.1 74.7 51.2 32.4 76.124 24 Carnegie Mellon University US 61.6 74.9 92.0 53.0 59.3 74.325 26 National University of Singapore Singapore 72.0 78.1 66.0 53.4 94.9 73.326 25 University of Washington US 64.5 68.9 95.0 44.7 47.9 73.227 28 Georgia Institute of Technology US 62.5 71.2 85.8 72.3 68.9 72.828 27 University of Texas at Austin US 64.3 72.0 91.5 58.1 33.1 72.3

=29 29 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign US 67.7 79.0 77.8 51.7 43.9 71.9=29 55 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Germany 65.1 69.1 83.0 100.0 56.4 71.9=29 30 University of Wisconsin-Madison US 67.7 71.3 87.7 53.3 33.6 71.932 31 University of British Columbia Canada 60.5 69.0 85.3 40.1 84.8 71.833 34 University of Melbourne Australia 60.4 70.9 80.6 61.2 81.3 71.2

=34 37 École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne Switzerland 54.7 56.9 95.0 61.9 98.8 70.9=34 32 London School of Economics and Political Science UK 65.4 74.2 71.3 40.6 87.4 70.936 39 University of Edinburgh UK 58.9 62.9 88.3 41.2 84.3 70.437 33 University of California, Santa Barbara US 49.4 61.4 99.2 87.1 64.3 70.038 =40 New York University US 68.3 62.4 89.5 30.2 41.2 69.939 35 McGill University Canada 63.3 69.9 76.0 38.6 79.0 69.640 38 King’s College London UK 55.6 62.3 88.3 39.0 87.0 69.441 =40 University of California, San Diego US 52.0 66.6 96.4 54.2 37.0 68.642 42 Washington University in St Louis US 57.6 55.2 97.1 – 46.5 67.843 43 University of Hong Kong Hong Kong 62.1 72.6 65.1 56.0 81.9 67.544 36 Karolinska Institute Sweden 57.1 68.0 76.8 65.5 60.6 66.845 48 Australian National University Australia 53.7 70.9 71.1 38.9 91.3 66.5

=46 46 University of Minnesota US 59.9 64.7 82.9 – 33.8 65.9=46 47 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill US 57.9 58.6 91.0 40.5 35.3 65.948 45 Peking University China 70.0 61.9 63.7 100.0 53.7 65.249 =50 Tsinghua University China 64.1 68.3 65.0 99.7 44.6 65.150 44 Seoul National University South Korea 75.5 77.1 48.7 86.3 30.3 64.8

Top 200 | THE World University Rankings 2014-15


Rank

2014

-15

Rank

2013

-14

Inst

itutio

n

Coun

try

Teac

hing

Rese

arch

Cita

tions

Indu

stry

inco

me

Inte

rnat

iona

lout

look

Over

alls

core

51 57 Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Hong Kong 51.8 66.8 72.9 57.6 77.8 64.7=52 56 Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology South Korea 63.5 63.2 71.4 100.0 34.9 64.5=52 58 University of Manchester UK 58.1 58.7 74.3 39.4 82.0 64.554 =52 Brown University US 55.5 54.2 92.0 32.7 37.0 64.1

=55 =52 University of California, Davis US 54.4 59.7 80.4 55.4 52.9 63.7=55 61 Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Belgium 53.0 63.6 71.8 99.9 62.3 63.757 =50 Boston University US 56.4 46.7 94.4 30.3 47.8 63.658 49 Pennsylvania State University US 54.6 64.8 76.0 60.4 37.4 62.959 =52 Kyoto University Japan 70.4 68.4 57.0 73.3 29.0 62.860 72 University of Sydney Australia 52.8 60.8 69.0 67.3 83.6 62.7

=61 =70 École Polytechnique France 50.5 47.1 79.9 76.8 94.5 62.2=61 76 Nanyang Technological University Singapore 43.9 55.9 75.9 100.0 92.5 62.263 – Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa Italy 48.2 46.0 96.4 40.1 50.1 61.964 67 Leiden University Netherlands 45.0 58.2 82.3 47.3 59.5 61.365 =63 University of Queensland, Australia Australia 45.8 58.4 74.2 66.2 80.4 61.266 60 Pohang University of Science and Technology South Korea 52.7 49.3 84.4 100.0 36.0 61.167 =63 Georg-August-Universität Göttingen Germany 46.9 48.0 92.3 32.8 53.9 61.068 59 Ohio State University US 54.0 51.1 80.4 46.8 51.5 60.769 =65 Rice University US 41.7 37.1 99.9 34.6 70.8 59.870 68 Universität Heidelberg Germany 52.6 45.4 81.4 41.6 63.1 59.671 69 Delft University of Technology Netherlands 55.5 71.4 42.6 100.0 77.9 59.272 73 Erasmus University Rotterdam Netherlands 39.8 53.7 82.3 54.4 66.2 59.173 77 Wageningen University and Research Center Netherlands 44.3 46.8 77.5 100.0 78.7 59.074 79 University of Bristol UK 43.7 44.7 85.1 42.1 76.6 58.9

=75 =74 University of Basel Switzerland 41.2 41.1 81.4 97.7 91.2 58.4=75 =70 University of Southern California US 55.2 44.6 81.3 34.4 42.7 58.477 =83 University of Amsterdam Netherlands 42.0 55.4 76.6 56.7 60.5 58.278 =65 École Normale Supérieure France 48.7 36.2 84.8 39.4 81.9 58.179 =74 Utrecht University Netherlands 38.2 54.8 80.0 84.1 52.9 58.080 94 Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Germany 51.9 52.6 71.9 31.9 55.7 57.981 86 Freie Universität Berlin Germany 49.4 58.0 67.6 33.5 56.6 57.682 =83 Michigan State University US 51.1 49.4 74.0 31.7 55.0 57.3

=83 =80 Durham University UK 37.2 40.7 88.9 34.8 80.4 56.9=83 91 Monash University Australia 43.7 54.4 65.7 73.4 79.6 56.985 201-225 Middle East Technical University Turkey 45.5 36.9 92.0 55.2 38.7 56.6

=86 =103 University of Arizona US 44.9 51.4 74.0 99.6 38.8 56.5=86 90 University of Notre Dame US 43.3 38.5 90.0 – 51.4 56.5=88 93 University of California, Irvine US 39.5 41.7 89.5 40.0 56.1 56.4=88 =80 Tufts University US 43.6 33.9 92.9 58.7 51.1 56.4

90 85 Ghent University Belgium 42.5 51.6 73.8 85.3 49.1 56.2=91 =132 University of Massachusetts US 44.8 49.1 78.7 52.8 40.3 56.1=91 78 University of Pittsburgh US 45.2 46.3 84.4 38.5 32.2 56.193 =80 Emory University US 49.0 32.4 89.5 42.3 42.9 55.5

=94 =117 University of Glasgow UK 37.0 40.5 83.7 39.9 78.8 55.3=94 92 McMaster University Canada 38.1 43.2 78.8 85.0 69.4 55.396 =88 Vanderbilt University US 46.0 38.2 87.7 59.4 28.3 55.297 97 University of Colorado Boulder US 35.0 38.3 97.4 – 39.1 55.1

=98 =103 Stockholm University Sweden 30.1 45.0 90.9 32.4 53.2 54.6=98 87 Technische Universität München Germany 45.6 37.4 78.8 49.0 64.0 54.6=98 111 Uppsala University Sweden 40.2 53.0 70.9 39.6 57.5 54.6

THE World University Rankings 2014-15 | Top 200


Rank

2014

-15

Rank

2013

-14

Inst

itutio

n

Coun

try

Teac

hing

Rese

arch

Cita

tions

Indu

stry

inco

me

Inte

rnat

iona

lout

look

Over

alls

core

101 =98 Maastricht University Netherlands 32.4 48.1 70.1 96.1 89.7 54.3102 62 Purdue University US 47.8 50.5 62.2 – 64.3 54.0

=103 =100 University of Helsinki Finland 37.5 48.1 79.0 31.5 49.7 53.9=103 96 Université Pierre et Marie Curie France 47.3 30.0 83.3 33.4 64.7 53.9=103 141 University of Warwick UK 41.1 45.8 68.2 35.6 85.7 53.9=103 =121 University of Zurich Switzerland 40.2 33.1 81.4 40.1 86.9 53.9=107 124 University of Geneva Switzerland 34.5 37.2 78.2 65.1 96.8 53.8=107 =114 Queen Mary University of London UK 32.4 32.9 88.9 37.1 88.6 53.8=109 136 University of California, Santa Cruz US 30.6 31.9 100.0 33.8 54.6 53.7=109 =114 University of New South Wales Australia 41.1 51.9 61.1 47.8 83.5 53.7=111 =117 University of St Andrews UK 35.7 35.9 81.4 39.8 90.5 53.6=111 =121 University of Sussex UK 31.9 30.4 92.8 31.2 83.6 53.6=113 =106 University of Montreal Canada 43.8 44.4 62.9 91.8 76.7 53.4=113 201-225 Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen Germany 41.5 44.7 74.0 54.7 53.0 53.4=113 =100 University of York UK 32.2 33.8 90.5 32.2 75.0 53.4116 =88 Case Western Reserve University US 46.5 37.4 82.9 – 34.4 53.2117 =98 University of Groningen Netherlands 36.9 50.8 68.1 88.9 56.1 53.1118 102 Royal Holloway, University of London UK 29.1 22.4 98.9 32.8 94.4 53.0119 123 Lund University Sweden 32.6 48.5 74.9 32.6 70.1 52.9120 =114 Université Paris-Sud France 37.3 33.1 87.7 28.9 62.7 52.8

=121 95 University of Rochester US 41.9 29.2 87.7 36.4 55.5 52.7=121 =112 University of Sheffield UK 40.0 39.1 74.3 43.8 74.8 52.7=121 =117 Technical University of Denmark Denmark 39.9 28.2 79.6 98.6 79.7 52.7=124 =109 University of Alberta Canada 43.8 47.1 61.8 51.8 73.4 52.6=124 =126 University of Cape Town South Africa 26.8 35.3 86.6 88.0 76.7 52.6=126 135 Boston College US 32.4 29.1 95.9 46.5 54.6 52.5=126 128 University of Florida US 49.8 52.1 62.2 – 32.2 52.5=126 =117 KTH Royal Institute of Technology Sweden 45.7 44.8 55.1 100.0 84.0 52.5129 =109 Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong 43.9 53.5 57.8 42.8 64.0 52.4130 =112 University of Virginia US 48.7 35.9 76.9 49.8 31.8 52.1131 137 Lancaster University UK 35.4 36.1 78.0 34.1 84.7 52.0

=132 =157 University of Bern Switzerland 42.0 36.9 70.1 47.4 80.7 51.9=132 108 University of Maryland, College Park US 36.5 39.1 83.6 33.2 44.8 51.9=132 =146 University of Southampton UK 35.2 34.1 79.7 38.9 82.4 51.9135 251-275 Technische Universität Dresden Germany 39.8 42.0 70.8 99.5 44.7 51.6

=136 =132 Université de Lausanne Switzerland 29.4 39.9 76.5 50.9 85.1 51.4=136 =144 VU University Amsterdam Netherlands 35.5 43.2 74.9 60.0 50.6 51.4138 =129 Trinity College Dublin Republic of Ireland 39.4 30.3 77.6 30.6 83.9 51.2139 =199 Bogaziçi University Turkey 28.5 27.6 96.8 47.7 54.1 51.1140 131 Radboud University Nijmegen Netherlands 30.5 46.7 73.9 42.8 61.6 51.0

=141 =139 Colorado School of Mines US 26.1 26.7 97.1 79.4 52.6 50.9=141 159 Texas A&M University US 46.2 51.9 55.1 49.6 49.1 50.9=141 125 Tokyo Institute of Technology Japan 53.5 52.9 48.1 69.4 37.0 50.9=144 =106 Eindhoven University of Technology Netherlands 38.3 47.1 57.3 99.9 69.0 50.5=144 =103 Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey US 40.5 45.3 71.0 35.2 34.3 50.5146 =139 University of Leeds UK 39.4 39.1 69.3 39.4 67.6 50.4147 =164 Brandeis University US 25.8 29.1 95.3 43.9 54.7 50.3

=148 153 University of Birmingham UK 42.8 39.8 62.7 36.0 75.8 50.2=148 201-225 Sungkyunkwan University (SKKU) South Korea 48.1 50.2 51.7 98.5 35.8 50.2=150 =148 University of California, Riverside US 29.4 27.5 91.5 39.5 61.6 50.1

Top 200 | THE World University Rankings 2014-15


Rank

2014

-15

Rank

2013

-14

Inst

itutio

n

Coun

try

Teac

hing

Rese

arch

Cita

tions

Indu

stry

inco

me

Inte

rnat

iona

lout

look

Over

alls

core

=150 =132 Indiana University US 46.5 35.1 73.1 – 37.1 50.1152 =126 Dartmouth College US 38.3 35.4 80.4 49.1 33.1 50.0153 138 Aarhus University Denmark 30.9 47.5 66.5 59.8 66.3 49.9154 =148 University of Exeter UK 32.0 32.7 78.0 35.8 79.8 49.7155 142 National Taiwan University Taiwan 48.8 57.3 47.7 43.8 27.5 49.3156 =129 RWTH Aachen University Germany 39.0 29.9 75.0 69.8 56.8 49.2

=157 169 University of Liverpool UK 31.3 33.2 76.2 40.0 79.5 49.1=157 =144 Osaka University Japan 51.3 48.0 51.1 73.6 29.1 49.1=157 168 University of Western Australia Australia 36.3 38.1 62.2 63.3 87.3 49.1=160 =150 University of Copenhagen Denmark 34.0 34.4 73.5 44.4 71.8 49.0=160 156 École Normale Supérieure de Lyon France 38.1 33.8 73.0 29.3 64.4 49.0162 143 University of Utah US 38.8 36.5 75.0 58.1 27.5 48.6163 152 Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg Germany 38.0 28.1 74.0 81.4 56.7 48.3164 201-225 University of Adelaide Australia 33.8 40.4 61.1 65.3 79.3 48.2

=165 201-225 Istanbul Technical University Turkey 30.2 36.9 79.7 51.1 37.3 48.1=165 154 Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Germany 40.5 34.9 62.9 82.7 60.1 48.1=165 =164 Pompeu Fabra University Spain 25.1 28.3 88.3 35.9 63.2 48.1=165 =150 Tohoku University Japan 49.7 47.3 49.6 76.8 29.7 48.1169 =185 University of Miami US 42.7 27.2 73.1 – 56.7 48.0170 =164 University of Antwerp Belgium 34.6 33.6 67.7 100.0 61.0 47.9

=171 =172 Université Catholique de Louvain Belgium 37.9 34.9 67.7 46.1 59.7 47.8=171 =157 University of Nottingham UK 39.9 35.8 62.7 39.6 70.6 47.8=173 160 Georgetown University US 51.1 28.2 62.2 80.0 43.3 47.7=173 201-225 University of Victoria Canada 21.6 30.6 86.7 31.6 70.1 47.7=175 =164 University of Auckland New Zealand 28.6 33.4 68.4 74.2 87.3 47.5=175 =161 University of Iowa US 41.9 33.5 71.0 49.3 31.7 47.5177 – Syracuse University US 32.4 24.4 87.1 40.6 41.2 47.3

