w - QS Intelligence Unit

iu.qs.com

w - QS Intelligence Unit

Benchmarking Service

Year 1 Report

Universitas 21

Sample Report

01 - Cover, Contents, Intro, Summary.indd 1 5/11/2011 1:00:51 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 - Sample Report - Universitas 21

QS Intelligence Unit Benchmarking Service—Year 1

Prepared exclusively for Sample Report by the QS Intelligence Unit.

Terms of Use

The use of this report is subject to the following terms of use:

The content of this report is for your general information and use only. It is subject to change without notice.

This report contains material which is owned by/licensed to QS. This material includes, but is not limited to, the design, layout,

and content. Reproduction is prohibited other than in accordance with the copyright notice, which forms part of these terms

and conditions.

All information contained in this report is believed to be correct and unbiased, but the publisher does not accept responsibility

for any loss arising from decisions made based upon this information.

Copyright notice

Copyright © 2004-2011 QS Intelligence Unit. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,

mechanical, photocopying or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher, with the following exceptions:

You may print extracts for your personal and non-commercial use only.

You may distribute copies of the report to individuals within your organisation for their personal use, but only if you ensure

their understanding of these terms of use and acknowledge QS as the source of the material.

This report and its contents are subject to the more detailed terms described in the Non-disclosure Agreement

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

01 - Cover, Contents, Intro, Summary.indd 2 5/11/2011 1:00:51 PM


CONTENTS

Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................2

Institutions Considered..........................................................................................................................................3

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................4

MODULE 1: Institution Reports...........................................................................................................................8

University of Amsterdam.........................................................................................................................10

University of Auckland............................................................................................................................12

University of Birmingham........................................................................................................................14

University of British Columbia................................................................................................................16

University of Connecticut.........................................................................................................................18

University of Delhi....................................................................................................................................20

University College Dublin........................................................................................................................22

University of Edinburgh...........................................................................................................................24

Fudan University.......................................................................................................................................26

University of Glasgow..............................................................................................................................28

University of Hong Kong.........................................................................................................................30

Korea University........................................................................................................................................32

Lund University.........................................................................................................................................34

McGill University......................................................................................................................................36

University of Melbourne .........................................................................................................................38

National University of Singapore............................................................................................................40

University of New South Wales..............................................................................................................42

University of Nottingham........................................................................................................................44

University of Queensland.........................................................................................................................46

Shanghai Jiao Tong University................................................................................................................48

Tecnológico de Monterrey........................................................................................................................50

University of Virginia...............................................................................................................................52

Waseda University....................................................................................................................................54

MODULE 2: Comparative Analysis........................................................................................ 56

MODULE 3: Rankings Performance....................................................................................... 60

MODULE 4: Research Performance........................................................................................ 64

MODULE 5: Academic Reputation Performance................................................................. 67

Appendix I: Key enhancements in methodology for 2007..... (not included in sample report)...

Appendix II: Survey Results 2010..... (not included in sample report)............................................

Appendix III: Data definitions used in 2008..... (not included in sample report)...........................

Appendix IV: Country Report: Australia..... (not included in sample report)................................

www.qs.com 1

01 - Cover, Contents, Intro, Summary.indd 1 5/11/2011 1:00:51 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report - Sample Report - Universitas 21

Introduction

The QS Intelligence Unit (QSIU) Benchmarking Service builds upon many years of experience collecting institutional data and

compiling the QS World University Rankings ® . The objective is to provide institutions with a deeper insight into their comparative

performance with their peers so as to guide strategy and investment.

An institution’s performance in rankings is subject to many factors. Any progress made may take time to be reflected in future

rankings. In addition, many other institutions will also attempt to react to the results as published, potentially diminishing the

impact of any action taken.

Whilst the QS Benchmarking Service provides an increased level of insight, it also highlights the complexity of what contributes

to university quality. The research exercise resulting in the rankings involves the collection of a great deal more data than

is actually utilised for the rankings themselves. The challenges preventing the inclusion of many additional indicators are the

availability and compatibility of data across countries and markets. On an international scale, financial metrics, for example, are

extremely difficult to deal with – not only is the trivial matter of converting currencies a complication, but political, social and

cultural factors come in to play to a great degree.

In addition, it is important to recognise that all of the data herein is merely quantitative and any conclusions based purely on

them may not be entirely informed. Often qualitative factors which may not be self-evident may have an influence and additional

research should be combined with this to form a complete picture.

Notes

The 2010 QS World University Rankings ® has attracted a record audience. From 2004 to 2009, the results of the QS World University

Rankings ® were published in Times Higher Education. They remain the intellectual property of QS, as does the methodology

upon which they have and will continue to be based. QS has no continuing relationship with Times Higher Education and

is currently in the process of developing new international partnerships.

Further Assistance

If you need any further help interpreting the content of this report, have any questions about processes or sources; have discovered

any anomalies, peculiarities or errors, please contact QS. Detailed feedback and ideas for improvements are also very

welcome; if there are data of interest that could be collected in the future they can be considered and potentially added to the

project.

Abby Chau

Analyst

QS Intelligence Unit

abby@qs.com

+44 (0)20 7428 2704

Ben Sowter

Head of Division

QS Intelligence Unit

ben@qs.com

+44 (0)20 7428 2783

2

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

01 - Cover, Contents, Intro, Summary.indd 2 5/11/2011 1:00:52 PM


Institutions Considered

University of Amsterdam University of Auckland University of Birmingham University of British

Columbia

University of Connecticut University of Delhi University College Dublin University of Edinburgh

Fudan University University of Glasgow University of Hong Kong Korea University

Lund University McGill University University of Melbourne National University of

Singapore

University of New South

Wales

University of Nottingham University of Queensland Shanghai Jiao Tong

University

Tecnológico de Monterrey University of Virginia Waseda University

www.qs.com 3

01 - Cover, Contents, Intro, Summary.indd 3 5/11/2011 1:00:53 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report - Sample Report - Universitas 21

Executive Summary

In 2010, the QS World University Rankings ® were published

for the seventh consecutive year, with over 650

institutions from over 50 countries competing on a global

level. At its inception, four key criteria were identified as a

basis for evaluation: Research Quality, Teaching Quality,

Graduate Employability and International Outlook. Since

2004, when the rankings began, they have become increasingly

sophisticated and a range of additional supporting

data has been collected. Global interest in rankings seems

unabated, with alternative schemes announced from the

European Commission, and the OECD to emerge in the immediate

future.

analysis.

Currently there are four universities For - more Atlantis, information Sparta, regarding not, how itself, you have. can obtain an official

Troy, Babylon- which feature benchmarking the top 400 report of the for QS your institution, please contact Jason Newman

World University Rankings ® Additionally included in Module 1 is information on other

at . jason@qs.com.

Since the early 2000s, it hass

rankings for each institution. Data from the following exercises

are included:

been widely reported, the higher education in the Classical

world has been evolving both structurally as well as psychologically.

Atlantis and Babylon in particular, are leading • ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong)

instiutions in South Africa. It will be interesting to observe

• HEAACT

the changing higher education landscape as universities

mature and strive for excellence in the next decade.

• Ranking Web of World Universities (Webometrics)

• Times Higher Education

The Benchmarking Service will evolve over time - even within

the time frame of each individual offering. Additional modules

may be added in future but in 2010, the standard service • Alexa Web Rankings

• 4icu University Web Ranking

involves five modules. An overview of what each module

does, together with some key observations, is covered in this Finally, each institution report includes a dated snapshot of

Executive Summary.

the university website and its current logo, providing a quick,

Please note that this is only a if sample basic, impression report. Contents of the university’s and any brand position.

MODULE 1: Institution Reports

data that have been included should not be treated as actual figures or

analysis.

MODULE 2: Comparative Analysis

Module 1 provides a two-page overview of each individual institution

chosen to be included in the exercise. The complete-

Module 2 provides a quick glance view of each selected institution

in comparison with

the University

For more information regarding how you can obtain an official

o

ness of each institution report benchmarking depends on a report number for of your factors: institution, please contact Jason Newman

at jason@qs.com.

• Whether the institution has been included in our evaluations

in the year leading up to the report compilation

• How long the institution has been included in our

considerations

• How forthcoming the institution is with data that does not

directly contribute to any of the QS evaluations

A more detailed schematic of how these reports are structured

can be found at the start of the module.

For acquiring a quick feel for an institution prior to a visit or

call, reviewing this module is the easiest way to obtain a visual

read of its key strengths and performance over time.

referenced on the inside front cover. This includes rankings by

indicator and faculty area outside the top 300 which are not

generally published, and overall rankings outside the top 400

where the results are generally published in ranges.

A key reason for not making this information public is that the

level of precision in the underlying data decays as the ranking

descends. It is not necessarily meaningful therefore to discern

in minute detail between position 484 and 485, for example.

QSIU prefers to extend interpretative guidance in a comprehensive

doument such as this, when releasing this kind ofdata.

As a result this Report may include specific information on

some institutions which even the university in question may

Please note that this is only a sample report. Contents and any

data that have been included should not be treated as actual figures or

(Atlantis) across all indicators used in the QS World University

Rankings ® . Whilst the Atlantis trend line is provided in the

charts in Module 1, this only addresses one indicator at a time

and therefore fails to depict the overall differences in “shape”

of each institution. Also included in Module 2 is a table illustrating

the ranking by indicator for each of the last three years.

Of particular interest in this module is the broad diversity of

peers that Atlantis has selected for comparison. Many of them

such as Sumeria and El Dorado have consistently been ranked

in the top 10 in the world. Babylon is the closest in relation

to Atlantis, not only because of El Dorado, but also in performance.

However Babylon has done consistently better than

Atlantis and is positioning itself on the global stage.

