QS Classifications

The THE – QS World University Rankings attract a great deal of interest and scrutiny each year, one piece of frequent feedback is the comparing “apples with oranges” observation. The simple fact is that the London School of Economics bears little resemblance to Harvard University in terms of funding, scale, location, mission, output or virtually any other aspect one may be called upon to consider – so how is it valid to include them both in the same ranking. They do, however, both aim to teach students and produce research and it has always been the assertion of QS and Times Higher Education that this ought to provide a sufficient basis for comparison.

In essence, it is a little like comparing sportspeople from different disciplines in a “World’s greatest sportsperson” or “World’s greatest Olympian” ranking which so frequently emerge. How is it possible to compare a swimmer with a rower with a boxer with a football player? Yet such comparisons have fuelled passionate conversation all over the world. The difference, perhaps, is that in that context those talking are aware of who represents what sport. That is where the classifications come in – they are a component appearing in the tables from 2009 that help the user distinguish the boxers from footballers, so to speak.

The Berlin Principles (a set of recommendations for the delivery of university rankings) assert that any comparative exercise ought to take into account the different typologies of its subject institutions, whilst an aggregate list will continue to be produced it will now feature labels so that institutions (and their stakeholders) of different types can easily understand their performance not only overall but also with respect to institutions of a similar nature.

Based very loosely on the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education in the US, but operated on a much simpler basis, these classifications take into account three key aspects of each university to assign their label.

1. Size – based on the (full time equivalent) size of the degree-seeking student body. Where an FTE number is not provided or available, one will be estimated based on common characteristics of other institutions in the country or region in question
2. Subject Range – four categories based on the institution’s provision of programs in the five broad faculty areas used in the university rankings. Due to radically different publication habits and patterns in medicine, an additional category is added based on whether the subject institution has a medical school
3. Research Activity Level – four levels of research activity evaluated based on the number of documents retrievable from Scopus in the five year period preceding the application of the classification. The thresholds required to reach the different levels are different dependent on the institutions pre-classification on aspects 1 and 2.

This will result in each subject institution being grouped under a simple alpha-numeric classification code (i.e. A1 or H3. Table 1 lays out the thresholds for the application of the classifications.

The intention is not to infer a hierarchy – the ranking exists for that purpose – A1 is not a fundamentally preferable classification to G3, but to qualify the subject institutions by broad type with a view to making ranking results more contextually relevant to their increasingly broad audience.

Table 1: Thresholds for application of QS Classifications

			Large	Medium-sized	Small
			>=12,000 FTE Students	>=5,000 <12,000 FTE Students	<5,000 FTE Students
Fully Comprehensive Operational in all 5 faculty areas[2], has a medical school		Research Activity Level[2]	A	E	I
	1	Very High Research Activity	10,000	5,000	2,500
	2	High Research Activity	3,000	1,500	750
	3	Moderate Research Activity	500	250	100
	4	Limited or No Research Activity	0	0	0
Comprehensive Operational in all 5 faculty areas[1]		Research Activity Level[2]	B	F	J
	1	Very High Research Activity	5,000	2,500	1,250
	2	High Research Activity	1,500	750	400
	3	Moderate Research Activity	250	100	50
	4	Limited or No Research Activity	0	0	0
Focused Operational in 3 or 4 faculty areas[1]		Research Activity Level[2]	C	G	K
	1	Very High Research Activity	2,500	1,250	650
	2	High Research Activity	750	400	200
	3	Moderate Research Activity	100	50	50
	4	Limited or No Research Activity	0	0	0
Specialist Operational in 1 or 2 faculty areas[1]		Research Activity Level[2]	D	H	L
	1	Very High Research Activity	2 x mean for specialist areas	2 x mean for specialist areas	2 x mean for specialist areas
	2	High Research Activity	1 x mean for specialist areas	1 x mean for specialist areas	1 x mean for specialist areas
	3	Moderate Research Activity	0.5 x mean for specialist areas	0.5 x mean for specialist areas	0.5 x mean for specialist areas
	4	Limited or No Research Activity	0	0	0

[1] Faculty areas are the 5 faculty areas covered by the THE – QS World University Rankings Academic Peer Review: Arts & Humanities; Engineering & Technology; Life Sciences & Medicine; Natural & Physical Sciences; Social Sciences

[2] Research activity levels are defined against thresholds in terms of number of papers identified in Scopus for a 5 year period

Examples
A1 = Large; Fully Comprehensive; Very High Research Activity (e.g. Harvard, Cambridge, NUS)
A2 = Large; Fully Comprehensive; High Research Activity (e.g. Auckland, University College Dublin)
G1 = Medium-sized; Focused; Very High Research Activity (e.g. Tokyo Institute of Technology)
H1 = Medium-sized; Specialist; Very High Research Activity (e.g. London School of Economics)

2009 THE – QS World University Rankings Complete

Apologies for being silent for so long. Not only have we been exceptionally busy compiling the latest version of the World University Rankings, but I am also pleased to announce that I have become a father for first time – further disrupting my plans to update frequently.

