QS Ranking Methodologies
Item Type info:eu-repo/semantics/conferenceObject
Authors Newman, Janson
Publisher Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC) Rights info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Download date 15/03/2022 02:03:00
Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10757/623345
“La Importancia de los Rankings Universitarios Globales”
19 de abril de 2018
3 2
CAREER
DEVELOPMENT EDUCATIONAL
ACHIEVEMENT and
INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY
by fostering
POTENTIAL
to achieve their
33 MOTIVATED
PEOPLE
To enable around the
34
QS Global 250 Business
Schools
QS EMBA Rankings Distance/Online QS
MBA Rankings
CLASSIFICATIONS
34 BY REGION BY SUBJECT BY CONTEXT BY ASPECT BY TYPE
FOCUSED RANKINGS
MUCH MORE THAN JUST RANKINGS
•TU.com
•Branding
•QS Star
•QS Move In
•Events & Fairs
•QS Enrolment Solution
•Market Insight
•Move On
•QS Stars
• QS Stars
• QS
Analytics
• Consulting
Leadershi
p International office
Marketing
Admissions
36
IDENTITY VS IMAGE
37
IMPACTPORTFOLIO
38
POLICY INFLUENCE
38
GALLERY
Dominic Barton Managing Director McKinsey & Company 2009-present
Narendra Modi Prime Minister India
2004-present
Pranab Mukherjee President
India
2012-2017
Sheikh Mohamed
Ruler of Dubai
2006-present
40
QS
3,865
THE
7,817
WEB
31,005
ARWU
42,143
ALEXA TRAFFIC RANKING
UPDATED 16.04.2018
41
42
DAVID EASTWOOD
Vice-Chancellor
University of Birmingham 2009-present
Though of course we recognize limitations of all league table methodologies, we greatly value QS for the clarity and quality of the data you use and for the stability which enables us to see and understand trends over time.
This, we think, gives your rankings a comparative advantage and considerable authority.
42
BORIS JOHNSON
Mayor of London 2008-2016These rankings consolidate London’s position as the education capital of the world. Nowhere else will you find such a critical mass of top universities within just a few miles of each
other, all providing an excellent education and producing graduates who go on to be leaders in their fields. I’m proud to say that London
universities are at the forefront of teaching and research
43
44
Academic performance with league table
Academic performance without league table
Broad based league table
“Multidimensional” ranking Employability based league table Web presence league table
Retroactive
Environmental Focus Innovation Focus
GLOBAL UNIVERSITY RANKINGS
’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12 ’13 ’14 ’15 ’16 1 ARWU/Shanghai
2 Webometrics
3 QS
4 4icu
5 NTU/HEEACT
6 Leiden
7 URAP
8 SCImago R R R R R R R
9 THE
10 Trendence/Emerging
11 RUR R R R
12 U-Multirank
13 UI GreenMetric E E E E E
14 CWUR
15 Youth Incorporated
16 nature INDEX
17 RankPro
18 US News
19 Reuters I I
4 4
Source: Illuminate Consulting Group R
E I
1 2 3 4 5 6
SPOT THE DIFFERENCE
45
50 0 98 98 0 0
ARWU QS THE
Institutions Featured
2014 2015 net increase 2016 net increase 2017 net increase
330
(66%)Institutions featured in the top 500 of all three rankings
367 (73%) QS/ARWU 389 (78%) QS/THE 370 (74%) ARWU/THE
Correlations
Specific Ranks Presented
8.6
4.2
7.6
ARWU QS THE
Volatility in Top 100
18 21 17
27 36
26
ARWU QS THE
Countries in Range
Top 100 Top 500
20%
ARWU
41%
QS
25%
THE
THE QS
ARWU
0.72 0.67
QS
0.81
46
46
GEORGE E.P. BOX
“Accidental Statistician”
1919-2013
Essentially, all models
are wrong, but
some are useful
OUR APPROACH
47
WORLD CLASS UNIVERSITY
A UNIQUE LENS QS the only global ranking
authority to consider it Central to the life goals of most prospective students
An essential inclusion in
every QS assessment
4 8
Consistent, simple methodology
Stable results Discipline independent Language independent
Low dependence on self-reporting
49
ACADEMIC REPUTATION
FACULTY STUDENT
EMPLOYER REPUTATION
INT’L STUDENTS
INT’L FACULTY CITATIONS
PER FACULTY
powered by
50
METHODOLOGY
QS World University Rankings
50
Scopus Data 20%
Surveys Data 50%
Submission 30%
40%
10%
20%
20%
5%
5%
Academic Reputation
Employer Reputation Citations per Faculty from
Scopus
Faculty Student Ratio Proportion of International
Students
Proportion of International Faculty
Indicators
51
6
SIX YEAR CITATION WINDOW
50:50
REBALANCED EMPLOYER INDICATOR
46
UNIVERSITIES NEWLY RANKED
801-
ADJUSTED PRESENTED
RANGES
2018
NEW TIMING AND LABELLING
1 2 3 4 5
52
2018 EDITION
QS World University Rankings
52
1.2 m+
papers indexed by the the Scopus/Elsevier bibliometric database were analysed
70,000+
Academic Responses
40,000+
Employers’ Responses
4,300+
Institutions were considered
959
Overall ranked.53
54
54
METHODOLOGY
55
INSTITUTIONAL DATA
56
56
FACULTY STUDENT
INT’L STUDENTS
INT’L
FACULTY
57
RESEARCH
58
58
CITATIONS PER FACULTY
powered by
Papers
Five years 2012 – 2016
59
2019 CYCLE – RESEARCH PUBLICATION
Citations
Six years
2012 - 2017
60
60
NORMALIZATION
62
NORMALIZATION
CITATIONS PER FACULTY
63
/
64
64
SURVEY DATA
65
ACADEMIC
REPUTATION EMPLOYER
REPUTATION
66
QS GLOBAL ACADEMIC SURVEY
Personal Details
& Job Classification
• Name
• Institution
• Department
• Job Title & Classification
• Years in Academia
Knowledge Specification
•Country they have most familiarity with.