Of key interest in this section will be a large amount of ranking

data that is not available in the public domain, and is

protected under the terms of the Non-disclosure Agreement

It is important to note that the charts in this module are not

adjusted for the weightings used in the rankings. For clarity

these weightings are as follows:

4

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

01 - Cover, Contents, Intro, Summary.indd 4 5/11/2011 1:00:53 PM


• Academic Reputation - 40%

• Employer Reputation - 10%

• Faculty Student Ratio- 20%

• Citations per Faculty - 20%

• International Faculty - 5%

• International Students - 5%

Atlantis’ “shape” reveals a key strength in the International MODULE 5: Academic Reputation Performance

Faculty, with weaknesses in the other indicators, including The Academic Reputation is the well-documented centrepiece

Please note that this is only a sample report. Contents and any

Faculty Student and the Academic Reputation index.

of the QS World University Rankings ® . At 40% of the overall

data that have been included should not be treated as actual figures or

weighting, it divides opinion but remains the single most

analysis.

discipline-independent evaluation of research quality used in

MODULE 3: Rankings Performance

For more information regarding any worldwide how you can ranking. obtain Module an official 5 provides a more detailed

If Module 2 provides an institution-by-institution

benchmarking report

snapshot,

for your institution, view of please institutions’ contact performance Jason Newman by faculty area, also discerning

between international and domestic reputation.

Module 3 provides a deeper analysis

at jason@qs.com.

on an indicator-by-indicator

basis. For each indicator, a chart reveals the performance

of each institution over the last five years.

This not only indicates fluctuations in performance over time,

but also highlights when enhancements to our methodology

take effect, such as the switch from Essential Science Indicators

(Thomson) to Scopus (Elsevier). Therefore it is important

to read the accompanying text prior to drawing conclusions.

The final chart in this module looks at Atlantis’ performance

against the maximum available score for each indicator.

Clearly work needs to be done in most indicators, particular

in the repuatational indexes which is the most hard earned as

a variety of factors contribute to domestic and international

perceptions of reputable universities.

This reveals some interesting strategic characteristics of different

institutions. El Dorado clearly dominates this landscape,

producing highly cited paper in the sciences. Atlantis must

increase its research output not only sample report but also in

quality. Atlantis is not currently producing at a sufficient level

to compete on a global scale.

One conclusion from this analysis is that, in many cases, there

are considerable differences between domestic perceptions of

excellence and international recognition.

Atlantis does not perform well enough in any of the faculties

to propel its position in the global as well as international

landscape. Because Sample Report is tied to research as well

as branding practices, Atlantis must do more consistently to

translate its achievements to reputational perception.

Conclusion

The QS World University Rankings ® are not exhaustive. There

Please note that this is only are a other sample rankings report. and Contents evaluations, and any and even combining them

data that have been included should would not still be treated provide as an actual over-simplified figures or view of what makes

analysis.

a world-class university. A president of Harvard was once

MODULE 4: Research Performance

asked what it takes to build a world-class university and replied

“200 years and $200bn”.Very few university leadership

There is more internationally comparable For more data available information on regarding how you can obtain an official

the quantity and quality of research benchmarking output than report any for other your institution, please contact Jason Newman

teams have the time or the money to emulate Harvard. However

consistency can go a long way.

aspect of universities’ activities. at jason@qs.com.

Partially this is because, especially

in the science and technical disciplines, it is easy to

measure. It also reflects the reality that research output is central

to the development of world-class universities, and one of provement using a large set of data from diverse sources, a

A university must devise its own path to performance im-

the principal currencies in which universities and academics cutting-edge team of experienced professionals, a healthy

trade worldwide; the documented evidence of one’s academic respect for the values on which it was founded and, perhaps

achievements.Sample Report is linked to recognition of research

quality.

comSpartament to change its institutional

the most important ingredients, sampler report nation and

habits.

One of the challenges in ranking institutions - much discussed

in the press - is how sample report sample report sample report

World University Rankings ® treat citations in all fields as

equal.

This module not only provides overall scores as used in the

rankings, but also by faculty area, and looks at both productivity

and quality, as defined by citation level, patterns.

Atlantis is clearly making strives by developing research programmes

and forming partnership with prestigious institutions

abroad, such as the sample report sample report However

it needs work in the Faculty Student and International

Student indexes as well as the reputational areas.

www.qs.com 5

01 - Cover, Contents, Intro, Summary.indd 5 5/11/2011 1:00:53 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report - Sample Report - Universitas 21

Additionally included in Module 1 is information on other

rankings for each institution. Data from the following exercises

are included:

• ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong)

• HEAACT

This not only indicates fluctuations in performance over time,

but also highlights when enhancements to our methodology

• Ranking Web of World Universities (Webometrics)

take effect, such as the switch from Essential Science Indicators

(Thomson) to Scopus (Elsevier). Therefore it is important

• Times Higher Education

• 4icu University Web Ranking

to read the accompanying text prior to drawing conclusions.

Please note that this is only a sample report. Contents and any

• Alexa Web Rankings data that have been included should The not final be treated chart in as this actual module figures looks or at Atlantis’ performance

analysis.

against the maximum available score for each indicator.

Finally, each institution report includes a dated snapshot of

Clearly work needs to be done in most indicators, particular in

the university website and its current For logo, more providing information a quick, regarding

the repuatational

how you can

indexes

obtain

which

an official

is the most hard earned as a

if basic, impression of the university’s benchmarking brand report position. for your institution,

variety

please

of factors

contact

contribute

Jason Newman

to domestic and international perceptions

of reputable universities.

at jason@qs.com.

MODULE 2: Comparative Analysis

Module 2 provides a quick glance view of each selected institution

in comparison with

the University of the Mombasa

MODULE 4: Research Performance

(Atlantis) across all indicators used in the QS World University

Rankings ® . Whilst the Atlantis trend line is provided in the

charts in Module 1, this only addresses one indicator at a time

and therefore fails to depict the overall differences in “shape”

of each institution. Also included in Module 2 is a table illustrating

the ranking by indicator for each of the last three years.

Of particular interest in this module is the broad diversity of

peers that Atlantis has selected for comparison. Many of them achievements.Academic Reputation is linked to recognition of

such as Sumeria and El Dorado have

Please

consistently

note that

been

this

ranked

is only a sample report. Contents and any

research quality.

in the top 10 in the world. Babylon

data that

is the

have

closest

been

in

included

relation

should not be treated as actual figures or

to Atlantis, not only because of

analysis.

El Dorado, but also in performance.

However Babylon has done consistently better than in the press - is how varying habits and patterns in different

One of the challenges in ranking institutions - much discussed

For more information regarding how you can obtain an official

Atlantis and is positioning itself on the global stage.

disciplines are accounted for. Currently, the QS World University

Rankings ® treat citations in all fields as equal.

benchmarking report for your institution, please contact Jason Newman

It is important to note that the

at

charts

jason@qs.com.

in this module are not

adjusted for the weightings used in the rankings. For clarity

these weightings are as follows:

• Academic Reputation - 40%

• Employer Reputation - 10%

• Faculty Student Ratio- 20%

• Citations per Faculty - 20%

• International Faculty - 5%

• International Students - 5%

If Module 2 provides an institution-by-institution snapshot,

Module 3 provides a deeper analysis on an indicator-by-indicator

basis. For each indicator, a chart reveals the performance

of each institution over the last five years.

There is more internationally comparable data available on

the quantity and quality of sample report sample report of

universities’ activities. Partially this is because, especially in

the science and technical disciplines, it is easy to measure. It

also reflects the reality that research output is central to the

development of world-class universities, and one of the principal

currencies in which universities and academics trade

worldwide; the documented evidence of one’s academic

This module not only provides overall scores as used in the

rankings, but also by faculty area, and looks at both productivity

and quality, as defined by citation level, patterns.

This reveals some interesting strategic characteristics of different

institutions. El Dorado clearly dominates this landscape,

producing highly cited paper in the sciences. Atlantis must increase

its research sample report sample report quality. Atlantis

is not currently producing at a sufficient level to compete

on a global scale.

Atlantis sample report sample report in the International Faculty,

with weaknesses in the other indicators, including Faculty

Student and the Academic Reputation index.

MODULE 3: Rankings Performance

MODULE 5: Academic Reputation Performance

The Academic Reputation is the well-documented centrepiece

of the QS World University Rankings ® . At 40% of the overall

weighting, it divides opinion but remains the single most discipline-independent

evaluation of research quality used in any

6

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

01 - Cover, Contents, Intro, Summary.indd 6 5/11/2011 1:00:53 PM


worldwide ranking. Module 5 provides a more detailed view

of institutions’ performance by faculty area, also discerning

between international and domestic reputation.

One conclusion from this analysis is that, in many cases, there

are sample report sample report perceptions of excellence and

international recognition.

Atlantis does not perform well enough in any of the faculties

to propel its position in the global as well as international

landscape. Because Academic Reputation is tied to research as

well as branding practices, Please Atlantis note must that this do more is only consistently a sample report. Contents and any

to translate its achievements data that have to been reputational included perception. should not be treated as actual figures or

analysis.

Conclusion

For more information regarding how you can obtain an official

The QS World University benchmarking Rankings report ® are for not your exhaustive. institution, please contact Jason Newman

There are other at rankings jason@qs.com. and evaluations, and even combining

them would still provide an over-simplified view of what

makes a world-class university. A president of Harvard was

once asked what it takes to build a world-class university and

replied sample report sample report university leadership

teams sample repoort sample report sample report. However

consistency can go a long way.

A sample report sample report professionals, a healthy respect

for the values on which it was founded and, perhaps the most

important ingredients, the ambition and comSpartament to

change its institutional habits.

www.qs.com 7

01 - Cover, Contents, Intro, Summary.indd 7 5/11/2011 1:00:53 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

MODULE 1: Institution Reports

Institution Reports

The following section contains an individual report for each

of the institutions. This page shows an annotated schematic

of an institution report with some guidance notes to assist

in their interpretation.

