At the QS World University Rankings^®, we are always keen to see how other people go about looking at universities. This month has been notable for the appearance of the Leiden ranking, which offers a highly specific view of academic excellence as expressed through citations.

Paul Wouters, director of CWTS at Leiden and director of the Leiden ranking, says that it uses a methodology which allows research at institutions of radically different size and subject mix to be compared fairly. It is also intended to compensate for the different characteristics of English and non-English publishing, and for the potential distorting effects of a few much-cited outlier papers. We asked Paul how the Leiden Ranking fits into the world ecology of university rankings, especially the HEEACT and Shanghai rankings, which are also designed to look at high-level research performance.

He said: “There are a number of fundamental differences. Most rankings combine performance on very different dimensions in a single number, in particular educational performance and scientific performance. HEEACT is similar to our ranking in that it focuses on scientific performance. Another issue is that Shanghai and HEEACT are strongly size-dependent. Larger universities will almost always outperform smaller ones in these rankings.” The Leiden Ranking focuses on the average performance of a university for each of the publications it produces. This means that the large differences in citation behaviour between scientific fields are corrected for.

Next, we asked, how does the system cope with the different publishing cultures of different subjects? Paul replied: “We apply a correction for the differences between citation behaviour in different scientific fields. In addition, our ranking uses fractional counting indicators. Publications co-authored by multiple universities are assigned fractionally to each of the universities involved. In the full counting approach used by most rankings, co-authored publications are fully assigned to each university involved, causing double counting of these publications.

The use of fractional counting is another way of making fields with different publication and citation cultures more comparable.” Paul says that when the results came in, his team’s biggest surprise was the difference which the fractional counting approach makes. Universities with a strong medical orientation tend to fall in a ranking where fractional counting is used, while universities with a technical focus do better. In the Netherlands, for instance, differences between universities that are apparent using the full counting approach disappear almost completely with fractional counting.

The Leiden methodology agrees with its competitors about the excellence of the top US universities. It has 42 of them in its top 50, led by MIT, Princeton and Harvard. Only two non-US universities make it into the top 20: EPFL and ETH, the Francophone and German-speaking federal institutions of Switzerland, at 12 and 18 respectively.

Cambridge, top in the QS ranking, appears here in 31st place. It is one of four UK institutions in the top 50 along with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (33), Oxford (36), and Durham (42). The only other non-US institutions in the top 50 are the Weizmann Institute (Israel) at 25 and the Technical University of Denmark at 45. The ranking shows the top 500 universities, with Moscow and St Petersburg in the last two places.

The table also shows the volume of publications for each institution found in the Web of Science database and used for the ranking. The total among the top 50 ranges from 33511 for Harvard to 1652 for the LSHTM. The ranking is at www.leidenranking.com, and CWTS is at www.cwts.nl.

University vice-chancellors and presidents have put forward all sorts of measures that would improve their institution’s standing in rankings – from academic prizes to community projects and student exchanges. But the rector of the University of Santo Tomas (UST), in Manila, came up with a truly unique proposal at the QS-APPLE conference, which his institution hosted.

Perhaps only half jokingly, he suggested that the number of saints produced by a university should be adopted as a measure in the QS World University Rankings^®. Not surprisingly, UST, the largest single-campus Catholic university in the world and the oldest university in Asia, would do extremely well in the canonisation table.

Father Rolando De la Rosa said the university had 30 saints to its name, as well as several presidents and prime ministers of the Philippines – “the better ones,” according to Fr De la Rosa. Further research suggests that most universities are shamefully ignorant of their tally of saints, if indeed they have any, possibly because they had not expected them to become an indicator in rankings. No doubt, tenuous links to long-forgotten saints will soon be discovered at universities all around the world if Fr De la Rosa’s idea catches on.

Oxford should do well, laying claim to at least a dozen saints and martyrs, including Thomas of Hereford, who was Chancellor of the university in the 13th century, when he was said to have “applied firm discipline and confiscated weapons”, as well as being generous to poor students. But can any university rival UST?

