By . This year's QS World University Rankings are notable not only for the changes in standing of individual institutions, but for what they say about the increasingly international nature of higher education at the top level.
Global student mobility is on a seemingly unstoppable rise, with those seeking an overseas education targeting the leading universities. Even after considerable growth in recent years, the latest rankings show an extraordinary rise of almost 10 per cent in international student numbers at the top 100 universities.
As a result, even those universities recording a modest increase, or simply maintaining their previous recruitment, are being overtaken on this measure. Cambridge , for example, has seen a significant increase in international students, but has dropped five places in this measure, contributing to its fall from first to second place in the overall ranking.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is the new leader, overtaking both Cambridge and Harvard to top the institutional table for the first time. The signs of MIT's rise were visible in the subject rankings published by QS in June, when it topped 11 of the 28 tables.
MIT has attracted attention over the past year mainly for its development of massively open online courses (MOOCs), which it pioneered. The MITx project has been launched to make more courses available globally and the university is one of the lead players in collaboration with other US and overseas institutions. Recent months have also seen the announcement that Susan Hockfield , the President, would be stepping down and the remarkably speedy appointment of Rafael Reif, the Provost, to succeed her.
MIT would have been higher in previous years were it not for a relatively low proportion of international faculty. A sharp rise in this measure is the biggest factor behind its rise to overtake both Harvard and Cambridge and take top place. Although it is still not in the top 100 for the proportion of foreign academics, the increase was enough for its consistently strong showing in other measures to capture first place.
Harvard, in third place, remains the favourite of both academics and employers , who responded in record numbers to QS polling this year. It also tops four of the five broad faculty rankings published today.
Overall, the institutional ranking is more stable than it has ever been. There is only one new entrant to the top 20 - the University of Toronto. The average movement in the top 100 is 4.6 places, while in the top 200 the average is 9.1.
Universities from the United States continue to dominate, although four of the top six are from the UK this year. US institutions occupy the remaining six places in the top ten, plus 13 of the top 20 and 31 of the top 100 - the same numbers as last year.
The UK is again the next most successful country, although it has lost one university from the top 20, one from the top 100 and one from the top 200. Its four universities in the top ten and 18 in the top 100 show a system continuing to punch well above its weight.
A seaplane service from Thiruvananthapuram to Kochi is also in the offing. The seaplane will connect Trivandrum airport- Ashtamudi- Punnamada- Vembanadu- Munnar- Kochi airport- Bolgatty.
All the four projects were included in the 17 projects proposed by the state tourism department in the state during the Emerging Kerala meet that concluded on Saturday.
Une concurrence plus seulement britannique
Au total, beaucoup d’écoles perdent en fait des places et la France renforce finalement ses positions grâce à l’entrée de Rouen dans le top 20 qui vient remplacer une Audencia qui est passée de la 18ème place, en 2008, à la 23ème place cette année. Dans un environnement où le premier master britannique hors Cems (l’Imperial College) n’est que 14ème (mais gagne 4 places), la concurrence vient d’abord de Suisse (Saint-Gallen première et HEC Lausanne 20ème) et d’Espagne (IE et Esade sont 6ème et 7ème) mais aussi d’Inde (Ahmedabad est 10ème) et d’Allemagne avec la spectaculaire progression de la HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management: 38ème en 2010, 19ème en 2011 la voici 11ème cette année. Au total la France se classe également première des business schools classées avec 19 dans les 70 premières. Loin devant la Grande-Bretagne (14).
Décidément, les mauvaises notes s'accumulent pour les universités françaises. Après le classement de Shanghai, les résultats dévoilés par QS ne sont guère plus brillants.
La première fac hexagonale – l'Ecole Normale supérieure de Paris - recule d'une place par rapport à l'an dernier, au 34ème rang du dernier classement QS. D'autres établissements marquent le pas : l'Ecole polytechnique Paris Tech (-5 places ; 41ème); l’université Pierre et Marie Curie (-10 à la 129ème position), l'ENS Lyon (-20 ; 153ème). Seule l'université de Paris-Diderot (Paris 7) gagne 4 places, mais seulement au... 234ème rang mondial.