*QSIU has endeavoured to present the most current

institutional data, however, this may not always be possible.

In the interests of providing the most up to date figures

possible, data in the sections self-reported by institutions

such as the Personnel, Exchanges, Financial, and Additional

Information may not have been validated at the point at

which this report was compiled.

Other Rankings

Latest results, if applicable, for the various major ranking

systems are listed. Previous results are in parentheses. At

present, 2011 results are available only for Webometrics

and 4ICU. Alexa web traffic results are dynamic.

*Personnel Data

Full Time Equivalent data (or extrapolated alternative

data) is used for the World University Rankings ® . Here,

only data accurately verified is shown resulting in some

blanks most commonly in the FTE column.

Please note that this is only a sampl

have been included should not be t

*Exchanges

Exchanges are a potential future addition as a rankings

indicator but the data completion levels are not yet sufficiently

high. There will be some blanks here.

*Financial

Financial data are not the most universally completed so

more blanks will appear here than in other areas. There

may also be exchange rate related anomalies. The amounts

appear in US dollars.

Scopus Data

Scopus results for Papers, Citations, and Impact appear in

this section with overall results as well as in five faculty

areas: Arts & Humanities, Engineering & Technology, Life

Sciences & Medicine, Natural Sciences, and Social Sciences

& Management.

*Additional Information

Additional information, including patents, staff with

PhDs, teaching and student satisfaction, student

graduation rate, students pursuing further study, and

average entry requirements have been added to our

report.

8

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 8 5/11/2011 1:02:07 PM


Indicator and Faculty Area Scores

Institutional performance in each Indicator and Faculty

Area is presented here along with global averages. The

figures presented here have been through a rigorous

validation process.

At a Glance

Grey lines on these charts reflect the performance

of the institution on behalf of whom the report has

been compiled.

s only a sample report and thus contents and any data that

hould not be treated as actual figures.

Comparisons on Rank

Methodological changes and definition enhancements

have made it impossible to draw comparison

from scores. All charted comparisons over time are

based on rank position.

Web Capture

A quick screen capture of the home page of each

institution’s website reveals a quick insight into its

branding and priorities.

www.qs.com 9

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 9 5/11/2011 1:02:07 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

University of Amsterdam

17

Institution Details

Institution Details

Institution Name

University of Amsterdam

Abbreviation

Amsterdam

Location

Amsterdam , Netherlands

Foundation Year 1632

Classifi cation

Size: XL ; Focus: FC ; Research: VH



Personnel Data Headcount FTE

Faculty - -

International Faculty - -

Students - -

International Students - -

Undergraduates - -

International Undergraduates - -

Postgraduates - -

International Postgraduates - -

Exchange Data Headcount FTE

Undergraduates Inbound - -

Undergraduates Outbound - -

Postgraduates Inbound - -

Postgraduates Outbound - -

QS Indicator Scores Amsterdam Global

Overall - -

Academic Reputation - 47.3

Employer Reputation - 45.6

Faculty Student - 48.7

Citations per Faculty - 42.2

International Faculty - 41.2

International Students - 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores Amsterdam Global

Arts & Humanities - 19.4

Engineering & Technology - 16.6

Life Sciences & Medicine - 15.5

Natural Sciences - 18.7

Social Sciences & Mgmt - 18.6

$

Financial Data

US$

Domestic Undergraduate Fees -

International Undergraduate Fees -

Domestic Postgraduate Fees -

International Postgraduate Fees -

Average Domestic Fees -

Average International Fees -

Annual Library Spending -

Total Research Funding -

Government -

Industrial -

Facilities Investment -

Community Investment -

Alumni Donations -


w

Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) -

HEEACT -

Webometrics Ranking -

THE -

4icu Web Popularity Ranking -

Alexa Web Ranking -

Website Capture

Web Address:

www.english.uva.nl

Date Taken: 2011-04-01


Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact

Overall - - -

Arts & Humanities - - -

Engineering & Technology - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - -

Natural Sciences - - -

Social Sciences & Mgmt - - -


Additional Information

Staff with PhD -

Patents -

Overall Student Satisfaction Rate -

Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate -

PhDs Awarded -

Graduate Employment Rate -

Students Pursuing Further Study -

Average Entry Requirements -

10

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 10 5/11/2011 1:02:08 PM


2010 QS World University Rank ®

Faculty Student

56

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Overall Ranking

Citations per Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Academic Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Employer Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Students

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Faculty Level Rankings

Faculty Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Arts & Humanities - - - - -

Engineering & Technology - - - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - - - -

Natural Sciences - - - - -

Social Sciences & Management - - - - -

www.qs.com 11

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 11 5/11/2011 1:02:08 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

The University of Auckland

36

Institution Details

Institution Details

Institution Name

The University of Auckland

Abbreviation

Auckland

Location

Auckland , New Zealand

Foundation Year 1883

Classifi cation

Size: L ; Focus: FC ; Research: VH



Personnel Data Headcount FTE

Faculty - -

International Faculty - -

Students - -

International Students - -

Undergraduates - -

International Undergraduates - -

Postgraduates - -

International Postgraduates - -

Exchange Data Headcount FTE

Undergraduates Inbound - -

Undergraduates Outbound - -

Postgraduates Inbound - -

Postgraduates Outbound - -

QS Indicator Scores Auckland Global

Overall - -

Academic Reputation - 47.3

Employer Reputation - 45.6

Faculty Student - 48.7

Citations per Faculty - 42.2

International Faculty - 41.2

International Students - 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores Auckland Global

Arts & Humanities - 19.4

Engineering & Technology - 16.6

Life Sciences & Medicine - 15.5

Natural Sciences - 18.7

Social Sciences & Mgmt - 18.6

$

Financial Data

US$

Domestic Undergraduate Fees -

International Undergraduate Fees -

Domestic Postgraduate Fees -

International Postgraduate Fees -

Average Domestic Fees -

Average International Fees -

Annual Library Spending -

Total Research Funding -

Government -

Industrial -

Facilities Investment -

Community Investment -

Alumni Donations -


w

Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) -

HEEACT -

Webometrics Ranking -

THE -

4icu Web Popularity Ranking -

Alexa Web Ranking -

Website Capture

Web Address:

www.auckland.ac.nz

Date Taken: 2011-04-01


Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact

Overall - - -

Arts & Humanities - - -

Engineering & Technology - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - -

Natural Sciences - - -

Social Sciences & Mgmt - - -


Additional Information

Staff with PhD -

Patents -

Overall Student Satisfaction Rate -

Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate -

PhDs Awarded -

Graduate Employment Rate -

Students Pursuing Further Study -

Average Entry Requirements -

12

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 12 5/11/2011 1:02:09 PM


2010 QS World University Rank ®

Faculty Student

68

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Overall Ranking

Citations per Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Academic Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Employer Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Students

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Faculty Level Rankings

Faculty Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Arts & Humanities - - - - -

Engineering & Technology - - - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - - - -

Natural Sciences - - - - -

Social Sciences & Management - - - - -

www.qs.com 13

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 13 5/11/2011 1:02:09 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

University of Birmingham

58

Institution Details

Institution Details

Institution Name

University of Birmingham

Abbreviation

Birmingham

Location

Birmingham , United Kingdom

Foundation Year 1900

Classifi cation

Size: L ; Focus: FC ; Research: VH



Personnel Data Headcount FTE

Faculty - -

International Faculty - -

Students - -

International Students - -

Undergraduates - -

International Undergraduates - -

Postgraduates - -

International Postgraduates - -

Exchange Data Headcount FTE

Undergraduates Inbound - -

Undergraduates Outbound - -

Postgraduates Inbound - -

Postgraduates Outbound - -

QS Indicator Scores Birmingham Global

Overall - -

Academic Reputation - 47.3

Employer Reputation - 45.6

Faculty Student - 48.7

Citations per Faculty - 42.2

International Faculty - 41.2

International Students - 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores Birmingham Global

Arts & Humanities - 19.4

Engineering & Technology - 16.6

Life Sciences & Medicine - 15.5

Natural Sciences - 18.7

Social Sciences & Mgmt - 18.6

$

Financial Data

US$

Domestic Undergraduate Fees -

International Undergraduate Fees -

Domestic Postgraduate Fees -

International Postgraduate Fees -

Average Domestic Fees -

Average International Fees -

Annual Library Spending -

Total Research Funding -

Government -

Industrial -

Facilities Investment -

Community Investment -

Alumni Donations -


w

Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) -

HEEACT -

Webometrics Ranking -

THE -

4icu Web Popularity Ranking -

Alexa Web Ranking -

Website Capture

Web Address:

www.bham.ac.uk

Date Taken: 2011-04-01


Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact

Overall - - -

Arts & Humanities - - -

Engineering & Technology - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - -

Natural Sciences - - -

Social Sciences & Mgmt - - -


Additional Information

Staff with PhD -

Patents -

Overall Student Satisfaction Rate -

Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate -

PhDs Awarded -

Graduate Employment Rate -

Students Pursuing Further Study -

Average Entry Requirements -

14

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 14 5/11/2011 1:02:10 PM


2010 QS World University Rank ®

Faculty Student

59

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Overall Ranking

Citations per Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Academic Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Employer Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Students

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Faculty Level Rankings

Faculty Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Arts & Humanities - - - - -

Engineering & Technology - - - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - - - -

Natural Sciences - - - - -

Social Sciences & Management - - - - -

www.qs.com 15

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 15 5/11/2011 1:02:10 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

