As we prepare for the launch of the 2015/2016 rankings and build the presentations for our launch event on September 15, it seemed a good idea to share last year's excitement. Note slide 40 where we mention proposed changes for the future which have now been implemented.
4. Trusted.Independent.Global.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENT
GROWTH
4 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Worldwide
OECD
G20 countries
Europe
North America
Oceania
Source: OECD and UNESCO Institute for Statistics for most data on non-OECD countries.
2.1m
4.5m
12. Trusted.Independent.Global.
Rankings have many faults and do
not adequately describe universities
and cannot show whether one
institution is better than another…
…but I am very happy when
Cambridge is rated as the top
university in the world
12
ALISON RICHARD
Former Vice-Chancellor
University of Cambridge
17. Trusted.Independent.Global.
2014-2015: TOP 20
1 MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (MIT) 1
2= UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE 2
2= IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON 3
4 HARVARD UNIVERSITY 4
5= UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD 5
5= UCL (UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON) 6
7 STANFORD UNIVERSITY 7
8 CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (CALTECH) 8
9 PRINCETON UNIVERSITY 9
10 YALE UNIVERSITY 10
10 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 11
12 ETH ZURICH (SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY) 12
13 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 13
14= COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 14
14= JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY 15
16 KING'S COLLEGE LONDON (KCL) 16
17= UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH 17
17= ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE FÉDÉRALE DE LAUSANNE (EPFL) 18
19 CORNELL UNIVERSITY 19
20 UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO 20
18. Trusted.Independent.Global.
These 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
18 BORIS JOHNSON
Mayor of London
20. Trusted.Independent.Global.
The list is the origin of
culture…
How does one attempt to
grasp the incomprehensible?
Through lists.
20 UMBERTO ECO
Essayist, Philosopher & Novelist
26. Trusted.Independent.Global.
FASTEST CLIMBERS 2009-2014
1 MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (MIT) 89%
2 SUNGKYUNKWAN UNIVERSITY 61%
3 ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE FÉDÉRALE DE LAUSANNE (EPFL) 60%
4 STANFORD UNIVERSITY 56%
5 LUDWIG-MAXIMILIANS-UNIVERSITÄT MÜNCHEN 47%
6 NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY (NTU) 47%
7 KOREA UNIVERSITY 45%
8 ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY 42%
9 QUEEN MARY, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON (QMUL) 40%
10 ETH ZURICH (SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY) 40%
40. Trusted.Independent.Global.
FACULTY LEVEL NORMALISATION
Overcomes oddities of field based normalisation
Corrects for medical bias
Presents language challenge
12 months of engagement, modelling and
feedback
Advisory Board
Broader test groups
Community at large
Potential introduction for 2015
Applies only to bibliometric indicators
Ladies and gentlemen… [insert appropriate introduction]
International university rankings have been around almost a decade and are amongst the most anticipated media releases in international higher education. Since their inception in 2003, the number of students studying outside their home country has increased by over a million and the ways in which they communicate and research study decisions bears little resemblance now to what it did then. To put things in perspective, Facebook was launched in 2004, YouTube in 2005 and Twitter in 2006. These are now central tools, amongst others, being used by institutions to get their messages to prospective international students.
From the students’ perspective, they are beset on all sides by information from institutions trying to attract them to their university whilst what they need is an independent voice a picture on the offered opportunity that is not compiled by the organisation offering, and in some cases profiting from, that opportunity.
Rankings go some way to assist that, and despite their limitations, they are a significant force for performance improvement in higher education world wide, but they are limited. Limited by the global availability of data which needs to be there for the majority of institutions in order to compile a ranking. This makes it impossible to use many good measures of student experience or facilities and inevitably results in international university rankings placing a particularly heavy emphasis on research.
For a prospective international student today, this makes them interesting, but insufficient.
QS Stars participants are now based in 24 countries around the world and over 100 institutions are now taking part including King’s College London, KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden, Queensland University of Technology, Tec de Monterrey and many others. In Taiwan, National Chengchi University is the first QS Stars participant.
Also mean’s that around 10% of international students are studying at the world’s top 0.5% of universities
Yet league tables will typically leave much of what makes a university great, invisible beneath the surface – rather than invalidating the league table concept this calls out for a multiplication in the number and variety of models
Also mean’s that around 10% of international students are studying at the world’s top 0.5% of universities
Also mean’s that around 10% of international students are studying at the world’s top 0.5% of universities
The perceived truth of the results rather than the academic rigour of the methodology is the principal lens for validity of a ranking
LET’S FACE IT… Those institutions that value rankings tend to care about them for two key puproses… those presenting a rose tinted view (or those in which they perform the best)…
…and those valued by a particular target audience
Rankings are gloriously simple and this what makes them widely appealing, controversial and print friendly. They represent a fixed moment in time and a limited lens on institutional performance. They are essential for developing a broad view but limited when a finer tuned perspective is required. Ultimately they fail in a number of key ways:
Performance in rankings is only in the context of the performance of others – if an institution genuinely improves it only ascends in the rankings if it does so at a faster pace than those adjacent to it
Many sensible measures of institutional quality cannot be included since the cooperation of all institutions in gathering the needful data cannot be assured
Comprehensive universities generally are at an advantage as, in some cases, are larger ones
The differing typologies of institutions are difficult to capture and portray
A complementary detailed view for the institutions willing to present a more detailed picture of their qualities is a, perhaps natural, next step.
Thank you and for more information on QS Stars, please contact the QS Intelligence Unit directly, or Mandy Mok in our Singapore office.