Les 10 meilleures universités françaises selon le classement de QS
1. Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris (ENS Paris) (34ème)
2. Ecole Polytechnique ParisTech (41ème)
3. Université Pierre et Marie Curie (UPMC) (129ème)
4. Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon (153ème)
5. Sciences Po Paris (213 places)
6. Université Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV) (217ème)
7. Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (218ème)
8. Université Paris-Sud 11 (218ème)
9. Université de Strasbourg (232ème)
10. Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7 (234ème). Suite de l'article...
Σίγουρα, η κακή βαθμούς συσσωρεύονται στα γαλλικά πανεπιστήμια. Μετά την κατάταξη Σαγκάη, τα αποτελέσματα έδειξαν από QS είναι λίγο πιο λαμπερή.
Το πρώτο Hex παράγοντας - η Ecole Normale Supérieure de Paris - πίσω ένα μέρος σε σχέση με πέρυσι, καταλαμβάνοντας την 34η στην κατάταξη την τελευταία QS. Άλλα θεσμικά όργανα είναι η σήμανση χρόνου: η Ecole Polytechnique Παρίσι Tech (-5 θέσεις? 41η), του Πανεπιστημίου Pierre et Marie Curie (-10 έως 129η θέση), Λυών ENS (-20? 153α). Περισσότερα...
Critics of UIRs target methodological weaknesses such as bias in favour of research, use of composite indicators, reliability of peers’ subjective opinions and so on. But they also point out the perverse effect of UIRs on the decisions of tertiary education institutions and of national authorities in charge of tertiary education – racing to develop world-class universities at the expense of national tertiary education systems.
In reaction to these caveats, analysts have convincingly argued that instead of focusing on individual universities, it would be more useful to put the spotlight on entire tertiary education systems. Simultaneously, there should be a shift from ranking to benchmarking. This twofold shift would allow countries to assess the health of their higher education systems and to design reforms encompassing all types of tertiary education institutions rather than focusing on a few centres of excellence.
Efforts are currently under way from various quarters to develop reliable International System Benchmarking (ISB) instruments, and the first comprehensive one of its kind has recently been released.
International rankings: Key results from the main leagues
In 2010 and 2011, the figures on which this analysis is based, the two UIRs most widely referred to by the academic community, analysts and decision-makers were arguably the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), launched by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and the one operated by Quacquarelli Symonds under the auspices of Times Higher Education. (The THE ranking is now operated by Thomson Reuters and QS continues to run its own ranking.)
In 2010 and 2011, the 500 top universities for each ranking are concentrated in 50 countries in the QS league and in 39 countries in the more exclusive ARWU league. All but two countries hosting the top universities in the ARWU league are also present in the QS league, which is a first (and strong) hint that the two rankings yield close results. A subset of 37 countries appear in both leagues.
In order to make comparisons between countries, we cannot be satisfied with the sheer number of top universities – this number needs to be weighted in order to control for the size of the countries. One possibility would be to use each country’s population, but this is not fully satisfactory because it ignores intergenerational differences. Instead, we use the number of people of tertiary age as a weight. The ratio of the number of 500 top universities to the tertiary-age population gives us what could be labelled the ‘density of top universities’.
Density gives an idea of the number of top universities available per one million people of tertiary age. In fact, using the ARWU data for illustration purposes, it is clear that the number of top universities and their density follow almost opposite tracks. Of the 25 countries with the highest density of top universities, 23 are to be found in both the QS and ARWU rankings – an observation that confirms the first hint mentioned above regarding the convergence of the two leagues.
Secondly, the rankings of countries by density of top universities are very closely correlated for QS and ARWU. With the exception of Ireland, which is number one in the QS league and only number 13 in the ARWU league, most countries have a similar position in the two rankings, and the values of the density ratios in the two leagues are also very close for each individual country. Hence, despite their different approaches, the two leagues yield highly comparable results.
