QS Top 50 under 50

QS started looking into the age of institutions when we took on a fascinating research project with the Australian Technology Network at the beginning of 2011. See this earlier post on the subject: – http://www.iu.qs.com/2011/02/07/influence-of-age-on-university-performance/

In September 2011, we added an age component to our QS Classifications enabling users to easily see some of the different characteristics of institutions featured in the rankings.

A natural step perhaps to produce a table of the strongest “young” institutions. This is not a new ranking, so much as a slice of our world rankings table using age <= 50 as a filter to put the spotlight on some of the rising stars.

Obviously, nothing is ever simple and the exact establishment date of some universities can be difficult to identify – we have marked cases where some form of institution existed prior to the establishment date and separately those that have undergone a merger or split more recently.

We fully expect a few institutions to come forward and let us know that they feel they ought to be included and have not been – we will evaluate each case carefully and make amendments as need be.

Unsurprisingly the results feature many Asian universities and, in just a few years, may feature many more as institutions in the UK and Australia begin to age beyond the scope of the table.

The results can be viewed here: QS Top 50 under 50

  • Ben Sowter

    Many may have noticed some of the substantial contrasts between our list and the list published this morning by Times Higher Education. Clearly the qualification of age of an institution for the two lists is markedly different, also they have changed their methodology for this list – reducing the emphasis on reputation measures. This seems a counter-intuitive move to me since if all the institutions in the list are under 50, the influence of longevity on the reputation measures should be reduced and the credit due to an institution in that cohort who is achieving well ought to be valued all the more. If anything, the observation that reputation measures favour older universities ought to lead to a reduction in their emphasis overall and, if anything, an increase in their emphasis when isolating a particular age cohort. As for us, we have not adjusted our weights but simply filtered our main rankings for institutions under 50. What do you think? Which approach makes more sense? Have we missed anyone? Have they? Have we included anyone we shouldn’t have? Have they?