QS World University Rankings is the university's annual publication ranking by Quacquarelli Symonds (QS). Formerly known as the Times-QS World University Rankings , the publisher has collaborated with Times Higher Education News to publish its international league tables from 2004 to 2009 before the two begin to announce their own version. QS then chose to keep using the existing methodology while Times Higher Education adopted a new methodology to rank them.
The QS system now comprises a global overall and subject rank (which names the world's top universities to study 48 different subjects and five composite faculty fields), together with five independent regional tables (Asia, Latin America, Emerging Europe and Central Asia, Arab Region, and BRICS).
Being the only international ranking that has received the approval of the International Ranking Expert Group (IREG), the QS ranking is seen as one of the three most widely read university rankings in the world, along with Academic Ranking of the World University and < i> World University Times Education Rating . However, it has been criticized for being overly dependent on subjective indicators and reputation surveys, which tend to fluctuate over the years. Concern also exists related to the consistency and global integrity of the data used to produce QS ranking results.
Video QS World University Rankings
Histori
The perceived need for university international rankings for UK destinations was highlighted in December 2003 in Richard Lambert's review of university-industry collaborations in the UK for HM Treasury, the United Kingdom's finance ministry. Among his recommendations are the world university rankings, which Lambert says will help the UK to gauge its university's global standing.
The idea for ranking is credited in Ben Wildavsky's book, The Great Brain Race: How the Global College Rebuilds the World , for then-editor of Times Higher Education ( THE THE ), John O'Leary. chose to partner with Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) education and career advice to supply data, pointing Martin Ince, formerly deputy editor and then contractor to THE , to manage the project.
Between 2004 and 2009, QS generated ratings in partnership with THE . In 2009, THE announced that it would produce their own rankings, Times Higher Education World University Rankings, in partnership with Thomson Reuters. THE cites the weakness stated in the original ranking methodology, as well as the perceived favoritism in the existing methodology for the science of humanities, as the two main reasons for the decision to part with the QS.
QS retained intellectual property in previous rankings and the methodology used to compile and continue to generate rankings based on that methodology, now called QS World University Rankings.
THE created a new methodology with Thomson Reuters, and published the first World University University Ranking in September 2010.
Maps QS World University Rankings
Global rating
Overall
Methodology
QS publishes its ranking results in the world media and has entered into partnerships with a number of outlets, including The Guardian in the UK, and Chosun Ilbo in Korea. The first rank produced by QS independently of THE, and using a consistent and original QS methodology, was released on September 8, 2010, with the second appearing on September 6, 2011.
QS designed its ratings to assess performance in accordance with what is believed to be a key aspect of the university mission: teaching, research, maintaining workplace eligibility, and internationalization.
Reviews of academic colleagues
This is the most controversial part of the methodology. Using a combination of purchased mailing lists and applications and suggestions, this survey asks active academics around the world about leading universities in their specialist field. QS has published work titles and geographical distribution of the participants.
Rank 2017/18 utilizes responses from 75,015 people from over 140 countries for its Academic Reputation indicator, including votes from the previous five years rolled out provided no latest information is available from the same person. Participants can nominate up to 30 universities but can not vote for themselves. They tend to nominate a median of about 20, which means that the survey covers more than 500,000 data points. The average respondent has 20.4 years of academic experience, while 81% of respondents have more than a decade of experience in the academic world.
In 2004, when the ratings first appeared, the assessment of academic colleagues accounted for half of the possible scores of the university. In 2005, its share was cut by 40 percent due to the introduction of the Employer Reputation Survey.
Ratio of faculty students
This indicator accounts for 20 percent of possible university scores in the rankings. This is a classic measure used in various ranking systems as a proxy to teach commitment, but QS has admitted that it is less than satisfactory.
Excerpt per faculty
The published research quote is one of the most widely used inputs for national and global university rankings. QS World University Rankings uses excerpt data from Thomson (now Thomson Reuters) from 2004 to 2007, and has since been using data from Scopus, part of Elsevier. The total number of citations for a five-year period is divided by the number of academics at the university to produce a score for this measure, which accounts for 20 percent of the possible score of universities in the Rank.
QS has made it clear that it uses this approach, rather than the preferred paper-to-paper quote for other systems, because it reduces the effects of biomedical science on the whole picture - bio-medicine has a malignant "publish or perish" culture. Instead, QS seeks to measure the density of active research staff in each institution. But the problem still remains about the use of citations in ranking systems, especially the fact that art and humanities produce relatively few quotes.