Also, all the 37 countries but one (India) are either high-income or upper-middle income. This observation substantiates the assertion that UIRs’ methodology is putting a premium on well-resourced universities. On the other hand, even within the group of less than 40 countries that harbour the top world universities, there is a huge gap between those leading the flock and those at the lagging end: while in Finland, two world-class universities serve 100,000 tertiary age people, in India two world-class universities cater to 100 million potential clients.
Indeed, there is a strong and positive correlation between the density of top universities and gross domestic product per capita. Despite significant differences in the way they are developed, the QS and ARWU rankings do share some common points, in particular the size of the universe that they cover (focusing on the top 500 universities) and their reliance on a range of indicators encompassing several areas of academic life. This is not the case for a relative newcomer to the field, the Webometrics ranking, which considers a universe of more than 12,000 institutions worldwide, and relies on several aspects of the visibility of institutions on the internet.
Given such a disparity in the methodology, one would expect widely different results in the rankings. Surprisingly, the comparison made on the 500 top universities of the three leagues shows strikingly similar results, and the correlations between the three rankings are significant and positive. There are therefore strong indications that three of the major and most popular UIRs have converging results both in terms of the set of countries hosting ‘world-class’ universities and in terms of the rankings of countries within this set.
International system benchmarking
The purpose and focus of ISBs are quite distinct from the ones explicit in UIRs, as mentioned above. The former targets country systems and vows to assess their performance against set criteria, while the latter focuses on individual institutions. Although the need for ISB instruments was identified long ago, few practical attempts have been made to implement them. Statistical challenges account for this situation.
Following the policy brief prepared for the Lisbon Council covering 17 countries, the work undertaken by the OECD, and the World Bank’s benchmarking of universities in the Middle East and North Africa, the first genuinely comprehensive ISB – the U21 Ranking of National Higher Education Systems – was developed by the Melbourne Institute in 2012. U21 is based on four sets of indicators: resources, environment, connectivity and output. Five straightforward indicators, linked to the financial resources allocated to tertiary education, are used to assess the performance in the first area (resources).
The main novelty of the U21 lies in its use of indicators designed to characterise the environment, particularly the subset of indicators related to the ‘qualitative measure of the policy and regulatory environment’. These represent significant progress because they respond to the widespread view that governance issues are a main constraint to the development and improvement of tertiary education systems. Connectivity, the third area considered by U21, is measured by two highly relevant indicators: (i) the proportion of international students in tertiary education, and (ii) the proportion of articles co-authored with international collaborators. Output, the fourth area under U21, is measured by a basket of nine indicators spanning a whole range of criteria from research products to enrolment rates and graduate unemployment rates, the latter indicator being an answer to the growing concern regarding the employability of graduates produced by tertiary education systems.
Rankings are provided separately for each of the four areas mentioned above. Finally, an overall, composite indicator is constructed by combining the four sets of indicators.
Comparing UIR and ISB
Comparing the outcomes of the UIR and ISB instruments is made possible by the fact that we have translated the results of the university-based indicators of the UIRs in countrywide terms, making them analogous to the indicators of the ISB. The comparison is presented here in two steps: (i) how do the sets of countries compare – regardless of their individual rankings, and (ii) how do the rankings compare?
While the countries covered in the three versions of UIRs (QS, ARWU and Webometrics) are the results of university rankings, those considered by U21 are a deliberate choice, itself linked to a predetermined decision.
U21 selected a set of 48 countries, using data from the National Science Foundation (NSF) ranking of research output. It is therefore not a surprise to find a strong overlap between these 48 U21 countries and the 39 and 50 countries that host top universities according to ARWU and QS, respectively, or indeed to the 37 countries to be found in both UIRs.
The main differences between the group of UIR countries (and especially the more inclusive QS list) and that of the U21 are: (i) the lesser representation of developing countries in the U21 list, and (ii) the stronger presence of Eastern Europe countries in the U21 list. These differences aside, there is strong convergence between the UIRs and U21. However, the decisive test is not the aggregate number of countries represented in both lists, but the rank of the countries. There are highly significant correlations in rankings, which show that the two instruments yield similar results.