=178 =188 University of Aberdeen UK 28.0 30.2 74.3 42.1 84.1 47.1=178 155 Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble France 38.0 29.3 73.0 31.3 57.3 47.1=180 =174 University of Delaware US 29.0 36.3 73.1 99.3 40.6 47.0=180 =178 Université Paris Diderot-Paris 7 France 25.6 19.7 92.2 29.1 67.4 47.0=182 =146 Arizona State University US 35.7 37.5 73.1 32.6 29.5 46.9=182 – Sabancı University Turkey 26.0 27.1 88.5 42.9 44.6 46.9=182 =170 University of Vienna Austria 35.2 39.7 56.3 29.4 91.0 46.9185 184 Northeastern University US 36.4 21.9 81.3 34.0 54.7 46.8

=186 =185 University of Oslo Norway 36.1 35.2 66.3 36.6 60.3 46.7=186 =172 Yeshiva University US 45.2 23.9 77.8 – 27.6 46.7=188 =185 University of Ottawa Canada 37.9 34.7 62.9 45.9 63.2 46.6=188 =178 Stony Brook University US 32.8 24.4 80.4 31.3 60.5 46.6=188 =199 Tel Aviv University Israel 43.5 51.1 45.5 42.6 46.1 46.6191 =176 University at Buffalo US 40.1 39.8 57.5 39.6 57.0 46.5192 201-225 City University of Hong Kong Hong Kong 31.0 32.9 68.6 49.8 71.3 46.3

=193 201-225 Fudan University China 45.6 34.0 61.0 49.4 37.4 46.2=193 183 Iowa State University US 36.4 30.9 72.0 54.4 40.6 46.2195 181 Universität Bonn Germany 32.2 22.2 83.8 – 54.8 46.1

=196 226-250 Lomonosov Moscow State University RussianFederation

55.9 42.1 33.8 78.5 60.4 46.0

=196 201-225 St George’s, University of London UK 23.1 27.3 86.4 32.4 55.8 46.0198 =174 University of East Anglia UK 25.2 22.6 83.7 29.2 76.5 45.9199 =161 University of Leicester UK 29.8 31.6 67.1 34.8 83.9 45.7

=200 197 Florida Institute of Technology US 19.7 13.1 99.2 53.7 63.0 45.6=200 =194 George Washington University US 44.6 25.1 70.0 29.3 39.9 45.6

THE World University Rankings 2014-15 | Top 200



Netherlands

+265

+250Germany

Australia+134 Singapore

+123South Korea

+103 Sweden+32 Hong Kong

+25 China+23 Belgium

+8Denmark

+4

Nanyang Technological University+108

+96+85

+74

+74+70

+64

+61

+57

+42

+34

+33

+33

+32

+31

+29

+26

Maastricht UniversityErasmus University Rotterdam

Seoul National University

Eberhard Karls Universität TübingenFreie Universität Berlin

University of New South Wales

KTH Royal Institute of Technology

Technical University of Denmark

Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology

Monash University

Delft University of Technology

Stockholm University

University of Western Australia

Karlsruhe Institute of TechnologyHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinAlbert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg

Lund University-39

Taiwan-1 New Zealand

-2 Norway-5 Switzerland

-9Finland

-12 Republicof Ireland

-21

South Africa-21 Israel

-22

+69

+54

+36

Boston College

University of WarwickUniversity of Liverpool

University of Basel

+24

-74 Stony Brook University

George Washington University

Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

Dartmouth College

Arizona State University

University of East Anglia

University of Utah

Tohoku University

University of Zurich

University of Rochester

University of Maryland, College Park

Osaka University

Georgetown University

University of Iowa

Tokyo Institute of Technology

University of Pittsburgh

Yeshiva University

University of Nottingham

McMaster University

-65

-63

-62

-55

-53

-49

-45

-42

-40

-38

-38

-35

-34

-33

-32

-32

-31

-29

(Rankingplaces lost)

(Rankingplacesgained)

Ran

king

plac

eslo

st

US public/private divide

Bars represent the number of places gained/lost by each ofthe 74 US universities in the top 200 from 2011-12 to 2014-15

Public Private

Steepest losses 2011-12 to 2014-15

Ran

king

plac

esga

ined

Strongest gains 2011-12 to 2014-15System strength

0

25

50

75

0

25

50

75

T he World University Rankingsprovide a rich dataset to comparethe performance of nations over

time. This data visualisation (above andright) offers a simple snapshot of theperformance of countries representedin the top 200 since 2011-12, the firstyear to employ the current rankingsmethodology.

For each country represented sincethen, we calculated the total movementin position of national institutions acrossthe four annual editions of the rankings– 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and2014-15. The size of each triangleindicates this movement, from Dutchuniversities rising 265 ranking positions

to the US’ total fall of 692 places.Although the results are generally

stable year on year, since 2011-12there have been some significant shifts:the diagram also highlights a selectionof some of the individual institutions thathave moved the most over the period.

The country with the largest numberof top 200 universities, the US, has alsosuffered the largest total loss in rankingpositions over time. Our chart (below)divides the country’s representativesinto public and private institutions,highlighting the fact that the lossessuffered by the US are more heavilyconcentrated among the former, whichhave suffered swingeing funding cuts.

Time will tell: bigger picture reve



Austria-43

France-66

UK

-71

Canada

-83

Japan

-116

US-692

University of Vienna-43

Hong Kong

Netherlands

UK

Switzerland

Sweden

Denmark

Belgium

Singapore

New Zealand

Australia

Turkey

Rep of Ireland

US

Canada

Israel

Finland

South Korea

Germany

France

South Africa

Austria

Taiwan

Norway

Japan

Spain

Italy

Russian Fed

China

Bang-for-bucks score

Sources: GDP data, 2012, United Nations; Taiwan, CIA World Factbook

3

Number intop 200

1

1

1

5

1

1

1

1

7

12

4

1

1

8

74

1

4

8

1

2

4

3

5

7

29

11

4

US$000 billion GDP

The bang-for-bucks score is arrived at by dividing the number of universitiesin a country in the top 200 (2014-15) by the GDP of that country

Conversion success

150100500 20005101520

What happens when the WorldUniversity Rankings results arenormalised for the size and wealth

of nations?By dividing the number of top 200 uni-

versities in each country by that nation’sgross domestic product, we created aranking (above) that indicates how suc-cessful countries are at converting theirwealth into world-class universities.

While the US may be top dog in termsof the number of world-class universitiesit boasts, when national wealth is factored

in, it is more chihuahua than wolfhound,dropping to 13th in the world. Hong Kong,with four top-200 representatives and aGDP of just $263.3 billion (£160 billion),leads the table.

The chart shows how great a challenge– and opportunity – is faced by large devel-oping economies in rankings terms. China,for example, the world’s second-largesteconomy (with a GDP of $8,358 billion),has just three top 200 players, hence itspoor showing: however, many more arepoised to join the global elite.

A snapshot view of four yearsof change. ‘System strength’shows countries’ gains andlosses of ranking positions.‘Conversion success’ indicateshow successful nations areat converting wealth intoworld-class universities.And ‘US public/private divide’breaks down the rankingschanges by funding source.Visualisation by Jack Hagley

veals underlying movement



The scale of the challenge facingdeveloping countries in creat-ing world-class universities is

made clear by the Times HigherEducation World University Rank-ings’ “best of the rest” list, whichnames the top 201 to 400 globalinstitutions.

While 28 countries make the top200, a further 13 feature in the201-400 list (see pages 24 to 30)– many of them developing econo-mies that see their universities’global competitiveness as key totheir economic future. The largeBRIC countries – Brazil, Russia,India and China – have 19 univer-sities in this year’s rankings, but 15are found in the 201-400 group.

Vladimir Putin, Russia’s presi-dent, wants five of the country’suniversities to make the world top100 by 2020, under the auspicesof what is known as Project 5-100.In last year’s rankings, the difficul-ties of making this ambition areality were laid bare when not asingle Russian institution made thetop 200 and only one, the flagshipLomonosov Moscow State Univer-sity, made the top 400.

But in 2014-15, progress is evi-dent: Lomonosov Moscow Statehas broken into the top 200 (joint196th place) and Novosibirsk StateUniversity jumps straight into the301-350 band, thanks to dramaticimprovements in the impact andcollaborative nature of its research.

Alexei Falaleev, office coordina-tor for Project 5-100, based at theSkolkovo Moscow School of Man-agement, explains that the initia-tive’s mission is to “maximise thecompetitive position of a group ofleading Russian universities in theglobal research and education

market”, adding that “high posi-tions in global university rankingsare among the strongest indicatorsof the attainment of globalcompetitiveness”.

Some 15 institutions wereinitially selected for support underthe project, but that figure hasalready dropped to 14, as fundingand support is gradually focusedon a smaller number of institutionsaccording to several key goals.

Investment is targeted onimproving the content and qualityof Russian university courses “incompliance with the best inter-national standards”; enhancing thecountry’s research potentialthrough personnel developmentand improved academic and stu-dent recruitment; and restructuringto “ensure the concentration ofresources on breakthrough projectswhile abandoning ineffectiveactivities”, Falaleev says.

Internationalising Russian highereducation is central to Project5-100. By 2020, each remaining

participant must not only be listedin the global rankings top 200, butalso enrol 15 per cent of itsstudents and at least 10 per cent ofits academic staff from overseas.

“The key result by 2020 will not

only be the appearance of severalstrong universities in the country,but also a significant enhancementof the status and reputation ofRussian education globally,” Fala-leev says.

Although Russia currently lacksany top 100 institutions in theoverarching tables, it is a differentstory in the subject-specific ones.

In engineering and technology(page 54), Moscow State takes66th place, and in physical sciences(page 56) it is one of three Russiantop 100 institutions, alongsideNovosibirsk (joint 85th) and theMoscow State Engineering andPhysics Institute (95th). (Theserankings are not shown here as onlythe top 50 are given for each subjectarea. Go to www.thewur.com forthe full listings.)

Michael Fedoruk, Novosibirsk’srector, explains that his university’srise in the tables is the result of anumber of factors, including a sim-ple but highly effective project toensure better recognition of itsresearch output through the properattribution of citations.

“The university has always beenpart of a large research conglomer-ate known to the outside world asthe Academy of Science SiberianBranch, or more specifically the

The large developingnations are makingpatchy progress in therankings: will Putin’sambitions be realised?Phil Baty reports

BRICs, mortar boardsand mixed fortunes

High positions inglobal rankings areamong the strongestindicators of theattainment of globalcompetitiveness

alam

y



Academy’s Novosibirsk ScientificCenter,” he says.

“Few know, however, that theAcademy’s most active and success-ful researchers are at the same timeprofessors at the university. A largenumber of its active researchers areinvolved in teaching with us, ensur-ing that the scientific centre’s workis already having a major influenceon our undergraduate programme.But the university used to receiveno credit for its professors’ researchas it was incorrectly attributedsolely to the Academy.”

Correct attribution has helped,but the backing of the Russiangovernment has also been integralto Novosibirsk’s success, Fedorukadds.

“From the start of the govern-ment’s university support pro-gramme, Novosibirsk has managedto consolidate its research base andbring its researchers back to theuniversity,” he says.

“In doing so, the university hasbeen able to capitalise on its uniqueposition in the country…onlyNovosibirsk has the luxury of acampus that has, within 1 squaremile, lecture theatres and 26research institutes, including suchlarge and internationally recog-

nised organisations as the BudkerInstitute of Nuclear Physics and theBoreskov Institute of Catalysis.”

Russia is one step ahead of itsgreat BRIC rivals, Brazil andIndia, as neither have top 200

representation.Two Brazilian institutions make

the top 400, however. The Univer-sity of São Paulo is the country’snumber one and sits marginallyoutside the top 200, rising this yearfrom the 226-250 group to the201-225 cohort. Its domestic coun-terpart, the State University ofCampinas, remains in the 301-350group it joined last year.

South America is also repre-sented by Chile’s Federico SantaMaría Technical University (251-275) and Colombia’s University ofthe Andes (251-275).

India now has one fewer repre-sentative (four) in the top 400 thanin 2013-14. Jointly leading thepack is a debutant – the IndianInstitute of Science – which arrivesin the 276-300 band. It was previ-ously excluded from the rankingsbecause it was a postgraduateschool, but after starting to enrolundergraduates it became eligiblefor inclusion.

Anurag Kumar, its director, says:“The Indian Institute of Science[IISc] has over the past centuryprovided its faculty and studentswith an atmosphere of academicfreedom and encouragement topursue fundamental or appliedinvestigations in the field of scienceor engineering of their choosing.

“Among the students whochoose to pursue postgraduatestudy in India, the best come toIISc. In most fields, it is the firstchoice for aspiring scientists eagerto build their academic careers.Our facilities and laboratories arethe best in the country and in manycases are world class. Such a situ-ation has been created by generousdirect government support, plussponsored research funding fromgovernment departments andindustry.”

He adds: “Strategically, havingbuilt up core strengths in the vari-ous branches of learning andresearch, IISc is poised to take onthe challenges of interdisciplinaryresearch that the problems facinghumankind will inevitablyrequire.”

IISc sits alongside last year’sIndian number one, Panjab Uni-versity, which slips from the

Rank New entrants in top 201 to 400 Country

226-250 Technische Universität Berlin Germany

251-275 Universität Bremen Germany

251-275 Federico Santa María Technical University Chile

251-275 University of Hawaii US

251-275 University of New Mexico US

276-300 Indian Institute of Science India

276-300 Lappeenranta University of Technology Finland

276-300 University of Macau Macau

301-350 Illinois Institute of Technology US

301-350 University of Marrakech Cadi Ayyad Morocco

301-350 University of Nebraska Medical Center US

301-350 Novosibirsk State University Russian Federation

301-350 Universität Stuttgart Germany

351-400 Aston University UK

351-400 Curtin University Australia

351-400 Ewha Woman’s University South Korea

351-400 Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay India

351-400 Isfahan University of Technology Iran

351-400 University of Lisbon Portugal

351-400 University of Rome III Italy

351-400 Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Republic of Ireland

351-400 University of Seoul South Korea

351-400 University of Turku Finland

351-400 Waseda University Japan

351-400 University of Western Sydney Australia

351-400 Wuhan University China



226-250 band to the 276-300group. The country’s remaining top400 institutions are IITs – debutantthe Indian Institute of Technology,Bombay and IIT Roorkee (both inthe 351-400 group). There is noplacing this year of IIT Delhi, IITKanpur or IIT Kharagpur.

Among the BRIC nations,China leads the way. Its over-all representation in the top

400 grows this year from 10 uni-versities to 11 – with Wuhan Uni-

versity entering the 351-400 band.There are further encouraging

signs. While the University ofScience and Technology of China(201-225) and Nanjing University(251-275) remain in the samebands as last year, Shanghai JiaoTong University rises from 301-350 to 276-300 and Sun Yat-senUniversity moves up a band to301-350.

Ying Cheng, executive directorof the Center for World-ClassUniversities at Shanghai Jiao Tong,

says there are plenty of reasons toexplain the rise of his and otherChinese institutions.

“I would say the most funda-mental thing is our clear vision andstrong will to become a world-classuniversity,” he says. “In light ofthis vision, the university shiftedthe focus of its teaching, research,student recruitment and facultypromotion from domestic stand-ards to international ones – fromdomestic competition to inter-national competition.

“University staff have got usedto what world-class universities doand have set that as their modeland their goal.”

Cheng says that the most impor-tant initiatives have been toughen-ing up the criteria for facultyrecruitment; setting clear require-ments for doctoral candidates topublish in leading journals; andstrengthening collaborations withworld-class universities outside thecountry.