However, since 2015, QS has made methodological improvements designed to remove the profit agencies specializing in Natural Science or Medicine previously received. This increase is called normalization of the faculty, and ensures that the number of agency citations in each of the five key areas of the QS Faculty is weighted to account for 20% of the final quote score.
QS has acknowledged some errors in collecting data on quotes per faculty in the previous year's ranking.
One interesting thing is the difference between Scopus and Thomson Reuters databases. For the major universities of the world, these two systems capture more or less the same publications and quotations. For lesser institutions, Scopus has more non-English languages ​​and smaller circulation journals in its database. But since the papers there are less quoted, this could also mean fewer quotes per paper for the university that publishes them. This area has been criticized for undermining a university that does not use English as their primary language. Quotations and publications in different languages ​​from English are harder to find. English is the most internationalized language and therefore also the most popular when quoting.
Company review
This part of the ranking was obtained by a method similar to the Academic Peer Review, except that it was a recruitment sample employing graduates on a significant national or global scale. The numbers are smaller - 40,455 responses from over 130 countries in Rank 2016 - and are used to generate 10 percent of possible university scores. The survey was introduced in 2005 with the belief that employers tracked the quality of graduates, making it a barometer of teaching quality, a notoriously problematic thing to measure. The university standing here is of particular interest to potential students, and recognizes this is the boost behind the inaugural QS Graduate Employability Rankings, published in November 2015.
International orientation
The final ten percent of university grades may stem from actions intended to capture their internationalism: five percent of their international student percentage, and another five percent of their percentage of international staff. This is partly because it shows whether a university is trying to be global, but also because it tells us whether it is considered serious enough by students and academics around the world to want to be there.
Reception
In September 2015, The Guardian and The Daily Mail referred to QS World University Rankings as "the most authoritative of their kind". In 2016, Ben Sowter, Chief Research Officer of the QS Intelligence Unit, ranked 40th in Wonkhe 2016's 'Wonkhe Higher Education List'. The list mentions what the organization believes to be the 50 most influential figures in UK higher education.
Several universities in Britain and the Asia-Pacific region have commented on the positive ratings. Vice Chancellor of Massey University New Zealand, Professor Judith Kinnear, said that the Times Higher Education-QS rating is "a remarkable recognition of several university attributes, including research quality, research training, teaching and work skills." He said ratings are a true measure of the university's ability to fly high internationally: "The Times Higher Education rankings provide somewhat more sophisticated, stronger and better measure of international and national ratings than the New Zealand Performance Based Research Fund (PBRF). "In September 2012, the British newspaper The Independent described the QS World University Rankings as" widely recognized throughout higher education as the most trusted international table ".
Angel Calderon, Principal Advisor for Planning and Research at RMIT University and a member of the QS Advisory Board, spoke positively about QS University Rankings for Latin America, saying that "QS Latin American University Rankings has become the annual international benchmark that universities use to ensure their relative standing in territory ". He further stated that the 2016/17 edition of this ranking indicates an increase in stability.
Criticism
Certain commentators have expressed concern about the use or misuse of survey data. However, the QS Intelligence Unit, which is responsible for ranking, states that the level of sample size used for their surveys means that they are now "almost impossible to manipulate and very difficult for agencies for 'games'". They also stated that "more than 62,000 academic respondents contribute to our 2013 academic results, four times more than in 2010. Independent academic reviews have confirmed this result to be over 99% reliable." Furthermore, since 2013, the number of respondents for the QS Academic Reputation Survey has increased again. Their survey now uses nearly 75,000 academic fellow reviews, making it "to date, the largest collection of feelings in the world [this global academic community]."
The World University Rankings of QS have been criticized by many because of too much emphasis on peer review, which received 40 percent of the overall score. Some people expressed concern about the way in which peer review has been done. In his report, Peter Wills of the University of Auckland wrote about Times Higher Education - QS World University Rankings:
But we also note that this survey ranked by attracting university staff, even offering a financial offer to participate (see Appendix II). Staff tend to feel very interested in ranking their own institutions higher than others. This means survey results and real changes in rankings are highly questionable, and that high rankings have no real intrinsic value in any way. We strongly oppose the University's evaluation based on the results of the PR competition.