However, differences are also to be noted, especially in the dispersion of votes for the countries ranked first – while Finland is ranked in the top four in all three leagues, Ireland is ranked first by QS but lags at 13 and 16 in the ARWU and U21 lists, respectively. Even more striking, while the United States leads the pack in the U21 list, it is relegated to ranks 17 and 22 in the ARWU and QS leagues, respectively. Still, there is a lot of stability in the rankings for most other countries, and the superposition of the three lists shows remarkable homogeneity.
QS and ARWU produce very close results, which are also confirmed by the Webometrics league, despite the differences in methodology used by these three UIRs. In all three rankings, the density of top 500 universities (‘world-class’ universities) is closely related to the wealth of the countries. Comparing these results with those obtained by the U21 ranking – the first comprehensive ISB – yields strikingly similar results, even though the focus and objectives of the ISB are clearly different from those of the UIRs. It appears that hosting world-class universities is associated with the position held in system-wide rankings. Both kinds of instruments analysed in this note suggest that being in a rich country helps both to boost the supply of high quality universities and to maintain a performing system of tertiary education.
Part of the explanation for this finding comes from the bias common to the two instruments – that is, an overemphasis on research and on well-resourced systems. Despite this, it remains that these results reflect both the choices made by universities themselves and tertiary education decision-makers at the national level, and the fact that money can buy quality. From a methodological point of view, it can be concluded that the empirical implementation of the concepts that radically differentiate the two instruments end up – so far – with very similar outcomes.
Undoubtedly, as data availability increases, both rankings and benchmarking will improve, and their respective outcomes will become more and more complementary.
* Benoît Millot is a former lead education economist with the World Bank and is currently a consultant with the same institution. This article does not represent the views of the World Bank and is the sole responsibility of the author.
Le plan d'action global défini lors de la réunion interministérielle relative à l'agglomération de Marseille reprend cinq propositions concrètes relevant du Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche.
Geneviève Fioraso, ministre de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, a participé à la réunion interministérielle relative à l'agglomération de Marseille, qui s'est tenue ce jour à Matignon sous la présidence du premier ministre Jean-Marc Ayrault.
Dix-huit ministres ont participé à cette réunion interministérielle et ont fait des propositions concrètes qui s’inscrivent dans un plan d’actions global et cohérent. Parmi ces propositions, cinq d’entre elles, qui seront intégrées dans le plan d’actions définitif, relèvent du Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche (MESR).
Ce que le M.E.S.R. propose:
1- inscrire l’Université d’Aix-Marseille, 1ère université française par ses effectifs (70 000 étudiants) dans le "top 100" des classements européens et mondiaux;
2- déployer sur ce territoire le plan national engagé pour le logement social étudiant (+40 000 logements à l’horizon 2017), pour permettre à l’académie Aix-Marseille de rattraper son retard (9 000 logements seulement pour plus de 25 000 demandes d’étudiants d’origine modeste);
3- développer davantage l'accueil des étudiants et chercheurs étrangers, en particulier des étudiants du Maghreb et de l’Afrique, en s’appuyant sur une offre de formation et de recherche de qualité et sur un positionnement géographique et culturel stratégique;
4- participer pleinement aux actions de Marseille, capitale européenne 2013 de la culture, en organisant notamment un événement culturel associant tous les jeunes de l’agglomération marseillaise, étudiants et non étudiants;
5- mobiliser les étudiants dans l’accompagnement scolaire des collégiens des quartiers en politique de la ville, en s'appuyant sur les associations partenaires du MESR, en associant particulièrement à cette action les emplois d’avenir étudiants, futurs professeurs pré-recrutés dès la 2e année de licence.
La Ministre a réaffirmé l'engagement du MESR en faveur de la jeunesse et sa volonté, tout particulièrement à Marseille, de replacer l'université et la recherche au coeur des enjeux sociaux et économiques de la cité, en les mettant au service de la promotion sociale, de l’émancipation par la connaissance, du développement économique et du rayonnement international.