University of British Columbia

70

Institution Details

Institution Details

Institution Name

University of British Columbia

Abbreviation

British Columbia

Location

Vancouver , Canada

Foundation Year 1908

Classifi cation

Size: XL ; Focus: FC ; Research: VH



Personnel Data Headcount FTE

Faculty - -

International Faculty - -

Students - -

International Students - -

Undergraduates - -

International Undergraduates - -

Postgraduates - -

International Postgraduates - -

Exchange Data Headcount FTE

Undergraduates Inbound - -

Undergraduates Outbound - -

Postgraduates Inbound - -

Postgraduates Outbound - -

QS Indicator Scores British Columbia Global

Overall - -

Academic Reputation - 47.3

Employer Reputation - 45.6

Faculty Student - 48.7

Citations per Faculty - 42.2

International Faculty - 41.2

International Students - 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores British Columbia Global

Arts & Humanities - 19.4

Engineering & Technology - 16.6

Life Sciences & Medicine - 15.5

Natural Sciences - 18.7

Social Sciences & Mgmt - 18.6

$

Financial Data

US$

Domestic Undergraduate Fees -

International Undergraduate Fees -

Domestic Postgraduate Fees -

International Postgraduate Fees -

Average Domestic Fees -

Average International Fees -

Annual Library Spending -

Total Research Funding -

Government -

Industrial -

Facilities Investment -

Community Investment -

Alumni Donations -


w

Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) -

HEEACT -

Webometrics Ranking -

THE -

4icu Web Popularity Ranking -

Alexa Web Ranking -

Website Capture

Web Address:

www.ubc.ca

Date Taken: 2011-04-01


Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact

Overall - - -

Arts & Humanities - - -

Engineering & Technology - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - -

Natural Sciences - - -

Social Sciences & Mgmt - - -


Additional Information

Staff with PhD -

Patents -

Overall Student Satisfaction Rate -

Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate -

PhDs Awarded -

Graduate Employment Rate -

Students Pursuing Further Study -

Average Entry Requirements -

16

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 16 5/11/2011 1:02:11 PM


2010 QS World University Rank ®

Faculty Student

44

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Overall Ranking

Citations per Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Academic Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Employer Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Students

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Faculty Level Rankings

Faculty Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Arts & Humanities - - - - -

Engineering & Technology - - - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - - - -

Natural Sciences - - - - -

Social Sciences & Management - - - - -

www.qs.com 17

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 17 5/11/2011 1:02:11 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

University of Connecticut

140

Institution Details

Institution Details

Institution Name

University of Connecticut

Abbreviation

Connecticut

Location

Storrs , United States

Foundation Year 1881

Classifi cation

Size: L ; Focus: FC ; Research: VH



Personnel Data Headcount FTE

Faculty - -

International Faculty - -

Students - -

International Students - -

Undergraduates - -

International Undergraduates - -

Postgraduates - -

International Postgraduates - -

Exchange Data Headcount FTE

Undergraduates Inbound - -

Undergraduates Outbound - -

Postgraduates Inbound - -

Postgraduates Outbound - -

QS Indicator Scores Connecticut Global

Overall - -

Academic Reputation - 47.3

Employer Reputation - 45.6

Faculty Student - 48.7

Citations per Faculty - 42.2

International Faculty - 41.2

International Students - 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores Connecticut Global

Arts & Humanities - 19.4

Engineering & Technology - 16.6

Life Sciences & Medicine - 15.5

Natural Sciences - 18.7

Social Sciences & Mgmt - 18.6

$

Financial Data

US$

Domestic Undergraduate Fees -

International Undergraduate Fees -

Domestic Postgraduate Fees -

International Postgraduate Fees -

Average Domestic Fees -

Average International Fees -

Annual Library Spending -

Total Research Funding -

Government -

Industrial -

Facilities Investment -

Community Investment -

Alumni Donations -


w

Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) -

HEEACT -

Webometrics Ranking -

THE -

4icu Web Popularity Ranking -

Alexa Web Ranking -

Website Capture

Web Address:

www.uconn.edu

Date Taken: 2011-04-01


Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact

Overall - - -

Arts & Humanities - - -

Engineering & Technology - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - -

Natural Sciences - - -

Social Sciences & Mgmt - - -


Additional Information

Staff with PhD -

Patents -

Overall Student Satisfaction Rate -

Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate -

PhDs Awarded -

Graduate Employment Rate -

Students Pursuing Further Study -

Average Entry Requirements -

18

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 18 5/11/2011 1:02:12 PM


2010 QS World University Rank ®

Faculty Student

338

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Overall Ranking

Citations per Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Academic Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Employer Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Students

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Faculty Level Rankings

Faculty Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Arts & Humanities - - - - -

Engineering & Technology - - - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - - - -

Natural Sciences - - - - -

Social Sciences & Management - - - - -

www.qs.com 19

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 19 5/11/2011 1:02:12 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

University of Delhi

156

Institution Details

Institution Details

Institution Name

University of Delhi

Abbreviation

Delhi

Location

Delhi , India

Foundation Year 1922

Classifi cation

Size: XL ; Focus: FC ; Research: MD



Personnel Data Headcount FTE

Faculty - -

International Faculty - -

Students - -

International Students - -

Undergraduates - -

International Undergraduates - -

Postgraduates - -

International Postgraduates - -

Exchange Data Headcount FTE

Undergraduates Inbound - -

Undergraduates Outbound - -

Postgraduates Inbound - -

Postgraduates Outbound - -

QS Indicator Scores Delhi Global

Overall - -

Academic Reputation - 47.3

Employer Reputation - 45.6

Faculty Student - 48.7

Citations per Faculty - 42.2

International Faculty - 41.2

International Students - 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores Delhi Global

Arts & Humanities - 19.4

Engineering & Technology - 16.6

Life Sciences & Medicine - 15.5

Natural Sciences - 18.7

Social Sciences & Mgmt - 18.6

$

Financial Data

US$

Domestic Undergraduate Fees -

International Undergraduate Fees -

Domestic Postgraduate Fees -

International Postgraduate Fees -

Average Domestic Fees -

Average International Fees -

Annual Library Spending -

Total Research Funding -

Government -

Industrial -

Facilities Investment -

Community Investment -

Alumni Donations -


w

Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) -

HEEACT -

Webometrics Ranking -

THE -

4icu Web Popularity Ranking -

Alexa Web Ranking -

Website Capture

Web Address:

www.du.ac.in

Date Taken: 2011-04-01


Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact

Overall - - -

Arts & Humanities - - -

Engineering & Technology - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - -

Natural Sciences - - -

Social Sciences & Mgmt - - -


Additional Information

Staff with PhD -

Patents -

Overall Student Satisfaction Rate -

Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate -

PhDs Awarded -

Graduate Employment Rate -

Students Pursuing Further Study -

Average Entry Requirements -

20

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 20 5/11/2011 1:02:13 PM


2010 QS World University Rank ®

Faculty Student

371

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Overall Ranking

Citations per Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Academic Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Employer Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Students

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Faculty Level Rankings

Faculty Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Arts & Humanities - - - - -

Engineering & Technology - - - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - - - -

Natural Sciences - - - - -

Social Sciences & Management - - - - -

www.qs.com 21

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 21 5/11/2011 1:02:13 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

University College Dublin

166

Institution Details

Institution Details

Institution Name

University College Dublin

Abbreviation

Dublin

Location

Dublin 4 , Ireland

Foundation Year 1854

Classifi cation

Size: L ; Focus: FC ; Research: HI



Personnel Data Headcount FTE

Faculty - -

International Faculty - -

Students - -

International Students - -

Undergraduates - -

International Undergraduates - -

Postgraduates - -

International Postgraduates - -

Exchange Data Headcount FTE

Undergraduates Inbound - -

Undergraduates Outbound - -

Postgraduates Inbound - -

Postgraduates Outbound - -

QS Indicator Scores Dublin Global

Overall - -

Academic Reputation - 47.3

Employer Reputation - 45.6

Faculty Student - 48.7

Citations per Faculty - 42.2

International Faculty - 41.2

International Students - 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores Dublin Global

Arts & Humanities - 19.4

Engineering & Technology - 16.6

Life Sciences & Medicine - 15.5

Natural Sciences - 18.7

Social Sciences & Mgmt - 18.6

$

Financial Data

US$

Domestic Undergraduate Fees -

International Undergraduate Fees -

Domestic Postgraduate Fees -

International Postgraduate Fees -

Average Domestic Fees -

Average International Fees -

Annual Library Spending -

Total Research Funding -

Government -

Industrial -

Facilities Investment -

Community Investment -

Alumni Donations -


w

Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) -

HEEACT -

Webometrics Ranking -

THE -

4icu Web Popularity Ranking -

Alexa Web Ranking -

Website Capture

Web Address:

www.ucd.ie

Date Taken: 2011-04-01


Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact

Overall - - -

Arts & Humanities - - -

Engineering & Technology - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - -

Natural Sciences - - -

Social Sciences & Mgmt - - -


Additional Information

Staff with PhD -

Patents -

Overall Student Satisfaction Rate -

Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate -

PhDs Awarded -

Graduate Employment Rate -

Students Pursuing Further Study -

Average Entry Requirements -

22

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 22 5/11/2011 1:02:14 PM


2010 QS World University Rank ®

Faculty Student

114

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Overall Ranking

Citations per Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Academic Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Employer Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Students

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Faculty Level Rankings

Faculty Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Arts & Humanities - - - - -

Engineering & Technology - - - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - - - -

Natural Sciences - - - - -

Social Sciences & Management - - - - -

www.qs.com 23

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 23 5/11/2011 1:02:14 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

University of Edinburgh

180

Institution Details

Institution Details

Institution Name

University of Edinburgh

Abbreviation

Edinburgh

Location

Edinburgh , United Kingdom

Foundation Year 1582

Classifi cation

Size: L ; Focus: FC ; Research: VH



Personnel Data Headcount FTE

Faculty - -

International Faculty - -

Students - -

International Students - -

Undergraduates - -

International Undergraduates - -

Postgraduates - -

International Postgraduates - -

Exchange Data Headcount FTE

Undergraduates Inbound - -

Undergraduates Outbound - -

Postgraduates Inbound - -

Postgraduates Outbound - -

QS Indicator Scores Edinburgh Global

Overall - -

Academic Reputation - 47.3

Employer Reputation - 45.6

Faculty Student - 48.7

Citations per Faculty - 42.2

International Faculty - 41.2

International Students - 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores Edinburgh Global

