_QS WORLD UNIVERSITY RANKINGS_ is an annual publication of university
Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) . Previously known as _THE-QS
World University Rankings _, the publisher had collaborated with
Times Higher Education magazine _ (_THE_) to publish its
international league tables from 2004 to 2009 before both started to
announce their own versions. QS then chose to still use the
pre-existing methodology while _Times Higher Education_ adopted a new
methodology. The QS system now comprises the global overall and
subject rankings (which name the world's top universities for the
study of 46 different subjects and five composite faculty areas),
alongside five independent regional tables (Asia, Latin America,
Emerging Europe and Central Asia, the Arab Region, and BRICS). It is
the only international ranking to have received International Ranking
Expert Group (IREG) approval, and is viewed as one of the most widely
read of its kind, along with _
Academic Ranking of World Universities
* 1 History
* 2 Global rankings
* 2.1 Overall
* 2.1.1 Methodology * 2.1.2 Commentary * 2.1.3 Results
* 2.2 Young Universities * 2.3 Faculties and subjects
* 3 Regional rankings and other tables
* 3.1 Asia
* 3.2 Latin America
* 4 QS Stars * 5 Notes * 6 References * 7 External links
A perceived need for an international ranking of universities for UK purposes 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,
Times Higher Education World University Rankings , in partnership
QS retained intellectual property in the prior rankings and the methodology used to compile them and continues to produce rankings based on that methodology, which are now called the QS World University Rankings.
_THE_ created a new methodology with Thomson Reuters, and published the first Times Higher Education World University Rankings in September 2010.
QS World University Rankings
Academic peer review
Based on an internal global academic survey
A measurement of teaching commitment
Citations per faculty
A measurement of research impact
Based on a survey on graduate employers
International student ratio
A measurement of the diversity of the student community
International staff ratio
A measurement of the diversity of the academic staff
QS publishes the rankings results in the world's media and has entered into partnerships with a number of outlets, including The Guardian in the United Kingdom, 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.
QS designed its rankings in order to assess performance according to what it believes to be key aspects of a university's mission: teaching, research, nurturing employability, and internationalisation.
ACADEMIC PEER REVIEW
This is the most controversial part of the methodology. Using a combination of purchased mailing lists and applications and suggestions, this survey asks active academicians across the world about the top universities in their specialist fields. QS has published the job titles and geographical distribution of the participants.
The 2016/17 rankings made use of responses from 74,651 people from over 140 nations for its Academic Reputation indicator, including votes from the previous five 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. The average respondent possesses 20.4 years of academic experience, while 81% of respondents have over a decade of experience in the academic world.
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 Employer Reputation Survey.
FACULTY STUDENT RATIO
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 proxy for teaching commitment, but QS has admitted that it is less than satisfactory.
CITATIONS PER FACULTY
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 has used data from Scopus, part of Elsevier. The total number of citations for a five-year period is divided by the number of academics 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.
However, since 2015, QS have made methodological enhancements
designed to remove the advantage institutions specializing in the
Natural Sciences or
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
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 – 37,781 responses from over 130 countries in the 2016 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 special interest to potential students, and acknowledging this was the impetus behind the inaugural QS Graduate Employability Rankings, published in November 2015.
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.
RECEPTION & INFLUENCE
In September 2015, both
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
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
Angel Calderon, Principal Advisor for Planning and Research at RMIT University and member of the QS Advisory Board, spoke positively of the QS University Rankings for Latin America, saying that the "QS Latin American University Rankings has become the annual international benchmark universities use to ascertain their relative standing in the region". He further stated that the 2016/17 edition of this ranking demonstrated improved stability.
Certain commentators have expressed concern about the use or misuse of survey data. However, QS's Intelligence Unit, responsible for compiling the rankings, state that the extent of the sample size used for their surveys mean that they are now "almost impossible to manipulate and very difficult for institutions to ‘game’". They also state that "over 62,000 academic respondents contributed to our 2013 academic results, four times more than in 2010. Independent academic reviews have confirmed these results to be more than 99% reliable". Furthermore, since 2013, the number of respondents to QS's Academic Reputation Survey has increased again. Their survey now makes use of nearly 75,000 academic peer reviews, making it "to date, the world’s largest aggregation of feeling in this community."
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.
However, QS state that no survey participant, academic or employer, is offered a financial incentive to respond, while no academic is able to vote for their own institution. This renders this particular criticism invalid, as it is based on two incorrect premises: (1) that academics are currently financially incentivized to participate, and (2) that conflicts of interests are created by academics being able to vote for their own institution.
Academicians previously criticized of the use of the citation database, arguing that it undervalues institutions which 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
However, in 2015, QS's introduction of faculty area normalization
ensured that QS's rankings no longer conferred an undue advantage or
disadvantage upon any institution based on their particular subject
specialisms. Correspondingly, the
London School of Economics
Since the split from _ Times Higher Education _ in 2009, further concerns about the methodology QS uses for its rankings have been brought up by several experts.
In October 2010, 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.
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."
However, 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.