Il piano d'azione globale convenuto in occasione della riunione ministeriale sulla città di Marsiglia vogliono cinque proposte concrete del Ministero dell'Istruzione Superiore e della Ricerca.
Genevieve Fioraso, Ministro dell'istruzione superiore e della ricerca, ha partecipato alla riunione ministeriale sulla città di Marsiglia, che si è tenuto oggi a Matignon, sotto la presidenza del primo ministro Jean-Marc Ayrault.
Diciotto ministri ha partecipato alla riunione ministeriale e ha formulato proposte concrete che fanno parte di un piano d'azione globale e coerente. Di questi, cinque di loro, che saranno incorporati nel progetto definitivo di azioni, sotto il Ministero dell'Università e della Ricerca (MdR). Più...
The Times Higher Education World University Rankings are the most widely recognised and widely used rankings among international students, new research has found.
The international student recruitment agency IDP asked globally mobile students which of the university ranking systems they were aware of. The Times Higher Education World University Rankings attracted more responses than any other ranking - some 67 per cent. This was some way ahead of any others. Rankings produced by the careers information company Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) garnered 50 per cent of responses, and the Shanghai Academic Rankings of World Universities (ARWU) received 15.8 per cent.
Asked which of the global rankings they had used when choosing which institution to study at, 49 per cent of students named the THE World University Rankings, compared to 37 per cent who named QS and 6.7 per cent who named the ARWU and the Webometrics ranking published by the Spanish Cybermetrics Lab, a research group of the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC).
Vier deutsche Universitäten haben es in diesem Jahr im Shanghai-Ranking unter die besten hundert Hochschulen weltweit geschafft. Wie im Vorjahr ist die TU München die beste deutsche Uni. Mit Rang 53 ist sie allerdings sechs Plätze niedriger platziert. Es folgt die LMU München (Platz 60, minus sechs). Heidelberg bleibt auf Rang 62, neu unter den Top hundert ist die Universität Freiburg auf Platz 99. Aus den ersten hundert fallen dagegen Bonn, Göttingen und Frankfurt, sie sind nun in dem Bereich zwischen den Plätzen 101 und 150 platziert. Ab Platz hundert weist das Ranking keine Einzelplatzierungen, sondern nur noch Ranggruppen aus.
Die Spitze bleibt unverändert: Die Universität Harvard führt vor Stanford, dem MIT, Berkeley und Cambridge als bester europäischer Uni. Beste Hochschule Asiens ist die Universität Tokio auf Platz 20, beste kontinentaleuropäische Uni die ETH Zürich auf Rang 23. Die höchstbewertete afrikanische Hochschule ist die Uni Kapstadt im Bereich zwischen den Plätzen 201 und 300.
Das Ranking, das die Jiao-Tong-Universität in Shanghai jährlich aufstellt, vergleicht Hochschulen weltweit. Gewertet werden unter anderem alte und aktuelle Nobelpreisträger einer Uni, anderer Wissenschaftspreise sowie Veröffentlichungen in den englischsprachigen Fachmagazinen Science und Nature.
Kritiker, wie etwa das Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung (CHE), sehen durch das hohe Gewicht von Zeitschriftenaufsätzen eine Verzerrung zugunsten von Universitäten mit naturwissenschaftlicher Ausrichtung in englischsprachigen Ländern. In einer Stellungnahme bemängelt das CHE außerdem, dass die Forschungsleistung der außeruniversitären Forschung – und damit ein erheblicher Teil der Forschungsleistung deutscher Wissenschaftsstandorte – im Shanghai-Ranking nicht berücksichtigt werde.
The annual THE rankings, which UK universities and science minister David Willetts said are "fast becoming something of a fixture in the academic calendar", will be published live online at 21.00 BST on 3 October.
A special rankings print supplement will also be published with the 4 October edition of THE, and the results will be available on a free interactive iPhone application.
This year is the ninth year that THE has published a global university ranking, but the third year of a new more comprehensive ranking system developed in partnership with Thomson Reuters.
After dramatic methodological improvement in 2010, and further refinement in 2011, the 2012-13 World University Rankings will employ exactly the same methodology as the 2011-12 rankings, allowing for stable year-on-year comparisons.