•Region – regional knowledge from three supersets:
• Americas;
• Asia, Australia & New Zealand;
• Europe, Middle East & Africa
•Broad Subject Area: one or more in which they consider their expertise is.
• Arts & Humanities
• Engineering & Technology
• Life Sciences & Medicine
• Natural Sciences
• Social Sciences.
•Specific Subject:
respondents are asked to select up to two specific subjects (fields) that best define their academic expertise
Top Institutions
•Domestic: Respondents are asked to identify up to ten domestic institutions they consider best for research in each of the Broad Subject Areas selected as areas of expertise.
•International: Respondents are asked to identify up to thirty international
institutions they consider best for research in each of the Broad Subject Areas selected as areas of expertise.
• The list consists solely of institutions from the region(s) with which they express familiarity
• Own institution, if it would otherwise be included, is excluded from the presented lists.
Additional Information
• Used to gather additional information from
respondents, such a:
• Feedback on institutions they expected to choose as strong in the subject areas, but didn’t find
• Familiarity with MOOCs
• Exciting research developments recently.
67
85:15
International : domestic
68
QS GLOBAL EMPLOYER SURVEY
Personal Details
& Job Classification
• Name
• Company and Size
• Industry
• Department
• Job Title
• Extent of recruitment responsibilities.
Knowledge Specification
•Country they have most familiarity with.
•Region – regional knowledge (US and Canada, Latin America, Western and
Northern Europe, Central and Eastern Europe, Middle East and Africa, Asia-Australia and New Zealand)
Top Institutions
•Domestic: Respondents are asked to identify up to ten domestic universities they consider producing the best graduates.
•International: Respondents are asked to identify up to thirty international universities they consider producing the best graduates.
• Which disciplines and Engineering specializations does the company prefer to recruit from.
Additional Information
• Feedback on universities they expected to choose, but didn’t find.
• Questions related to Top Business Schools and Recruitment details from MBA hires.
69
50:50
International : domestic
70
EXTENDED REACH BY REGION
70
1,635
UNIVERSITIES
7 1
Selina Griffin
Rankings Manager
72
WUR VS LATIN AMERICA
72
LATIN AMERICA - METHODOLOGY
73
74
74
STAFF WITH PHD
10%
75
PAPERS PER FACULTY
5%
76
76
CITATIONS PER PAPER
10%
77
WEB IMPACT
5%
7 8
Highlights
REGIONAL TRENDS IN RANKED LATIN AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS
Country
Number of ranked institutions
Brazil 83
Mexico 65
Colombia 53
Chile 40
Argentina 39
Peru 18
Ecuador 12
Dominican Republic 11
Venezuela 9
Panama 7
Country
Number of ranked institutions
Bolivia 6
Cuba 6
Costa Rica 6
El Salvador 6
Paraguay 5
Uruguay 4
Puerto Rico 4
Honduras 4
Guatemala 4
Nicaragua 3
80
REGIONAL TRENDS IN RANKED LATIN AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS
PERU
Institution
2018 Rank
2017 Rank
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú 25 21 Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia 68 74 Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos 82 70 Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería Peru 129= 172 Universidad Nacional Agraria la Molina 151-160 106
Universidad del Pacifico 151-160 171-180
Universidad de Lima 171-180 148
Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas* 181-190 191-200
Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola 301-400 251-300 Universidad Nacional del Altiplano 301-400 301+
Universidad Privada del Norte* 301-400 301+
REGIONAL TRENDS IN RANKED LATIN AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS
PERU
Institution 2018
Rank 2017
Rank Chang e
PUCP - Pontificia Universidad Católica de Perú 25 21 -4
Universidad Cayetano Heredia 68 74 +6
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos 82 70 -12 Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería Peru 129 171-180 +>2
bands
Universidad del Pacifico 151-160 171-180 +2 bands
Universidad Agraria La Molina 151-160 106 ->40
Universidad de Lima 171-180 148 -3 bands
Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas* 181-190 191-200 +1 band Universidad San Martín de Porres 251-300 161-170 -5 bands Universidad Nacional del Altiplano 301-400 301+
Universidad Privada del Norte* 301-400 301+
Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola 301-400 251-300 -1 band
82
• Largely increases in Employer Reputation.