And while a key challengeremains – overcentralised admin-istrative systems that place toomuch power in the hands of man-agers at the expense of professors– Cheng has little doubt that China’suniversities will continue to rise.l

The university shiftedits focus fromdomestic standardsto international ones– from domesticcompetition tointernationalcompetition

reut

ers

AlAm

y


THE World University Rankings 2014-15 | Top 201 to 400

Rank

2014

-15

Rank

2013

-14

Inst

itutio

n

Coun

try

Teac

hing

Rese

arch

Cita

tions

Indu

stry

inco

me

Inte

rnat

iona

lout

look

201-225 226-250 University of Barcelona Spain 28.4 28.8 79.7 31.0 47.8201-225 University of Bergen Norway 29.5 27.9 68.5 34.2 65.3226-250 Bilkent University Turkey 28.0 27.7 76.0 46.4 44.6201-225 Cardiff University UK 30.5 30.4 69.3 34.8 69.3

196 University of Dundee UK 24.4 22.5 84.4 47.7 64.5201-225 Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main Germany 28.1 22.4 78.8 38.8 55.6

=191 Hebrew University of Jerusalem Israel 41.5 36.3 57.2 31.5 53.3251-275 Hong Kong Polytechnic University Hong Kong 33.7 36.5 56.5 42.6 69.9

=191 University of Illinois at Chicago US 43.0 34.1 55.1 40.7 53.4201-225 University of Innsbruck Austria 23.9 17.1 77.0 42.0 93.4201-225 Korea University South Korea 48.9 44.3 39.9 98.5 35.9

=176 Université Libre de Bruxelles Belgium 26.7 36.2 64.4 50.7 79.4198 Newcastle University UK 30.3 29.6 70.3 35.0 73.8

=194 University of Reading UK 32.8 34.0 58.1 34.9 75.0226-250 University of São Paulo Brazil 51.6 51.6 32.3 40.1 25.3201-225 University of Science and Technology of China China 36.9 27.3 73.6 71.6 26.3201-225 Université de Strasbourg France 28.6 23.4 74.0 32.0 69.5201-225 Technion Israel Institute of Technology Israel 36.9 37.5 52.0 36.5 60.6

=188 University of Texas at Dallas US 26.0 28.2 77.8 41.6 55.4226-250 University of Trieste Italy 28.7 16.0 88.1 33.3 50.7

=170 University of Twente Netherlands 32.3 45.3 49.4 89.2 67.2201-225 Universität Ulm Germany 35.0 22.0 73.0 56.7 54.1

180 Wake Forest University US 33.3 23.5 81.3 38.2 26.0201-225 William & Mary US 36.8 19.9 78.7 30.0 26.5

190 Yonsei University South Korea 44.5 45.8 44.3 69.7 35.7226-250

226-250 Autonomous University of Barcelona Spain 30.4 29.2 67.0 34.6 46.4201-225 Birkbeck, University of London UK 28.3 29.3 60.4 28.7 84.4251-275 Brunel University London UK 22.1 21.4 75.3 31.9 88.8201-225 University of Calgary Canada 34.4 30.5 59.4 41.5 63.1276-300 Carleton University Canada 24.3 24.5 76.9 30.7 61.1251-275 Dalhousie University Canada 33.6 30.0 54.4 68.9 71.6

=161 University College Dublin Republic of Ireland 31.7 28.1 61.7 33.8 79.4201-225 University of Gothenburg Sweden 24.1 38.2 64.4 37.0 46.8226-250 Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel Germany 31.1 24.3 70.8 42.0 44.2226-250 Universität Konstanz Germany 30.5 33.4 59.4 52.5 57.0201-225 Laval University Canada 35.8 29.9 58.1 62.7 55.7226-250 University of Milan-Bicocca Italy 27.1 23.0 76.6 45.0 40.6

193 Mines ParisTech France 39.6 23.2 55.1 99.0 58.7201-225 Nagoya University Japan 37.5 31.8 59.9 86.3 31.8

=181 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute US 30.9 26.2 67.8 49.9 42.8226-250 Simon Fraser University Canada 24.6 29.3 67.6 41.8 61.4301-350 State University of New York Albany US 25.7 35.0 68.9 – 39.6

– Technische Universität Berlin Germany 42.2 32.3 47.0 63.4 70.4301-350 University of Technology, Sydney Australia 27.8 32.5 58.7 40.1 86.9201-225 Tokyo Metropolitan University Japan 19.6 9.8 100.0 31.0 39.5226-250 Vienna University of Technology Austria 43.3 32.4 41.7 64.1 75.9226-250 University of Western Ontario Canada 38.3 35.7 47.0 50.7 63.7226-250 Universität Würzburg Germany 28.6 17.3 81.4 30.0 50.2276-300 York University Canada 27.5 35.3 62.9 34.1 59.7



Rank

2014

-15

Rank

2013

-14

Inst

itutio

n

Coun

try

Teac

hing

Rese

arch

Cita

tions

Indu

stry

inco

me

Inte

rnat

iona

lout

look

251-275301-350 Aalto University Finland 31.8 31.3 50.2 64.5 59.4

– Universität Bremen Germany 33.9 27.6 55.7 46.3 53.0– Federico Santa María Technical University Chile 13.0 10.1 99.7 28.1 48.7– University of Hawaii US 35.1 30.7 51.5 38.3 59.4

251-275 University of Iceland Iceland 14.9 24.7 74.8 64.0 59.1251-275 Medical University of Vienna Austria 28.6 17.0 71.1 33.7 73.1251-275 University of the Andes Colombia 17.3 12.1 89.8 36.5 54.6251-275 Nanjing University China 34.6 23.3 59.6 51.7 50.2

– University of New Mexico US 29.6 23.4 73.1 44.5 32.2251-275 University of Newcastle Australia 26.5 29.9 57.5 75.6 70.6301-350 National University of Ireland, Galway Republic of Ireland 26.7 24.8 62.8 43.1 71.7226-250 University of Otago New Zealand 27.1 27.7 57.6 31.9 81.5251-275 University of Pavia Italy 26.3 19.2 75.6 64.4 43.5226-250 Queen’s University Canada 37.3 33.4 48.2 59.0 55.4251-275 Queen’s University Belfast UK 30.1 25.1 52.2 43.7 88.6301-350 University of Salento Italy 32.3 25.6 64.5 38.4 40.3276-300 University of South Florida US 27.7 37.9 55.1 99.8 41.0251-275 Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Sweden 27.9 25.2 59.9 99.8 49.6226-250 Technische Universität Darmstadt Germany 36.9 33.7 42.0 88.9 59.6201-225 University of Trento Italy 26.8 20.3 70.3 46.0 57.3251-275 National Tsing Hua University Taiwan 39.4 40.3 49.1 49.4 24.8226-250 University of Turin Italy 29.4 20.3 72.5 40.8 39.3226-250 University of Waterloo Canada 30.9 40.4 47.0 41.7 63.1226-250 Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster Germany 30.6 18.1 73.0 38.2 48.2226-250 University of Witwatersrand South Africa 22.3 21.7 67.3 94.8 66.3

276-300276-300 University of Bologna Italy 31.0 23.2 64.5 34.9 43.1276-300 Chalmers University of Technology Sweden 35.7 32.8 40.8 75.8 62.5226-250 University of Cincinnati US 32.0 22.4 67.8 35.6 26.0276-300 Colorado State University US 27.6 31.3 59.9 38.8 30.4226-250 Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg Germany 28.4 15.3 68.7 46.8 49.0276-300 University of Fribourg Switzerland 29.2 19.7 58.6 48.2 84.4276-300 University of Georgia US 39.7 28.9 46.6 31.1 35.3

– Indian Institute of Science India 32.6 39.5 51.6 37.9 18.2– Lappeenranta University of Technology Finland 25.2 25.5 59.9 73.8 59.1– University of Macau Macau 17.1 20.3 68.1 33.6 73.3

276-300 University of Milan Italy 25.3 22.9 66.9 40.1 37.4251-275 Université Montpellier 2 France 23.7 22.5 67.4 33.6 56.6251-275 National Chiao Tung University Taiwan 35.0 40.7 40.4 98.2 30.7251-275 University of Nebraska-Lincoln US 31.0 24.4 57.5 35.0 47.8251-275 Norwegian University of Science and Technology Norway 33.5 29.6 49.6 45.0 54.7226-250 Panjab University India 23.7 10.5 84.4 28.3 29.2276-300 Plymouth University UK 18.4 18.1 80.5 28.8 51.3276-300 Queensland University of Technology Australia 29.9 36.0 42.9 71.9 69.8301-350 Shanghai Jiao Tong University China 37.9 37.9 38.9 88.4 23.9301-350 University of South Australia Australia 25.7 24.0 52.7 83.9 80.8251-275 University of South Carolina US 34.5 27.5 55.1 31.8 37.3301-350 Stellenbosch University South Africa 30.0 31.2 45.6 94.7 47.8226-250 Tilburg University Netherlands 33.0 45.1 34.9 55.1 62.2276-300 Tokyo Medical and Dental University Japan 42.7 22.9 51.1 56.9 21.8276-300 University College Cork Republic of Ireland 26.7 22.2 56.9 45.9 70.8276-300 Victoria University of Wellington New Zealand 21.6 28.5 53.8 49.7 84.2276-300 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University US 40.1 40.0 40.7 42.6 28.9276-300 University of Wollongong Australia 25.2 27.8 55.1 44.7 80.4



Rank

2014

-15

Rank

2013

-14

Inst

itutio

n

Coun

try

Teac

hing

Rese

arch

Cita

tions

Indu

stry

inco

me

Inte

rnat

iona

lout

look

301-350301-350 Autonomous University of Madrid Spain 28.6 19.3 59.7 32.2 48.8301-350 Bangor University UK 22.4 23.0 55.8 31.1 73.1276-300 University of Bath UK 29.2 25.1 47.5 36.7 76.1301-350 University of Canterbury New Zealand 21.1 23.4 53.8 49.5 88.2351-400 Charles Darwin University Australia 20.3 17.8 64.5 32.7 45.5351-400 Charles University in Prague Czech Republic 31.5 24.3 50.1 29.4 53.9251-275 Universität zu Köln Germany 25.6 18.4 65.3 28.8 52.1301-350 University of Connecticut US 37.6 27.1 45.4 31.1 38.8276-300 Creighton University US 40.7 10.4 63.3 32.4 29.1301-350 University of Crete Greece 19.0 16.8 67.0 36.0 47.0301-350 Deakin University Australia 20.1 20.6 57.5 30.6 71.8301-350 Drexel University US 31.8 14.3 57.5 34.6 42.2351-400 Universität Duisburg-Essen Germany 21.9 13.7 64.1 44.2 49.2251-275 University of Essex UK 31.6 29.0 39.3 29.1 86.7301-350 Hong Kong Baptist University Hong Kong 21.2 13.2 70.8 29.1 62.3301-350 University of Houston US 39.3 25.8 44.2 43.2 33.1

– Illinois Institute of Technology US 40.2 17.3 50.3 – 59.4351-400 University of Jyväskylä Finland 27.6 24.0 50.2 – 47.2276-300 University of Kansas US 30.6 20.1 62.2 36.2 32.2301-350 Kansas State University US 27.0 16.5 61.0 39.2 41.5276-300 Koç University Turkey 21.6 24.4 58.5 50.6 49.8276-300 Macquarie University Australia 24.0 24.8 50.2 36.2 89.2301-350 University of Manitoba Canada 31.6 29.4 48.2 43.5 43.4

– University of Marrakech Cadi Ayyad Morocco 16.3 6.5 83.0 28.6 45.1276-300 University of Montana US 29.1 13.7 75.0 34.4 20.7

– University of Nebraska Medical Center US 36.4 16.5 51.5 34.5 34.8– Novosibirsk State University Russian Federation 24.6 17.2 70.5 33.4 43.8

351-400 University of Oklahoma US 32.6 15.7 57.5 34.5 30.0301-350 Oregon State University US 27.8 21.1 63.3 32.0 36.7301-350 University of Padua Italy 20.7 18.2 68.0 32.9 40.4301-350 University of Pisa Italy 22.4 18.8 69.2 37.7 36.7276-300 Polytechnic University of Milan Italy 27.6 26.6 55.8 67.8 42.9226-250 Renmin University of China China 34.9 14.7 59.6 42.8 44.4351-400 San Diego State University US 19.7 24.8 65.6 29.2 26.9301-350 Sapienza University of Rome Italy 32.3 28.1 50.7 34.2 37.5251-275 Sharif University of Technology Iran 28.7 34.7 50.4 86.2 19.4276-300 University of Southern Denmark Denmark 19.5 20.5 61.2 72.6 67.1301-350 State University of Campinas Brazil 43.4 38.8 28.0 44.5 20.7351-400 University of Stirling UK 21.5 25.1 49.9 30.7 66.9

– Universität Stuttgart Germany 30.6 17.3 56.9 48.2 59.3351-400 Sun Yat-sen University China 32.5 25.2 54.1 58.9 37.0301-350 University of Tampere Finland 22.9 22.2 58.7 42.5 45.6301-350 University of Tsukuba Japan 33.4 21.6 51.1 36.9 36.1226-250 Tulane University US 40.7 20.7 53.9 – 29.7351-400 University of Valencia Spain 17.9 12.0 72.7 30.8 43.7301-350 University of Warsaw Poland 20.8 13.6 70.0 28.5 41.6301-350 Wayne State University US 32.0 15.2 61.0 – 30.7301-350 Zhejiang University China 36.0 33.1 40.2 88.6 21.5



Rank

2014

-15

Rank

2013

-14

Inst

itutio

n

Coun

try

Teac

hing

Rese

arch

Cita

tions

Indu

stry

inco

me

Inte

rnat

iona

lout

look

351-400301-350 Aalborg University Denmark 23.8 28.5 39.9 43.9 65.8301-350 Aberystwyth University UK 20.7 20.6 52.2 33.0 66.5

– Aston University UK 19.4 21.6 45.1 35.7 79.7351-400 University of Bari Aldo Moro Italy 29.1 18.1 52.0 35.2 38.1301-350 Universität Bayreuth Germany 21.3 12.9 61.8 34.8 53.9301-350 Universität Bielefeld Germany 27.5 19.1 52.0 37.4 48.6301-350 Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 France 19.1 17.2 62.6 33.6 52.1

– Curtin University Australia 20.1 17.1 45.3 36.1 91.3301-350 University of Eastern Finland Finland 24.3 21.6 53.8 32.8 44.1

– Ewha Woman’s University South Korea 23.5 18.0 57.6 61.3 36.0351-400 University of Ferrara Italy 19.5 15.2 64.5 40.4 42.1351-400 University of Florence Italy 18.1 17.3 60.8 35.4 37.4251-275 Vrije Universiteit Brussel Belgium 31.2 17.9 48.1 44.8 54.5351-400 George Mason University US 26.3 20.3 53.9 28.7 35.8351-400 Hanyang University South Korea 31.5 32.3 29.0 88.7 48.4301-350 University of Hertfordshire UK 16.2 10.9 65.0 29.6 74.9301-350 Hokkaido University Japan 38.4 27.5 32.2 43.4 25.2

– Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay India 34.2 24.6 43.5 49.7 19.5351-400 Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee India 25.2 14.3 62.6 69.0 16.6

– Isfahan University of Technology Iran 20.7 27.3 48.9 84.1 20.0301-350 King Mongkut’s University of Technology, Thonburi Thailand 16.7 10.0 75.0 56.5 22.5351-400 Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Austria 23.7 17.3 55.1 30.2 64.8301-350 Kyushu University Japan 36.5 28.5 33.6 68.7 26.1301-350 Lehigh University US 25.4 16.6 56.3 39.2 34.5301-350 Université de Liège Belgium 25.9 18.4 44.6 70.4 69.1301-350 Linköping University Sweden 20.2 27.6 51.5 – 50.9