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.

Excluded countries: data not available for Saudi Arabia, Taiwan and China.
Sources: UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2000-2010)

Although this analysis is obviously limited -and arguably more complex research is required in order to arrive to conclusive remarks- the exercise provides interesting results.

The first finding is that university quality is not necessarily correlated with the proportion of public funding sources . Actually, overall QSWUR average scores are similar for universities coming from different higher education finance models. For instance, institutions from countries with the lowest GDP proportion of public spending on higher education (quartile 1) have an average score of 51.6, while those from the highest level of expenditure (quartile 4) obtain 51.5 points. Nevertheless, among the group of countries that have an intermediate level of public funding as percentage of GDP, average university scores are clearly better for those showing a higher government involvement (quartile 3).

In terms of Academic Reputation, the first and the third quartile are the best performers, scoring 56.3 and 57.3, respectively. However, at the same time the first quartile gets the weakest score in citations per faculty. This indicates that although institutions from countries with low public spending on tertiary education may have good quality research outputs, they struggle to expand and/or circulate their activities due to financial restrictions.

With regard to Employer Reputation, the results clearly benefit institutions from countries with relative lower public spending on higher education, suggesting that those universities seem to be more aware of the market’s needs in terms of human resources skills and abilities.

The faculty/student ratio is another indicator where universities from countries with relatively low public spending on tertiary education perform better-off. In this case, institutions within the first quartile averaged a score of 58, ahead from universities in the third (53.7), fourth (54.5) and second quartiles (42.7).

Finally, the international indicators offer mixed results. Universities from countries with the highest rate of public spending on tertiary education are the best performers in International Faculty Ratio and International Students Ratio, reaching average scores of 58.6 and 57.8. These results are not surprising, given that most of these universities are based in highly developed countries (particularly from Northern Europe) that provide affordable or free higher education schemes.

In contrast, institutions in the third quartile get the lowest scores regarding international indicators (40.3 and 46.5), while those in the first and second quartile show a better performance.

On balance, it seems that overall university performance does not correlate to the share of government funding on tertiary education. However, the findings suggest that less public focused systems tend to be better in terms of provision of skills for the professional and working life. On the other hand, schemes that rely more on government funding offer a better environment for research production. Also, these latter systems seem to be more prone to attract international students and faculty staff.

As indicated before, this analysis is very limited and the findings are only a starting point to a broader discussion about how different funding schemes may affect the quality of university systems.

What do you think? Which higher education funding mix is better?

Academic Reputation is one of the six key aspects utilized to compile the QS World University Rankings® and it is considered as the world’s most viewed global evaluation of university research strength. The views of the most informed stakeholders count.

Over 2,700 academics have signed up since the process was launched in February 2010, so, please join these faculty members, university leaders and administrators and register your interest here. It will only take a minute.

• Ben Sowter introduces this year’s research and the results tables.
• Danny Byrne reflects on the results of the rankings and looks at some of the issues surrounding access to higher education for students from low-income backgrounds.
• John O’Leary introduces QS Stars, a new university rating system that has been implemented during 2011.
• Liliana Casallas looks at the status of collaboration agreements between Latin American universities and those elsewhere in the world.

• UK: A new report outlining the higher education outlook
• LATIN AMERICA: A new rankings of the region has raised questions about governmental spending habits
• INDIA: Foreign branches must adhere to too many restrictions
• US: Some institutions have closed foreign branches
• AUSTRALIA: Trends for international student numbers