The THE rankings employ 13 separate performance indicators, making them the only global university rankings to examine all the core missions of the modern global university - research, teaching, knowledge transfer and international activity.
The 13 indicators are grouped into five broad headings:
• Teaching - the learning environment (worth 30 per cent of the overall ranking score)
• Research - volume, income and reputation (30 per cent)
• Citations - research influence (30 per cent)
• International outlook - staff, students and research (7.5 per cent)
• Industry income - innovation (2.5 per cent)
The rankings data is normalised to ensure that arts, humanities and social sciences are placed on an equal footing with science. To measure research influence, our data providers Thomson Reuters examine 50 million research citations from 6 million journal articles.
The 2012-13 World University Rankings will also use the results of the annual invitation-only Academic Reputation Survey, carried out by Thomson Reuters and Ipsos in Spring 2012. The survey attracted more than 16,500 responses from experienced senior academics all over the world, making it the largest exercise of its kind in the world.
The 3 October release will include the official world top 200, a "best of the rest" list of the 200 institutions immediately outside the top 200, ranked in bands, and six top 50 subject tables: engineering and technology; social sciences; physical sciences; life sciences; arts and humanities; and clinical, preclinical and health subjects.
The World University Rankings are the main release of a portfolio of THE university rankings, which include the March World Reputation Rankings and the May THE 100 Under 50, a list of the top universities under 50 years old.
But the UK lost its second place behind the US for the number of universities in the Top 500 to China – if universities in Hong Kong and Taiwan are included.
Five Chinese universities appeared for the first time, giving China, Hong Kong and Taiwan an aggregate of 42 universities in the Top 500, ahead of the UK with 38 universities. However, no Chinese university is ranked among the Top 100.
More than 1,200 universities are actually ranked by ARWU every year and the best 500 are published.
Largely because of the ARWU’s methodology, the ranking displays a high degree of stability at the top. The Top 10 universities remain unchanged from 2011: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Berkeley, Cambridge, Caltech, Princeton, Columbia, Chicago and Oxford.
Lower down the rankings, the University of Tokyo returns to the Top 20 in 20th place, as the leading Asian university.
ETH Zurich (23) is the leading university in continental Europe, followed by Paris-Sud (37) and Pierre and Marie Curie (42) in France.
Technion-Israel Institute of Technology (78) and the Weizmann Institute of Science (93) enter the Top 100 for the first time, to join the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (53).
The University of Western Australia appears (96) in the Top 100 for the first time, bringing the number of Top 100 universities in Australia to five.
With the exception of Cambridge and ETH Zurich, US universities dominate the ARWU listings of best five universities in each ranked field and subject.
The annual global ranking claims to be the most trustworthy of the international league tables. ARWU uses six objective indicators, including the number of alumni and staff with Nobel prizes and Fields medals, and a web of citation data.
ARWU has been presenting the top 500 universities annually since 2003, based on a set of objective indicators and third-party data.
Complete lists and detailed methodologies can be found on the Academic Ranking of World Universities website.
Source: EducPro.fr. Si l’élaboration du classement mondial des universités, U-Multirank, initié par l’Union européenne continue doucement son chemin, des initiatives nationales et internationales fleurissent en parallèle. Preuve que les classements internationaux d’universités ont de beaux jours devant eux…
On le croyait un peu tombé aux oubliettes de la Commission européenne. Après une première phase de faisabilité conclue positivement, en juin 2011, la seconde étape du classement européen baptisé U-Multirank était annoncée pour l’automne dernier. Entre-temps, des critiques ont émergé, notamment en Grande-Bretagne où le comité européen de la Chambre des lords a parlé de “gaspillage” dans un marché déjà bien encombré (voir l’interview de Phil Baty). Suite de l'article.
Source: EducPro.fr. If the development of the global ranking of universities, U-Multirank, initiated by the European Union continues its way gently, national and international initiatives flourish in parallel. Proof that the international rankings of universities have a bright future ahead of them. More...