– University of Lisbon Portugal 30.1 22.8 44.8 33.9 46.8351-400 University of Minho Portugal 20.2 16.2 60.6 44.5 49.7301-350 University of Missouri US 31.7 22.0 46.6 31.2 29.6301-350 Murdoch University Australia 21.2 17.8 46.5 40.5 85.3301-350 National Cheng Kung University Taiwan 31.8 40.1 28.4 100.0 26.7351-400 University of Navarra Spain 29.5 22.3 41.7 90.2 46.2351-400 University of Portsmouth UK 16.1 10.6 61.6 29.2 73.3

– University of Rome III Italy 19.3 11.8 62.1 37.7 48.0– Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Republic of Ireland 24.7 18.9 43.5 28.4 82.6

351-400 Ruhr-Universität Bochum Germany 31.5 22.5 42.0 47.4 53.6– University of Seoul South Korea 21.0 20.2 63.3 29.1 34.3

301-350 National Sun Yat-Sen University Taiwan 26.4 32.9 39.0 47.0 24.2351-400 Swinburne University of Technology Australia 20.2 16.3 50.2 38.8 86.9351-400 National Taiwan University of Science and Technology Taiwan 27.7 42.6 30.9 82.0 26.7351-400 University of Tromsø Norway 20.7 16.9 53.2 38.8 60.0

– University of Turku Finland 24.3 21.8 47.7 32.1 46.3301-350 Umeå University Sweden 21.2 25.7 52.7 31.3 50.3301-350 University of Vermont US 26.8 19.4 57.5 – 21.0301-350 University of Waikato New Zealand 18.6 17.0 50.0 50.0 80.3

– Waseda University Japan 25.5 16.3 55.5 32.6 43.1301-350 Washington State University US 28.5 27.5 44.2 54.5 36.0

– University of Western Sydney Australia 17.8 22.4 58.7 30.4 50.1301-350 Wuhan University of Technology China 16.2 8.0 75.8 57.8 21.4

– Wuhan University China 34.1 17.4 48.5 85.9 33.1



1Iceland

11France

1Colombia

6Turkey

The average totalincome peracademic

$606,345

42%

The averageresearch income

per academic

Proportion of research paperswritten with at least oneinternational co-author

$168,739

12.5:1 Student-to-staff ratio

Characteristics of the averageworld top 400 university

Averages, dispersion and global variation



9SouthKorea

18%: proportion ofinternational staff

16%: proportion ofinternational students

Colours indicate changesin the number of universitiesin each nation in thisyear’s top 400 comparedwith 2013-14

Number in bubbleindicates number ofuniversities in thatcountry in top 400in 2014-15

+2

+1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

Data

from

thom

soN

reut

ers/

INCI

tes™

/201

4

how far have national systems gained or slipped since 2013-14? What are the vital statisticsof the typical top 400 institution? Dominance of us institutions in the top 400 is evident,although numbers are falling, whereas other regions, particularly asia-Pacific, are rising strongly



The Times Higher Education World University Rankings are the only global university performancetables to judge research-led universities across all their core missions – teaching, research,knowledge transfer and international outlook. We employ 13 carefully calibrated performanceindicators to provide the most comprehensive and balanced comparisons, which are trusted bystudents, academics, university leaders, industry and even governments. The methodology for the2014-15 World University Rankings is identical to that used since the 2011-12 tables, offeringa stable year-on-year comparison.

Our 13 performance indicators are grouped into five areas: TEACHING (the learningenvironment); RESEARCH (volume, income and reputation); CITATIONS (research influence);INTERNATIONAL OUTLOOK (staff, students and research); and INDUSTRY INCOME (innovation).

To calculate the overall rankings, “Z-scores” were created for all datasets except for the results ofthe academic reputation survey. The calculation of Z-scores standardises the different data typeson a common scale and allows fair comparisons between different types of data – essential whencombining diverse information into a single ranking. Each data point is given a score based on itsdistance from the mean average of the entire dataset, where the scale is the standard deviation ofthe dataset.

The Z-score is then turned into a “cumulative probability score” to arrive at the final totals.If University X has a cumulative probability score of 98, for example, then a random institutionfrom the same data distribution will fall below University X 98 per cent of the time. For the resultsof the reputation survey, the data are highly skewed in favour of a small number of institutions atthe top of the rankings, so in 2011-12 we added an exponential component to increasedifferentiation between institutions lower down the scale, a method we have retained.

Teaching(The learningenvironment)

30%

Reputation survey15%

Staff-to-student ratio4.5%

Doctorate-to-bachelor’s ratio

2.25%

Institutional income2.25%

6%

Universities are excluded from the Times HigherEducation World University Rankings if they donot teach undergraduates, if they teach only asingle narrow subject, or if their research outputamounted to fewer than 1,000 articles between2008 and 2012 (200 a year). In exceptionalcases, institutions below the 200-paperthreshold are included if they havea particular focus on disciplines with generallylow publication volumes, such as engineeringor the arts. Further exceptions to the thresholdare made for the six specialist subject tables(see pages 54 to 64).

Institutions provide and sign off theirinstitutional data for use in the rankings.On the rare occasions when a particulardata point is not provided – which affectsonly low-weighted indicators such asindustrial income – we enter a low estimatebetween the average value of the indicatorsand the lowest value reported: the 25thpercentile of the other indicators. By doingthis, we avoid penalising an institution tooharshly with a “zero” value for data that itoverlooks or does not provide, but we donot reward it for withholding them.

Exclusions

Scores

Data collection

Thomson Reuters carried out its latest reputationsurvey in spring 2014. It examined the perceivedprestige of institutions in teaching. The responseswere statistically representative of global highereducation’s geographical and subject mix.

As well as giving a sense of how committed aninstitution is to nurturing the next generation ofacademics, a high proportion of postgraduateresearch students also suggests the provision ofteaching at the highest level that is thus attractiveto graduates and effective at developing them.This indicator is normalised to take account ofa university’s unique subject mix, reflecting thatthe volume of doctoral awards varies by discipline.

This measure of income is scaled against staffnumbers and normalised for purchasing-powerparity. It indicates an institution’s general statusand gives a broad sense of the infrastructure andfacilities available to students and staff.

Doctorates awardedto academic staff ratio

A quick look at theworkings: the rankingsmechanisms revealedThe World University Rankings are the best in the businessthanks to the powerful methodology that underpins theirfindings. How do they work? Here, we explain



Internationaloutlook

(Staff, studentsand research)

7.5%

Industryincome(Innovation)

2.5%

Citations(Researchinfluence)

30%

Research(Volume, incomeand reputation)

30%

Reputation survey18%

International todomestic student

ratio

International todomestic staff ratio

Research

2.5%

2.5%

2.5%

Research income6%

Researchproductivity

6%

The most prominent indicator in this categorylooks at a university’s reputation for researchexcellence among its peers, based on theresponses to our annual academic reputationsurvey.

Research income is scaled against staffnumbers and normalised for purchasing-powerparity. This is a controversial indicator becauseit can be influenced by national policy andeconomic circumstances. But income is crucialto the development of world-class research,and because much of it is subject to competi-tion and judged by peer review, our expertssuggested that it was a valid measure. Thisindicator is fully normalised to take accountof each university’s distinct subject profile,reflecting the fact that research grants inscience subjects are often bigger than thoseawarded for the highest-quality social science,arts and humanities research.

We count the number of papers publishedin the academic journals indexed by ThomsonReuters per academic, scaled for a university’stotal size and also normalised for subject.This gives an idea of an institution’s ability toget papers published in quality peer-reviewedjournals.

Our research influence indicator is theflagship, the single most influentialof the 13 indicators. It looks at therole of universities in spreading newknowledge and ideas.

We examine research influence bycapturing the number of times auniversity’s published work is cited byscholars globally. This year, our datasupplier Thomson Reuters examinedmore than 50 million citations to6 million journal articles, publishedover five years. The data are drawnfrom the 12,000 academic journalsindexed by Thomson Reuters’ Webof Science database and include allindexed journals published between2008 and 2012. Citations to thesepapers made in the six years from2008 to 2013 are also collected.

The citations help to show us howmuch each university is contributingto the sum of human knowledge:they tell us whose research hasstood out, has been picked up andbuilt on by other scholars and, mostimportantly, has been shared aroundthe global scholarly community toexpand the boundaries of ourcollective understanding, irrespectiveof discipline. The data are fullynormalised to reflect variations incitation volume between differentsubject areas. This means thatinstitutions with high levels ofresearch activity in subjects withtraditionally high citation countsdo not gain an unfair advantage.

We exclude from the rankings anyinstitution that publishes fewer than200 papers a year to ensure thatwe have enough data to makestatistically valid comparisons.

A university’s ability to helpindustry with innovations,inventions and consultancyhas become a core missionof the contemporary globalacademy. This category seeksto capture such knowledgetransfer activity by looking athow much research incomean institution earns fromindustry, scaled againstthe number of academicstaff it employs.

The category suggests theextent to which businessesare willing to pay forresearch and a university’sability to attract fundingin the commercial market-place – useful indicatorsof institutional quality.

The ability of a universityto attract undergraduatesand postgraduates from allover the planet is key to itssuccess on the world stage.

In the third internationalindicator, we calculate theproportion of a university’stotal research journalpublications that have atleast one internationalco-author and rewardhigher volumes.

This indicator is normalisedto account for a university’ssubject mix and uses thesame five-year window asthe “Citations: researchinfluence” category.



The University of California,Berkeley is routinely ranked asone of the top global universi-

ties, a position it has occupied formore than a century. Thanks to ahistory of public support most gen-erously expressed in California’s1960 Master Plan for higher educa-tion, the UC system produced anextraordinary record of achieve-ment. On the one hand, it gave anelite but low-cost education toa large group of students fromCalifornia’s public high schools. Onthe other, the research work ofits top universities in basic andapplied arenas laid the foundationsfor many of the industries thathave made the California Dream areality, from aerospace to SiliconValley.

High-quality research andundergraduate education, plusbroad, merit-based access: forgenerations, these three interlinkedelements together defined UC’scommitment and contribution tothe public good. The system’s ori-ginal, flagship campus at Berkeleyexemplified this achievement, rank-ing alongside Harvard Universityas one of the top research institu-tions across multiple fields, whileaffording access to low-income stu-dents on a scale unimaginable inthe Ivy League.

In recent years, however, the factthat Berkeley is a public university– always the top-ranked public inthe US – has led some to assume,given the extent of most states’ dis-investment in higher education,that it will not be able to maintainits traditional excellence. The envi-ronment for public higher educationhas indeed shifted dramatically: inan age of governmental crisesaround taxation and funding, cutsin the past decade have slashed ourlevel of state support from 34 percent to 12 per cent of our overallbudget. It is clear that we can nolonger rely on a renewed embraceof public higher education spend-ing as a means of facilitating socialmobility and for the public good.

In an age of privatisation, there

is growing distrust of public insti-tutions in the context of increasedreliance on a broader economy thatis neither exclusively local nor evennational. The twin trajectories ofprivatisation and globalisation areredefining a sense of public respon-sibility, all the while exacerbatingconcerns about employment andeconomic viability still palpableafter the most recent major eco-nomic crisis. Yet the stakeholdersof the Berkeley campus communityremain passionately committed tothe university’s public mission: ourchallenge now is to extend thatethos and ensure it permeates allthat we do.

Despite these seemingly conflict-ing trends, Berkeley hasemerged from its recent round

of financial challenges strongerthan ever. Regardless of how werank academic quality and value,the university continues to be atthe vanguard of developments inresearch – basic as well as applied,humanistic as well as scientific –while still affording extraordinaryaccess to an increasingly diversepopulation. It performs so well inpart because it has never comprom-ised its core academic and socialmissions, but also because it usedthe crisis to rethink and reorganisesome of its administrative proto-cols and structures. In the process,it increased its capacity to buildsubstantial philanthropic support,engage in private partnerships andestablish a new kind of relationshipto the global environment.

Although all these efforts – andthe structural changes of recentyears – could be seen as part of aninexorable trend to emulate “pri-vate” models, Berkeley is chartingits own path. As its new chancellor,I have re-emphasised the centralityof our undergraduate programmes,sought to build on our past recordof innovation, discovery and entre-preneurship, and begun to establishan ambitious global footprint. Weseek to develop a new model forhigher education while maintaining

a clear focus on our mission’spublic character. As we enter intoprivate or global partnerships weface a unique challenge, onedemanding that we relate ouraspirations both to Berkeley’shistorical obligations to its localityand within the larger context of ourcommitment to the public good.

In my view, our public ethospositions us to lead in the globaldomain, too. We will find new

ways to bring our research collab-orations and educational partner-ships back home, in part byconnecting better with the globalmarketplace for education andresearch, and in part by bringingthese connections to bear on ourimmediate locality through thedevelopment of a global “branch”campus in Richmond Bay, justnorth of Berkeley’s main campus.

Other models for global engage-

UC’s finest has emerged from the financial crisisstronger than ever, argues Nicholas B. Dirks

Berkeley’s forecast: sunsh

Nicholas B. DirksChancellor, University of California,Berkeley



ment have ranged from the ambi-tious establishment of foreigncampuses to the development ofsmall consular-style offices in a var-iety of world centres. So far, neithermodel has helped us to devise con-crete ways in which the global canbe woven back into the fabric ofthe home institution. We must seekto develop new kinds of study-abroad experiences and studentexchanges, different forms ofresearch collaboration and partner-ship, and revise the ways we thinkabout accreditation, student trajec-tories, faculty appointments anddepartmental structures, to men-tion just the most obvious. In theUS context, this means thatglobalisation cannot be the “Amer-icanisation” of world universities,but the global transformation ofthe US university itself.

As Berkeley charts new modelsfor globalisation, it also has unique

advantages for academic andprivate-sector collaborators, notjust abroad but also at home.Northern California has been acentre for technological innovationand entrepreneurship in partbecause of the informal networksthat grew out of Silicon Valley, butalso through the porous and inter-active roles of the region’s twogreat research universities, oneprivate (Stanford University) andone public (us).

Despite cries of gloom anddoom, the role of the major publicuniversity has been acknowledgednot just for its basic research, butalso for its capacity to leverage itsscale, diversity and mission. Berke-ley is not just a leader in fields suchas physics and mathematics, but(to give just one example) datascience, too. As we confront newlevels of challenge and opportunitywith our exponentially explosive

datasets – and the equivalentdemands made by privacy andsecurity concerns on the one handand marketing and public serviceopportunities on the other – weenvision a different way of inhabit-ing our local ecosystem.

From the perspective of a pre-eminent public university, thefuture is daunting not just becauseof growing uncertainty aboutappropriate models (and support)for education across the socialspectrum, but also because allof our local problems are nowglobal, too.

However much we continue topreserve many of our traditionalforms and commitments – and tothis end the university has alwayscorrectly been slow to change – wemust also use all of our intellectualand scientific resources toreimagine the world and our rolein making it a better place.l

Globalisationcannot be the‘Americanisation’of world universities,but the globaltransformation ofthe US universityitself

shine after the storm



T singhua University was estab-lished in 1911 as a preparatoryschool for domestic students

sent by the Chinese government tostudy in the US.

Many of its earliest studentsreturned home after their studiesto make powerful contributions inall aspects of social endeavour:some became industrial leaders,others policymakers and somemade major intellectual and scien-tific advancements, benefitingChina and the world. Early presi-dents of Tsinghua were all mem-bers of that vanguard; and thanksto their wide connections withworld-leading institutions andscholars such as Niels Bohr, PaulDirac, Paul Langevin and others,they laid the foundations thatallowed Tsinghua to become apioneer among its peers.