We have finished our final checking and analysis for the 2009 rankings and submitted the needful data to Times Higher Education for publication on 8th October – the Top 200 list will emerge on www.topuniversities.com on the 8th of October with the complete tables to follow on the 9th. What’s more, if all goes to plan, this year’s tables will be interactive, enabling users to add and remove columns, sort by different factors and compare institutions. Busy busy.

This year’s results will be the most stable yet, with the average change in position amongst the top 100 down to 7.4 places from last year’s 11.6 and across the top 500 an average shift of 25 places down from 31. Good news in general terms, then, but there are still some surprises, some interesting new entries, some regional shifts in influence and even changes in the top 10.

Technical challenges with tracking publications and citations for certain institutions.

Tracking all the papers and citations data we need from the Scopus database to fuel our evaluations is quite a challenge and our process has always resulted in some discrepancies between the results we are using and the results that you can actually retrieve from Scopus at given moment. Scopus is an ever-changing database, not only are Elsevier working very hard to add more journals, in more languages and backfilling, but they are alos workign hard to concolidate affiliations and make it easier to retrieve all the data for a given author or institution. The database is vast, however, and the variants are many – apparently MIT, for example at point in time has 1,741 name variants. Additionally, as time goes by, more papers get published and more citations get filed.

Our analysis is based on “custom data” exported from Scopus at a fixed point in time, defined within fixed limits. We use the last five complete years for both papers and citations – that is to say we take a count of all papers published in the five years leading up to December 31st of the previous year and the total of any citations received during the same period. By the time the Times Higher Education – QS World University Rankings are published in October there will 10 more months of papers and publications appearing in the online version Scopus.

The custom data for the forthcoming 2009 analysis amounts to 18Gb of raw XML data – along with this Elsevier provide an affiliation table. This table is an improving lens that we can use to identify the mappings required to retrieve the aggregate data we need. We search this affiliation table for strings that match the universities (or their alternate names) in our database which returns a list of 8 digit affiliate id numbers which we can then use to retrieve and aggregate data from the main data set. If key names are missing from the affiliation table it is very difficult to identify and content that may exist in the main dataset.

Since the publication of the QS.com Asian University Rankings a couple of institutions have come forward and expressed that to some degree or another, data is missing for their institution. This has been discovered thanks to our practice of sharing a “fact file” with institutions prior to publication. Each of them are now working with QS to ensure that any shortfall is rectified in the future.

In future we will be splitting our fact file distribution into two with one comeing out long in advance of publication and then a media briefing which will include the ranking results two days prior to the publication date.

QS.com Asian University Rankings: Beyond the obvious…

I have just returned from a trip to South Korea and Japan where I was presenting the methodology and results of the QS.com Asian University Rankings (AUR) and speaking to a number of universities about the implications of the results in both general and specific terms. Inevitably, as with any ranking upon publication, some institutions are pleased and some are disappointed. The University of Hong Kong at number one seem to be very pleased and their vice-chancellor has been very hospitable and forthcoming, the University of Tokyo… not so much.

These results are not necessarily an omen for the next THE-QS World University Rankings (WUR), however, where Tokyo is reasonably likely once again to assert itself as number one amongst Asian institutions in the global context. There seems a little confusion about that… how can two evaluations from the same organisation yield different results? Well, it’s all about the context. Firstly the methodology for AUR is different from that of WUR, in the narrower context we have been able to gather more data – most notably in the area of exchange programs and we have altered the way we look at publications and citations with a view to being more generous to institutions not operating principally in English. Even without the methodological operations however, the results would not have been the same as WUR because the normalisation of each data point involves the mean and standard deviation of a wildly different dataset.

“Flagship” thinking seems to dominate the thinking of most people in the region – they look at the performance of the top institution in their country, and if it has dropped they assume that either the higher education system in their country is failing and requires reform, or more commonly that the ranking has no value and need not be considered any further.