• As England enters its year of dramatic higher education reforms, Universities UK has published a report outlining the changes in recent years. International student numbers have doubled and full-time postgraduate studies have risen by three-quarters. China and India send a high proportion of students to study, with the former enrolling in undergraduate and research degrees whilst the latter sending more students for taught postgraduate degrees.
  Full Story:  FT
  More: The Telegraph
• A new ranking of institutions in Latin America have shed light on regional differences, particularly fiscal differences which have shaped the higher education landscape. In countries like Brazil and Mexico, the government spends more on tertiary education than primary. This has a direct correlation on who can attend universities as mostly affluent families are able to send their kids to private schools to prepare for university exams. The way institutions are structured, as well, is inflexible and not conducive to change as tenure for civil servants and rectors is difficult to revise. The new rankings, some are hoping, is starting a new dialogue regarding the region and its performance both domestically and internationally.
  Full Story:  The Economist
• The international community has been eyeing India’s proposal to allow foreign branches for some time now. As the country is looking to reach its goal of sending  30% of its high school graduates to university, it needs to find a way to widen participation. US Commerce Department official Suresh Kumar who is brokering education trade between the two countries says that as the bill to allow foreign institutions to set up in India currently stands, US institutions will not bite because of the restrictions placed on profits and regulations on tuition fees. India’s government, led by Indian Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal, is trying to balance a certain amount of control of its higher education system whilst attracting high-flyers to the country.
  Full Story:  Wall Street Journal
• The proliferation of foreign branches is a relatively new phenomenon, with more institutions joining the bandwagon with promises of profits and internationalisation. Suffolk University in Boston recently closed its foreign branch in Senegal, after spending 10 million dollars on the project. Other institutions have also seen their foreign branches fail: Michigan State University closed its doors in Dubai, George Mason University left its venture in the United Arab Emirates, and Texas Tech University is planning on leaving its German branch next year.
  Full Story:  Boston.com
• Recent reports by Australian Education International has revealed some interesting facts. It shows that all of the Group of Eight elite institutions, except for the University of Western Australia, have a higher than average enrolment of international students.   The number of international students is six times the average in the United States and three times the OECD average. However, according to some, the proportion of international students in G8 institutions is not so off the international mark. For instance, they found that in the US, there is a higher proportion of international students studying in 25 elite institutions including two institutions – Columbia University and the University of Southern California – purporting international enrolment which is higher than the Australian average of 22.3%.
  Full Story:  The Australian

To access the complete version of the map, please, click here. (*)

Created by: Martin Juno.

(*) Please, consider that the map is presented for reference only and may contain errors or omissions of any geographic, location or rank feature.

This week sees the end of the international rankings season, with QS publishing the first-ever comparisons of Latin American universities and Times Higher Education (THE) issuing the second edition of its global rankings with Thomson Reuters.

The moment provides an opportunity to take stock of the main rankings before yet more organisations join the field. The European Commission, for example, may soon publish the first results from its U-Multirank project, while the OECD is still piloting its Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO) initiative, which tests students in different countries in a range of subjects from economics to engineering. Probably the most significant development of 2011 was the publication by QS of the first rankings by individual subject.

The 26 tables are the initial response to a demand from prospective students for more granular information on the university departments in which they will actually study. There will be considerable interest in the academic community this week in the changes in methodology made by THE. The magazine’s attempt to broaden the focus of international rankings was welcomed by many of its readers, but the flaws in its original methodology underlined the difficulties inherent in such an approach.

A global survey of teaching quality based on academic opinion attracted particular criticism for purporting to measure something that statisticians and researchers in a series of discussions have dismissed as impracticable. Professor Malcolm Grant, the Provost of University College London, in a speech at the British Council’s Going Global conference in Hong Kong, questioned whether any academic present could judge how the quality of teaching at their university compared with teaching in Moscow or Melbourne.The same point has been made by academics in debates held in Stockholm, Montreal and Singapore, among others, yet the survey remains unchanged and heavily weighted in THE’s rankings.

A number of changes have been announced by THE, notably to the system used to measure “research influence”, which saw Alexandria University ranked above Harvard and Cambridge on that measure last year. The extent of the changes is such that THE has warned that this year’s results are not comparable with those for 2010. Among them is the addition of a new measure of international outlook, which gives additional credit for research papers that are jointly authored with an overseas partner.