However, the QS states that no survey participant, academic or employer, offered financial incentives to respond, while no academic could choose their own institution. This makes this particular critique invalid, as it is based on two false premises: (1) that current academics are financially given incentives to participate, and (2) that conflicts of interest are made by academics to choose their own institutions.
Scholars have previously criticized the use of quotation data, arguing that less valued institutions excel in the social sciences. Ian Diamond, former chief executive of the Economic and Social Research Council and now a vice rector of the University of Aberdeen and a member of the editorial board, wrote to Times Higher Education in 2007, saying:
The use of citation databases must have an impact because such databases do not have a wide range of social sciences (or art and humanities) as natural sciences. Therefore the low position of the London School of Economics, mainly due to the citations score, is the result not of the output of the remarkable institution but the database and the fact that the LSE does not have a counterweight of the great natural science base.
However, by 2015, the introduction of QS from the normalization of faculty areas ensures that QS rankings no longer provide undue advantage or loss to any institution based on the specialization of their subject. In line with that, the London School of Economics rose from 71 in 2014 to 35 in 2015 and 37 in 2016.
Since parting from the Times Higher Education in 2009, further concerns about the methodology used by QS for its ranking have been raised by several experts.
In October 2010, critics of the old system came from Fred L. Bookstein, Horst Seidler, Martin Fieder and Georg Winckler in the journal Scientomentrics for the unreliable QS method:
Individual indicators from the Times Higher Education Survey (THES) survey based on overall scores, reported staff-to-student ratios, and peer ratings - show very high fluctuations year after year. The incomplete tabulation of summaries to assess the majority of "large 200" universities would look purely for reasons of this clear statistical instability regardless of the reason for other criticisms. There are too many anomalies in the score changes of the various indices for them to be used in the university management program.
In an article for New Statesman entitled "The World University Ranking QS is a load of old bullshit", David Blanchflower, a leading employment economist, said: "This rating is complete waste and no one should place confidence in it. which is entirely flawed that reduces the quality of research and fluff excess... QS is a defective index and should be ignored. "
However, Martin Ince, chair of the Advisory Board for Ranking, points out that their volatility has been reduced since 2007 with the introduction of Z-score counting methods and over time, QS data collection quality has improved to reduce anomalies. In addition, academic and employer reviews are now so large that even simple rank universities receive statistically valid votes. QS has published extensive data on who the respondents are, where they are, and the subjects and industries owned by each academician and entrepreneur.
The subject's QS rating has been rejected because it is unbelievable by Brian Leiter, which indicates that a program known to be of high quality, and highly ranked Blackwell rank (for example, University of Pittsburgh) scores poorly in QS rankings for no apparent reason at all. However, the University of Pittsburgh was ranked number one for the Philosophy at Rank 2016 QS University by Subject, while Rutgers University - another university that Leiter argues is rated very low - ranked third in the world in the same rank. The agency values ​​for each QS metric can be found on the relevant ranking page, allowing those who want to check why an institution has finished its final position to gain access to scores that contribute to the overall rankings.
In an article titled The Globalization of College and University Rankings and appeared in the January/February 2012 edition of the Change magazine, Philip Altbach, professor of higher education at Boston College as well as a member of the editorial board THE QS World University Rankings is the most problematic.From the beginning, QS has relied on reputation indicators for half of its analysis... it may contribute significant variability in QS rankings over the years.In addition, QS also questioned entrepreneurs, introducing more variability and unreliable into the mix.Whether QS rank should be taken seriously by the higher education community is questionable. "
Simon Marginson, professor of higher education at the University of Melbourne and a member of the editorial board, in the article "Improve the global university ranking of Latin American universities" to University World News on June 10, 2012, said: "I will not discuss QS ratings because the methodology is not strong enough to provide valid data as a social science ". The QS Intelligence Unit fended off this criticism by stating that "Independent academic reviews have confirmed this result to be more than 99% trustworthy".
Results
The World University Rankings QS 2019, published on June 6, 2018, is the fifteenth edition of the overall ranking. This confirms the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as the world's highest ranked university for the seventh consecutive year. Thus, MIT broke the record number one position in a row.
- For rankings before 2010, see THE-QS World University Rankings.