The university has made a dra-matic mark on modern China byimporting as well as creatingadvanced knowledge and technol-ogy. Tsinghua has helped ournation meet the challenges of war

and reconstruction, poverty anddevelopment, industrialisation andtechnological revolution, and socialand environmental transformation.Serving society has always been itsoverarching ambition: in light ofChina’s opening-up policy and adrastically changing global scene,it is expected to meet its obligationsby being at the forefront of both.

One might argue that a singleuniversity can have only a limitedimpact on local society, let alonethe entire world. But the rationalebehind Tsinghua’s decision to actas a bridge between East and Westlies in both historical context andcontemporary opportunity. Overthe years, the university has pro-moted the fusion of Eastern andWestern culture, as well as encour-aging collaboration between Chinaand the rest of the world.

Last year, Tsinghua launched itsSchwarzman Scholars programme,a $300 million (£181 million)endowment inspired by Rhodesscholarships, with the aim ofbestowing on future world leadersin-depth understanding of China.Earlier this year we established theXIN Center, an international innov-ation and education hub serving totackle global grand challengesthrough cross-disciplinary collabor-ation between China, Israel and theworld. Tsinghua has benefitedgreatly from its involvement in allthese strategic international initia-tives. The university has also

fashioned positive changes domes-tically and internationally as aresult of its collaborative strategy.

One cannot overstate theimportance of appreciating one’shome flavours before digging intoglobal platters. We have strived tobe innovative with our own edu-cational model, improving the leveland quality of our pedagogy whilemaintaining Tsinghua’s traditionalcore features. For instance, wehave stepped up efforts to establisha liberal arts programme and havelaunched XuetangX, a massiveopen online course platform thathas cumulatively enrolled morethan 350,000 people. We insist thatour essential characteristics remainmanifest throughout our reformsand innovations, while at the sametime absorbing notions and ideasfrom overseas.

Apart from conveying know-ledge and skill, the essence ofeducation is to expand stu-

dents’ capacity to reason freely andcritically: successful graduatesmust be able to think and act forthemselves. University serves thispurpose by fostering talents anddeveloping the leaders of thefuture. Tsinghua has establishedstudent exchange partnerships withnearly 100 overseas institutionsand roughly 40 per cent of ourundergraduates now have overseasexperience. We find that those whohave seen the world elsewhere usu-ally become more open-mindedand critical. The capacity for mak-ing fruitful use of information andthe methods of thinking learnedoverseas have a profound impacton students in every aspect of life.They become advocates with rootsin every corner of the world – bear-ing Chinese values and culture witha Western touch.

Tsinghua’s mission and influencehave evolved gradually over thepast century, but never has the uni-versity ceased to perform its roleas a bridge connecting China andthe world. How its transformationinto a globalised university willaffect its teaching and researchremains a challenge for Tsinghua,but we certainly expect to see morepartners join us in this importanteffort in the near future.l

Tsinghua revels in itsstructural role on theglobal stage: forgingconnections betweenEast and West, writesChen Jining

Fusion reaction

Chen JiningPresident, Tsinghua University

Those who studyabroad becomeadvocates with rootsin every corner ofthe world – bearingChinese valuesand culture witha Western touch



Research and education areglobal pursuits and their rele-vance to society has never

been greater. I am privileged tobegin my leadership of ImperialCollege London at a time when itsstrengths in research and contribu-tions to society are growing inimportance and momentum, bothdomestically and internationally.But it is Imperial’s web of globalcollaborations, partnerships andjoint ventures that will allow theinstitution to thrive for generationsto come.

One need only look across thecampuses of universities in the topranks of these league tables to seethat great education by definitionis global, with brilliant studentsflocking to them from all cornersof the world. They are attracted tothe likes of Imperial, not onlybecause of the opportunities cre-ated by excellent teaching andresearch, but also because of thethriving intellectual and entrepre-neurial atmosphere on offer (in ourcase heightened by being situatedin what may be the world’s mostglobal city).

At Imperial, about half of ourstudents come from outside theUK, as do almost as many of ouracademics. Their presence createsties that span disciplines, crossnational boundaries and endure forlifetimes.

Just as students benefit from auniversity environment that repre-sents the global spectrum of cul-tures and values, so does research:it is interesting that such a fiercelycompetitive endeavour benefits sogreatly from international collab-oration, essential to building thebest and most competitive researchteams. We compete better when wecollaborate effectively with ourcompetitors, and quality andimpact rise.

As former president of LehighUniversity and one-time vice-president for research at the Mas-sachusetts Institute of Technology,I have long been a proponent of

international collaboration. AtImperial, I see research on manyfronts advancing through thisstrategy. The grand challengesfacing the world and the complexapproaches required to surmountthem are too big for individual uni-versities; they need integrated inter-national teams. Whether it is withChina’s Tsinghua, Zhejiang orPeking universities, Singapore’sNanyang Technological University,Stanford University in the US,Qatar Petroleum and the QatarScience and Technology Park, theSão Paulo Research Foundation inBrazil or the Korea Advanced Insti-tute of Science and Technology inSouth Korea, Imperial’s academicsare doing much more than theycould alone.

The international scope of thesecollaborations is surpassedonly by the astounding breadth

of topics covered. For instance, oneday this summer, I noted three suchImperial partnerships in oneGoogle alert: collaborative researchwith the King Abdullah Universityof Science and Technology, SaudiArabia, resulting in a technique formaking light-sensitive diodesthrough “adhesion lithography”;work with the Academia Sinica inTaiwan leading to the discovery ofa new family of antibacterial toxinsfrom Agrobacterium tumefaciensthat could open up freshapproaches to protecting hostsfrom bacterial infection; and astudy by Imperial and the ChristianMedical College in Vellore, India,suggesting that stronger immunityto polio could come from combin-ing injected and oral vaccines.

These examples illustrate thegreat pace of collaborative andtranslational work in universitiestoday. They also serve notice thatthe most impactful – from novelsensors and photonic devices totherapies for disease – are both ofand for the world.

Why are such team efforts andcollaborations important? Because

excellent education and researchare no longer enough. Govern-ments and societies worldwide,whether recovering from post-crisisausterity or growing rapidly intoemerging powers, are seeking solu-tions to increasingly complex soci-etal problems.

Universities must respond byhelping to speed up and scale upthe process from conception tocommercialisation, and demon-strate the value that comes fromideas.

A large part of our answer isImperial West, a new 25-acre

Competition and collaboration; home and abroad;public and private. Put them together and whathave you got? The future, argues Alice Gast

Hybrid vigour: the sum is g

Alice GastPresident, Imperial College London



innovation district. This hub ofactivity in West London will createspace to bring together thousandsof researchers and entrepreneursto translate discovery into benefit.It is well connected to the capital’sTechCity and MedCity ecosystems,plus corporate partners, govern-ments and universities from the UKand around the world. Entrepre-neurs, investors and inventors alikeare attracted by the possibilitiescreated by Imperial West.

In the close proximity that theinnovation district provides,research teams and entrepreneurs

benefit from their diversity of back-grounds and approaches whenstriving to understand new discov-eries, develop ideas or solve diffi-cult problems. One friend describedthis to me as analogous to “hybridvigour” – the beneficial qualities ofcross-breeding in plants.

As you build a team, you bringtogether diverse people to providethe most effective views. Individ-uals brought up in different educa-tional systems and with exposureto different societies and marketsapproach problems differently:thus, international teams broaden

and augment individual thinking.Research and education have

never been more important to theworld, and the internationalpursuit of them has never beenmore vigorous, competitive andcollaborative. The future holdsgreat challenges, but great univer-sities will meet them by joiningforces.

Competition and collaborationare two sides of the same coin.We can, and must, bet on both.l

Alice Gast took up the role ofImperial’s president last month.

We compete betterwhen we collaborateeffectively with ourcompetitors, andquality and impactrise

is greater than the parts

alam

y



The University of the Andes wasfounded 65 years ago by agroup of youngsters – all under

25 – who had studied in the US. Atthe time, Colombia was in the gripof social turmoil: the group’s con-viction was that an independent“liberal” university with high inter-national standards was the bestanswer to the problems.

Since then, our small private uni-versity, located at the heart of theAndes in Bogotá, has grown signifi-cantly. In the past 10 years, sixundergraduate, 29 master’s and 11PhD programmes have beencreated. This has been supportedby impressive investment in teach-ing and research, as well as theinfrastructure necessary to supportthem. Today, 65 per cent of ourteachers have doctoral degrees, aunique accomplishment in the LatinAmerican university system.

Today, the University of theAndes is considered one of the bestuniversities in the country and theregion: it was ranked 17th in TimesHigher Education’s BRICS andEmerging Economies Rankings2014.

Since its foundation, it has hada global outlook and has strived toemploy international standards.Currently, almost all its professorscarried out their graduate work inthe best universities abroad. Our

School of Management has beenapproved by the three major inter-national accreditation organisa-tions (including Equis) and theeight departments of our School ofEngineering are accredited byABET (the former Engineers’Council for Professional Develop-ment). Locally, all our undergradu-ate programmes are endorsed bythe CNA, Colombia’s nationalaccreditation body.

One of our biggest challenges isto become a world-class research-intensive university. In a countrywhere investment in research anddevelopment is low, even byregional standards (less than0.5 per cent of gross domesticproduct), the University of theAndes has taken an active role indeveloping different fundingoptions nationally and internation-ally, and from public and privatesources: we are happy to say thatso far we have been successful.

The university is committed toparticipating in global researchnetworks as well as studying localand regional issues. Our HighEnergy Physics Group, for exam-ple, has been an active participantin the work of Cern, the EuropeanOrganisation for NuclearResearch. Also consider CESED,our research centre that tacklesdrugs and security. Its main objec-

tive is to promote analysis andresearch of the different dimen-sions of drug and security policy,to ensure their efficacy as well asto assess their direct and collateralcosts. CESED promotes interactionand dialogue between academicsand the institutions involved in thedesign and execution of policy, andworks closely with the governmentto help inform policymakers.

A s is the case for most otherresearch-oriented institutions,innovation and entrepreneur-

ship are top priorities for the Uni-versity of the Andes: for example,we recently established Innov-Andes, a centre to promote thelinks between research and practi-cal solutions in order to createinnovative products, services andorganisations.

Even though we have alwayshad an international outlook, inter-nationalisation has become morestrategic and dynamic over time.We view it, as do many of ourglobal peers, as one of higher edu-cation’s biggest challenges.

We are committed to strength-ening our ties with universitiesabroad: student exchanges, jointresearch (both on a one-to-onebasis and as part of internationalnetworks), dual programmes andjoint degrees are among the manyoptions we are considering.

The experience of living abroadis difficult to match, but we areconvinced that the cutting-edgetools available in information andcommunication technologies willopen new possibilities forpartnership.

The growth and advancementof universities around the world,both in developed regions and inemerging economies, is evident. Wedo not see this as a source of com-petition: given our position in theregion, we view it as a wellspringof opportunities for partnershipsand alliances that will benefit ourstudents and institutions, as wellas deepen our impact and influencein education and research.l

At the heart of the Andes, one of Colombia’s top universities is strivingfor regional and global impact, explains Pablo Navas Sanz de Santamaría

Broad range

Pablo Navas Sanz de SantamaríaRector, University of the Andes

AlAm

y

University of theAndes has takenan active role indeveloping differentfunding optionsnationally andinternationally



2014 has become a watershedyear for Australian universi-ties, as people are talking

about higher education policy andthinking about what they and theirsociety might be prepared to payfor various kinds of degree.

It is uncommon for higher edu-cation to ignite passions herebeyond the circles of academe,students and trade unions, so as auniversity leader I welcome thebreadth of debate. The catalyst wasa federal government proposal,unveiled in the May Budget, thathad an emphasis on deregulatingundergraduate fees and overhaul-ing the student loan system.

Much of the commentary hasbeen peppered with references toglobal rankings, in which Australiaperforms well, for a nation ofabout 23 million people and just41 universities. But any discussionabout paying for higher educationis incomplete without a debateabout funding research.

There are a plethora of reasonswhy this is so, and in this forum ithardly needs stating that research

inputs and outputs significantlyinfluence the rankings.

The Australian universities inthe upper echelons of global leaguetables, including the Times HigherEducation World University Rank-ings, are all research-intensive, butour overall national position is farfrom assured. In fact, further dis-placement of Australian institu-tions from the top 100 now seemsinevitable, due not to any diminu-tion in quality but rather to the riseof stars in nations where researchinvestment is comparativelybounteous.

Our need to remain attractiveas a research collaborator and adestination for fine students sharp-ens the imperative for our univer-sities to maintain their edge. Whileit is true that the ascending powersof global higher education, particu-larly in Asia, are often regarded ascompetition for Australia, theymust also be respected as collabor-ators and sources of talented stu-dents. This is by any measure apositive way forward for Austra-lian universities and – more impor-tantly – the people we serve.

Another reason to fight fordecent research resources isthat research-enhanced cul-

tures present richer opportunitiesto students at all levels from allover the world.

Learning environments thatchampion the application ofexcellent research to answerdifficult questions foster graduatescapable of tackling big andcomplex problems. They are excep-tional assets to society and indus-try. Yet despite the manifestbenefits of a well-educated popula-tion, there is a general pattern inAustralia of governments contrib-uting an ever-decreasing propor-tion of university funding.

Partly in response to this, butmore importantly because partner-ships can deliver terrific results, myuniversity and many others aredetermined to diversify ourresource base.

The University of Queenslandhas achieved this to the extent thatour research income from non-government sources grew by 18 percent last year. It is not a coinci-

dence that in 2013 we launched anindustry engagement strategy thatincludes the goal of doublingresearch income from non-statesources between 2012 and 2020.

In addition, for most of 2014,Queensland has been tracking asthe number one Australian institu-tion (fifth or sixth in Asia-Pacific)in the Nature Publishing Index. I’mencouraged by what I sense to bea growing appreciation by firmsand not-for-profits that excellentuniversity research can lead tobeneficial products and services.There are many notable examplesarising from Queensland’s researchalone, including the cervical cancervaccine Gardasil; technology usedin most of the world’s magneticresonance imaging machines; andthe Triple P (Positive ParentingProgram), which has helped about7 million families in more than20 countries.

Just as businesses that fundresearch deserve outcomes, so dophilanthropists. Again, I am heart-ened by developments in the Aus-tralian landscape, where there havebeen a number of far-sighted dona-tions to universities, includingsome wonderful examples of indi-vidual alumni donating to theiralma mater, along with corpor-ations investing in the nationalpipeline of prosperity.

My sense is that many amongmy generation of baby boomershave done better than we had oncethought possible thanks to edu-cation. Many such people intendto leave a positive legacy, and sodo many younger graduates whoare now demonstrating magnifi-cent generosity and foresight.

These attitudes are raising someAustralian universities’ fundraisingambitions, despite a lack of endow-ment tradition here. Queensland,which owes much of its success tophilanthropy and intelligent lever-aging, is one of a number of insti-tutions working to foster thattradition. The target is a bedrockfrom which we can provide anever-improving experience forstudents from all over the world,great graduates who are soughtafter by discerning employers, andresearch that yields outstandingoutcomes for a better world.l

As the state disinvests,Queensland is securingthe future of its studentexperience andresearch by diversifyingits income streams,writes Peter Høj

Tapping new seams

Peter HøjPresident and vice-chancellor,University of Queensland

AlAm

y



University rankings have beenaround for years. Whateverone’s opinion about the valid-

ity of their data and the applicabil-ity of their analytical methods,they will not, cannot and shouldnot be ignored.