Commentators will also look at the impact of exchange rate fluctuations on the measures of income used in the THE rankings. Other international ranking organisations steer clear of indicators based on income and expenditure, partly because changes in position may reflect the performance of currencies rather than universities.

In a period of dramatic flux on the currency markets, it will be interesting to see whether these fears have been borne out. QS’s own institutional rankings showed increased stability this year, with unchanged indicators and weightings, but there was greater representation of institutions in the Middle East and Latin America. The size of the company’s reputational surveys increased significantly, with almost 34,000 academics and 17,000 employers responding.

The Academic Ranking of World Universities, published in Shanghai, is even more stable, to the point where its results have attracted rather less media coverage in the last two years. The Shanghai Rankings organisation has followed QS into regional rankings, producing a ‘Greater China’ table that includes Taiwan and Hong Kong. The inaugural table was headed jointly by Tsinghua University and the National Taiwan University, and took account of factors such as the percentage of graduate students, the university’s budget and the proportion of staff with PhDs (but did not attempt to measure teaching quality.) The more specialist Webometrics ranking of universities’ internet activity has also continued to grow in scope. It attracts particular interest in countries where universities are underrepresented in other international rankings.

It is clear that international rankings remain a hive of development. By the time that the next rankings season ends, there will be more players, but also the beginnings of the audit system promised by IREG, the International Observatory on Academic Ranking and Excellence.

The QS World University Rankings^® were recently published for the eighth consecutive year, and have become the world’s most widely referenced source of comparative information on global universities. In 2011, the world rankings featured 712 universities – a record to date, but still only a fraction of the some 20,000 higher education institutions in the world as estimated at the recent UNESCO forum on global rankings.

Following the launch of the QS Asian University Rankings™ in 2009, 2011 has seen the launch of the QS World University Rankings® by Subject, and QS Stars – a new broad-based rating system – both designed to provide more comparative intelligence on a greater number of universities.

QS recognizes that while rankings have become an increasingly important influence on the decisions facing prospective international students, they have their limitations. A single methodology cannot be adequately used to compare all universities of all types in all regions. This year’s subject rankings aim to reveal global excellence in individual disciplines – much of which is overlooked by the generalist approach taken in the world rankings. This work will be extended further in future. QS Stars reveals excellence not only in the round but in each of eight key areas; and the regional rankings in Asia and now Latin America are designed to drill down deeper beneath the fabric of higher education in some of the fastest-moving regions of the world.

QS University Rankings – Latin America™ represent an achievement which eight years ago would have been unthinkable. In 2004, when all this began, Latin America was among the most challenging regions in the world from which to identify appropriate contacts and gather the necessary data. Today things are different. Universities in the region have been very welcoming and extremely cooperative in helping us compile these results and the team at QS has been augmented with the necessary language capabilities to communicate effectively in the region.

The methodology has been adapted to the needs of the region, following an extensive survey of academics and institution leaders in the region conducted early this year to ascertain the factors considered most indicative of institutional strength. The “Staff with PhD” indicator was cited as the most important indicator and has been included here for the first time in any QS evaluation.

Other concepts considered important in the survey included inclusion, student satisfaction, and the quality, number, and depth of relationships with universities outside the region. All of these feature in plans for the future and, in many cases, data has already begun to be collected.

A special acknowledgement must go to Cybermetrics Labs in Madrid, publishers of the well-known and extremely inclusive “Ranking Web of World Universities” (www.webometrics.info) whose data has been drawn upon to form 10% of these new rankings. While web metrics have not been taken into account before due to the heavy advantage offered to institutions operating principally in English, they form a very interesting component in a region where no country or institution has an innate advantage in this respect. The QS indicator has been compiled by dropping the “Scholar” component from the main Webometrics score (due to its overlap with our analysis of SciVerse Scopus) and up-scaling the other components to compensate. Much like other evaluations, these results will evolve in their early years as the institutions involved become familiar with the system and the data requested. But these inaugural results already reveal a fascinating picture of an increasingly important region on the higher education map.