Arts & Humanities - 19.4

Engineering & Technology - 16.6

Life Sciences & Medicine - 15.5

Natural Sciences - 18.7

Social Sciences & Mgmt - 18.6

$

Financial Data

US$

Domestic Undergraduate Fees -

International Undergraduate Fees -

Domestic Postgraduate Fees -

International Postgraduate Fees -

Average Domestic Fees -

Average International Fees -

Annual Library Spending -

Total Research Funding -

Government -

Industrial -

Facilities Investment -

Community Investment -

Alumni Donations -


w

Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) -

HEEACT -

Webometrics Ranking -

THE -

4icu Web Popularity Ranking -

Alexa Web Ranking -

Website Capture

Web Address:

www.ed.ac.uk

Date Taken: 2011-04-01


Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact

Overall - - -

Arts & Humanities - - -

Engineering & Technology - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - -

Natural Sciences - - -

Social Sciences & Mgmt - - -


Additional Information

Staff with PhD -

Patents -

Overall Student Satisfaction Rate -

Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate -

PhDs Awarded -

Graduate Employment Rate -

Students Pursuing Further Study -

Average Entry Requirements -

24

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 24 5/11/2011 1:02:15 PM


2010 QS World University Rank ®

Faculty Student

22

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Overall Ranking

Citations per Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Academic Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Employer Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Students

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Faculty Level Rankings

Faculty Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Arts & Humanities - - - - -

Engineering & Technology - - - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - - - -

Natural Sciences - - - - -

Social Sciences & Management - - - - -

www.qs.com 25

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 25 5/11/2011 1:02:15 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

Fudan University

217

Institution Details

Institution Details

Institution Name

Fudan University

Abbreviation

Fudan

Location

Shanghai , China

Foundation Year 1905

Classifi cation

Size: L ; Focus: FC ; Research: VH



Personnel Data Headcount FTE

Faculty - -

International Faculty - -

Students - -

International Students - -

Undergraduates - -

International Undergraduates - -

Postgraduates - -

International Postgraduates - -

Exchange Data Headcount FTE

Undergraduates Inbound - -

Undergraduates Outbound - -

Postgraduates Inbound - -

Postgraduates Outbound - -

QS Indicator Scores Fudan Global

Overall - -

Academic Reputation - 47.3

Employer Reputation - 45.6

Faculty Student - 48.7

Citations per Faculty - 42.2

International Faculty - 41.2

International Students - 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores Fudan Global

Arts & Humanities - 19.4

Engineering & Technology - 16.6

Life Sciences & Medicine - 15.5

Natural Sciences - 18.7

Social Sciences & Mgmt - 18.6

$

Financial Data

US$

Domestic Undergraduate Fees -

International Undergraduate Fees -

Domestic Postgraduate Fees -

International Postgraduate Fees -

Average Domestic Fees -

Average International Fees -

Annual Library Spending -

Total Research Funding -

Government -

Industrial -

Facilities Investment -

Community Investment -

Alumni Donations -


w

Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) -

HEEACT -

Webometrics Ranking -

THE -

4icu Web Popularity Ranking -

Alexa Web Ranking -

Website Capture

Web Address:

www.fudan.edu.cn

Date Taken: 2011-04-01


Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact

Overall - - -

Arts & Humanities - - -

Engineering & Technology - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - -

Natural Sciences - - -

Social Sciences & Mgmt - - -


Additional Information

Staff with PhD -

Patents -

Overall Student Satisfaction Rate -

Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate -

PhDs Awarded -

Graduate Employment Rate -

Students Pursuing Further Study -

Average Entry Requirements -

26

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 26 5/11/2011 1:02:16 PM


2010 QS World University Rank ®

Faculty Student

105

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Overall Ranking

Citations per Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Academic Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Employer Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Students

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Faculty Level Rankings

Faculty Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Arts & Humanities - - - - -

Engineering & Technology - - - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - - - -

Natural Sciences - - - - -

Social Sciences & Management - - - - -

www.qs.com 27

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 27 5/11/2011 1:02:16 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

University of Glasgow

230

Institution Details

Institution Details

Institution Name

University of Glasgow

Abbreviation

Glasgow

Location

Glasgow , United Kingdom

Foundation Year 1451

Classifi cation

Size: L ; Focus: FC ; Research: VH



Personnel Data Headcount FTE

Faculty - -

International Faculty - -

Students - -

International Students - -

Undergraduates - -

International Undergraduates - -

Postgraduates - -

International Postgraduates - -

Exchange Data Headcount FTE

Undergraduates Inbound - -

Undergraduates Outbound - -

Postgraduates Inbound - -

Postgraduates Outbound - -

QS Indicator Scores Glasgow Global

Overall - -

Academic Reputation - 47.3

Employer Reputation - 45.6

Faculty Student - 48.7

Citations per Faculty - 42.2

International Faculty - 41.2

International Students - 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores Glasgow Global

Arts & Humanities - 19.4

Engineering & Technology - 16.6

Life Sciences & Medicine - 15.5

Natural Sciences - 18.7

Social Sciences & Mgmt - 18.6

$

Financial Data

US$

Domestic Undergraduate Fees -

International Undergraduate Fees -

Domestic Postgraduate Fees -

International Postgraduate Fees -

Average Domestic Fees -

Average International Fees -

Annual Library Spending -

Total Research Funding -

Government -

Industrial -

Facilities Investment -

Community Investment -

Alumni Donations -


w

Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) -

HEEACT -

Webometrics Ranking -

THE -

4icu Web Popularity Ranking -

Alexa Web Ranking -

Website Capture

Web Address:

www.gla.ac.uk

Date Taken: 2011-04-01


Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact

Overall - - -

Arts & Humanities - - -

Engineering & Technology - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - -

Natural Sciences - - -

Social Sciences & Mgmt - - -


Additional Information

Staff with PhD -

Patents -

Overall Student Satisfaction Rate -

Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate -

PhDs Awarded -

Graduate Employment Rate -

Students Pursuing Further Study -

Average Entry Requirements -

28

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 28 5/11/2011 1:02:17 PM


2010 QS World University Rank ®

Faculty Student

77

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Overall Ranking

Citations per Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Academic Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Employer Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Students

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Faculty Level Rankings

Faculty Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Arts & Humanities - - - - -

Engineering & Technology - - - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - - - -

Natural Sciences - - - - -

Social Sciences & Management - - - - -

www.qs.com 29

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 29 5/11/2011 1:02:17 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

The University of Hong Kong

266

Institution Details

Institution Details

Institution Name

The University of Hong Kong

Abbreviation

Hong Kong

Location

Hong Kong , Hong Kong

Foundation Year 1911

Classifi cation

Size: L ; Focus: FC ; Research: VH



Personnel Data Headcount FTE

Faculty - -

International Faculty - -

Students - -

International Students - -

Undergraduates - -

International Undergraduates - -

Postgraduates - -

International Postgraduates - -

Exchange Data Headcount FTE

Undergraduates Inbound - -

Undergraduates Outbound - -

Postgraduates Inbound - -

Postgraduates Outbound - -

QS Indicator Scores Hong Kong Global

Overall - -

Academic Reputation - 47.3

Employer Reputation - 45.6

Faculty Student - 48.7

Citations per Faculty - 42.2

International Faculty - 41.2

International Students - 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores Hong Kong Global

Arts & Humanities - 19.4

Engineering & Technology - 16.6

Life Sciences & Medicine - 15.5

Natural Sciences - 18.7

Social Sciences & Mgmt - 18.6

$

Financial Data

US$

Domestic Undergraduate Fees -

International Undergraduate Fees -

Domestic Postgraduate Fees -

International Postgraduate Fees -

Average Domestic Fees -

Average International Fees -

Annual Library Spending -

Total Research Funding -

Government -

Industrial -

Facilities Investment -

Community Investment -

Alumni Donations -


w

Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) -

HEEACT -

Webometrics Ranking -

THE -

4icu Web Popularity Ranking -

Alexa Web Ranking -

Website Capture

Web Address:

www.hku.hk

Date Taken: 2011-04-01


Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact

Overall - - -

Arts & Humanities - - -

Engineering & Technology - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - -

Natural Sciences - - -

Social Sciences & Mgmt - - -


Additional Information

Staff with PhD -

Patents -

Overall Student Satisfaction Rate -

Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate -

PhDs Awarded -

Graduate Employment Rate -

Students Pursuing Further Study -

Average Entry Requirements -

30

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 30 5/11/2011 1:02:18 PM


2010 QS World University Rank ®

Faculty Student

23

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Overall Ranking

Citations per Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Academic Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Employer Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Students

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Faculty Level Rankings

Faculty Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Arts & Humanities - - - - -

Engineering & Technology - - - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - - - -

Natural Sciences - - - - -

Social Sciences & Management - - - - -

www.qs.com 31

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 31 5/11/2011 1:02:19 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

Korea University

326

Institution Details

Institution Details

Institution Name

Korea University

Abbreviation

Korea

Location

Seoul , Korea, Republic of

Foundation Year 1905

Classifi cation

Size: XL ; Focus: FC ; Research: VH



Personnel Data Headcount FTE

Faculty - -

International Faculty - -

Students - -

International Students - -

Undergraduates - -

International Undergraduates - -

Postgraduates - -

International Postgraduates - -

Exchange Data Headcount FTE

Undergraduates Inbound - -

Undergraduates Outbound - -

Postgraduates Inbound - -

Postgraduates Outbound - -

QS Indicator Scores Korea Global

Overall - -

Academic Reputation - 47.3

Employer Reputation - 45.6

Faculty Student - 48.7

Citations per Faculty - 42.2

International Faculty - 41.2

International Students - 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores Korea Global