Most rankings are stronglygeared towards the Anglo-Saxonsystem, but there is growing inter-est in the German higher educationlandscape. Although many Germanuniversities provide high-qualityteaching and cutting-edge research,they are still under-represented inleague tables such as the TimesHigher Education World Univer-sity Rankings and hence havelower profiles internationally. Thisperception conflicts with the needto attract the world’s brightestminds to study, stay and work inGermany to drive our successful,innovation-based economy.

The government has addressedthis deficiency by establishing thehighly competitive Excellence Ini-tiative, which promotes world-class research and supports selectedleading universities to becomeinternationally visible flagships.

Technische Universität Dresden isone of the 11 Universities of Excel-lence that since June 2012 havereceived substantial extra funding.This gives us the scope to invest ininternationally leading researchclusters, optimise our internalstructures and expand our globalnetwork.

This process has forced us toidentify our strengths and weak-nesses, and benchmark them againstleading institutions with similar pro-files. Ranking indicators quantita-tively reflect several essential aspectsof university performance. How-ever, using them sensibly requiresin-depth understanding of rankingmechanisms, as well as institutionalcommitment to providing the neces-sary resources and establishing rele-vant performance indicators.

To this end, the German ForeignMinistry is funding a projectwe proposed: together with

Eberhard Karls Universität Tübin-gen, we are analysing the specificsof international rankings as well astheir challenges for German univer-sities to help our institutions punchtheir genuine weight in the tables.

TU Dresden has already learnedimportant lessons from this process.For example, there can be ambi-guities relating to the specificationof institutional data required on anannual basis by rankings agenciesand data companies, a result of dif-ferent university funding systemsand academic career paths.

Clarifying the proper definitionsin cooperation with the relevantorganisations and paying attentionto detail can make a big difference:consider TU Dresden’s performancein the THE rankings this year.

With a solid base in engineeringand the natural, life and socialsciences, we have a strong recordin publication, citations, generatingthird-party income and educatingundergraduates and postgraduates

from home and abroad. Yet we stillface substantial challenges withrespect to our corporate identityand branding strategy, which affectnot only our international reputa-tion but also the number of publica-tions attributed to our institutions.This will now be addressed.

The German research landscapehistorically and strategicallyinvolves several actors, includinguniversities and numerous nationalinstitutes dedicated to fundamentalor applied research. This oftenresults in German performancebeing underscored internationally,as existing rankings focus on uni-versities and neglect major researchpotential realised elsewhere.

For TU Dresden, however, thisapparent disadvantage turns intoan asset: we are at the centre of arich environment with more than20 top-class research institutes closeby. We have established a formalresearch alliance, DRESDEN-concept, with these institutes,greatly benefiting from numerousjoint professorial appointments(more than 40); research projects(TU Dresden’s share: more than£27 million a year); recruitment andstaff development; shared researchinfrastructure; and the voluntarycontribution of numerous extra-mural researchers to teaching in theuniversity. However, we have to findways to reflect these joint activitiesmore clearly in our institutional per-formance indicators, internationalvisibility and the rankings.

The ultimate aim of a universityis not to optimise its position in theleague tables, but to attract highlyqualified students and researchers,providing them with an environ-ment in which they can flourishand deliver new insights for society.Despite their flaws, rankings cansupport this endeavour by provid-ing data for external and internalbenchmarking, thus continuallydriving improvement.l

Hans Müller-Steinhagen isgrateful for the contributions ofSusanne Räder and GianaurelioCuniberti in preparing this article.

Germany is on a mission to punch its weightin the rankings, says Hans Müller-Steinhagen

We’re taking a long,hard look at ourselves

Hans Müller-SteinhagenRector, Technische Universität Dresden

alaM

y



T hirteen separate performanceindicators are carefully bal-anced to provide the overall

scores for the Times Higher Education World University Rankings.But while this provides a powerfuland accessible picture of all-roundexcellence, THE is keen to ensurethat the data can be unpicked toallow users to gain deeper insightsinto the institutions featured. Afterall, composite scores may some-times mask areas of niche strength– or weakness.

Accordingly, the World Univer-sity Rankings tables break downoverall institutional scores intoseparate figures in five broadcategories, covering the full rangeof the university’s core missions:the teaching environment; research(volume, impact and reputation);research influence (average cita-tions per paper); international out-look (students, staff and research);and innovation (industry income).Our website (www.thewur.com)allows users to create bespokerankings based on any of thesecategories and provides the scoresfor every university featured.

Here are a couple of examplesof this approach: in the tables(right), we consider the stand-outperformers in our internationaloutlook and teaching environmentcategories.

International outlook is based onthree separate indicators: the pro-portion of international students

at each institution; the percentageof international faculty; and theportion of internationally co-authored research papers. Theseelements are given a relatively lowweighting in the overall tables(2.5 per cent each), but in somerespects they are integral to successin the other indicators: drawing inglobal talent among staff and stu-dents, and ensuring that research-ers are engaged with leading

scholars in their fields globally, areessential ingredients for over-arching success, pushing up per-formance in other key indicatorssuch as academic reputation andresearch impact.

The top three places are takenby Swiss institutions – perhapsinevitable given the country’s

geographical position, landlockedand sharing its borders with fivenations: it is hard to avoid aninternational outlook in such ascenario.

École Polytechnique Fédérale deLausanne takes first place, the Uni-versity of Geneva second and ETHZürich-Swiss Federal Institute ofTechnology Zurich third.

However, Switzerland’s strengthhere is not just an accident of geog-raphy but a core part of its leadinguniversities’ personalities.

Take Geneva, for example. Situ-ated in a city home to the highestconcentration of internationalbodies in the world (includingthe World Health Organizationand many United Nations agen-cies), it says it “envisions itselfas a global institution”. Alreadyhome to students from morethan 140 countries, the universityhas put internationalisation atthe heart of its strategic plan to2020.

The most striking aspect aboutthe international outlook top 20 isthe absence of US universities.While the American academy

Phil Baty explains howto use the league tablesto extract informationspecific to yourrequirements

Drilling down into a rich landscape



Switzerland’sstrength is notjust an accidentof geographybut a core partof its leadinguniversities’personalities

landscape of dataInternational

outlookrank

Worldrank

Institution Country Score

1 =34 École Polytechnique Fédérale deLausanne

Switzerland 98.8

2 =107 University of Geneva Switzerland 96.8

3 13 ETH Zürich-Swiss Federal Institute ofTechnology Zurich

Switzerland 96.6

4 25 National University of Singapore Singapore 94.9

5 =61 École Polytechnique France 94.5

6 118 Royal Holloway, University of London UK 94.4

7 201-225 University of Innsbruck Austria 93.4

8 =9 Imperial College London UK 92.7

9 =61 Nanyang Technological University Singapore 92.5

=10 45 Australian National University Australia 91.3

=10 351-400 Curtin University Australia 91.3

12 =75 University of Basel Switzerland 91.2

13 =182 University of Vienna Austria 91.0

14 3 University of Oxford UK 90.7

15 22 University College London UK 90.6

16 =111 University of St Andrews UK 90.5

17 101 Maastricht University Netherlands 89.7

18 301-350 Macquarie University Australia 89.2

19 226-250 Brunel University London UK 88.8

20 =107 Queen Mary University of London UK 88.6

Teachingrank

Worldrank

Institution Country Score

1 2 Harvard University US 92.9

2 1 California Institute of Technology US 92.2

3 4 Stanford University US 91.5

4 5 University of Cambridge UK 89.7

5 6 Massachusetts Institute of Technology US 89.1

6 3 University of Oxford UK 88.6

7 =9 Yale University US 88.5

8 7 Princeton University US 86.6

9 =9 Imperial College London UK 84.6

10 8 University of California, Berkeley US 84.2

=11 11 University of Chicago US 83.9

=11 14 Columbia University US 83.9

13 12 University of California, Los Angeles US 82.4

14 23 University of Tokyo Japan 81.4

15 16 University of Pennsylvania US 79.0

16 13 ETH Zürich-Swiss Federal Institute ofTechnology Zurich

Switzerland 78.2

17 17 University of Michigan US 77.0

18 15 Johns Hopkins University US 75.6

19 50 Seoul National University South Korea 75.5

20 20 University of Toronto Canada 74.4

dominates the overall worldrankings and undoubtedly hassome of the most globally recognis-able universities, its score inthis category falls well short:perhaps a rare downside tohaving internationally revered uni-versities.

T he teaching environment table,which employs five indicatorsincluding global reputation for

teaching and total resources, ismore predictable on the face of it:indeed, the top 10 universities arethe same institutions found at theoverall summit, with a slightreshuffling of position.

Notable is the success of Asianinstitutions: ranked 23rd in theoverarching table, Japan’s Univer-sity of Tokyo takes 14th place forteaching, and South Korea’s SeoulNational University is 19th herebut 50th overall. This indicates justhow seriously the rising Asian starsare taking pedagogy.l

n Explore the data in detailand create your own rankingsat www.thewur.com

alam

y



Although the CaliforniaInstitute of Technology leadsthe World University Rank-

ings for the fourth year running, itfails to take top spot in any of oursix subject-specific tables: five otherresearch-intensives are thefront-runners here, with StanfordUniversity the only institution tolead more than one subject area(arts and humanities and socialsciences).

Harvard University is at thehead of the life sciences top 50; theMassachusetts Institute of Technol-ogy is primus inter pares for engin-eering and technology; theUniversity of Oxford – the onlynon-US institution to lead any ofthe tables – tops the charts forclinical, pre-clinical and health-related subjects; and Princeton Uni-versity steals Caltech’s crown in thephysical sciences.

This is Princeton’s first time at

the top of any subject table since2011-12 (when it shared first placein the physical sciences withCaltech).

The university was and remainsa pioneer in chemistry: it hostedthe US’ first undergraduatechemistry laboratory, founded byJohn Maclean in 1795, and is nowhome to the state-of-the-art FrickChemistry Laboratory, the largest

academic building on Princeton’scampus today.

Its record in physics is similarlydistinguished: although he wasnever a member of faculty, AlbertEinstein moved to Princeton in1933 and lived there until his deathin 1955, enjoying close links withthe university, whose physicsdepartment has produced morethan a dozen Nobel laureates.

The subject-specific tables are,as is the case with the overallrankings, dominated by the US andthe UK. The highest-rankedAsian institution is the NationalUniversity of Singapore, whichtakes 13th place in engineering andtechnology.

Switzerland’s ETH Zürich-SwissFederal Institute of TechnologyZurich makes the top 10 in thesame category (the best standingachieved outside the Anglo-American hegemon).●

Different weightsand measuresThe subject tables employthe same range of 13 per-formance indicators used inthe overall World UniversityRankings (page 34), broughttogether with scores pro-vided under five categories:Teaching: the learningenvironmentResearch: volume, incomeand reputationCitations: researchinfluenceInternational outlook:staff, students and researchIndustry income: innovation.

Here, the overall method-ology is carefully recali-brated for each subject, withthe weightings changed tosuit the individual fields. Inparticular, those given to theresearch indicators havebeen altered to fit more

closely the research culturein each subject, reflectingdifferent publication habits:in the arts and humanities,for instance, where the rangeof outputs extends wellbeyond peer-reviewed jour-nals, we give less weight topaper citations.

Accordingly, the weightgiven to “citations: researchinfluence” is halved from30 per cent in the overallrankings to just 15 per centfor the arts and humanities.

More weight is given toother research indicators,including the academicreputation survey.

For social sciences,where there is also less faithin the strength of citationsalone as an indicator ofresearch excellence, themeasure’s weighting isreduced to 25 per cent.

By the same token, inthose subjects where thevast majority of researchoutputs come through jour-nal articles and where thereare high levels of confidencein the strength of citationsdata, we have increasedthe weighting given to theresearch influence (up to35 per cent for the physicaland life sciences and forthe clinical, pre-clinical andhealth tables).

A breakdown of themethodology for eachsubject is provided atthe foot of the tables.CriteriaNo institution can beincluded in the overall WorldUniversity Rankings unlessit has published a minimumof 200 research papers ayear over the five years weexamine.

But for the six subjecttables, the threshold dropsto 100 papers a year forsubjects that generate ahigh volume of publicationsand 50 a year in subjectssuch as social scienceswhere the volume tends tobe lower. Although we applysome editorial discretion,we generally expect aninstitution to have at least10 per cent of its staffworking in the relevantdiscipline in order to includeit in the subject table.

The majority of institu-tions in Thomson Reuters’Global Institutional Profilesdatabase provide detailedsubject-level information.

In rare cases where suchdata are not supplied, insti-tutions are either excludedor public sources are usedto underpin estimates.

Phil Baty discovers which institutions excel in which subjectareas and finds that the US/UK domination continues

A very particularset of skills

The world top 50 for thesix subject tables are listedover the following pages, but

the top 100 for eachcan be explored atwww.thewur.com


Rank

2014

-15

Rank

2013

-14

Inst

itutio

n

Coun

try

Teac

hing

Rese

arch

Cita

tions

Indu

stry

inco

me

Inte

rnat

iona

lout

look

Over

alls

core

1 1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology US 95.1 90.1 99.0 99.7 78.4 93.62 2 Stanford University US 91.5 95.1 99.3 – 78.2 92.93 4 California Institute of Technology US 94.7 82.6 98.0 – 72.9 89.94 5 Princeton University US 88.2 88.4 98.4 99.2 56.7 89.35 6 University of Cambridge UK 94.0 91.0 84.5 83.4 84.1 89.26 9 Imperial College London UK 91.3 87.9 86.0 82.8 90.5 88.37 7 University of Oxford UK 95.2 89.1 84.5 58.1 86.4 87.98 8 ETH Zürich-Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich Switzerland 90.4 92.7 78.7 76.2 89.8 87.19 10 University of California, Los Angeles US 82.8 88.1 97.8 – 66.3 86.3

10 3 University of California, Berkeley US 88.8 80.3 97.3 – 68.4 86.011 11 Georgia Institute of Technology US 84.4 89.6 82.6 79.9 67.0 83.912 15 École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne Switzerland 79.6 81.2 90.0 53.1 96.6 82.913 13 National University of Singapore Singapore 84.0 83.9 77.3 63.6 92.1 81.714 14 University of Texas at Austin US 74.1 85.6 94.0 90.2 38.5 81.215 16 University of Michigan US 84.2 87.3 75.5 70.3 65.0 80.616 12 Carnegie Mellon University US 87.8 90.5 60.1 77.0 56.1 78.117 17 Cornell University US 77.7 82.4 84.1 36.3 44.9 76.418 18 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign US 82.7 86.1 69.3 – 52.2 76.1

=19 23 Delft University of Technology Netherlands 80.5 89.4 50.1 99.4 72.9 75.2=19 19 Northwestern University US 65.6 70.9 98.7 69.3 48.3 75.221 21 Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Hong Kong 67.3 74.5 79.1 66.2 77.4 73.422 20 University of California, Santa Barbara US 52.4 61.2 98.8 99.5 78.3 72.123 24 Tsinghua University China 82.6 81.9 52.7 99.8 33.5 71.424 22 University of Toronto Canada 68.4 72.7 80.4 36.8 57.0 70.625 27 University of Tokyo Japan 80.4 75.5 60.7 – 46.9 69.726 25 Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology South Korea 78.1 77.0 57.5 100.0 30.4 69.627 28 University of Wisconsin-Madison US 63.6 68.1 79.2 64.9 47.4 68.128 26 Technische Universität München Germany 66.7 63.3 79.6 45.5 58.6 67.529 33 Nanyang Technological University Singapore 54.7 58.9 77.3 100.0 94.3 67.430 =34 KTH Royal Institute of Technology Sweden 66.5 62.6 62.0 100.0 73.8 66.331 =34 Technical University of Denmark Denmark 59.5 48.3 85.6 91.7 73.9 66.032 30 Columbia University US 60.2 52.8 89.9 – 57.7 65.933 31 University of Washington US 53.5 57.6 88.8 – 57.2 64.534 36 Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Belgium 52.6 56.8 79.2 99.8 62.1 64.335 29 Seoul National University South Korea 71.4 73.5 50.2 95.2 24.2 63.936 42 University of Hong Kong Hong Kong 55.9 56.4 80.8 33.9 81.7 63.7

