QS World University Rankings

QS World University Rankings

Editor	Danny Byrne
Categories	Higher education
Frequency	Annual
Publisher	QS Quacquarelli Symonds Limited
Country	United Kingdom
Language	English
Website	QS World University Rankings

The QS World University Rankings are annual university rankings published by Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) which provides overall rankings as well as ranking for individual subjects. QS also publishes additional regional rankings, the QS Asian University Rankings and the QS Latin American University Rankings, both of which are independent of and different to the major world rankings due to differences in the criteria and weightings used to generate them.

The publisher originally released its rankings in publication with Times Higher Education from 2004 to 2009 as the Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings, but the two ended their collaboration in 2010. QS assumed sole publication of the pre-existing methodology, while Times Higher Education created a new one with Thomson Reuters, published as Times Higher Education World University Rankings.

The QS World University Rankings is regarded as one of the three most influential and widely observed international university rankings, along with the Times Higher Education World University Rankings and the Academic Ranking of World Universities.

History

The need for an international ranking of universities was highlighted in December 2003 in Richard Lambert’s review of university-industry collaboration in Britain for HM Treasury, the finance ministry of the United Kingdom. Amongst its recommendations were world university rankings, which Lambert said would help the UK to gauge the global standing of its universities.

The idea for the rankings was credited in Ben Wildavsky's book, The Great Brain Race: How Global Universities are Reshaping the World, to then-editor of Times Higher Education (THE), John O'Leary. THE chose to partner with educational and careers advice company Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) to supply the data, appointing Martin Ince, formerly deputy editor and later a contractor to THE, to manage the project.

Between 2004 and 2009, QS produced the rankings in partnership with THE. In 2009, THE announced they would produce their own rankings, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings, in partnership with Thomson Reuters. THE cited a weakness in the methodology of the original rankings, as well as a perceived favoritism in the existing methodology for science over the humanities, as one of the key reasons for the decision to split with QS.

QS retained the intellectual property in the Rankings and the methodology used to compile them^{[citation needed]} and continues to produce the rankings, now called the QS World University Rankings. THE created a new methodology with Thomson Reuters, published as the Times Higher Education World University Rankings in September 2010.

Methodology of the major rankings

Template:Cleanup-bare URLs QS tried to design its rankings to look at a broad range of university activity. Six indicators are used.

Academic peer review (40%)

The most controversial part of the QS World University Rankings is their use of an opinion survey referred to as the Academic Peer Review. Using a combination of purchased mailing lists and applications and suggestions, this survey asks active academicians across the world about the top universities in fields they know about. QS has published the job titles and geographical distribution of the participants.

The 2011 rankings made use of responses from 33,744 people from over 140 nations in its Academic Peer Review, including votes from the previous two years rolled forward provided there was no more recent information available from the same individual. Participants can nominate up to 30 universities but are not able to vote for their own. They tend to nominate a median of about 20, which means that this survey includes over 500,000 data points. More here [1].

In 2004, when the rankings first appeared, academic peer review accounted for half of a university's possible score. In 2005, its share was cut to 40 per cent because of the introduction of the Recruiter Review.

Faculty student ratio (20%)

This indicator accounts for 20 per cent of a university’s possible score in the rankings. It is a classic measure used in various ranking systems as a surrogate for teaching commitment, but QS has admitted that it is less than satisfactory. More on the QS website here [2].

Citations per faculty (20%)

Citations of published research are among the most widely used inputs to national and global university rankings. The QS World University Rankings used citations data from Thomson (now Thomson Reuters) from 2004 to 2007, and since then uses data from Scopus, part of Elsevier. The total number of citations for a five-year period is divided by the number of academicians in a university to yield the score for this measure, which accounts for 20 per cent of a university’s possible score in the Rankings.