The QS Subject Rankings have been dismissed as unreliable by Brian Leiter, who points out that programmes 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. However, the University of Pittsburgh was ranked in the number one position for Philosophy in the 2016 QS World University Rankings by Subject, while Rutgers University - another university that Leiter argued was given a strangely low ranking - was ranked number three in the world in the same ranking. An institution's score for each of QS's metrics can be found on the relevant ranking page, allowing those wishing to examine why an institution has finished in its final position to gain access to the scores that contributed to the overall rank.
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."
Simon Marginson, professor of higher education at University of
The most recent edition of the QS World University Rankings, published on June 8th 2017, was the fourteenth edition of the overall ranking. It confirmed Massachusetts Institute of Technology as the world's highest-ranked university for a sixth successive year. In doing so, MIT equalled Harvard University's record of consecutive number-one positions. 959 universities feature in the published tables, representing 84 countries.
QS World University Rankings
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
University of Cambridge 1 1 2 3 2 3 4 5
California Institute of Technology
University of Oxford
University College London
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich 18 18 13 12 12 9 8 10
Imperial College London
University of Chicago
* For the rankings before 2010, see THE-QS World University Rankings .
QS also releases the _QS Top 50 under 50 Ranking_ annually to rank
universities which have been established for under 50 years. These
institutions are judged based on their positions on the overall table
of the previous year. From 2015, QS's "'Top 50 Under 50" ranking was
expanded to include the world's top 100 institutions under 50 years of
age, while in 2017 it was again expanded to include the world's top
150 universities in this cohort. In 2017, the table was topped by
Nanyang Technological University of
FACULTIES AND SUBJECTS
QS also ranks universities by academic discipline organized into 5
The world's leading institution in 2017's tables in terms of most
world-leading positions is
QS World University Rankings
Art & Design Architecture & Built Environment Agriculture & Forestry Physics & Astronomy Accounting & Finance
English Language & Literature Chemical Engineering Biological Sciences Mathematics Business & Management
History Civil & Structural Engineering Dentistry Environmental Sciences Communication & Media Studies
Linguistics Computer Science & Information Systems Medicine Earth & Marine Sciences Development Studies
Modern Languages Electrical & Electronic Engineering Nursing Chemistry Economics & Econometrics
Philosophy Mechanical, Aeronautical & Manufacturing Engineering Pharmacy & Pharmacology Materials Sciences Education
Performing Arts Mineral and Mining Engineering Psychology
Politics & International Studies
Theology, Divinity, and Religious Studies
Anatomy & Physiology
Statistics & Operational Research
Hospitality & Leisure Management
Social Policy in doing so, the city became the first to take the number-one position from Paris. The 2017 edition was also the first one to see the introduction of student opinion as a contributory indicator.
QS Best Student Cities — Top 10 CITY 2014 2015 2016 2017
QS also offers universities an auditing service that provides in-depth information about institutional strengths and weaknesses. 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. The minimum score that a university can receive is one star, while truly exceptional world-leading universities can receive '5*+', or 'Five Star Plus', status. The QS Stars audit process evaluates universities according to 50 different indicators. By 2016, 16 different universities worldwide had been awarded the maximum possible Five Star Plus rating.
QS Stars ratings are derived from scores on eleven criteria. Five of these are mandatory, and institutions must choose two of four additional optional categories . They are:
* Research Quality
* Teaching Quality
* Graduate Employability
* University Infrastructure
* Online/Distance learning
* Social Responsibility
Stars is an evaluation system, not a ranking. About 100 institutions had opted for the Stars evaluation as of early 2013. In 2012, fees to participate in this program were $9850 for the initial audit and an annual license fee of $6850.
* ^ _A_ _B_ _C_ _D_ _E_ Order shown in accordance with the latest result. * ^ The term "Natural Sciences" here actually refers to physical sciences since life sciences are also a branch of natural sciences .
* ^ _A_ _B_ "Asian University Rankings - QS Asian University
Rankings vs. QS World University Rankings™". The methodology differs
somewhat from that used for the QS World University Rankings...
* ^ "IREG Ranking Audit". _IREG Observatory on Academic Ranking and
Excellence_. International Ranking Expert Group (IREG). Retrieved 14
* ^ "University rankings: which world university rankings should we
trust?". The Telegraph. 2015. Retrieved 27 January 2015. It is a
remarkably stable list, relying on long-term factors such as the
number of Nobel Prize-winners a university has produced, and number of
articles published in Nature and Science journals. But with this
narrow focus comes drawbacks. China's priority was for its
universities to "catch up" on hard scientific research. So if you're
looking for raw research power, it's the list for you. If you're a
humanities student, or more interested in teaching quality? Not so
* ^ Ariel Zirulnick. "New world university ranking puts Harvard
back on top". The Christian Science Monitor. Those two, as well as
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, produce the most influential
international university rankings out there
* ^ Indira Samarasekera & Carl Amrhein. "Top schools don\'t always
get top marks". The Edmonton Journal. Archived from the original on
October 3, 2010. There are currently three major international
rankings that receive widespread commentary: The Academic World
Ranking of Universities, the
QS World University Rankings