=37 37 University of Manchester UK 65.3 57.1 64.3 47.2 80.8 62.8=37 32 University of Melbourne Australia 50.4 54.5 81.9 47.8 85.4 62.839 =43 University of Queensland Australia 47.7 50.0 81.9 99.6 78.2 62.740 46 Rice University US 45.6 46.2 100.0 45.1 69.8 62.541 =39 Kyoto University Japan 69.9 65.3 54.7 65.4 40.7 61.942 57 École Polytechnique France 61.5 47.9 74.1 – 70.9 61.5

=43 48 University of British Columbia Canada 57.1 63.8 64.2 41.6 67.1 61.0=43 47 Peking University China 56.4 52.7 74.5 100.0 37.2 61.045 =50 Purdue University US 64.8 72.5 49.2 – 57.0 60.9

=46 41 Pohang University of Science and Technology South Korea 51.9 47.3 84.8 99.9 30.7 60.4=46 =50 University of Sydney Australia 49.7 44.8 75.9 83.2 93.2 60.448 49 Monash University Australia 47.1 46.0 77.7 88.1 86.5 60.249 38 University of Minnesota US 58.4 60.2 69.3 – 41.1 60.050 =43 University of California, San Diego US 46.9 50.0 90.4 – 43.7 59.5

THE World University Rankings 2014-15 | Engineering and technology

MethodologyTeaching – the learning environment: 30 per cent; Research – volume, income and reputation: 30 per cent; Citations – research influence: 27.5 per cent; International outlook – staff, students andresearch: 7.5 per cent; Industry income – innovation – staff and students: 5 per cent


Rank

2014

-15

Rank

2013

-14

Inst

itutio

n

Coun

try

Teac

hing

Rese

arch

Cita

tions

Indu

stry

inco

me

Inte

rnat

iona

lout

look

Over

alls

core

1 =2 Princeton University US 93.2 94.5 97.7 99.7 63.4 93.12 =2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology US 92.8 92.4 96.2 75.7 80.9 92.63 4 Harvard University US 92.1 94.0 97.6 56.3 73.9 92.3

=4 1 California Institute of Technology US 96.8 83.6 96.0 – 86.2 92.0=4 =5 Stanford University US 92.6 89.7 98.9 – 75.4 92.06 7 University of Cambridge UK 91.7 91.4 91.7 64.2 84.7 90.47 8 University of Oxford UK 90.3 89.3 89.2 53.9 88.7 88.68 10 University of Chicago US 81.4 86.5 95.0 – 76.1 87.09 9 University of California, Los Angeles US 81.5 88.6 95.4 – 68.9 86.8

10 =5 University of California, Berkeley US 86.7 79.9 97.1 – 65.8 86.411 12 ETH Zürich-Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich Switzerland 89.1 91.5 76.6 65.4 93.9 85.212 13 Imperial College London UK 86.0 85.1 86.3 43.7 89.7 85.113 11 Yale University US 82.8 83.6 92.3 37.6 76.2 84.714 14 Columbia University US 78.5 71.1 98.2 – 71.9 82.815 15 Cornell University US 77.0 80.9 93.4 31.7 56.1 81.116 19 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Germany 69.6 71.9 92.3 53.4 57.1 76.817 18 University of Washington US 62.7 68.4 97.2 – 64.6 76.218 16 University of Tokyo Japan 83.4 75.4 74.7 – 55.3 75.619 17 University of Toronto Canada 69.3 69.7 88.8 33.3 68.3 75.320 23 École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne Switzerland 60.3 63.6 88.5 43.4 95.8 73.321 =27 University of Wisconsin-Madison US 60.1 71.5 86.0 81.8 57.5 72.622 22 University of Michigan US 62.5 68.6 85.1 43.8 69.9 72.223 21 University of Texas at Austin US 53.6 70.1 92.6 98.2 40.9 72.024 20 University of California, Santa Barbara US 47.6 63.1 98.2 94.7 59.3 71.625 =29 École Normale Supérieure France 73.6 63.9 74.4 – 78.1 71.426 =27 Northwestern University US 53.0 62.9 98.6 49.3 47.9 71.227 33 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign US 60.4 68.1 85.6 – 53.1 70.628 =29 Australian National University Australia 67.1 74.2 63.9 58.4 93.3 69.729 25 Université Pierre et Marie Curie France 64.1 64.9 78.5 – 66.8 69.330 24 University of Melbourne Australia 56.6 56.1 88.2 60.8 78.5 69.231 =38 École Polytechnique France 72.4 52.8 77.2 – 75.0 68.8

=32 31 Georg-August-Universität Göttingen Germany 50.9 47.7 99.9 35.6 57.5 67.3=32 34 Rice University US 47.2 44.7 99.8 40.7 81.9 67.334 37 University of Edinburgh UK 51.1 46.4 90.3 67.5 83.5 66.4

=35 26 University of British Columbia Canada 55.5 52.1 85.6 34.0 73.7 66.0=35 44 University of Colorado Boulder US 46.8 56.6 94.1 – 46.9 66.037 32 Peking University China 67.8 65.2 66.9 100.0 40.8 65.6

=38 36 Kyoto University Japan 74.3 73.0 52.5 81.7 40.7 64.0=38 51 University College London UK 54.4 51.3 77.8 44.3 87.9 64.0

40 – Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa Italy 54.8 42.9 92.9 46.1 44.3 63.941 41 National University of Singapore Singapore 63.4 60.7 63.2 40.3 87.6 63.842 35 Brown University US 44.5 42.1 99.5 – 50.9 63.6

=43 =52 University of Bristol UK 52.6 49.9 80.7 45.0 71.0 62.9=43 43 Universität Heidelberg Germany 58.8 45.4 81.6 40.6 62.6 62.945 =45 Boston University US 46.7 39.8 95.2 31.7 65.9 62.846 72 New York University US 48.2 45.3 88.5 – 58.5 62.447 47 Georgia Institute of Technology US 42.3 49.7 86.5 55.3 71.1 62.348 54 Ohio State University US 40.1 46.9 89.7 51.3 66.4 61.649 42 Technische Universität München Germany 58.1 60.2 65.3 39.8 62.3 61.150 56 Université Paris-Sud France 49.2 49.7 78.5 – 64.1 60.8

THE World University Rankings 2014-15 | Physical sciences

MethodologyTeaching – the learning environment: 27.5 per cent. Research – volume, income and reputation: 27.5 per cent. Citations – research influence: 35 per cent. International outlook – staff, students andresearch: 7.5 per cent. Industry income – innovation – staff and students: 2.5 per cent


Rank

2014

-15

Rank

2013

-14

Inst

itutio

n

Coun

try

Teac

hing

Rese

arch

Cita

tions

Indu

stry

inco

me

Inte

rnat

iona

lout

look

Over

alls

core

1 1 Harvard University US 91.4 93.1 98.9 59.3 70.9 92.22 2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology US 88.3 91.5 100.0 53.9 69.3 91.03 4 University of Cambridge UK 92.8 89.8 94.1 42.6 85.4 90.64 3 University of Oxford UK 90.1 91.7 92.8 49.5 83.3 90.05 5 Stanford University US 87.7 92.3 97.9 – 55.9 89.26 7 California Institute of Technology US 85.2 76.2 99.5 – 71.8 86.67 9 Yale University US 80.9 90.8 93.4 43.0 65.3 85.98 8 Princeton University US 83.4 80.9 96.6 95.7 53.2 85.49 =10 Johns Hopkins University US 81.7 83.5 92.3 – 66.7 84.5

10 =10 Imperial College London UK 87.6 85.7 80.7 44.6 92.9 84.011 6 University of California, Berkeley US 82.9 77.9 97.7 – 54.2 83.912 16 Duke University US 78.8 72.0 95.6 – 66.5 81.913 12 University of California, Los Angeles US 76.0 85.9 93.0 – 46.7 81.614 14 Cornell University US 79.5 88.0 85.9 37.3 44.1 80.415 15 ETH Zürich-Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich Switzerland 78.9 79.1 79.1 49.2 95.5 79.516 13 Columbia University US 74.9 67.9 93.0 – 63.9 78.417 19 University College London UK 74.8 77.8 78.7 46.4 89.5 77.418 22 Wageningen University and Research Center Netherlands 76.4 78.4 78.9 – 77.7 77.319 18 University of California, Davis US 79.2 88.0 71.8 64.3 55.3 76.920 23 University of British Columbia Canada 71.9 75.2 84.6 48.6 72.2 76.721 25 University of Washington US 66.6 77.1 92.0 – 49.8 76.522 24 University of Wisconsin-Madison US 72.4 78.1 81.7 74.8 42.0 75.0

=23 20 University of Chicago US 64.1 69.7 91.6 – 59.0 74.7=23 21 University of Edinburgh UK 70.8 71.2 82.6 38.2 76.9 74.725 26 University of Toronto Canada 62.4 75.4 82.0 51.0 55.7 72.126 33 University of Michigan US 54.8 73.3 89.0 61.4 54.0 72.027 17 University of California, San Diego US 61.1 65.1 95.8 – 37.5 71.928 27 University of Tokyo Japan 81.1 74.8 66.4 – 45.8 70.929 28 University of Melbourne Australia 67.8 68.3 72.7 49.9 79.5 70.130 29 McGill University Canada 65.2 65.4 76.2 – 78.5 69.731 30 University of Queensland Australia 61.5 67.4 76.7 53.4 77.5 69.432 35 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Germany 67.9 66.4 75.3 61.4 53.0 68.833 36 Australian National University Australia 57.3 64.8 76.7 59.1 88.9 68.634 31 National University of Singapore Singapore 65.9 69.3 61.4 84.9 93.9 67.835 34 University of Pennsylvania US 55.2 54.3 91.2 – 47.6 66.936 32 Kyoto University Japan 73.2 75.9 59.3 71.6 38.3 66.437 37 King’s College London UK 46.6 51.8 87.1 47.8 80.2 64.838 40 Ghent University Belgium 60.5 54.8 73.6 95.0 63.7 64.639 38 Uppsala University Sweden 62.7 60.7 69.6 31.9 65.7 64.040 39 University of Minnesota US 55.6 63.6 77.4 – 34.1 63.441 42 University of Copenhagen Denmark 51.6 57.0 72.0 – 71.8 61.842 43 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill US 45.7 43.6 93.0 40.5 47.3 61.743 =57 École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne Switzerland 29.1 37.2 96.4 70.3 97.2 61.044 64 University of Zurich Switzerland 52.8 45.3 72.7 – 96.9 60.9

=45 51 University of Massachusetts US 45.8 47.4 85.9 65.8 45.2 60.7=45 63 Utrecht University Netherlands 47.9 50.7 79.6 – 59.4 60.747 =44 University of Glasgow UK 47.6 48.0 78.7 32.3 75.1 60.348 =59 Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Belgium 50.4 44.9 75.9 100.0 60.9 59.849 41 Osaka University Japan 55.1 59.7 68.6 81.4 27.7 59.750 =51 Boston University US 45.8 38.5 92.0 30.7 40.0 59.2

THE World University Rankings 2014-15 | Life sciences



Rank

2014

-15

Rank

2013

-14

Inst

itutio

n

Coun

try

Teac

hing

Rese

arch

Cita

tions

Indu

stry

inco

me

Inte

rnat

iona

lout

look

Over

alls

core

1 1 Stanford University US 92.2 92.9 81.6 – 70.0 88.62 2 Harvard University US 92.5 93.4 73.3 36.9 66.1 86.63 5 University of Chicago US 88.8 95.5 67.6 – 64.0 85.94 4 University of Cambridge UK 90.9 95.8 52.5 53.3 72.1 84.75 3 University of Oxford UK 89.1 95.1 57.9 37.6 72.4 84.26 =7 Princeton University US 90.2 91.9 63.4 53.0 50.5 82.97 =7 Yale University US 89.7 92.6 54.3 41.1 61.2 82.18 11 University College London UK 83.2 88.4 59.8 42.2 84.8 80.89 6 University of California, Berkeley US 87.5 86.1 64.6 – 56.8 80.6

10 9 University of California, Los Angeles US 84.6 89.8 68.0 – 41.4 79.811 10 Columbia University US 85.3 84.1 68.3 – 54.7 79.412 16 University of Edinburgh UK 79.4 86.0 60.6 40.9 76.1 77.913 18 University of Pennsylvania US 82.5 75.1 73.6 – 59.7 76.414 17 New York University US 80.6 82.8 65.7 – 50.0 76.215 12 University of Toronto Canada 77.1 87.3 64.6 36.8 44.4 75.616 15 Australian National University Australia 64.6 88.9 72.7 41.5 75.5 75.217 14 University of Michigan US 76.3 83.5 70.5 38.9 39.4 74.418 20 University of Sydney Australia 73.2 75.2 64.4 45.0 76.1 72.119 13 University of Melbourne Australia 76.9 76.5 47.6 54.1 78.5 71.920 24 Duke University US 71.4 70.6 76.5 – 62.3 71.121 23 Cornell University US 76.0 75.1 68.7 36.8 37.6 70.722 21 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Germany 73.6 78.4 45.4 73.5 63.9 70.423 19 King’s College London UK 70.0 75.0 56.4 36.8 78.6 69.724 22 Freie Universität Berlin Germany 71.2 77.8 42.7 38.4 56.0 67.425 28 Leiden University Netherlands 68.8 73.4 43.7 38.2 67.3 65.926 31 McGill University Canada 65.0 63.9 62.2 – 84.7 65.227 29 Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Germany 69.4 71.2 43.2 – 59.1 65.128 38 University of Manchester UK 62.6 64.2 74.2 37.0 67.1 64.629 32 University of Texas at Austin US 65.5 66.5 72.2 39.2 32.0 63.730 33 University of Wisconsin-Madison US 59.1 67.4 78.1 42.7 41.8 63.431 25 Universität Heidelberg Germany 64.9 66.4 43.6 37.4 67.9 61.832 27 Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey US 55.6 68.2 70.5 – 33.3 60.633 37 University of St Andrews UK 61.3 64.0 43.9 37.5 78.1 60.434 30 Durham University UK 63.0 59.4 55.2 46.5 62.3 60.035 39 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill US 60.3 64.3 59.9 39.3 35.1 59.336 =45 Lancaster University UK 58.0 54.3 73.3 36.9 66.6 59.037 43 Brown University US 65.1 56.8 50.2 – 50.0 58.338 35 University of Vienna Austria 57.6 61.2 48.0 – 65.6 57.939 =41 University of Notre Dame US 60.9 60.8 51.8 – 39.0 57.740 34 University of British Columbia Canada 52.7 55.7 71.9 37.0 65.8 57.341 36 Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Belgium 53.1 60.8 46.7 98.8 62.1 56.842 49 National University of Singapore Singapore 57.6 53.8 48.6 38.6 89.3 56.743 40 University of Hong Kong Hong Kong 50.6 59.5 45.4 53.9 86.9 56.044 =45 Monash University Australia 56.7 54.6 43.4 64.4 76.4 55.645 =41 University of Amsterdam Netherlands 48.3 62.7 53.4 41.2 59.3 55.146 44 University of Warwick UK 48.6 55.9 60.2 36.8 60.3 53.747 56 Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen Germany 54.2 51.0 63.1 57.9 42.7 53.648 55 University of Massachusetts US 50.9 56.6 63.1 39.2 34.4 53.349 54 Birkbeck, University of London UK 48.0 46.2 68.9 36.9 70.5 51.950 63 École Normale Supérieure France 47.6 42.8 78.9 – 66.2 51.8