QS has explained that it uses this approach, rather than the citations per paper preferred for other systems, because it reduces the effect of biomedical science on the overall picture – bio-medicine has a ferocious “publish or perish” culture. Instead QS attempts to measure the density of research-active staff at each institution. But issues still remain about the use of citations in ranking systems, especially the fact that the arts and humanities generate comparatively few citations. More here [3].

QS has conceded the presence of some data collection errors regarding citations per faculty in previous years' rankings.

One interesting issue is the difference between the Scopus and Thomson Reuters databases. For major world universities, the two systems capture more or less the same publications and citations. For less mainstream institutions, Scopus has more non-English language and smaller-circulation journals in its database. But as the papers there are less heavily cited, this can also mean fewer citations per paper for the universities that publish in them. More on this at [4] This area has been criticized for undermining universities which do not use English as their primary language. Citations and publications in a language different from English are harder to come across. The English language is the most internationalized language and therefore the most popular when citing.

Recruiter review (10%)

This part of the ranking is obtained by a similar method to the Academic Peer Review, except that it samples recruiters who hire graduates on a global or significant national scale. The numbers are smaller – 16,875 responses from over 130 countries in the 2011 Rankings – and are used to produce 10 per cent of any university’s possible score. This survey was introduced in 2005 in the belief that employers track graduate quality, making this a barometer of teaching quality, a famously problematic thing to measure. University standing here is of especial interest to potential students.

More here [5].

International orientation (10%)

The final ten per cent of a university’s possible score is derived from measures intended to capture their internationalism: five percent from their percentage of international students, and another five percent from their percentage of international staff. This is of interest partly because it shows whether a university is putting effort into being global, but also because it tells us whether it is taken seriously enough by students and academics around the world for them to want to be there. More at [6].

Data sources

The information used to compile the World University Ranking comes partly from the online surveys carried out by QS, partly from Scopus, and partly from an annual information-gathering exercise carried out by QS itself. QS collects data from universities directly, from their web sites and publications, and from national bodies such as education ministries and the National Center for Education Statistics in the US and the Higher Education Statistics Agency in the UK.

Aggregation

The data are aggregated into columns according to its Z score, an indicator of how far removed any institution is from the average. Between 2004 and 2007 a different system was used whereby the top university for any measure was scaled as 100 and the others received a score reflecting their comparative performance. According to QS, this method was dropped because it gives too much weight to some exceptional outliers, such as the very high faculty/student ratio of the California Institute of Technology. In 2006, the last year before the Z score system was introduced, Caltech was top of the citations per faculty score, receiving 100 on this indicator, because of its highly research and science-oriented approach. The next two institutions on this measure, Harvard and Stanford, each scored 55. In other words, 45 per cent of the possible difference between all the world's universities was between the top university and the next one (in fact two) on the list, leaving every other university on Earth to fight over the remaining 55 per cent.

Likewise in 2005, Harvard was top university and MIT was second with 86.9, so that 13 per cent of the total difference between all the world's universities was between first and second place. In 2011, the University of Cambridge was top and the second institution, Harvard, got 99.34. So the Z score system allows the full range of available difference to be used in a more informative way.

Classifications

In 2009, a column of classifications was introduced to provide additional context to the rankings tables. Universities are classified by size, defined by the size of the student body; comprehensive or specialist status, defined by the range of faculty areas in which programs are offered; and research activity, defined by the number of papers published in a five-year period.

Fees

In 2011, QS began publishing average fees data for the universities it ranks. These are not used as an indicator in the rankings, but are clearly of immense interest and reveal much about a university's self-image and market position.

QS publishes domestic and international fees for undergraduate and postgraduate study.

Faculty-level analysis

QS publishes a simple analysis of the top 400 institutions in each of the five faculty-level areas mentioned above: natural sciences, technology, biology and medicine, social sciences and the arts and humanities. These five tables list universities in order of their Academic Peer Review score. They also give the citations per paper for each institution, but the two data sets are not aggregated.

QS uses citations per paper rather than per person partly because it does not hold details of the academic staff in each subject area, and partly because the number of citations per paper should be a consistent indicator of impact within a specific field with a defined publishing culture.