• Faculty : Student ratio is varied across the board with some universities seeing improvements and some falling in this indicator but the data set is not complete with some universities showing old data
• Citations per Paper is poor but most universities have increased in Papers Per Faculty
• Falls in Staff with PhD
REGIONAL TRENDS IN RANKED LATIN AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS
PERU
8 3
2018 2017 Institution Name
Country/ TerritoryRANK RANK
rank display rank display2 institution country code
1
3PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILE
CL2
2UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE CAMPINAS (UNICAMP)
BR3
1UNIVERSIDADE DE SÃO PAULO (USP)
BR4
4UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO (UNAM)
MX5
7TECNOLÓGICO DE MONTERREY (ITESM)
MX6
6UNIVERSIDAD DE CHILE
CL7
5UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO RIO DE JANEIRO
BR8
8UNIVERSIDAD DE LOS ANDES COLOMBIA
CO9
11UNIVERSIDAD DE BUENOS AIRES
AR10
12UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL PAULISTA "JÚLIO DE MESQUITA FILHO"
BR8 4
SUBJECT RANKINGS METHODOLOGY
A typical h-index (Hirsch index or Hirsch number) for an academic in Physics will be far higher than that of someone in Sociology, for example. However, when working in a single discipline where differing
characteristics by discipline are eliminated, they are more effective and bias is broadly eliminated.
The h-index calculation is based on Scopus dataset which can only be classified by discipline at a journal, rather than article, level. In order to balance for the effects of this and focus on specialists, two h-indices are calculated:
• (h1) for all the papers that are attributable to the given subject
• (h2) for the papers that are only attributable to that subject
These are aggregated with double weight given to h2. The results are then scaled and normalized using the same methods applied to the other indicators.
86
SUBJECT SENSITIVE WEIGHTINGS
ARTS & HUMANITIES ANTHROPOLOGY ARCHAEOLOGY ARCHITECTURE ART & DESIGN ENGLISH HISTORY LINGUISTICS LANGUAGES PERFORMING ARTS PHILOSOPHY THEOLOGY ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER SCIENCE CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CIVIL ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING MECHANICAL ENGINEERING MINING ENGINEERING LIFE SCIENCES & MEDICINE AGRICULTURE ANATOMY BIOLOGY DENTISTRY MEDICINE NURSING PHARMACY PSYCHOLOGY VETERINARY SCIENCE NATURAL SCIENCES CHEMISTRY EARTH SCIENCES ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES GEOGRAPHY MATHEMATICS MATERIALS SCIENCE PHYSICS SOCIAL SCIENCES & MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING & FINANCE BUSINESS COMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT STUDIES ECONOMICS EDUCATION HOSPITALITY LAW POLITICS SOCIAL POLICY SOCIOLOGY SPORT STATISTICS
ACADEMIC EMPLOYER CITATIONS H
88
PRESENCE IN 56 COUNTRIES
CORE CRITERIA
TEACHING
6 indicators
150
EMPLOYABILI
3 indicators
TY
150
RESEARCH
3 indicators
150
INTERNATIONAL
7 indicators
150
EMPLOYTY
1000
FACILITIES
6 indicators
100
ONLINE/
DISTANCE
6 indicators
100
SUBJECT RANKING
2 indicators
200
PROGRAM STRENGTH
7 indicators
150
INCLUSIVENES
4 indicators
S
50
SOCIAL RESPONSABILI
4 indicators
TY
50
INNOVATION
4 indicators
50
CULTURE
4 indicators
50
Detailed methodology awards 1,000 points across 51 indicators in up to
12 categories
LEARNING
ENVIRONMEN
CHOOSE ONE
T
ADVANCED CRITERIA
CHOOSE TWO
SPECIALIS
T CRITERIA
Thank you!
CONTÁCTENOS
Twitter:
@worlduniranking
Facebook:
QSIntelligenceUnit
LinkedIn:
QS Quacquarelli Symonds.
Blog RSS:
QSIU Blog Web:
www.iu.qs.com