Arts & Humanities - 19.4

Engineering & Technology - 16.6

Life Sciences & Medicine - 15.5

Natural Sciences - 18.7

Social Sciences & Mgmt - 18.6

$

Financial Data

US$

Domestic Undergraduate Fees -

International Undergraduate Fees -

Domestic Postgraduate Fees -

International Postgraduate Fees -

Average Domestic Fees -

Average International Fees -

Annual Library Spending -

Total Research Funding -

Government -

Industrial -

Facilities Investment -

Community Investment -

Alumni Donations -


w

Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) -

HEEACT -

Webometrics Ranking -

THE -

4icu Web Popularity Ranking -

Alexa Web Ranking -

Website Capture

Web Address:

www.korea.edu

Date Taken: 2011-04-01


Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact

Overall - - -

Arts & Humanities - - -

Engineering & Technology - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - -

Natural Sciences - - -

Social Sciences & Mgmt - - -


Additional Information

Staff with PhD -

Patents -

Overall Student Satisfaction Rate -

Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate -

PhDs Awarded -

Graduate Employment Rate -

Students Pursuing Further Study -

Average Entry Requirements -

32

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 32 5/11/2011 1:02:19 PM


2010 QS World University Rank ®

Faculty Student

191

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Overall Ranking

Citations per Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Academic Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Employer Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Students

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Faculty Level Rankings

Faculty Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Arts & Humanities - - - - -

Engineering & Technology - - - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - - - -

Natural Sciences - - - - -

Social Sciences & Management - - - - -

www.qs.com 33

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 33 5/11/2011 1:02:19 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

Lund University

372

Institution Details

Institution Details

Institution Name

Lund University

Abbreviation

Lund

Location

Lund , Sweden

Foundation Year 1666

Classifi cation

Size: L ; Focus: FC ; Research: VH



Personnel Data Headcount FTE

Faculty - -

International Faculty - -

Students - -

International Students - -

Undergraduates - -

International Undergraduates - -

Postgraduates - -

International Postgraduates - -

Exchange Data Headcount FTE

Undergraduates Inbound - -

Undergraduates Outbound - -

Postgraduates Inbound - -

Postgraduates Outbound - -

QS Indicator Scores Lund Global

Overall - -

Academic Reputation - 47.3

Employer Reputation - 45.6

Faculty Student - 48.7

Citations per Faculty - 42.2

International Faculty - 41.2

International Students - 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores Lund Global

Arts & Humanities - 19.4

Engineering & Technology - 16.6

Life Sciences & Medicine - 15.5

Natural Sciences - 18.7

Social Sciences & Mgmt - 18.6

$

Financial Data

US$

Domestic Undergraduate Fees -

International Undergraduate Fees -

Domestic Postgraduate Fees -

International Postgraduate Fees -

Average Domestic Fees -

Average International Fees -

Annual Library Spending -

Total Research Funding -

Government -

Industrial -

Facilities Investment -

Community Investment -

Alumni Donations -


w

Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) -

HEEACT -

Webometrics Ranking -

THE -

4icu Web Popularity Ranking -

Alexa Web Ranking -

Website Capture

Web Address:

www.lu.se

Date Taken: 2011-04-01


Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact

Overall - - -

Arts & Humanities - - -

Engineering & Technology - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - -

Natural Sciences - - -

Social Sciences & Mgmt - - -


Additional Information

Staff with PhD -

Patents -

Overall Student Satisfaction Rate -

Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate -

PhDs Awarded -

Graduate Employment Rate -

Students Pursuing Further Study -

Average Entry Requirements -

34

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 34 5/11/2011 1:02:20 PM


2010 QS World University Rank ®

Faculty Student

72

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Overall Ranking

Citations per Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Academic Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Employer Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Students

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Faculty Level Rankings

Faculty Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Arts & Humanities - - - - -

Engineering & Technology - - - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - - - -

Natural Sciences - - - - -

Social Sciences & Management - - - - -

www.qs.com 35

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 35 5/11/2011 1:02:20 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

McGill University

397

Institution Details

Institution Details

Institution Name

McGill University

Abbreviation

McGill

Location

Montreal , Canada

Foundation Year 1821

Classifi cation

Size: L ; Focus: FC ; Research: VH



Personnel Data Headcount FTE

Faculty - -

International Faculty - -

Students - -

International Students - -

Undergraduates - -

International Undergraduates - -

Postgraduates - -

International Postgraduates - -

Exchange Data Headcount FTE

Undergraduates Inbound - -

Undergraduates Outbound - -

Postgraduates Inbound - -

Postgraduates Outbound - -

QS Indicator Scores McGill Global

Overall - -

Academic Reputation - 47.3

Employer Reputation - 45.6

Faculty Student - 48.7

Citations per Faculty - 42.2

International Faculty - 41.2

International Students - 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores McGill Global

Arts & Humanities - 19.4

Engineering & Technology - 16.6

Life Sciences & Medicine - 15.5

Natural Sciences - 18.7

Social Sciences & Mgmt - 18.6

$

Financial Data

US$

Domestic Undergraduate Fees -

International Undergraduate Fees -

Domestic Postgraduate Fees -

International Postgraduate Fees -

Average Domestic Fees -

Average International Fees -

Annual Library Spending -

Total Research Funding -

Government -

Industrial -

Facilities Investment -

Community Investment -

Alumni Donations -


w

Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) -

HEEACT -

Webometrics Ranking -

THE -

4icu Web Popularity Ranking -

Alexa Web Ranking -

Website Capture

Web Address:

www.mcgill.ca

Date Taken: 2011-04-01


Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact

Overall - - -

Arts & Humanities - - -

Engineering & Technology - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - -

Natural Sciences - - -

Social Sciences & Mgmt - - -


Additional Information

Staff with PhD -

Patents -

Overall Student Satisfaction Rate -

Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate -

PhDs Awarded -

Graduate Employment Rate -

Students Pursuing Further Study -

Average Entry Requirements -

36

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 36 5/11/2011 1:02:22 PM


2010 QS World University Rank ®

Faculty Student

19

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Overall Ranking

Citations per Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Academic Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Employer Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Students

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Faculty Level Rankings

Faculty Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Arts & Humanities - - - - -

Engineering & Technology - - - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - - - -

Natural Sciences - - - - -

Social Sciences & Management - - - - -

www.qs.com 37

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 37 5/11/2011 1:02:22 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

The University of Melbourne

400

Institution Details

Institution Details

Institution Name

The University of Melbourne

Abbreviation

Melbourne

Location

Parkville , Australia

Foundation Year 1853

Classifi cation

Size: XL ; Focus: FC ; Research: VH



Personnel Data Headcount FTE

Faculty - -

International Faculty - -

Students - -

International Students - -

Undergraduates - -

International Undergraduates - -

Postgraduates - -

International Postgraduates - -

Exchange Data Headcount FTE

Undergraduates Inbound - -

Undergraduates Outbound - -

Postgraduates Inbound - -

Postgraduates Outbound - -

QS Indicator Scores Melbourne Global

Overall - -

Academic Reputation - 47.3

Employer Reputation - 45.6

Faculty Student - 48.7

Citations per Faculty - 42.2

International Faculty - 41.2

International Students - 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores Melbourne Global

Arts & Humanities - 19.4

Engineering & Technology - 16.6

Life Sciences & Medicine - 15.5

Natural Sciences - 18.7

Social Sciences & Mgmt - 18.6

$

Financial Data

US$

Domestic Undergraduate Fees -

International Undergraduate Fees -

Domestic Postgraduate Fees -

International Postgraduate Fees -

Average Domestic Fees -

Average International Fees -

Annual Library Spending -

Total Research Funding -

Government -

Industrial -

Facilities Investment -

Community Investment -

Alumni Donations -


w

Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) -

HEEACT -

Webometrics Ranking -

THE -

4icu Web Popularity Ranking -

Alexa Web Ranking -

Website Capture

Web Address:

www.unimelb.edu.au

Date Taken: 2011-04-01


Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact

Overall - - -

Arts & Humanities - - -

Engineering & Technology - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - -

Natural Sciences - - -

Social Sciences & Mgmt - - -


Additional Information

Staff with PhD -

Patents -

Overall Student Satisfaction Rate -

Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate -

PhDs Awarded -

Graduate Employment Rate -

Students Pursuing Further Study -

Average Entry Requirements -

38

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 38 5/11/2011 1:02:23 PM


2010 QS World University Rank ®

Faculty Student

38

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Overall Ranking

Citations per Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Academic Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Employer Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Students

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Faculty Level Rankings

Faculty Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Arts & Humanities - - - - -

Engineering & Technology - - - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - - - -

Natural Sciences - - - - -

Social Sciences & Management - - - - -

www.qs.com 39

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 39 5/11/2011 1:02:23 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

National University of Singapore (NUS)

444

Institution Details

Institution Details

Institution Name

National University of Singapore (NUS)

Abbreviation

Singapore

Location

Singapore , Singapore

Foundation Year 1905

Classifi cation

Size: XL ; Focus: FC ; Research: VH



Personnel Data Headcount FTE

Faculty - -

International Faculty - -

Students - -

International Students - -

Undergraduates - -

International Undergraduates - -

Postgraduates - -

International Postgraduates - -

Exchange Data Headcount FTE

Undergraduates Inbound - -

Undergraduates Outbound - -

Postgraduates Inbound - -

Postgraduates Outbound - -

QS Indicator Scores Singapore Global

Overall - -

Academic Reputation - 47.3

Employer Reputation - 45.6

Faculty Student - 48.7

Citations per Faculty - 42.2

International Faculty - 41.2

International Students - 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores Singapore Global