Rankings by subjects

QS also ranks universities by subject, with 29 such rankings appearing in 2012. These rankings are drawn up on the basis of academic opinion, recruiter opinion and citations. Different academic disciplines are sorted into five big categories: Arts & Humanities, Engineering & Technology, Life Sciences& Medicine, Natural Sciences and Social Sciences & Management, each of which shows the top 200 universities in that particular field.

QS publishes the rankings results in key media around the world, including US News & World Report in the United States and Chosun Ilbo in Korea. The first rankings produced by QS independently of THE, and using QS's consistent and original methodology, were released on September 8, 2010, with the second appearing on September 6, 2011.

Overall rankings

QS publishes a ranking of just over 700 of the top universities around the world, the first 50 of which are listed below:

QS World University Rankings — Top 50

2012	2011	2010	Institute	Region
1	3	5	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	United States
2	1	1	University of Cambridge	United Kingdom
3	2	2	Harvard University	United States
4	7	4	University College London	United Kingdom
5	5	6	University of Oxford	United Kingdom
6	6	7	Imperial College London	United Kingdom
7	4	3	Yale University	United States
8	8	8	University of Chicago	United States
9	13	10	Princeton University	United States
10	12	9	California Institute of Technology	United States
11	10	11	Columbia University	United States
12	9	12	University of Pennsylvania	United States
13	18	18	Swiss Federal Institute of Technology	Template:SWI
14	15	16	Cornell University	United States
15	11	13	Stanford University	United States
16	16	17	Johns Hopkins University	United States
17	14	15	University of Michigan	United States
18	17	19	McGill University	Canada
19	23	29	University of Toronto	Canada
20	19	14	Duke University	United States
21	20	22	University of Edinburgh	United Kingdom
22	21	28	University of California, Berkeley	United States
23	22	23	The University of Hong Kong	Template:HKG
24	26	20	Australian National University	Australia
25	28	31	National University of Singapore	Template:SIN
26	27	21	King's College London	United Kingdom
27	24	26	Northwestern University	United States
28	30	27	University of Bristol	United Kingdom
29	35	32	Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne	Template:SWI
30	25	24	The University of Tokyo	Template:JAP
31	34	35	University of California, Los Angeles	United States
32	29	30	The University of Manchester	United Kingdom
33	40	40	The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology	Template:HKG
34	33	33	Ecole normale supérieure	France
35	32	25	Kyoto University	Template:JAP
36	31	38	The University of Melbourne	Australia
37	42	50	Seoul National University	South Korea
38	41	48	University of Wisconsin-Madison	United States
39	38	37	The University of Sydney	Australia
40	37	42	The Chinese University of Hong Kong	Template:HKG
41	36	36	Ecole Polytechnique	France
42	39	39	Brown University	United States
43	44	41	New York University	United States
44	46	47	Peking University	Template:CHN
45	51	44	University of British Columbia	Canada
46	48	43	The University of Queensland	Australia
47	58	74	Nanyang Technological University	Template:SIN
48	47	54	Tsinghua University	Template:CHN
49	--	--	Carnegie Mellon University	United States
50	45	49	Osaka University	Template:JAP

• For the full list, please refer to the offical website.
• For the rankings before the year of 2010, please refer to the articles about results of the THE-QS World University Rankings:

THE–QS World University Rankings, 2004

THE–QS World University Rankings, 2005

THE–QS World University Rankings, 2006

THE–QS World University Rankings, 2007

THE–QS World University Rankings, 2008

THE–QS World University Rankings, 2009

Regional rankings

QS Asian University Rankings

In 2009, QS launched the QS Asian University Rankings in partnership with The Chosun Ilbo newspaper in Korea to rank the top 200 universities in Asia independently.