THE World University Rankings 2014-15 | Arts and humanities



Rank

2014

-15

Rank

2013

-14

Inst

itutio

n

Coun

try

Teac

hing

Rese

arch

Cita

tions

Indu

stry

inco

me

Inte

rnat

iona

lout

look

Over

alls

core

1 1 University of Oxford UK 87.4 91.9 98.0 99.9 81.8 92.32 2 Harvard University US 90.5 97.9 96.5 41.1 71.2 92.03 3 University of Cambridge UK 79.0 91.6 94.9 44.0 80.6 87.34 4 Imperial College London UK 82.3 87.8 90.6 51.3 85.8 86.25 5 Stanford University US 84.4 90.7 92.3 – 53.8 85.76 6 Columbia University US 87.8 79.5 91.1 – 69.4 85.17 7 Johns Hopkins University US 84.2 84.0 93.3 – 63.0 84.88 9 University College London UK 80.6 86.4 88.3 52.7 83.5 84.49 8 University of California, Los Angeles US 87.3 87.3 89.3 – 47.1 84.0

10 11 Yale University US 83.8 87.3 88.3 45.9 59.4 83.611 13 King’s College London UK 77.7 81.3 90.6 40.9 85.5 82.912 12 University of Washington US 79.7 87.4 91.1 – 42.3 82.1

=13 16 University of Melbourne Australia 77.5 83.5 84.3 77.7 77.6 81.5=13 15 University of Toronto Canada 86.8 90.7 77.9 60.3 53.0 81.515 14 Karolinska Institute Sweden 81.9 90.9 77.0 51.8 65.4 80.716 20 Washington University in St Louis US 77.4 77.2 96.1 – 42.3 80.517 10 Duke University US 78.8 72.9 94.6 – 50.8 80.0

=18 19 University of Michigan US 80.4 81.2 87.3 47.5 46.6 79.7=18 17 University of Pennsylvania US 79.3 74.0 92.7 – 49.5 79.720 18 McGill University Canada 78.6 80.7 81.4 – 65.3 78.721 =22 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill US 77.0 76.3 91.5 43.8 41.0 78.322 24 University of Pittsburgh US 71.2 76.1 89.3 41.0 38.0 75.623 25 University of Sydney Australia 67.1 76.9 80.3 63.2 82.0 75.424 21 University of California, Berkeley US 68.5 61.5 97.8 – 49.9 75.0

=25 =22 Boston University US 70.0 65.7 94.3 37.9 48.6 74.9=25 26 McMaster University Canada 62.8 66.1 92.6 81.7 66.4 74.927 27 University of Edinburgh UK 63.4 64.6 92.1 45.3 68.4 73.728 29 University of Chicago US 62.8 63.3 91.5 – 52.1 71.929 46 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Germany 70.8 68.1 75.4 100.0 62.6 71.830 28 Cornell University US 61.6 67.0 89.3 44.2 48.6 71.431 32 Emory University US 68.5 56.6 91.5 44.6 43.7 70.832 30 University of British Columbia Canada 63.4 68.6 82.1 47.4 56.9 70.533 33 University of California, San Diego US 57.0 61.7 94.6 – 39.5 69.934 36 Northwestern University US 61.5 57.6 89.3 96.5 31.4 68.835 37 Erasmus University Rotterdam Netherlands 59.7 62.4 85.4 – 53.4 68.736 31 University of Tokyo Japan 67.5 64.0 78.3 – 46.9 68.637 =38 Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Belgium 50.4 62.6 86.2 98.8 64.2 68.538 41 University of Manchester UK 58.3 64.4 82.0 45.4 63.7 68.339 40 Universität Heidelberg Germany 61.8 60.1 80.2 44.1 60.8 67.240 47 Vanderbilt University US 58.8 55.9 91.5 51.4 28.0 66.941 56 New York University US 62.6 52.4 84.4 – 47.4 66.042 34 University of Queensland Australia 53.4 63.3 75.8 59.1 75.9 65.843 35 University of Minnesota US 65.1 54.2 83.8 – 31.3 65.544 42 National University of Singapore Singapore 63.8 55.2 70.1 42.8 92.6 65.345 43 Maastricht University Netherlands 48.2 58.0 78.6 95.8 71.8 64.546 =38 Monash University Australia 52.5 61.5 73.3 82.7 70.4 64.347 64 University of Amsterdam Netherlands 49.6 56.8 80.7 61.4 65.6 63.948 53 University of Cape Town South Africa 45.4 44.5 89.6 91.4 68.7 63.5

=49 51 Medical University of Vienna Austria 56.6 52.2 76.0 38.7 78.4 63.4=49 57 Queen Mary University of London UK 44.4 45.5 90.1 45.0 80.0 63.4

THE World University Rankings 2014-15 | Clinical, pre-clinical and health



Rank

2014

-15

Rank

2013

-14

Inst

itutio

n

Coun

try

Teac

hing

Rese

arch

Cita

tions

Indu

stry

inco

me

Inte

rnat

iona

lout

look

Over

alls

core

1 1 Stanford University US 95.0 96.3 98.5 – 61.1 93.12 =2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology US 90.2 93.8 98.9 100.0 73.8 92.63 =2 University of Oxford UK 94.0 97.0 87.3 66.7 88.8 92.24 4 Harvard University US 91.5 98.9 96.9 44.2 63.0 91.95 5 Princeton University US 89.8 96.4 99.2 96.4 45.2 91.16 6 University of Chicago US 90.3 94.7 97.7 – 56.3 90.77 7 Yale University US 94.8 93.4 95.3 33.4 55.3 90.08 12 University of Michigan US 88.4 97.8 91.4 97.0 40.8 88.89 10 University of California, Los Angeles US 90.8 94.2 92.2 – 39.7 87.4

10 8 University of Cambridge UK 89.5 91.3 82.4 34.6 85.1 86.611 13 London School of Economics and Political Science UK 87.5 86.0 82.4 63.1 91.1 85.412 11 University of Pennsylvania US 88.7 79.9 93.6 – 63.5 85.013 16 University College London UK 78.6 86.9 87.8 45.7 89.4 83.614 15 Columbia University US 89.7 80.3 87.2 – 59.0 83.3

=15 14 New York University US 86.0 77.5 91.4 – 58.6 82.1=15 17 Northwestern University US 82.3 85.9 95.6 30.2 37.1 82.117 18 University of Wisconsin-Madison US 77.4 84.4 90.6 50.4 43.7 79.818 9 University of California, Berkeley US 81.0 76.8 92.9 – 41.5 78.819 21 University of Melbourne Australia 73.9 84.6 68.5 51.1 80.6 76.020 19 University of Toronto Canada 77.1 82.6 76.2 30.5 56.3 75.921 20 University of British Columbia Canada 72.7 74.3 88.2 32.2 64.3 75.422 22 Duke University US 75.0 65.3 92.6 – 61.3 75.223 24 Cornell University US 69.1 73.2 86.0 30.2 38.3 71.424 26 Australian National University Australia 64.4 77.7 67.5 40.4 85.0 70.425 27 McGill University Canada 67.0 69.6 75.4 – 75.5 70.326 23 University of Texas at Austin US 68.4 71.8 83.6 61.1 29.7 70.227 25 King’s College London UK 56.6 66.0 86.2 74.1 83.1 69.528 31 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill US 62.3 72.1 86.6 35.0 35.4 68.8

=29 39 University of Hong Kong Hong Kong 55.7 70.6 61.1 92.8 87.9 65.3=29 =29 National University of Singapore Singapore 67.5 70.7 53.1 34.9 83.6 65.331 33 University of Sydney Australia 62.8 66.0 65.4 49.0 75.2 65.132 =29 Ohio State University US 53.1 68.5 84.9 31.3 44.6 64.933 28 University of Washington US 53.8 66.1 86.6 – 35.7 64.434 35 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign US 59.9 70.1 69.6 – 37.2 63.535 36 University of Queensland Australia 54.7 66.7 63.4 38.6 82.0 62.436 34 University of Amsterdam Netherlands 51.3 65.6 73.5 65.6 53.0 62.037 32 University of Minnesota US 52.9 63.9 80.2 – 32.1 61.538 45 Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Hong Kong 36.1 58.4 90.0 33.0 95.7 61.239 46 University of Manchester UK 58.2 57.3 65.9 35.7 74.3 60.540 47 Erasmus University Rotterdam Netherlands 46.1 58.4 77.3 – 71.2 59.841 44 University of Edinburgh UK 55.2 58.6 64.0 34.8 73.7 59.442 37 Peking University China 54.0 47.8 69.9 100.0 81.0 59.143 =50 Pennsylvania State University US 55.9 55.6 74.8 – 39.4 59.044 55 University of Virginia US 58.8 42.2 87.7 45.2 38.6 58.845 49 Michigan State University US 54.2 53.0 78.0 – 39.3 58.546 40 University of New South Wales Australia 48.8 59.6 63.4 51.6 80.0 58.447 42 University of Warwick UK 54.7 53.7 64.0 31.1 79.2 57.948 38 University of Southern California US 54.2 52.1 77.2 – 33.4 57.6

=49 =61 Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Belgium 47.7 59.1 63.0 100.0 57.0 57.3=49 =50 HEC Paris France 36.0 38.8 95.8 72.9 96.0 57.3

THE World University Rankings 2014-15 | Social sciences


30 September - 2 October 2015, University of Melbourne, Australia

W RLDACADEMIC SUMMIT

We are proud to announce that the next Times Higher Education World Academic Summit will be held in Melbourne, Australia from 30September to 2 October 2015, hosted in partnership with the University of Melbourne. This is the global forum for outstanding thoughtleaders from the academy, industry and government, who will explore world-class universities’ fundamental role in intellectual thoughtand economic deed. Delegates will also get an exclusive first look at the 2015-16 THE World University Rankings results, plus sessionson university leadership, international collaboration and knowledge transfer.

• Prestigious networking dinner and world-class speakers• Exclusive rankings master class with Phil Baty, editor at large and rankings editor, THE

Website with registration portal coming soon…

WORLDUNIVERSITYRANKINGS

EXCLUSIVE Unveiling of the 2015-16 THE World University Rankings– one of the global academy’s most eagerly anticipated events – plus:

SAVETHEDATEGLOBALTHOUGHTLEADERS

Because of the event’s exclusive nature, places are strictly limited: representatives from more than 30 countries attended the inauguralWAS in 2013 and demand is growing. Ticket cost £990 + VAT. To register now, visit www.theworldsummitseries.com/THEWAS



Over the past decade, much hasbeen written about therankings phenomenon. Its

arrival coincided with the intensi-fication of competition in theglobal economy and increasingcross-border student mobility.Rankings have also filled aninformation deficit.

Although there are variousevaluation and benchmarkinginstruments around, there has beengrowing dissatisfaction with theirrobustness. By placing higher edu-cation institutions within a widerinternational and comparativeframework, rankings havemanaged to say something aboutquality in a simple, accessible andprovocative way.

Rankings are widely consumed,but they are also broadly critiqued.Yet regardless of criticism, the keymessage is that more attentionneeds to be paid to how we assessand compare institutions and whatthese assessments mean in terms ofglobal competition and the worldorder. The complexity of theseissues helps to explain why rank-ings remain such a powerfulinfluence on policymakers andhigher education.

The key findings from a globalsurvey I conducted this year showa continuation of trends I previ-ously identified in 2006: althoughstudents remain the primary audi-ence for the rankings, universityleaders believe their importance forgovernment and public opinion isrising. Even Moody’s and Standard& Poor’s use rankings to validateuniversity creditworthiness.

Overall, the trend is for highereducation leaders to desire a muchhigher institutional rank, nation-ally and internationally, thanthey currently hold. Despite thestatistical impossibility and finan-cial cost of everyone achieving thisgoal, this has not stopped a numberof institutions (as well as ministers

and policymakers) worldwideproclaiming a particular rankingposition as a strategic ambition.

Thus, more higher educationleaders desire to be in the top 5 percent globally today, whereas theymight have been content with thetop 25 per cent in 2006. Whileglobal rankings dominate theagenda, doing well nationally isalso important because this is morelikely to affect domestic matterssuch as resource allocation.

Universities have enhancedtheir institutional researchcapabilities. The overwhelm-

ing majority I surveyed have formalinternal mechanisms to reviewtheir rank, usually led by thevice-chancellor, president or rector.Rankings are used, inter alia, toinform strategic decisions, settargets or shape priorities; revisepolicies and resource allocation;prioritise research areas; changerecruitment, promotional orstudent entry criteria; create, closeor merge departments orprogrammes; and/or merge withother institutions or researchinstitutes.

A growing number use rankingsto inform decisions about inter-national partnerships or monitorthe performance of peer institu-tions at home and abroad.Conversely, the league tables influ-ence the willingness of other insti-tutions to partner with them andsupport their membership ofacademic or professional organisa-tions.

Despite the criticism, themajority of institutions surveyedcontinue to believe that rankingsare more of a help than a hindranceto their institutional reputation.This apparent schizophrenia arisesfrom the view that being ranked– almost regardless of position – isvital. In the global marketplace,rankings bring visibility.

This is essential because of thegrowing percentage of undergradu-ates and postgraduates who havea high interest in the rankings.High-achieving and wealthierstudents are most likely to makechoices based on them. Likewise,international students continue torate reputation and ranking posi-tions as key determinants in theirchoice of institution, programmeand country, more than, say, insti-tutional websites.

There is little doubt that univer-sities, policymakers, students andother stakeholders have responded– rationally and irrationally – torankings’ reputed benefits. Theleague tables’ legacy is manifest inhow they have come to defineperceptions of quality. Concernsabout institutional success andnational competitiveness haveencouraged an overemphasis onthe performance of individualuniversities in the (mis)belief thatnational performance is simplythe aggregate of “world-class”universities.

Although there are differentpathways, the overarching policyparadigm is to create a more hier-archical and differentiated systembased on reputation, in whichresources are concentrated in a fewelite universities that mimic thecharacteristics of the top 100.l

Rankings are widely used and critiqued, says EllenHazelkorn, but they create a profile institutions want

An assessment tool tobe used with care

How much attention shoulduniversities and governmentspay to rankings? Here areEllen Hazelkorn’s dos and don’ts.

Don Ensure your higher educationsystem/institution has a coherentstrategy/mission aligned withnational values and objectivesn Use rankings only as part of anoverall quality assurance, assessmentor benchmarking system – and neveras a stand-alone evaluation tooln Be accountable and providegood-quality public informationabout higher education’s contributionand benefit to societyn Engage in an information campaignto broaden media and publicunderstanding of the limitationsof the rankings.

Don’tn Seek to change your institution’smission or national strategy inorder to conform to the rankingsn Use rankings to inform policyor resource-allocation decisionsn Direct resources to a few eliteuniversities and neglect the needsof the wider higher education sectorand societynManipulate public information anddata in order to rise in the tables.

Ellen HazelkornDirector, Higher Education PolicyResearch Unit, Dublin Institute ofTechnology, policy adviser to theRepublic of Ireland’s Higher EducationAuthority, and author of Rankings andthe Reshaping of Higher Education:The Battle for World-Class Excellence

AlAM

y

undergratuate

Documents

thatthe rankings

higher education policy

growing number use rankings

world universityrankings

important function

research partnerships

new knowledge

subject tables