There will always be critics of rankings but there are also supporters. This welcome message from the Rector of the University of Barcelona, sent in writing yesterday, lifted our Monday morning.
So, if you appreciate what we do, please follow the example and let us know.
London 16th May 2013: QS Quacquarelli Symonds is the first compiler of global and regional university rankings to receive the “IREG Approved”* label for three of its research outputs.
The International Ranking Expert Group (IREG) Executive Committee, at its meeting in Warsaw on 15th May 2013, decided to grant to QS the rights to use the “IREG Approved” label in relation to the following three rankings: QS World University Rankings, QS University Rankings: Asia, and QS University Rankings: Latin America.
The decision has come at the end of a thorough audit** process and the approval will last until 31 December 2016.
IREG Observatory on Academic Ranking and Excellence, opens its audit procedure for national, regional and global university academic rankings, the IREG Ranking Audit, on a voluntary basis.
The board exists to advise QS on any aspect of university rankings, including the methods used to produce them, possible new rankings, and the effect and impact of rankings around the world.
It is convened by Martin Ince , a British science and education journalist who has been involved in the QS Rankings since 2004. He was formerly deputy editor of the Times Higher Education Supplement and advises universities in Europe and Asia on rankings issues.
Its other members include:
Angel Calderon, principal advisor on planning and research at RMIT University, Australia.
Monique Canto-Sperber, president of Paris Science etLettres, former director of the EcoleNormaleSuperieure, Paris.
Maria Elisa Celis, director general of the educational service, Unam, the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
Bhaskar Das, president of BCCL, publisher of the Times of India.
Kevin Downing, consultant to QS and director of knowledge, enterprise and analysis, City University of Hong Kong.
Julio C. Durand, Registrar, Universidad Austral, Buenos Aires, Argentina
AmilcarFalcao, vice rector for research and professor of pharmacology, University of Coimbra, Portugal
Peter Halligan, dean of strategic futures and interdisciplinary studies, Cardiff University, Wales.
EdouardHousson, historian and director general of ESCP Europe, the multinational European business school.
Santiago Iniguez de Onzono, president of IE University, Madrid.
Alan Kantrow, education consultant based near Boston, Massachusetts
Nasser Khalili, associate dean (research), faculty of engineering, University of New South Wales, Australia
Robert Morse, editor of the US News and World Report “Best Colleges,” the world’s most prestigious national ranking of universities. US News also publishes the QS World University Rankings in the US.
Hajime Nishitani, law academic and deputy vice president of Hiroshima University, Japan.
John O’Leary, UK education journalist, editor of the Times Good University Guide, formerly editor of THES and education editor of The Times.
Nunzio Quacquarelli, managing director of QS.
Seeram Ramakrishna, vice president for research strategy, National University of Singapore
Emma Rasiel, associate professor of practice at Duke University, US.
Tony Sheil, deputy director of research policy, Griffith University, Australia
Christina Slade, vice chancellor of Bath Spa University, UK.
Teng Jin-Guang, chair professor of structural engineering, Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Leandro Tessler, former director of international relations, Unicamp, Brazil
Paul Thurman , Clinical Professor, Columbia University, Mailman School for Public Health, and School of International and Public Affairs
Tsui Lap-Chee, geneticist and president and vice-chancellor of the University of Hong Kong.
Paul Wellings, vice chancellor of Wollongong University, Australia
Jerry (Yoram) Wind, professor at Wharton Business School, US, and academic director of the Wharton Fellow Program.
Zhou Zhong, associate professor of higher education, Tsinghua University, Beijing
[M1]Link to www.martinince.eu
With this week’s release of the 2013 QS World University Rankings by Subject, we produced a series of videos, which explain in a somewhat unusual manner, the methodology behind compiling our Subject Rankings.
The first of the series presents the Top 10 Universities in Computer Science and gives a sneak peek of how we ‘really’ come up with our results!
The Erasmus programme, in my opinion, is one of the great success stories of the European Union for the undisputed benefits it provides to the society investing in Europe’s youth, investing in the future.
Personally if I hadn’t received an Erasmus Placement grant, now I couldn’t be in London working as an intern for one of the most important enterprise in the educational field like QS, which shares with the Erasmus programme the same mission of helping individuals fulfill their potential through fostering international mobility, educational achievement and career development. I am really grateful for this awesome opportunity that gives me the chance to live in London, a melting pot of different cultures and traditions, and also work in a multicultural environment with colleagues from all over the world.
Today sees the release of the 2013 QS World University Rankings by Subject.
This year the work has been extended to address 30 subjects with the addition of Agriculture & Forestry. Developments don’t stop there though, stronger survey responses, refined analysis and the introduction of a score based on h-index have led to the most fascinating set of results yet.
In compiling the subject rankings perhaps the biggest challenge is overcoming what might be termed the “Princeton Law School” effect. Where highly reputed universities in the round are found to be strong in disciplines which they are not, or in some cases do not cover at all.
The QS World University Rankings® is amongst the most established, respected and popular of its kind. Yet it relies heavily on the aggregated outcomes of two major international surveys. Occasionally the validity of those surveys, or indeed the notion of using surveys at all, is called into question and today, it seems is one of those times.
The individual response of a single academic is, by its very nature, subjective, although perhaps no more so than a single citation; but gather 46,000 of them and we’re really on to something. The QS academic reputation measure is amongst the most stable of our measures, it is discipline independent and the survey is conducted in 13 languages. The quality control and compilation methodology is complex, balancing geographical and discipline patterns and emphasising international renown. The method is described in more detail here. All measures so far put forward to compare global universities have their drawbacks, reflecting a historical view is perhaps one of the most commonly put to us here, but in actuality our top 100 universities are getting younger and institutions under 30 years old are among those to shine and the measure overcomes language and discipline biases inherent in bibliometric analysis.
The Academic Reputation Index is an approach to international university evaluation that, in concert with the Employer Reputation Index, is the defining feature which sets the QS World University Rankings® clearly apart from any other.
Furthermore, both indices are also vital components of our regional rankings projects, the QS Stars rating system and other QS assessments.
By inviting institutions to supply us with contact details we provide an opportunity to actively contribute to enhance quantity and quality of these exercises.
In this spirit we have also designed sign-up facilities for any stakeholders who would like to register their interest in participating in the Academic and Employer survey.
We will then forward the survey link to you.
Remarkably, since the process was launched in 2010, over 20,000 faculty members and over 6,000 employers volunteered to participate in respective surveys.
Over the past decade, annually published world university rankings have captured the attention of university managers, policy makers, employers, academics and the wider public. Many national governments have implemented neoliberal reforms in higher education and increased the autonomy of their universities to enhance international competitiveness. Several universities have adjusted their strategic plans to climb up the ranks, while fee-paying international students often consult such league tables as a guide of where they can expect to receive ‘value for money’.