Young University
QS also released the top 50 QS under 50 Rankings each year to rank the university that has been set for under 50 years. These institutions are assessed on the basis of their position in the overall table of the previous year. Beginning in 2015, the "50 Top 50 Years 50" QS ranking is expanded to include the world's top 100 institutions under the age of 50, while in 2017 re-expanded to include 150 of the world's best universities in this group. In 2017, the table was closed by Nanyang Technological University of Singapore for the fourth year in a row. This table is dominated by universities from the Asia-Pacific region, with the top six places taken by Asian institutions.
Faculty and subject
QS also places universities based on academic disciplines organized into 5 faculties, namely Arts & amp; Humanities, Engineering & amp; Technology, Life Science & amp; Medicine, Natural Sciences and Social Sciences & amp; Management. This methodology is based on a survey of global academic and corporate experts, and measures research performance using data sourced from the Scopus Elsevier database. In 2018 QS World University Rankings by Subject the world's best universities to study 48 different subjects are named. Two new subject tables added in the latest edition are: Classic & amp; Ancient History & Libraries & amp; Information management.
The world's leading institution in the 2018 table in terms of the world's leading position is Harvard University, which is number one for 14 subjects. The old ranking competitor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is number one for twelve subjects.
Regional rankings and other tables
QS Graduation Employability Rankings
By 2015, in an effort to meet student demand for comparative data on job prospects offered by prospective or current universities, QS launched the QS Graduate Employability Rankings . The latest installment, released for the academic year 2017/18, ranks 500 universities worldwide. It is headed by Stanford University, and features five US universities in the top 10. The unique methodology consists of five indicators, with three not in the other.
Asia
In 2009, QS launched QS Asian University Rankings or QS University Rankings: Asia in partnership with The Chosun Ilbo newspaper in Korea to rank universities in Asia independently. The eighth installment, released for the academic year 2016/17, ranked 350th best university in Asia, and headed by the National University of Singapore.
This rating uses some of the same criteria as the world rankings, but there are new weight changes and criteria. One additional is the criteria of incoming and outgoing exchange students. Thus, the performance of Asian institutions at QS World University Rankings and QS Asian University Rankings released in the same academic year is different from each other.
Latin America
The QS Latin American University Rankings or QS University Rankings: Latin America launched in 2011. They use academic opinions (30%), employers' opinions (20%), publications per faculty members, quotes per paper, academic staff with PhD, lecturer/student ratio and web visibility (10 percent each) as a measure.
2016/17 Edition of QS World University Rankings: Latin America is ranked the top 300 universities in the region. Universidade de SÃÆ'Â £ Paulo maintains its status as the best university in the region.
BRICS
This series of ratings adopts 8 indicators to select the top 100 higher education institutions in BRICS countries. Institutions in Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan are not rated here.
QS Best Student Town Rating
In 2012, QS launched the City of QS Best Student Cities ranking - a table designed to evaluate which cities are most likely to provide students with a high-quality student experience. Five edition ratings have been published so far, with Paris taking the number one position in four of them. The 2017 edition is also the first to see the introduction of student opinions as a contribution indicator. The latest edition of this ranking was released on May 9, 2018. It sees London taking the number one spot from Montreal.
QS Stars
QS also offers university audit services that provide in-depth information on institutional strengths and weaknesses. Called QS Stars, this service is separate from QS World University Rankings. It involves a detailed view on the various functions that mark modern global universities. The minimum acceptable result of a university is a Zero Star, while the world's top outstanding university can accept '5 *' status, or 'Five Star Plus'. The QS Stars audit process evaluates the university based on about 50 different indicators. By 2018, about 20 different universities around the world have received the Five Star Plus rating as much as possible.
The QS Stars rank comes from scores on eight of 12 categories. Four categories are mandatory, while the institution must select four remaining optional categories. They:
- Teach
- Work eligibility
- Research
- Internationalization
- Facilities
- Online/Distance Learning
- Art & amp; Culture
- Innovation
- Inclusivity
- Social Responsibility
- Subject Rating
- Program Strength
Star is an evaluation system, not a rank. About 400 agencies have opted for Star evaluation in early 2018. In 2012, the cost to participate in the program is $ 9850 for initial audits and an annual license fee of $ 6850.
Note
References
External links
- Official website
- QS Intelligence Unit Blog - a blog about ranking and higher education from the team that compiled QS World University Rankings
- The interactive map compares the World University Rank QS with University of the World Academic Rank and Times Higher Education ranking
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments