College and university rankings

College and university rankings

August 29, 2019 0 By Stanley Isaacs


College and university rankings are rankings
of institutions in higher education ordered by various combinations of various factors. Rankings have most often been conducted by
magazines, newspapers, websites, governments, or academics. In addition to ranking entire institutions,
organizations perform rankings of specific programs, departments, and schools. Various rankings consider combinations of
measures of wealth, research excellence and/or influence, selectivity, student options, eventual
success, demographics, and other criteria. There are no known college rankings of student
academic quality. Some rankings evaluate institutions within
a single country, while others assess institutions worldwide. The subject has produced much debate about
rankings’ usefulness and accuracy. The expanding diversity in rating methodologies
and accompanying criticisms of each indicate the lack of consensus in the field. Global rankings
For rankings of United States universities in particular, see Rankings of universities
in the United States. Several organizations produce worldwide university
rankings, including: Academic Ranking of World Universities The Academic Ranking of World Universities
compiled by the Shanghai Jiao Tong University and now maintained by the Shanghai Ranking
Consultancy, has provided annual global rankings of universities since 2003, making it the
earliest of its kind. The ranking is funded by the Chinese government
and its initial purpose was to measure the gap between Chinese and “world class” universities. ARWU rankings have been cited by The Economist
magazine. It has been lauded for being “consistent and
transparent” based on an article. The education ministers of France, Norway
and Denmark traveled to China to discuss and find ways to improve their rankings. ARWU does not rely on surveys and school submissions. Among other criteria, ARWU includes the number
of articles published by Nature or Science and the number of Nobel Prize winners and
Fields Medalists. Harvard and Stanford have topped the ranking
for years. One of the primary criticisms of ARWU’s methodology
is that it is biased towards the natural sciences and English language science journals over
other subjects. Moreover, the ARWU is known for “relying solely
on research indicators”, and “the ranking is heavily weighted toward institutions whose
faculty or alumni have won Nobel Prizes”: it does not measure “the quality of teaching
or the quality of humanities.” Times Higher Education World University Rankings From 2004 to 2009 Times Higher Education,
a British publication, published the annual Times Higher Education–QS World University
Rankings in association with Quacquarelli Symonds. THE published a table of the top 200 universities
and QS ranked approximately 500 online, in book form, and via media partners. On 30 October 2009, THE broke with QS and
joined Thomson Reuters to provide a new set of world university rankings, called Times
Higher Education World University Rankings. THE has stated that academic opinion will
form part of its new offering. On 3 June 2010, Times Higher Education revealed
the methodology which they proposed to use when compiling the new world university rankings. The new methodology included 13 separate performance
indicators, an increase from the six measures employed between 2004 and 2009. After further consultation the criteria were
grouped under five broad overall indicators to produce the final ranking. THE published its first rankings using its
new methodology on 16 September 2010, a month earlier than previous years. The Times Higher Education World University
Rankings, along with the QS World University Rankings and the Academic Ranking of World
Universities are described as being the three most influential international university
rankings. The Globe and Mail in 2010 described the Times
Higher Education World University Rankings as “arguably the most influential.” Research published by professors at the University
of Michigan in 2011 demonstrated that the early THES rankings were disproportionately
influential in establishing the status order of world research universities. Times Higher Education World Reputation Rankings
Published for the first time in March 2011, the rankings are based on a survey of 13,388
academics over 131 countries – which is the largest evaluation of academic reputation
to date. The survey was conducted in eight languages
by Ipsos Media CT for Times Higher Education’s ranking-data partner Thomson Reuters, and
asked experienced academics to highlight what they believed to be the strongest universities
for teaching and research in their own fields. The top six universities in the ranking for
2014—Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Cambridge, Oxford, UC Berkeley—were found to be “head
and shoulders above the rest”, and were touted as a group of globally recognised “super brands.” Center for World University Rankings
This Saudi Arabia-based consulting organization has published yearly rankings of world universities
since 2012. Rankings are based on quality of education,
alumni employment, quality of faculty, number of publications, number of publications in
high-quality journals, citations, scientific impact and number of patents. G-factor
G-factor ranks university and college web presence by counting the number of links only
from other university websites, using Google search engine data. G-factor is an indicator of the popularity
or importance of each university’s website from the combined perspectives of other institutions. It claims to be an objective peer review of
a university through its website—in social network theory terminology, G-factor measures
the centrality of each university’s website in the network of university websites. Global University Ranking
Global University Ranking measures over 400 universities using the RatER, an autonomous,
non-commercial, Russian rating agency supported by Russia’s academic society. The methodology pools universities from ARWU,
HEEACT, Times-QS and Webometrics and a pool of experts formed by project officials and
managers to determine the rating scales for indicators in seven areas. It considers academic performance, research
performance, faculty expertise, resource availability, socially significant activities of graduates,
international activities, and international opinion. Each expert independently evaluates these
performance indicators for candidate universities. The rating is the average of the expert evaluations. This ranking raised questions when it placed
Russian Moscow State University in fifth place, ahead of Harvard and Cambridge. HEEACT—Ranking of Scientific Papers The Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers
for World Universities was produced until 2012 by the Higher Education Evaluation and
Accreditation Council of Taiwan. The indicators were designed to measure both
long-term and short-term research performance of research universities. This project employed bibliometrics to analyze
and rank the performance of the 500 top universities and the top 300 universities in six fields. HEEACT further provides subject rankings in
science and technology fields. It also ranked the top 300 universities across
ten science and technology fields. The ranking included eight indicators. They were: articles published over prior 11
years; citations of those articles, “current” articles, current citations, average citations,
“H-index”, number of “highly–cited papers” and high impact journal articles. They representedx three criteria of scientific
papers performance: research productivity, research impact, and research excellence. The 2007 ranking methodology was alleged to
have favored universities with medical schools, and in response, HEEACT added assessment criteria. The six field–based rankings are based on
the subject categorization of WOS, including Agriculture & Environment Sciences, Clinical
Medicine, Engineering, Computing & Technology, Life Sciences, Natural Sciences and Social
Sciences. The ten subjects include Physics, Chemistry,
Mathematics, Geosciences, Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, Mechanical Engineering,
Chemical Engineering, Materials Sciences, and Civil Engineering. High Impact Universities: Research Performance
Index The High Impact Universities Research Performance
Index is a 2010 Australian initiative that studies university research performance. The pilot project involved a trial of over
1,000 universities or institutions and 5,000 constituent faculties worldwide. The top 500 results for universities and faculties
were reported at the project website. The project promotes simplicity, transparency
and fairness. The assessment analyzes research performance
as measured by publications and citations. Publication and citation data is drawn from
Scopus. The project uses standard bibliometric indicators,
namely the 10-year g-index and h-index. RPI equally weighs contributions from the
five faculties. The five faculty scores are normalized to
place them onto a common scale. The normalized scores are then averaged to
arrive at a final RPI. Human Resources & Labor Review
The Human Resources & Labor Review publishes a human competitiveness index & analysis annually
in Chasecareer Network. This system is based on Human Resources & Labour
Review Indexes, which measure the performance of top 300 universities’ graduates. In 2004, a couple of educational institutions
voiced concerns at several events in regard to the accuracy and effectiveness of ranking
bodies or lists. The HRLR ranking was pioneered in late 2005
within a working group in response to those concerns. The team was founded in January 2007 and started
compiling and processing datas, resulting in the first lists in 2007-2008. The ranking concept is later being adopted
for Alumni score on ARWU and many other rankings. The new HRLR ranking innovative methods sparked
intense interests from many institutions and inspired several other ranking lists and scoring
which are based on professional, alumni, executives, competitiveness, human capital-oriented aspects. Nevertheless, HRLR remains to be the leader
in university ranking with innovative and comprehensive approaches, and not relying
merely on those aforementioned aspects. Leiden Ranking The Centre for Science and Technology Studies
at Leiden University maintains a European and world-wide ranking of the top 500 universities
according including the number and impact of Web of Science-indexed publications per
year. The rankings compare research institutions
by taking into account differences in language, discipline and institutional size. Multiple ranking lists are released according
to various bibliometric normalization and impact indicators, including the number of
publications, citations-per-publication, and field-averaged impact per publication. Newsweek
In August 2006, the American magazine Newsweek published a ranking of the Top 100 Global
Universities, using selected criteria from ARWU and the Times Higher Education-QS rankings,
with the additional criterion of the number of volumes in the library. It formed part of a special issue including
an article from Tony Blair, then prime minister of the UK, but has not been repeated. It considered openness and diversity as well
as distinction in research. The ranking has been continued since its merger
with The Daily Beast, and currently uses data from the Times Higher Education World Rankings,
Webometrics world college rankings from public-research outlet Consejo Superior de Investigaciones
Científicas in Spain, and the Shanghai Ranking Consultancy in order to compile its results. Professional Ranking of World Universities
In contrast to academic rankings, the Professional Ranking of World Universities established
in 2007 by the École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris measures the efficiency
of each university at producing leading business professionals. Its main compilation criterion is the number
of Chief Executive Officers among the Fortune Global 500. This ranking has been criticized for placing
five French universities into the top 20. QS World University Rankings The QS World University Rankings are a ranking
of the world’s top universities produced by Quacquarelli Symonds and published annually
since 2004. In 2011 they ranked 712 universities, with
the University of Cambridge in the UK, Harvard University in the USA and MIT on top. The QS rankings should not be confused with
the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. From 2004 to 2009 the QS rankings were published
in collaboration with Times Higher Education and were known as the Times Higher Education-QS
World University Rankings. In 2010 QS assumed sole publication of rankings
produced with this methodology when Times Higher Education split from QS in order to
create a new rankings methodology in partnership with Thomson Reuters. The QS rankings are published in the United
States by U.S. News & World Report as the “World’s Best Universities.” The QS rankings use peer review data collected
from 33,744 scholars and academics and 16,785 recruiters. These two are worth 40 per cent and 10 per
cent of a university’s possible score respectively. The QS rankings also incorporate citation
per faculty member data from Scopus, faculty/student ratios, and international staff and student
numbers. The citations and faculty/student measures
are worth 20 per cent of an institution’s total possible score and the international
staff and student data five per cent each. QS has published online material about its
methodology. QS published the 2011 QS World University
Rankings online on September 6, 2011. The rankings also appear in book form, and
via media partners including US News & World Report and The Chosun Ilbo. QS has added to its main World University
Rankings, starting in 2009 with the Asian University Rankings. The QS Latin American University Rankings
and the QS World University Rankings by Subject were published for the first time in 2011. The subject rankings are intended to address
the most frequent criticism of all world university ranking systems, that they contain too little
material about specific subjects, something potential applicants are keen to see. These rankings have been drawn up on the basis
of citations, academic peer review and recruiter review, with the weightings for each dependent
upon the culture and practice of the subject concerned. They are published in five clusters; engineering;
biomedicine; the natural sciences; the social sciences; and the arts and humanities, and
cover 29 subjects in 2012. QS Asian University Rankings
In 2009, Quacquarelli Symonds launched a department of the QS Asian University Rankings in partnership
with The Chosun Ilbo newspaper in Korea. They rank the top 200 Asian universities and
has now appeared three times. They release an independent list of rankings
each time, different from that of the QS World University Rankings. These rankings use some of the same criteria
as the World University Rankings but they use other measures, such as incoming and outgoing
exchange students as well. As the criteria and their weightings are different,
the QS World university rankings and the QS Asian University rankings released in the
same academic year are different. QS Latin American University Rankings
The QS Latin American University Rankings were launched in 2011. They use academic opinion, employer opinion,
publications per faculty member, citations per paper, academic staff with a PhD, faculty/student
ratio and web visibility as measures. These criteria were developed in consultation
with experts in Latin America, and the web visibility data come from Webometrics [4]. This ranking showed that the University of
São Paulo in Brazil is the region’s top institution, top in the first and second editions in 2011
and 2012 respectively. SCImago Institutions Rankings
The SCImago Institutions Rankings since 2009 has published its international ranking of
worldwide research institutions, the SIR World Report. The SIR World Report is the work of the SCImago
Research Group, a Spain-based research organization consist of members from the Spanish National
Research Council, University of Granada, Charles III University of Madrid, University of Alcalá,
University of Extremadura and other education institutions in Spain. The ranking measures areas such as: research
output, international collaboration, normalized impact and publication rate. U-Multirank U-Multirank, a European Commission supported
feasibility study, was undertaken to contribute to the European Commission objective of enhancing
transparency about the different missions and the performance of higher education institutions
and research institutes. At a press conference in Brussels on 13 May
2011, the U-Multirank was officially launched by Androulla Vassiliou, Commissioner for Higher
Education and Culture saying: U-Multirank “will be useful to each participating higher
education institution, as a planning and self-mapping exercise. By providing students with clearer information
to guide their study choices, this is a fresh tool for more quality, relevance and transparency
in European higher education. “ U-Multirank breaks new ground by producing
multi-dimensional listings rating universities on a much wider range of factors than existing
international rankings. The idea is to avoid simplistic league tables
which can result in misleading comparisons between institutions of very different types
or mask significant differences in quality between courses at the same university. U-Multirank assesses the overall performance
of universities but also ranks them in selected academic fields: in 2014 the fields are business
studies, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering and physics; in 2015, psychology,
computer science and medicine will be added. The universities are tested against up to
30 separate indicators and rated in five performance groups, from ‘A’ through to ‘E’. The results show that while over 95% of institutions
achieve an ‘A’ score on at least one measure, only 12% have more than 10 top scores. Of the 850 universities in the ranking, 62%
are from Europe, 17% from North America, 14% from Asia and 7% from Oceania, Latin America
and Africa. U-Multirank received €2 million in EU funding
from the former Lifelong Learning Programme for the years 2013-2015, with the possibility
of a further two years of funding in 2015-2017. The goal is for an independent organisation
to manage the ranking on a sustainable business model thereafter. University Ranking by Academic Performance
First published in 2010, the University Ranking by Academic Performance was developed in the
Informatics Institute of Middle East Technical University in Turkey and ranked 2,000 universities
according to an aggregation of six academic research performance indicators: current productivity,
long-term productivity, research impact, impact, quality, and international collaboration. Webometrics The Webometrics Ranking of World Universities
is produced by Cybermetrics Lab, a unit of the Spanish National Research Council, the
main public research body in Spain. It offers information about more than 12,000
universities according to their web presence. The ranking is updated every January and July. The Webometrics Ranking or Ranking Web is
built from a database of over 20,000 higher education institutions. The top 12,000 universities are shown in the
main ranking and more are covered in regional lists. The ranking started in 2004 and is based on
a composite indicator that includes both the volume of the Web contents and the visibility
and impact of web publications according to the number of external links they received. A wide range of scientific activities appears
exclusively on academic websites and is typically overlooked by bibliometric indicators. Webometric indicators measure institutional
commitment to Web publication. Webometric results show a high correlation
with other rankings. However, North American universities are relatively
common in the top 200, while small– and medium–size biomedical institutions and
German, French, Italian and Japanese universities were less common in the top ranks. Possible reasons include publishing via independent
research councils or the large amount of non-English web contents, which are less likely to be
linked. Wuhan University
The Research Center for Chinese Science Evaluation at Wuhan University ranking is based on Essential
Science Indicators, which provides data on journal article publication counts and citation
frequencies in over 11,000 journals around the world in 22 research fields. Regional and national rankings
Regional and national rankings are carried out in Africa, Asia, Europe, North America,
South America and Oceania. Asia
QS’ Asian University Rankings use some of the same data as the QS World University Rankings
alongside other material, such as the number of exchange students attending or traveling
from each university. The rankings list the top 200 universities
in Asia. China
Many academic organizations in China rank universities, such as HRLR Asia, Chinese University
Alumni Association and China Education Center Ltd. the Chinese university rankings, and
many others. There are also many rankings based on university
billionaire alumni, such as Chinese university ranking of billionaire alumni. India
Magazines such as Youth Incorporated, India Today, Outlook, Mint, Dataquest and EFY conduct
annual rankings for the major disciplines. See India university rankings for a list of
rankings; also see List of Indian engineering college rankings. Japan
Most of the ranking systems in Japan rank universities by the difficulty of their entrance
exams, called “Hensachi”. One example of such a ranking is Going broke
universities – Disappearing universities by Kiyoshi Shimano. Organizations who use other methods of ranking
universities in Japan include Nikkei Business Publications, which annually releases the
Brand rankings of Japanese universities every November. Toyo Keizai, who regularly releases the university
rankings “Truly Strong Universities” once a year, is another example. Japanese leading prep school Kawaijuku also
released the Japan’s Top 30 University Rankings in Natural Sciences and Technology for MEXT’s
GLOBAL 30 Project in 2001. Pakistan
Pakistan’s Higher Education Commission annually ranks domestic universities. Philippines Academic rankings in the Philippines are conducted
by the Professional Regulation Commission and the Commission on Higher Education, based
on the average passing rates in board tests. South Korea
Korean Council for University Education, established in 2009, evaluates universities in South Korea. Europe
European Union The European Commission compiled a list of
the 22 universities in the EU with the highest scientific impact. This ranking was compiled as part of the Third
European Report on Science & Technology Indicators, prepared by the Directorate General for Science
and Research of the European Commission in 2003. It only explicitly considers the European
Union’s top institutions, but comparisons with the rest of the world are provided in
the full report. The report says, “University College London
comes out on top in both publications and citations” however the table lists the top
scoring university as “Univ London” implying that the authors counted the scientific output
of the entire University of London, rather than its constituent colleges. In this ranking, the EU’s top two universities
are Cambridge and Oxford, as in the Jiao Tong and Times rankings. This ranking stresses the scientific quality
of the institution, as opposed to its size or perceived prestige. Thus smaller, technical universities, such
as Eindhoven and the Technical University Munich are ranked third and fourth, behind
Cambridge, and followed by the University of Edinburgh. The report does not provide a direct comparison
between EU and universities in the rest of the world, although it does compute a scientific
impact score, which is measured against the world average. In December 2008, the European Commission
published a call for tenders, inviting bidders to design and test a new multi-dimensional
university ranking system with global outreach. The first results of the envisaged pilot project
were promised for the first half of 2011. Another approach to classify the European
research area is offered by ‘European Research Ranking’. This ranking is based on publicly available
data from the European Commissions project and funding database CORDIS to estimate the
funding and networking performance of European research institutions. Austria
Some Austrian universities, including all Austrian Universities of Applied Sciences,
take part in the CHE UniversityRanking. Bulgaria
The Bulgarian University Ranking System, maintained by the Bulgarian Ministry of Education, compares
academic programs in accredited domestic higher education institutions. The system ranks programs based on more than
50 indicators, such as teaching and learning conditions, scientific research, career development
opportunities, prestige, and material resources. Denmark
In Denmark, the think-tank CEPOS conduct an annual survey and ranking of higher education
at study program level and institution level, based on entry salary, career development,
drop-out rates, and program completion rates. France
Le Nouvel Observateur and other popular magazines occasionally offer rankings of universities,
“Grandes écoles” and their preparatory schools, the “Prépas”. Germany
Since 2007, the CHE “ExcellenceRanking” has been published by the Center for Higher Education
Development in Germany. The ranking includes the sciences of biology,
chemistry, mathematics and physics as well as psychology, political science and economics. The ranking is designed to support the search
for masters or doctoral programmes. The CHE also wants to highlight the research
strengths of European universities and provide them with ideas for improvement. The ranking is published by the German weekly
newspaper Die Zeit in English and German. The CHE Center for Higher Education Development
gathers the data for this ranking. An English version is provided by the DAAD. The CHE also publishes a “ResearchRanking”
showing the research strengths of German universities. The CHE ResearchRanking is based on the research–related
data of the UniversityRanking. Ireland
The Sunday Times ranks Irish universities based on a mix of criteria, including secondary
school examination scores, graduation rates, staff-student ratio, research efficiency,
accommodation, nontraditional students, athletics and sports facilities. Italy
Every year, the newspaper La Repubblica, in collaboration with CENSIS, compiles a ranking
of Italian universities. Macedonia
The Academic Ranking of World Universities compiled Macedonian HEIs Ranking, a ranking
of Macedonian Higher Education Institutions commissioned by Ministry of Education and
Science of Republic of Macedonia in February, 2011 and released on February 16, 2012. Nineteen qualified HEIs were included in the
ranking. The ranking used 19 indicators of academic
performance and competitiveness, covering major mission aspects of HEIs such as teaching,
research and social service. It is the first university ranking in Macedonia. Netherlands
Most Dutch universities take part in the CHE UniversityRanking. Romania
The Ad Astra association of Romanian scientists ranked Romanian universities in 2006 and 2007. Russian Federation
Several bodies rank Russian universities, including RIA Novosti / Forbes, Independent
Rating Agency RatER, Interfax and the Russian Journal “Finance”. RIA Novosty / Forbes rankings are conducted
under the supervision of Public Chamber of Russia in cooperation with State University
– Higher School of Economics) This ranking is considered the most objective system. It covers 476 higher education institutions
and is based on the average score of the Unified State Examination that is required to enter
a university. The ranking has separate subrankings for different
subjects and clusters of universities. RIA Novosty rankings do not align with other
local and international rankings such as Academic Ranking of World Universities and QS World
University Rankings which take into account inherited reputation from the Soviet Union. Independent Rating Agency RatER publishes
annual rankings based on representation of university graduates in governmental, education
and business elite. Interfax annually ranks “classical” universities
and higher education institutions specialising in law. Interfax’ methodology quantifies several qualitative
factors such as research, teaching standards, public opinion and social and international
activity. The Russian Journal “Finance” produces an
integrated ranking of higher education institutions specialising in economics and finance. The Journal uses the average score of the
Unified State Examination, the number of CFO graduates and the consolidated turnover of
companies where graduate CFOs are employed. Sweden
In Sweden, the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise conduct an annual survey and ranking of higher
education at study program level, based on entry salary, career development, internationalization,
and degree of academic-business collaboration. Switzerland
The swissUp Ranking ranked Swiss university and polytechnic students until 2004. The swissUp Ranking is no longer conducted. Some universities from the German-speaking
part of Switzerland, such as ISFOA Lugano take part in the CHE UniversityRanking. Ukraine
Ukraine’s Ministry of Education and Science performs official yearly university evaluations. Zerkalo Nedeli newspaper published the top
200–ranked Ukrainian universities in 2007. Kyiv Student Council ranks universities on
criteria of student satisfaction. United Kingdom The Research Assessment Exercises are the
UK government’s evaluation of research quality in British Universities. Each subject, called a unit of assessment,
is ranked by a peer review panel. The rankings are used in the allocation of
government funding. The latest assessment was made in 2008. The RAE provides quality ratings for research
across all disciplines. Panels use a standard scale for each submission. Ratings range from 1 to 5, according to the
quantity of work that is judged to reach national or international levels of excellence. Participating institutions receive grants
from one of the four higher education funding bodies in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland. The top three universities in the latest RAE
exercise were London School of Economics, Cambridge University and Oxford University. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education
assesses undergraduate teaching. QAA is an independent body established by
the UK’s higher education institutions in 1997. QAA was under contract to the Higher Education
Funding Council for England to assess quality for English universities. This replaced Teaching Quality Assessments
which aimed to assess the administrative, policy and procedural framework within which
teaching took place and did not directly assess teaching quality. This inspection–based system was replaced
by a system of information provision, including a national student survey. QAA publishes scores which have been used
by the league table industry. Other rankings include Times Good University
Guide, The Complete University Guide, Independent, The Sunday Times University Guide, The Guardian—University
Guide North America
Canada Maclean’s, a Canadian news magazine, publishes
an annual ranking of Canadian Universities, called the Maclean’s University Rankings. Ranking criteria include student body characteristics,
classes, faculty, finances, library, and reputation. The rankings are split into three categories:
schools that focus on undergraduate studies with few to no graduate programs, schools
that have both extensive undergraduate studies and an extensive selection of graduate programs
and schools that have a professional medical program and a selection of graduate programs. The University of Calgary produced a formal
study examining the ranking methodology, illuminating the factors that determined its rank and criticizing
certain aspects of the methodology. The University of Alberta, the University
of Toronto and University of Manitoba have expressed displeasure over the ranking system. A notable difference between rankings in the
United States and Maclean’s rankings, however, is that Maclean’s excludes privately–funded
universities. However, the majority of Canada’s institutions,
including the best–known are publicly–funded. Beginning in September 2006, over 20 Canadian
universities, including several of the most prestigious and largest universities such
as the University of Toronto, University of British Columbia, University of Alberta, Concordia
University, McMaster University and Dalhousie University, jointly refused to participate. University of Alberta president Indira Samarasekera
wrote that Maclean’s initially filed a “Freedom of Information” request but that it was “too
late” for the universities to respond. Samarasekera further stated, “Most of [the
universities] had already posted the data online, and we directed Maclean’s staff
to our Web sites. In instances where the magazine staff couldn’t
find data on our Web site, they chose to use the previous year’s data.” Mexico
Estudio Comparativo de Universidades Mexicanas Mexican institutions have been compared in
the Estudio Comparativo de Universidades Mexicanas produced within the Universidad Nacional Autónoma
de México. ECUM provides data on institutional participation
in articles on ISI Web of Knowledge–indexed journals; faculty participation in each of
Mexico’s three–level National Researchers System; graduate degrees within register of
quality graduate programs; and number of academic research bodies according to the Secretariat
of Public Education program PROMEP. ECUM provides online access to data for 2007
and 2008 through ExECUM. Institutional data can be visualized through
three options: A selection of the most prominent 58 universities. This selection accounts for more than 60 percent
of undergraduate and graduate enrollments. It includes public federal universities; 35
public state universities, and a group of private institutions that feature within ECUM’s
selected classification data. Result tables for the top 20 institutions
in each of the data labels in this study. These include some of the selected universities
in addition to the rest of Mexico’s higher education institutions, as well as institutes,
centers and other research producing organizations. A personalized selection from more than 600
institutions. These are classified by institutional type,
institutional gatherings, by activity sector alphabetically. ExECUM allows users to establish comparison
types and levels which they consider relevant. Data is presented in raw form with virtually
no derived indicators. Users can relate variables and build indicators
according to their own analytical perspectives. Based on this comparative study project, ECUM’s
creator, the Dirección General de Evaluación Institucional, published reports providing
an analysis of the data for 2007 and 2008. United States For a more comprehensive and detailed look
at U.S. university rankings, see Rankings of universities in the United States
Council for Aid to Education The Council for Aid to Education publishes
a list of the top universities in terms of annual fundraising. Fundraising ability reflects, among other
things, alumni and outside donor’s views of the quality of a university, as well as the
ability of that university to expend funds on top faculty and facilities. Most recent rankings put Stanford at the top,
ahead of Harvard and Columbia. The Daily Beast’s Guide to the Best Colleges
The Daily Beast’s college rankings take into account nine factors, with future earnings,
affordability, and graduation rate weighted most heavily. The other criteria include academics, diversity,
athletics, nightlife, activities, and campus quality. The Daily Beast’s college rankings report
the top 200 scoring schools. Forbes College rankings
In 2008, Forbes.com began publishing an annual list, prepared by the Center for College Affordability
and Productivity of “America’s Best Colleges”. The Forbes rankings use the list of alumni
published in Who’s Who in America, student evaluations from RateMyProfessors.com, self-reported
salaries of alumni from PayScale, four-year graduation rates, numbers of students and
faculty receiving “nationally competitive awards,” and four-year accumulated student
debt to calculate the rankings. It disregards subjective measures such as
public reputation, which causes some Ivy League and other highly reputable colleges to score
lower than in other lists. Most recent ranking puts Stanford at the top,
followed by Pomona, Princeton, Yale, and Columbia. The Princeton Review Dream Colleges
The Princeton Review annually asks students and parents what their dream college is, if
cost and ability to get in were not factors. Stanford is the students’ top “dream school.” Stanford is also the parents’ top “dream school.” Stanford edges out Harvard and Columbia among
students, and Harvard and Princeton among parents. Revealed preference rankings
Avery et al. pioneered the use of choice modelling to rank colleges. Their methodology used a statistical analysis
of the decisions of 3,240 students who applied to college in 1999. MyChances.net, now called Parchment, adopted
a similar approach starting in 2009, stating that its method is based on this approach. The study analysed students admitted to multiple
colleges. The college they attended became the winner,
and the others became the losers. An Elo rating system was used to assign points
based on each win or loss, and the colleges were ranked based on their Elo points. A useful consequence of the use of Elo points
is that they can be used to estimate the frequency with which students, upon being admitted to
two schools, will choose one over the other. Most recent preference ranking placed Stanford
at the top, followed by MIT, Harvard, and Princeton. U.S. News & World Report college and university
rankings The magazine U.S. News & World Report’s college
and university rankings have been compiled since 1983. The college rankings were published in all
years thereafter, except 1984. The ranking order of universities has been
shown to have great effect; a one-rank improvement leads to a 0.9% increase in number of applicants. The US News rankings are based upon data which
it collects from each educational institution either from an annual survey or from the school’s
website. There has been some significant controversy
surrounding this annual survey, including a letter from the Annapolis Group requesting
that school presidents do not participate in the US News annual survey, which led to
“a majority of the approximately 80 presidents at the meeting said that they did not intend
to participate in the U.S. News reputational rankings in the future.” There have been reports of universities misreporting
data on surveys just to gain an upper hand in rankings. Also considered in the rankings formula are
opinion surveys of university faculty and administrators outside the school. According to the magazine U.S. News and World
Report, the top thirty undergraduate programs of universities that offer PhD degrees are: United States National Research Council Rankings The National Research Council ranks the doctoral
research programmes of US universities, most recently in 1995. Data collection for an updated ranking began
in 2006. Faculty Scholarly Productivity rankings
The Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index by Academic Analytics ranks 354 institutions
based on faculty publications, citations, research grants and awards. The Top American Research Universities
The Center for Measuring University Performance has ranked American research universities
in the Top American Research Universities since 2000. The methodology is based on data such as research
publications, citations, recognitions and funding, as well as undergraduate quality
such as SAT scores. The information used can be found in public–accessible
materials, reducing possibilities for manipulation. The methodology is generally consistent from
year to year and changes are explained in the publication along with references from
other studies. Washington Monthly College rankings
The Washington Monthly’s “College Rankings”, last published in 2011, began as a research
report in 2005. Related rankings appeared in the September
2006 issue. It offers American university and college
rankings based upon how well each enhances social mobility, fosters scientific and humanistic
research and promotes an ethic of service. TrendTopper MediaBuzz College Guide