These rankings use some of the same criteria as the world rankings, but there are changed weightings and new criteria. One addition is the criterion of incoming and outgoing exchange students. Accordingly, the QS World university rankings and the QS Asian University rankings released in the same academic year are different and independent of each other. For example, the University of Hong Kong being 22nd and 23rd worldwide in the year of 2011 and 2012 was regarded as the best tertiary institute in Asia by the QS World University Rankings, while the Hong Kong University of Science & Technology topped the tables of the QS Asian University Rankings in 2011 and 2012.

The QS Asian University Rankings rank the top 200 tertiary institutes in Asia, the first 50 of which are as follows:

QS Asian University Rankings — Top 50

2012	2011	2010	2009	Institute	Region
1	1	2	4	The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology	Template:HKG
2	3	3	10=	National University of Singapore	Template:SIN
3	2	1	1	The University of Hong Kong	Template:HKG
4	6	6	8	Seoul National University	South Korea
5	5	4	2	The Chinese University of Hong Kong	Template:HKG
6	13	12	10=	Peking University	Template:CHN
7	11	13	7	Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology	South Korea
8	4	5	3	The University of Tokyo	Template:JAP
9	12	14	17	Pohang University of Science and Technology	South Korea
10	7	8	5	Kyoto University	Template:JAP
11	8	7	6	Osaka University	Template:JAP
12	15	15	18	City University of Hong Kong	Template:HKG
13	9=	11	9	Tokyo Institute of Technology	Template:JAP
14	9=	9	13	Tohoku University	Template:JAP
15	16	16	15	Tsinghua University	Template:CHN
16	18=	19	25	Yonsei University	South Korea
17	17	18	14	Nanyang Technological University	Template:SIN
18	14	10	12	Nagoya University	Template:JAP
19	21=	24	26	Fudan University	Template:CHN
20	21=	21	22	National Taiwan University	Template:TWN
21	26	29	33	Korea University	South Korea
22	18=	17	15=	Kyushu University	Template:JAP
23	20	22	20=	Hokkaido University	Template:JAP
24	27=	43	44	Sungkyunkwan University	South Korea
25	27=	32	32	Zhejiang University	Template:CHN
26	30	30	38	The Hong Kong Polytechnic University	Template:HKG
27	24=	25	24	University of Science and Technology of China	Template:CHN
28	29	27	27	Nanjing University	Template:CHN
29	33	34=	29	Shanghai Jiao Tong University	Template:CHN
30	24=	23	20=	Keio University	Template:JAP
31	31	34=	40	National Tsing Hua University	Template:TWN
32	23	20	19	University of Tsukuba	Template:JAP
33	44	49	46	Hanyang University	South Korea
34	38	36	30=	Indian Institute of Technology Bombay	Indianapolis Colts
35	39	42	39	Universiti Malaya	Template:MAS
36	37	39=	36	Indian Institute of Technology Delhi	Indianapolis Colts
37	32	31	43	National Cheng Kung University	Template:TWN
38	34	28	30=	Mahidol University	Thailand
39	35	26	23	Kobe University	Template:JAP
40	45	48	42	Ewha Womans University	South Korea
41	42	62=	57	Kyung Hee University	South Korea
42	46	39=	37	Waseda University	Template:JAP
43	47	44	35	Chulalongkorn University	Thailand
44	41	38	28	Hiroshima University	Template:JAP
45=	64	89=	110=	Beijing Normal University	Template:CHN
45=	43	53	49	Indian Institute of Technology Madras	Indianapolis Colts
47	36	37	34	Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur	Indianapolis Colts
48	49	45	73	Hong Kong Baptist University	Template:HKG
49	52	71=	74	National Chiao Tung University	Template:TWN
50	40	41	47	National Yang Ming University	Template:TWN

• For the full list, see the offical website.

QS Latin American University Rankings

The QS Latin American University Rankings [7] were launched in 2011. They use academic opinion (30 per cent), employer opinion (20 per cent), publications per faculty member, citations per paper, academic staff with a PhD, faculty/student ratio and web visibility (10 per cent each) as measures. These criteria were developed in consultation with experts in Latin America, and the web visibility data come from Webometrics [8]. This ranking showed that the University of São Paulo in Brazil is the region's top institution. It was first in the first and second editions in 2011 and 2012 respectively.

QS Stars

QS also offers universities a way of seeing their own strengths and weaknesses in depth. Called QS Stars, this service is separate from the QS World University Rankings. It involves a detailed look at a range of functions which mark out a modern university. Universities can get from one star to five, or Five Star Plus for the truly exceptional.

QS Stars ratings are derived from scores on eight criteria. They are: ● Research Quality ● Teaching Quality ● Graduate Employability ● University Infrastructure ● Internationalisation ● Innovation and knowledge transfer ● Third mission activity, measuring areas of social and civic engagement ● Special criteria for specific subjects

Stars is an evaluation system, not a ranking. About 100 institutions had opted for the Stars evaluation as of early 2013.

Commentary

Several universities in the UK and the Asia-Pacific region have commented on the rankings positively. Vice-Chancellor of New Zealand's Massey University, Professor Judith Kinnear, says that the Times Higher Education-QS ranking is a "wonderful external acknowledgement of several University attributes, including the quality of its research, research training, teaching and employability." She said the rankings are a true measure of a university's ability to fly high internationally: "The Times Higher Education ranking provides a rather more and more sophisticated, robust and well rounded measure of international and national ranking than either New Zealand's Performance Based Research Fund (PBRF) measure or the Shanghai rankings." In September 2012 the British newspaper The Independent described the QS World University Rankings as being "widely recognised throughout higher education as the most trusted international tables".

Martin Ince, chair of the Advisory Board for the Rankings, points out that their volatility has been reduced since 2007 by the introduction of the Z-score calculation method and that over time, the quality of QS's data gathering has improved to reduce anomalies. In addition, the academic and employer review are now so big that even modestly ranked universities receive a statistically valid number of votes. QS has published extensive data on who the respondents are, where they are, and the subjects and industries to which the academicians and employers respectively belong.

General criticisms

The QS World University rankings, like other college and university rankings, have received a variety of criticism. Main arguments are listed below. Many are concerned with the use of survey data.

Since the split from Times Higher Education, further concerns about the methodology QS uses for its rankings have been brought up by several experts. Simon Marginson, professor of higher education at University of Melbourne and a member of the THE editorial board, in the article "Improving Latin American universities' global ranking" for University World News on 10 June 2012, said: "I will not discuss the QS ranking because the methodology is not sufficiently robust to provide data valid as social science."

In an article for the New Statesman entitled "The QS World University Rankings are a load of old baloney", David Blanchflower, a leading labour economist, said: "This ranking is complete rubbish and nobody should place any credence in it. The results are based on an entirely flawed methodology that underweights the quality of research and overweights fluff... The QS is a flawed index and should be ignored."

In an article titled The Globalisation of College and University Rankings and appearing in the January/February 2012 issue of Change magazine, Philip Altbach, professor of higher education at Boston College and also a member of the THE editorial board, said: “The QS World University Rankings are the most problematical. From the beginning, the QS has relied on reputational indicators for half of its analysis … it probably accounts for the significant variability in the QS rankings over the years. In addition, QS queries employers, introducing even more variability and unreliability into the mix. Whether the QS rankings should be taken seriously by the higher education community is questionable."

The QS World University Rankings have been criticised by many for placing too much emphasis on peer review, which receives 40 percent of the overall score. Some people have expressed concern about the manner in which the peer review has been carried out. In a report, Peter Wills from the University of Auckland, New Zealand wrote of the Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings:

But we note also that this survey establishes its rankings by appealing to university staff, even offering financial enticements to participate (see Appendix II). Staff are likely to feel it is in their greatest interest to rank their own institution more highly than others. This means the results of the survey and any apparent change in ranking are highly questionable, and that a high ranking has no real intrinsic value in any case. We are vehemently opposed to the evaluation of the University according to the outcome of such PR competitions.

QS points out that no survey participant, academic or employer, has been offered a financial incentive to respondents. And academics cannot vote for their own institution.

THES-QS introduced several changes in methodology in 2007 which were aimed at addressing these criticisms, the ranking has continued to attract criticisms. In an article in the peer-reviewed BMC Medicine authored by several scientists from the US and Greece, it was pointed out:

If properly performed, most scientists would consider peer review to have very good construct validity; many may even consider it the gold standard for appraising excellence. However, even peers need some standardized input data to peer review. The Times simply asks each expert to list the 30 universities they regard as top institutions of their area without offering input data on any performance indicators. Research products may occasionally be more visible to outsiders, but it is unlikely that any expert possesses a global view of the inner workings of teaching at institutions worldwide. Moreover, the expert selection process of The Times is entirely unclear. The survey response rate among the selected experts was only <1% in 2006 (1,600 of 190,000 contacted). In the absence of any guarantee for protection from selection biases, measurement validity can be very problematic.

Alex Usher, vice president of Higher Education Strategy Associates in Canada, commented:

Most people in the rankings business think that the main problem with The Times is the opaque way it constructs its sample for its reputational rankings - a not-unimportant question given that reputation makes up 50% of the sample. Moreover, this year's switch from using raw reputation scores to using normalized Z-scores has really shaken things up at the top-end of the rankings by reducing the advantage held by really top universities - University of British Columbia (UBC) for instance, is now functionally equivalent to Harvard in the Peer Review score, which, no disrespect to UBC, is ludicrous. I'll be honest and say that at the moment the THES Rankings are an inferior product to the Shanghai Jiao Tong’s Academic Ranking of World Universities.

Academicians have also been critical of the use of the citation database, arguing that it undervalues institutions who excel in the social sciences. Ian Diamond, former chief executive of the Economic and Social Research Council and now vice-chancellor of the University of Aberdeen and a member of the THE editorial board, wrote to Times Higher Education in 2007, saying:

The use of a citation database must have an impact because such databases do not have as wide a cover of the social sciences (or arts and humanities) as the natural sciences. Hence the low position of the London School of Economics, caused primarily by its citations score, is a result not of the output of an outstanding institution but the database and the fact that the LSE does not have the counterweight of a large natural science base.

The most recent criticism of the old system came from Fred L. Bookstein, Horst Seidler, Martin Fieder and Georg Winckler in the journal Scientomentrics for the unreliability of QS's methods:

Several individual indicators from the Times Higher Education Survey (THES) data base the overall score, the reported staff-to-student ratio, and the peer ratings—demonstrate unacceptably high fluctuation from year to year. The inappropriateness of the summary tabulations for assessing the majority of the “top 200” universities would be apparent purely for reason of this obvious statistical instability regardless of other grounds of criticism. There are far too many anomalies in the change scores of the various indices for them to be of use in the course of university management.

Subject rankings reliability

The QS subject rankings have been dismissed as unreliable by some critics, including most notably Brian Leiter, who points out that programs which are known to be high quality, and which rank highly in the Blackwell rankings (e.g., the University of Pittsburgh) fare poorly in the QS ranking for reasons that are not at all clear [9] [10].

In other areas, QS has highly ranked programs which do not exist [11], as in Geography, in which 5 of the top 10 did not actually have graduate programs in geography. In Linguistics, the QS rankings are entirely out of step with the most recent NRC rankings; NRC ranks the doctoral programs of the University of Massachusetts Amherst and the University of Maryland at College Park among the very best in the U.S.A. (tied for #3 in S-Rank), while QS ranks them 29th and 49th in the world, respectively [12].

External links

• Quacquarelli Symonds official website
• Full rankings 2011/12
• QS Intelligence Unit Blog — blog on rankings and higher education from the team that compiles the QS World University Rankings
• Interactive maps comparing the QS World University Rankings with the Academic Ranking of World Universities and Times Higher Education rankings