Digging a little deeper into the performance of Japanese universities in AUR, however, reveals a healthy counterpoint to any observations about the performance of the University of Tokyo – Japanese universities as a cohort have done better in AUR than WUR with 10 top 20 institutions as opposed to only 6 in an Asian extraction from WUR – the implication is that the AUR methodology is indeed, as intended, more accepting of institutions with limited output and teaching in English than WUR. The trend for Japanese universities continues all the way through the results.

Number of Japanese institutions featured within various strata of the AUR and WUR

As the chart shows, performance of Japanese institutions collectively is considerably stronger in AUR than WUR. The same is true of institutions in South Korea and Hong Kong where institutions in Singapore, Mainland China and Taiwan fare less well.

At our session in Tokyo, I was asked… “Have you thought about the customer, won’t it be confusing for potential students?”. We have thought about the users of our website and I would rather have them confused than blindly follow our results anytime. I recently met a student at the NAFSA conference in Los Angeles late last month who sat in on one of our presentations – he said “I have used your rankings to choose a university three times, first Macquarie, now Berkeley and next a university in the Netherlands, but now I am concerned I may have made the wrong choice”. I reassured him that if I ever met anyone who made a crucial life-changing decision based only on the results of a ranking (any ranking) then I would see what I could do to have them committed immediately. The point of rankings is to help inform decisions not to eliminate them.

I found myself on occasion in Seoul drawing on a football (soccer) analogy to explain the differences between AUR and WUR. It is a little bit like the difference between the English Premiership and the UEFA Champions League – the two tournaments require different attributes and different strengths to win, as a result it is not always the team that wins domestically that goes the furthest in the regional tournament. There is no question that both achievements indicate excellent teams and there is not necessarily any way to choose which of the two is actually the better team in the round – just that in the context of the two different competitions one or the other was better suited at the given point in time.

Business schools to blame for the credit crunch?

When travelling around the world on various airlines it is often easy to lose touch with what might be going on at home, so seldom does a UK newspaper pass by your eyes. Yesterday I managed to pick up a copy of the Financial Times (Europe edition no less) at the airport in Seoul before flying to Tokyo – Monday’s edition of course, but nonetheless…

Right under the masthead was the headline “Has the credit crunch tarnished the MBA?”. Turning to page 10 revealed a very interesting article from Della Bradshaw including comment from Deans of a number of leading business schools on the role of business schools in the development of the current financial crisis. I found an online version of the article here – http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a2353870-53c4-11de-be08-00144feabdc0.html

Of particular interest is the contrast between comments from the Dean of the Krannert School at Purdue and those from the Dean of IE Business School – who seem to occupy opposite corners in the debate. Despite the opposing views both standpoints seem to be valid. Perhaps business schools have had a part to play in the education of many of the architects of this financial downfall, but they cannot take full responsibility for the MORAL education of their graduates. As the NRA consistently preach, owning a gun does not a murderer make. Business Schools may have had a part in the provision of the tools, but less so in the manner of their use.

The conclusion of the article and those accompanying it seem to be clear though, the MBA needs to evolve, as business is evolving and the general feeling is that this evolution is unlikely to begin at the top US Business Schools.

AIR: A transferable model?

Over the past two days I have had the pleasure of attending the 49th Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research in Atlanta. Normally at many of the conferences we attend there is a filtering process to find the right people to talk to, and then we still attract a fairly diverse audience from all levels of a university – the presentations we deliver have to meet these diverse needs. They frequently go well but are far less focused than this.

The very idea that there is a dedicated office in a university collecting, compiling, submitting and analyzing data on themselves, educating the strategy of the institution seems to be a predominately US inspired idea – it happens inrelatively isolated cases elsewhere – but that it has been running an annual conference for 49 years implies extraordinary foresight. Our experience has been of many institutions establishing these offices in response to the requirement to collect and submit data rather than for proprietary business intelligence needs.

The existence of this kind of an office within an institution provides a highly effective, expert conduit for our communication with universities, as has been the case with universities in many countries, but the practice taking broad enough hold to justify a national, regional or even global organisation and conference to support them provides the institutions with a great deal more leverage over third-party evaluating organisations such as ours. Indeed, Robert Morse, of the US News who kindly introduced us to this group has been coming to this event for 10 years – using it as a forum to collect qualified feedback and present and discuss proposed methodological changes. It will be an annual appointment on our calendar from this point forward.

If you work in an office of this nature, in a country where access to such a forum is not yet present, I would strongly recommend you investigate its foundation. Or join an international group.

Check out the US version on www.airweb.org or their international affiliates here www.airweb.org/page.asp?page=577

The Impact of Rankings

Since long before the global university ranking movement emerged in 2003, academics, university leadership and government officials have debated the impact of university rankings. Marguerite Clarke, formerly of Flinders University in South Australia did some good work focused on the US News ranking, looking at matters such as access – this is summarised in an article she supplied for our website here.

The point is, that independently of anyone’s opinion on their individual characteristics, rankings are having an impact on higher education policy and decision making around the world and, according to a study recently completed by the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP), much of this impact is (cautiously) positive.

Their press release provides an independent viewpoint, so I have included the full text:

GLOBAL RANKING SYSTEMS MAY DRIVE NEW DECISION MAKING AT U.S. HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
Examination of Four Countries with High-Profile College Rankings Suggests Institutional Practices May Improve Through New Approaches

Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009—The ranking of higher education institutions is steadily growing into a global phenomenon—currently more than 40 countries have ranking systems, in addition to several international rankings that compare institutions across national lines. With this proliferation, many campus stakeholders question the goals, uses, and outcomes of these systems. However, it is also important to understand the ways institutions are using rankings to inform their work and to consider how the institutional use of ranking systems in other countries can inform practices in the United States.

Based on interviews with key institutional stakeholders in four countries—Australia, Canada, Germany, and Japan— the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) examines ranking systems and their impact on the policies and practices at colleges and universities. In its new issue brief, Impact of College Rankings on Institutional Decision Making: Four Country Case Studies, IHEP explores the nuances and unique approaches in which rankings could prompt institutions to work in innovative ways.

“At a time when institutional accountability, assessment, and data-driven decision making pressures are at a high both in the United States and abroad, this report provides a useful framework for considering how rankings add to and distract from institutional improvement efforts,” said IHEP President Michelle Asha Cooper, Ph.D. “It is our hope that institutions will consider the strategies used in other countries to reexamine the positive and negative ways rankings are influencing their own work.”

Although valid criticisms of rankings were offered in this issue brief, it highlighted a number of findings on how institutions have explored new ways of doing work. In many cases, rankings can trigger a shift of institutional resources for such productive uses as faculty profile, research collection and analysis, and student learning outcomes. These changes can also be integrated into broader strategic planning initiatives to change national and international higher education policy contexts.

HOW RANKINGS MAY LEVERAGE NEW INSTITUTIONAL DECISION MAKING

• Improved data-based decision making. Rankings can prompt institutional discussions about what constitutes success and how the institution can better document and report that success.
• Increased participation in broader discussions about measuring institutional success. Rankings can encourage institutions to move beyond their internal conversations to participate in broader national and international discussions about new ways of capturing and reporting indicators of success.
• Improved teaching and learning practices. While the case study institutions continue to point to their changing practices that alter input indicators—increasing selectivity, favoring research over teaching, and strengthening the faculty profile—a number of institutions are also reporting changes to practices directly related to student learning and success.
• Identification and replication of model programs. Institutions should be open to using rankings to identify and share best practices.

The report raises cautions, though, about the negative impacts of rankings and urges institutions to work to mitigate these impacts. Chief among the negative outcomes was the potential for rankings-influenced decision-making to undermine college access for disadvantaged student populations. Other concerns included:

• Creating an unbalanced emphasis on research over teaching;
• Widening the ratio between full-time and adjunct faculty;
• Substituting the improvement of key rankings variables for comprehensive, institution-generated strategic planning; and
• Increasing the funding of world-class institutions at the expense of institutions that further other national goals.

The Impact of College Rankings on Institutional Decision Making: Four Country Case Studies issue brief is the second publication in a three-part series on national and international ranking systems. In April 2007, IHEP released the first monograph, College and University Ranking Systems: Global Perspectives and American Challenges, to highlight the ongoing global phenomenon of college and university ranking systems and the urgent need for constructive dialogue about rankings. The remaining and final publication will review the potential impact of college rankings on state and federal policymaking in the United States. Additionally, an “online clearinghouse” on rankings systems was created by IHEP to support its work and provide useful information to a variety of audiences.

IHEP’s focus on national and international rankings is being supported by Lumina Foundation for Education, an Indianapolis-based private foundation striving to help people achieve their potential by expanding access to and success in education beyond high school.  For more information about IHEP, visit the organization’s Web site at www.ihep.org.

###

THE INSTITUTE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY (IHEP) IS AN INDEPENDENT, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT IS DEDICATED TO INCREASING ACCESS AND SUCCESS IN POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION AROUND THE WORLD. ESTABLISHED IN 1993, THE WASHINGTON, D.C.-BASED ORGANIZATION USES UNIQUE RESEARCH AND INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS TO INFORM KEY DECISION MAKERS WHO SHAPE PUBLIC POLICY AND SUPPORT ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. IHEP’S WEB SITE, WWW.IHEP.ORG, FEATURES AN EXPANSIVE COLLECTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION INFORMATION AVAILABLE FREE OF CHARGE AND PROVIDES ACCESS TO SOME OF THE MOST RESPECTED PROFESSIONALS IN THE FIELDS OF PUBLIC POLICY AND RESEARCH.

World University Classifications?

I imagine this is too simple an idea to be particularly practical but would welcome feedback either way.

The THE-QS World University Rankings, amongst others, are frequently criticized in all sorts of ways, some fair and some not.

One of the most common observations is the failure of most aggregate ranking systems, whether international or domestic, to acknowledge the different missions and typologies of institutions.

In the case of the THE-QS exercise, large institutions are likely to be advantaged in terms or recognition whilst smaller ones may have greater ability to perform in some of the ratio based indicators.

In the US we frequently refer to the Carnegie classification system to better understand the nature of institutions that are featured in the rankings. What if we were to apply a similar, albeit simpler, concept to universities at a world level and include a classification alongside all ranking results.

Classifications might include:

Type A: Large, fully comprehensive

More than 10,000 students. Offer programs in all 5 of our broad faculty areas. Has a medical school.

(i) High Research - Over 5,000 papers in 5 year Scopus extract.
(ii) Moderate Research - 1,000-4,999 papers in 5 yyear Scopus extract
(iii) Low Research - 100-999 papers in 5 year Scopus extract
(iv) Negligible Research - Less than 100 papers in 5 year Scopus extract

Type B: Large, comprehensive

More than 10,000 students, operates programs in ALL of our 5 broad faculty areas. Has no medical school.

(i-iv) Reduced thresholds

Type C: Large, focused

More than 10,000 students. Operates programs in 3 or 4 of our broad faculty areas.

(i-iv) Reduced Thresholds

Type D: Large, specialist

More than 10,000 students. Operates programs in 1 or 2 of our broad faculty areas

(i-iv) Research thresholds set against mean or median for stated specialist faculty areas

Types E-H: same as above but for medium sized institutions. 4,000-10,000 students

Types H-K: Same as above but for small institutions – less than 4,000 students

A (u) or (p) could be added to denote institutions that only offer programs at either undergraduate or postgraduate level.

This is unlikely to, yet, be exhaustive but a system such as this may help readers put the ranking results in context. Thoughts and suggestions welcome.

QS.com Asian University Rankings: The Top 100

The results of the QS.com Asian University Rankings are finally here. You can view the full results and more detail on the methodology on www.topuniversities.com/university_rankings/asianuniversityrankings but here are the Top 100 to get you started…

 

2009 rank	School Name	Country
Source: QS Quacquarelli Symonds (www.qs.com)  Copyright © 2004-2009 QS Quacquarelli Symonds Ltd.Click here for copyright and limitations on use.
1	University of HONG KONG	Hong Kong
2	The CHINESE University of Hong Kong	Hong Kong
3	University of TOKYO	Japan
4	HONG KONG University of Science and Tech…	Hong Kong
5	KYOTO University	Japan
6	OSAKA University	Japan
7	KAIST – Korea Advanced Institute of Scie…	Korea, South
8	SEOUL National University	Korea, South
9	TOKYO Institute of Technology	Japan
10=	National University of Singapore (NUS)	Singapore
10=	PEKING University	China
12	NAGOYA University	Japan
13	TOHOKU University	Japan
14	Nanyang Technological University (NTU)	Singapore
15=	KYUSHU University	Japan
15=	TSINGHUA University	China
17	Pohang University of Science and Technol…	Korea, South
18	CITY University of Hong Kong	Hong Kong
19	University of TSUKUBA	Japan
20=	HOKKAIDO University	Japan
20=	KEIO University	Japan
22	National TAIWAN University	Taiwan
23	KOBE University	Japan
24	University of Science and Technology of …	China
25	YONSEI University	Korea, South
26	FUDAN University	China
27	NANJING University	China
28	HIROSHIMA University	Japan
29	SHANGHAI JIAO TONG University	China
30=	Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (I…	India
30=	MAHIDOL University	Thailand
32	ZHEJIANG University	China
33	KOREA University	Korea, South
34	Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur (I…	India
35	CHULALONGKORN University	Thailand
36	Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (II…	India
37	WASEDA University	Japan
38	The HONG KONG Polytechnic University	Hong Kong
39	Universiti Malaya (UM)	Malaysia
40	National TSING HUA University	Taiwan
41	CHIBA University	Japan
42	EWHA WOMANS University	Korea, South
43	National CHENG KUNG University	Taiwan
44	SUNGKYUNKWAN University	Korea, South
45	NAGASAKI University	Japan
46	HANYANG University	Korea, South
47	National YANG MING University	Taiwan
48	TOKYO Metropolitan University	Japan
49	Indian Institute of Technology Madras (I…	India
50	University of INDONESIA	Indonesia
51	Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM)	Malaysia
52	SHOWA University	Japan
53	KUMAMOTO University	Japan
54	YOKOHAMA NATIONAL University	Japan
55	YOKOHAMA CITY University	Japan
56	OKAYAMA University	Japan
57	KYUNG HEE University	Korea, South
58	PUSAN National University	Korea, South
59	GIFU University	Japan
60	University of DELHI	India
61	SOGANG University	Korea, South
62	KANAZAWA University	Japan
63=	Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee (…	India
63=	OSAKA CITY University	Japan
63=	Universitas GADJAH MADA	Indonesia
63=	University of the PHILIPPINES	Philippines
67	TOKYO University of Science (TUS)	Japan
68	GUNMA University	Japan
69	Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM)	Malaysia
70	TIANJIN University	China
71	National SUN YAT-SEN University	Taiwan
72	National TAIWAN University of Science an…	Taiwan
73	Hong Kong BAPTIST University	Hong Kong
74	National CHIAO TUNG University	Taiwan
75	XI’AN JIAOTONG University	China
76	DE LA SALLE University	Philippines
77	National CENTRAL University	Taiwan
78	NIIGATA University	Japan
79	OCHANOMIZU University	Japan
80	BANDUNG Institute of Technology (ITB)	Indonesia
81	CHIANG MAI University	Thailand
82=	KYUNGPOOK National University	Korea, South
82=	Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)	Malaysia
84	Ateneo de MANILA University	Philippines
85	THAMMASAT University	Thailand
86	TOKAI University	Japan
87	MIE University	Japan
88	CHONNAM National University	Korea, South
89	KAGOSHIMA University	Japan
90	Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)	Malaysia
91	CHANG GUNG University	Taiwan
92	INHA University	Korea, South
93	TOKYO University of Agriculture and Tech…	Japan
94	TONGJI University	China
95	SOUTHEAST University	China
96	HITOTSUBASHI University	Japan
97	CHONBUK National University	Korea, South
98	AJOU University	Korea, South
99	CHUNGNAM National University	Korea, South
100	University of PUNE	India

QS.com Asian University Rankings due to provide insight on a larger number of indicators

It has been encouraging to see traffic on this fledgling blog spike today in anticipation of the QS.com Asian University Rankings due for publication tomorrow. It has been a very busy time responding to individual institutions and preparing our press campaign. The methodology is somehat different from the THE-QS World University Rankings, with a smaller number of countries we have been able to gather adequate data on a couple of additional indicators – the internationalisation area now features inbound and outbound exchange numbers; whilst the citations per faculty indicator has been split out into papers per faculty (productivity) and citations per paper (quality). 

Additionally, the regional exercises emphasises the performance differences between institutions in the region – particularly in research measures where the presence of US institutions significantly compresses the scale.

All this means there may be a few small surprises tomorrow when the results are published. Results and more detail on the methodology will emerge initially through Chosun Ilbo (www.chosun.com), our partner in South Korea and will follow at 6.00AM GMT on our website – www.topuniversities.com.

I will try and find time later in the week to put together a more complete post looking at some of the results and some of the interesting contrasts between the results of this exercise and those of the world rankings. I also look forward to reading and responding to any comments about the methodology or results – we’re always interested in feedback and providing a balanced view.