TrendTopper MediaBuzz College Guide is an American-college guide based on what it calls
“Internet brand equity” based on data collected from the Internet and global media sources. It ranks the Top 300 United States colleges
and universities. The guide includes specialty and for profit
schools including Art, Business, Design, Music, and Online Education. The TrendTopper MediaBuzz College Rankings
are produced twice a year by the Global Language Monitor of Austin, Texas. Time Magazine described internet brand equity
as “a measure of who’s talking about you online, based on Internet data, social media, blogs
and the top 75,000 print and electronic media outlets. GLM ranks the schools “according to their
online presence — or internet brand equity … By focusing on online presence, the Monitor
hopes to avoid the biases that characterize other rankings, which commonly rely on the
opinions of university officials and college counselors rather than that of the greater
public. ” GLM believes the rankings provide an up-to-date
perspective on which schools have the most popular brand. The resulting rankings gauge the relative
value of the various institutions and how they change over time. American Council of Trustees and Alumni
In 2009, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni began grading colleges and universities
based on the strength of their general education requirements. In ACTA’s annual What Will They Learn? report, colleges and universities are assigned
a letter grade from “A” to “F” based on how many of seven subjects are required of students. The seven subjects are composition, mathematics,
foreign language, science, economics, literature and American government or history. The 2011-2012 edition of What Will They Learn? graded 1,007 institutions. In the 2011-2012 edition, 19 schools received
an “A” grade for requiring at least six of the subjects the study evaluated. In the 2012-2013 edition, the study evaluated
1,070 colleges and universities, with 21 schools earning an “A” grade. ACTA’s rating system has been endorsed by
Mel Elfin, founding editor of U.S. News & World Report’s rankings. New York Times higher education blogger Stanley
Fish, while agreeing that universities ought to have a strong core curriculum, disagreed
with some of the subjects ACTA includes in the core. Other
Other organizations that rank US institutions include the Fiske Guide to Colleges and College
Prowler. Many specialized rankings are available in
guidebooks, considering individual student interests, fields of study, geographical location,
financial aid and affordability. Among the rankings dealing with individual
fields of study is the Philosophical Gourmet Report or “Leiter Report”, a ranking of philosophy
departments. This report has attracted criticism from different
viewpoints. Notably, practitioners of continental philosophy,
who perceive the Leiter report as unfair to their field, have compiled alternative rankings. The Gourman Report, last published in 1996,
ranked the quality of undergraduate majors and graduate programs. Gallup polls ask American adults, “All in
all, what would you say is the best college or university in the United States?” Guide to Online Schools publishes online college
rankings each year, using the criteria of recommendation rate, cost of tuition, retention
rate, repayment rate, and accreditation. All schools on their 2013 online college rankings
are regionally accredited. The Princeton Review, annually publishes a
book of Best Colleges. In 2011, this was titled The Best 373 Colleges. Phi Beta Kappa has also sought to establish
chapters at the best schools, lately numbering 280. In terms of collegiate sports programs, the
annual NACDA Directors’ Cup provides a measure of all-around collegiate athletic team achievement. Stanford has won the Division I Directors’
cup for nineteen years in a row, and is poised to clinch its twentieth cup when the 2014
season ends. Oceania
Australia The Good Universities Guide and Excellence
in Research for Australia annually rank domestic universities. South America
Argentina In Argentina the National Commission for University
Evaluation and Accreditation ranks higher education programs by evaluation and accreditation. Brazil The latest ranking, the Ranking Universitário
Folha website, was created by the newspaper Folha de São Paulo. This ranking is based on the combination of
four indicators: education quality, research quality, market assessment and an innovation
indicator. Chile
In Chile the “Comisión Nacional de Acreditación” manages evaluation and accreditation. It also ranks universities according to accreditation
levels. Other commercial rankings are made by research
magazines, including Qué Pasa and América Economía. Qué Pasa’s ranking evaluates perception and
quality following surveys of approximately 1,000 employers across the country. América Economía’s ranking considers quality
of students, quality of teachers, rating of professors by student, research productivity,
internationalization, integration with the community, student life quality and inclusion
of students from lower social strata. See also
MBA Programme rankings References External links
EUA Report on University Rankings 2013 The 2012 Ranking of Italian Universities
Institute for Higher Education Policy Ranking Systems Clearinghouse
University of Illinois Library – College and University Rankings
The Ranking Forum of Swiss Universities webometrics.info
College Rankings Reformed: The Case for a New Order in Higher Education
Interactive maps comparing the ARWU, Times Higher Education and QS World University Rankings
Jambor, Paul Z. ‘The Changing Dynamics of PhDs and the Future
of Higher Educational Development in Asia and the Rest of the World’ Department of Education
– The United States of America: Educational Resources Information Center, September 26,
2009