The 2012 Applicant Survey attracted more than 4,500 prospective MBA applicants. The results provide detailed insight into the status, attitudes, goals and ambitions of MBA applicants worldwide and how they, and the employment and education markets for young professionals, are changing. This survey allows valuable insight into the changing trends of worldwide MBA applicants.
Global motivations for taking an MBA are still dominated by the desire for career progression and to learn new skills, followed by attaining a leadership position. However, as we delve into regional responses, the results draw very interesting contrasts. The older demographic of respondents to this year’s survey selected fewer options as they are likely to have a clearer picture of why they want to gain an MBA. Continue Reading
QS attended the 2012 edition of the Going Global International Education Conference organised by the British Council. Among others, this was a good occasion for several QSIU analysts to get further in touch with universities and their leaders in a more practical way, beyond rankings figures.
After opening addresses from Dr Jo Beall and Rt Hon. Dr Vince Cable, the conference in London continued with a talk from Professor Homi Bhabha, who raised some major questions and challenges, setting the agenda for debate over the following two days. The second session of the day was devoted to the necessity of institutions to welcome change and transformation, in order to respond to the needs of new generations. Ben Wildavsky presented a number of emerging models that point the way to change, whether driven by technology or by changing notions of how to serve students.
Parallel sessions were taking place during the following days of the conference, some with specific regional focus (I attended the Eastern Europe and Central Asia one and found it very interesting) and others relating to global problems such as the changing role of the university, employability or internationalisation. The diversity of speakers and their experience in higher education has delivered knowledge and expertise in a concentrated manner to all those attending. But if you did not have the chance to be there, you can access videos and presentations from the 2012 Going Global Conference here
by Martin Juno
Broadly speaking, higher education systems range from those relaying almost entirely on public funding to those mainly supported by private sources. Of course, there are a variety of options between those extreme points and most countries try mixed schemes.
Which system provides the better outcomes in terms of university teaching and research quality?
An interesting exercise that may provide a general answer to this question is to compare the relative performance of institutions operating in different funding environments. In order to conduct this analysis we used the higher education finance indicators provided by UNESCO (available here) , establishing four range groups (or quartiles) of public spending on tertiary education as a proportion of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the countries . Then the top 400 QS World University Rankings (QSWUR) institutions – available on topuniversities.com- were distributed among each spending level quartile and the average scores for every group were calculated.
The performance of Eastern European and Central Asian universities in the 2011 edition of the QS World University Rankings® is a fascinating mixture of stability and change. While the big hitters are all present, many have slid down the table. However this is offset somewhat by the ascent of a number of younger institutions, some of which are making their very first appearance in the QS World University Rankings®.
The total number of universities from the region in the top 600 has increased to 26 from 23 last year and 20 in 2009. As in the previous two editions, universities from the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Slovenia are included. Institutions from Belarus and Croatia also make the top 600 this year. Romania however leaves the group, though it is represented outside of the top 600, as are Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia and Ukraine.
As has been the case for the previous few years, Lomonosov Moscow State University (112) leads the pack, followed Saint Petersburg State University (251) and the Czech Republic’s venerable Charles University (276). All three have dropped this year, with LMSU’s ascent over the past few years arrested. However, despite falling out of the top 100 it still remains the region’s sole representation in the top 200. Its continuing success can largely be ascribed to its exceptional faculty student ratio – if this was the only indicator, than LMSU would be in 7th place. Strong student faculty ratios are notable across the region. Bauman Moscow State Technical University (379) joins its fellow Muscovite institution in the top ten in this criterion, and a total of 15 universities make the top 200 (seven of which are in the top 50). In fact, only four universities in the region rank lower in this indicator than they do overall, suggesting that these strong ratios are a large factor in these universities’ standings (faculty student ratios account for 20% of a university’s total score). The aforementioned BMSTU is one of six new entries from the region in the top 600. Leading the pack in 372nd is the 20 year-old Central European University (Hungary). This graduate-focused institution, which only has around 1,500 students on its books, is extremely wealthy (financier George Soros, one of the world’s richest men, is one its founders and chief benefactors) so it is likely that we will be seeing more of it in future rankings. Continue Reading