Arts & Humanities - 19.4

Engineering & Technology - 16.6

Life Sciences & Medicine - 15.5

Natural Sciences - 18.7

Social Sciences & Mgmt - 18.6

$

Financial Data

US$

Domestic Undergraduate Fees -

International Undergraduate Fees -

Domestic Postgraduate Fees -

International Postgraduate Fees -

Average Domestic Fees -

Average International Fees -

Annual Library Spending -

Total Research Funding -

Government -

Industrial -

Facilities Investment -

Community Investment -

Alumni Donations -


w

Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) -

HEEACT -

Webometrics Ranking -

THE -

4icu Web Popularity Ranking -

Alexa Web Ranking -

Website Capture

Web Address:

www.nus.edu.sg

Date Taken: 2011-04-01


Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact

Overall - - -

Arts & Humanities - - -

Engineering & Technology - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - -

Natural Sciences - - -

Social Sciences & Mgmt - - -


Additional Information

Staff with PhD -

Patents -

Overall Student Satisfaction Rate -

Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate -

PhDs Awarded -

Graduate Employment Rate -

Students Pursuing Further Study -

Average Entry Requirements -

40

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 40 5/11/2011 1:02:25 PM


2010 QS World University Rank ®

Faculty Student

31

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Overall Ranking

Citations per Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Academic Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Employer Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Students

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Faculty Level Rankings

Faculty Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Arts & Humanities - - - - -

Engineering & Technology - - - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - - - -

Natural Sciences - - - - -

Social Sciences & Management - - - - -

www.qs.com 41

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 41 5/11/2011 1:02:25 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

The University of New South Wales

448

Institution Details

Institution Details

Institution Name

The University of New South Wales

Abbreviation

UNSW

Location

Sydney , Australia

Foundation Year 1949

Classifi cation

Size: XL ; Focus: FC ; Research: VH



Personnel Data Headcount FTE

Faculty - -

International Faculty - -

Students - -

International Students - -

Undergraduates - -

International Undergraduates - -

Postgraduates - -

International Postgraduates - -

Exchange Data Headcount FTE

Undergraduates Inbound - -

Undergraduates Outbound - -

Postgraduates Inbound - -

Postgraduates Outbound - -

QS Indicator Scores UNSW Global

Overall - -

Academic Reputation - 47.3

Employer Reputation - 45.6

Faculty Student - 48.7

Citations per Faculty - 42.2

International Faculty - 41.2

International Students - 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores UNSW Global

Arts & Humanities - 19.4

Engineering & Technology - 16.6

Life Sciences & Medicine - 15.5

Natural Sciences - 18.7

Social Sciences & Mgmt - 18.6

$

Financial Data

US$

Domestic Undergraduate Fees -

International Undergraduate Fees -

Domestic Postgraduate Fees -

International Postgraduate Fees -

Average Domestic Fees -

Average International Fees -

Annual Library Spending -

Total Research Funding -

Government -

Industrial -

Facilities Investment -

Community Investment -

Alumni Donations -


w

Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) -

HEEACT -

Webometrics Ranking -

THE -

4icu Web Popularity Ranking -

Alexa Web Ranking -

Website Capture

Web Address:

www.unsw.edu.au

Date Taken: 2011-04-01


Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact

Overall - - -

Arts & Humanities - - -

Engineering & Technology - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - -

Natural Sciences - - -

Social Sciences & Mgmt - - -


Additional Information

Staff with PhD -

Patents -

Overall Student Satisfaction Rate -

Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate -

PhDs Awarded -

Graduate Employment Rate -

Students Pursuing Further Study -

Average Entry Requirements -

42

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 42 5/11/2011 1:02:26 PM


2010 QS World University Rank ®

Faculty Student

46

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Overall Ranking

Citations per Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Academic Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Employer Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Students

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Faculty Level Rankings

Faculty Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Arts & Humanities - - - - -

Engineering & Technology - - - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - - - -

Natural Sciences - - - - -

Social Sciences & Management - - - - -

www.qs.com 43

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 43 5/11/2011 1:02:26 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

The University of Nottingham

460

Institution Details

Institution Details

Institution Name

The University of Nottingham

Abbreviation

Nottingham

Location

Nottingham , United Kingdom

Foundation Year 1798

Classifi cation

Size: L ; Focus: FC ; Research: VH



Personnel Data Headcount FTE

Faculty - -

International Faculty - -

Students - -

International Students - -

Undergraduates - -

International Undergraduates - -

Postgraduates - -

International Postgraduates - -

Exchange Data Headcount FTE

Undergraduates Inbound - -

Undergraduates Outbound - -

Postgraduates Inbound - -

Postgraduates Outbound - -

QS Indicator Scores Nottingham Global

Overall - -

Academic Reputation - 47.3

Employer Reputation - 45.6

Faculty Student - 48.7

Citations per Faculty - 42.2

International Faculty - 41.2

International Students - 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores Nottingham Global

Arts & Humanities - 19.4

Engineering & Technology - 16.6

Life Sciences & Medicine - 15.5

Natural Sciences - 18.7

Social Sciences & Mgmt - 18.6

$

Financial Data

US$

Domestic Undergraduate Fees -

International Undergraduate Fees -

Domestic Postgraduate Fees -

International Postgraduate Fees -

Average Domestic Fees -

Average International Fees -

Annual Library Spending -

Total Research Funding -

Government -

Industrial -

Facilities Investment -

Community Investment -

Alumni Donations -


w

Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) -

HEEACT -

Webometrics Ranking -

THE -

4icu Web Popularity Ranking -

Alexa Web Ranking -

Website Capture

Web Address:

www.nottingham.ac.uk

Date Taken: 2011-04-01


Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact

Overall - - -

Arts & Humanities - - -

Engineering & Technology - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - -

Natural Sciences - - -

Social Sciences & Mgmt - - -


Additional Information

Staff with PhD -

Patents -

Overall Student Satisfaction Rate -

Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate -

PhDs Awarded -

Graduate Employment Rate -

Students Pursuing Further Study -

Average Entry Requirements -

44

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 44 5/11/2011 1:02:27 PM


2010 QS World University Rank ®

Faculty Student

73

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Overall Ranking

Citations per Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Academic Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Employer Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Students

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Faculty Level Rankings

Faculty Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Arts & Humanities - - - - -

Engineering & Technology - - - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - - - -

Natural Sciences - - - - -

Social Sciences & Management - - - - -

www.qs.com 45

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 45 5/11/2011 1:02:27 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

The University of Queensland

516

Institution Details

Institution Details

Institution Name

The University of Queensland

Abbreviation

Queensland

Location

Brisbane , Australia

Foundation Year 1909

Classifi cation

Size: XL ; Focus: FC ; Research: VH



Personnel Data Headcount FTE

Faculty - -

International Faculty - -

Students - -

International Students - -

Undergraduates - -

International Undergraduates - -

Postgraduates - -

International Postgraduates - -

Exchange Data Headcount FTE

Undergraduates Inbound - -

Undergraduates Outbound - -

Postgraduates Inbound - -

Postgraduates Outbound - -

QS Indicator Scores Queensland Global

Overall - -

Academic Reputation - 47.3

Employer Reputation - 45.6

Faculty Student - 48.7

Citations per Faculty - 42.2

International Faculty - 41.2

International Students - 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores Queensland Global

Arts & Humanities - 19.4

Engineering & Technology - 16.6

Life Sciences & Medicine - 15.5

Natural Sciences - 18.7

Social Sciences & Mgmt - 18.6

$

Financial Data

US$

Domestic Undergraduate Fees -

International Undergraduate Fees -

Domestic Postgraduate Fees -

International Postgraduate Fees -

Average Domestic Fees -

Average International Fees -

Annual Library Spending -

Total Research Funding -

Government -

Industrial -

Facilities Investment -

Community Investment -

Alumni Donations -


w

Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) -

HEEACT -

Webometrics Ranking -

THE -

4icu Web Popularity Ranking -

Alexa Web Ranking -

Website Capture

Web Address:

www.uq.edu.au

Date Taken: 2011-04-01


Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact

Overall - - -

Arts & Humanities - - -

Engineering & Technology - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - -

Natural Sciences - - -

Social Sciences & Mgmt - - -


Additional Information

Staff with PhD -

Patents -

Overall Student Satisfaction Rate -

Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate -

PhDs Awarded -

Graduate Employment Rate -

Students Pursuing Further Study -

Average Entry Requirements -

46

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 46 5/11/2011 1:02:28 PM


2010 QS World University Rank ®

Faculty Student

43

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Overall Ranking

Citations per Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Academic Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Employer Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Students

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Faculty Level Rankings

Faculty Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Arts & Humanities - - - - -

Engineering & Technology - - - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - - - -

Natural Sciences - - - - -

Social Sciences & Management - - - - -

www.qs.com 47

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 47 5/11/2011 1:02:28 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

Shanghai Jiao Tong University

559

Institution Details

Institution Details

Institution Name

Shanghai Jiao Tong University

Abbreviation

Shanghai Jiao Tong

Location

Shanghai , China

Foundation Year 1896

Classifi cation

Size: L ; Focus: FC ; Research: VH



Personnel Data Headcount FTE

Faculty - -

International Faculty - -

Students - -

International Students - -

Undergraduates - -

International Undergraduates - -

Postgraduates - -

International Postgraduates - -

Exchange Data Headcount FTE

Undergraduates Inbound - -

Undergraduates Outbound - -

Postgraduates Inbound - -

Postgraduates Outbound - -

QS Indicator Scores Shanghai Jiao Tong Global

Overall - -

Academic Reputation - 47.3

Employer Reputation - 45.6

Faculty Student - 48.7

Citations per Faculty - 42.2

International Faculty - 41.2

International Students - 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores Shanghai Jiao Tong Global

Arts & Humanities - 19.4

Engineering & Technology - 16.6

Life Sciences & Medicine - 15.5

Natural Sciences - 18.7

Social Sciences & Mgmt - 18.6

$

Financial Data

US$

Domestic Undergraduate Fees -

International Undergraduate Fees -

Domestic Postgraduate Fees -

International Postgraduate Fees -

Average Domestic Fees -

Average International Fees -

Annual Library Spending -

Total Research Funding -

Government -

Industrial -

Facilities Investment -

Community Investment -

Alumni Donations -


w

Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) -

HEEACT -

Webometrics Ranking -

THE -

4icu Web Popularity Ranking -

Alexa Web Ranking -

Website Capture

Web Address:

www.sjtu.edu.cn

Date Taken: 2011-04-01


Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact

Overall - - -

Arts & Humanities - - -

Engineering & Technology - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - -

Natural Sciences - - -

Social Sciences & Mgmt - - -


Additional Information

Staff with PhD -

Patents -

Overall Student Satisfaction Rate -

Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate -

PhDs Awarded -

Graduate Employment Rate -

Students Pursuing Further Study -

Average Entry Requirements -

48

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 48 5/11/2011 1:02:29 PM


2010 QS World University Rank ®

Faculty Student

151

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Overall Ranking

Citations per Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Academic Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Employer Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Students

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Faculty Level Rankings

Faculty Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Arts & Humanities - - - - -

Engineering & Technology - - - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - - - -

Natural Sciences - - - - -

Social Sciences & Management - - - - -

www.qs.com 49

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 49 5/11/2011 1:02:29 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

Tecnológico de Monterrey

597

Institution Details

Institution Details

Institution Name

Tecnológico de Monterrey

Abbreviation

Monterrey

Location

Nuevo Leon , Mexico

Foundation Year 1943

Classifi cation

Size: L ; Focus: FC ; Research: LO



Personnel Data Headcount FTE

Faculty - -

International Faculty - -

Students - -

International Students - -

Undergraduates - -

International Undergraduates - -

Postgraduates - -

International Postgraduates - -

Exchange Data Headcount FTE

Undergraduates Inbound - -

Undergraduates Outbound - -

Postgraduates Inbound - -

Postgraduates Outbound - -

QS Indicator Scores Monterrey Global

Overall - -

Academic Reputation - 47.3

Employer Reputation - 45.6

Faculty Student - 48.7

Citations per Faculty - 42.2

International Faculty - 41.2

International Students - 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores Monterrey Global

Arts & Humanities - 19.4

Engineering & Technology - 16.6

Life Sciences & Medicine - 15.5

Natural Sciences - 18.7

Social Sciences & Mgmt - 18.6

$

Financial Data

US$

Domestic Undergraduate Fees -

International Undergraduate Fees -

Domestic Postgraduate Fees -

International Postgraduate Fees -

Average Domestic Fees -

Average International Fees -

Annual Library Spending -

Total Research Funding -

Government -

Industrial -

Facilities Investment -

Community Investment -

Alumni Donations -


w

Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) -

HEEACT -

Webometrics Ranking -

THE -

4icu Web Popularity Ranking -

Alexa Web Ranking -

Website Capture

Web Address:

www.itesm.mx

Date Taken: 2011-04-01


Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact

Overall - - -

Arts & Humanities - - -

Engineering & Technology - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - -

Natural Sciences - - -

Social Sciences & Mgmt - - -


Additional Information

Staff with PhD -

Patents -

Overall Student Satisfaction Rate -

Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate -

PhDs Awarded -

Graduate Employment Rate -

Students Pursuing Further Study -

Average Entry Requirements -

50

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 50 5/11/2011 1:02:30 PM


2010 QS World University Rank ®

Faculty Student

387

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Overall Ranking

Citations per Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Academic Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Employer Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Students

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Faculty Level Rankings

Faculty Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Arts & Humanities - - - - -

Engineering & Technology - - - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - - - -

Natural Sciences - - - - -

Social Sciences & Management - - - - -

www.qs.com 51

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 51 5/11/2011 1:02:30 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

University of Virginia

660

Institution Details

Institution Details

Institution Name

University of Virginia

Abbreviation

Virginia

Location

Charlottesville , United States

Foundation Year 1819

Classifi cation

Size: L ; Focus: FC ; Research: VH



Personnel Data Headcount FTE

Faculty - -

International Faculty - -

Students - -

International Students - -

Undergraduates - -

International Undergraduates - -

Postgraduates - -

International Postgraduates - -

Exchange Data Headcount FTE

Undergraduates Inbound - -

Undergraduates Outbound - -

Postgraduates Inbound - -

Postgraduates Outbound - -

QS Indicator Scores Virginia Global

Overall - -

Academic Reputation - 47.3

Employer Reputation - 45.6

Faculty Student - 48.7

Citations per Faculty - 42.2

International Faculty - 41.2

International Students - 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores Virginia Global

Arts & Humanities - 19.4

Engineering & Technology - 16.6

Life Sciences & Medicine - 15.5

Natural Sciences - 18.7

Social Sciences & Mgmt - 18.6

$

Financial Data

US$

Domestic Undergraduate Fees -

International Undergraduate Fees -

Domestic Postgraduate Fees -

International Postgraduate Fees -

Average Domestic Fees -

Average International Fees -

Annual Library Spending -

Total Research Funding -

Government -

Industrial -

Facilities Investment -

Community Investment -

Alumni Donations -


w

Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) -

HEEACT -

Webometrics Ranking -

THE -

4icu Web Popularity Ranking -

Alexa Web Ranking -

Website Capture

Web Address:

www.virginia.edu

Date Taken: 2011-04-01


Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact

Overall - - -

Arts & Humanities - - -

Engineering & Technology - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - -

Natural Sciences - - -

Social Sciences & Mgmt - - -


Additional Information

Staff with PhD -

Patents -

Overall Student Satisfaction Rate -

Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate -

PhDs Awarded -

Graduate Employment Rate -

Students Pursuing Further Study -

Average Entry Requirements -

52

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 52 5/11/2011 1:02:31 PM


2010 QS World University Rank ®

Faculty Student

130

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Overall Ranking

Citations per Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Academic Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Employer Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Students

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Faculty Level Rankings

Faculty Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Arts & Humanities - - - - -

Engineering & Technology - - - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - - - -

Natural Sciences - - - - -

Social Sciences & Management - - - - -

www.qs.com 53

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 53 5/11/2011 1:02:31 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

Waseda University

669

Institution Details

Institution Details

Institution Name

Waseda University

Abbreviation

Waseda

Location

Tokyo , Japan

Foundation Year 1882

Classifi cation

Size: XL ; Focus: CO ; Research: VH



Personnel Data Headcount FTE

Faculty - -

International Faculty - -

Students - -

International Students - -

Undergraduates - -

International Undergraduates - -

Postgraduates - -

International Postgraduates - -

Exchange Data Headcount FTE

Undergraduates Inbound - -

Undergraduates Outbound - -

Postgraduates Inbound - -

Postgraduates Outbound - -

QS Indicator Scores Waseda Global

Overall - -

Academic Reputation - 47.3

Employer Reputation - 45.6

Faculty Student - 48.7

Citations per Faculty - 42.2

International Faculty - 41.2

International Students - 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores Waseda Global

Arts & Humanities - 19.4

Engineering & Technology - 16.6

Life Sciences & Medicine - 15.5

Natural Sciences - 18.7

Social Sciences & Mgmt - 18.6

$

Financial Data

US$

Domestic Undergraduate Fees -

International Undergraduate Fees -

Domestic Postgraduate Fees -

International Postgraduate Fees -

Average Domestic Fees -

Average International Fees -

Annual Library Spending -

Total Research Funding -

Government -

Industrial -

Facilities Investment -

Community Investment -

Alumni Donations -


w

Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) -

HEEACT -

Webometrics Ranking -

THE -

4icu Web Popularity Ranking -

Alexa Web Ranking -

Website Capture

Web Address:

www.waseda.ac.jp

Date Taken: 2011-04-01


Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact

Overall - - -

Arts & Humanities - - -

Engineering & Technology - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - -

Natural Sciences - - -

Social Sciences & Mgmt - - -


Additional Information

Staff with PhD -

Patents -

Overall Student Satisfaction Rate -

Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate -

PhDs Awarded -

Graduate Employment Rate -

Students Pursuing Further Study -

Average Entry Requirements -

54

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 54 5/11/2011 1:02:32 PM


2010 QS World University Rank ®

Faculty Student

182

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Overall Ranking

Citations per Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Academic Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Faculty

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Employer Reputation

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

International Students

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

- - - - -

Faculty Level Rankings

Faculty Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Arts & Humanities - - - - -

Engineering & Technology - - - - -

Life Sciences & Medicine - - - - -

Natural Sciences - - - - -

Social Sciences & Management - - - - -

www.qs.com 55

02 - MODULE 1 - Institution Reports_template1.indd 55 5/11/2011 1:02:33 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1– Sample Report - Universitas 21

MODULE 2: Comparative Analysis

The charts in this module display the performance of each of

the institutions featured in the report across all the indicators

utilised for the rankings in 2010, each presented in contrast to

Sample’s results.

In each case, the area inside the line represents the all round

strength of the institution across the six principal ranking indicators

and would correlate perfectly with the overall ranking

performance were it not for the influence of weightings - essentially

this display approach implies that each indicator carries

the same weight.

The “shape” of Sample in 2010 clearly reveals strengths (International

Faculty and Faculty Student) and weaknesses (International

Students and Citations per Faculty). In relation to its

2.1 2.2 2.3

2.4 2.5 2.6

2.7 2.8 2.9

56

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

03 - MODULE 2 - Comparative Analysis.indd 56 5/11/2011 12:21:30 PM


peers, Sample performs relatively well in the Academic Reputation

index as well as in the Faculty Student indexes.

These charts also visually convey the fact that Sample, and

most of the selected peer institutions, have specific areas in

which to improve. With the exception of Sample, Sample,

Sample, Sample and Sample, who do relatively well in all the

indexes, which is portrayed by their hexagonal shape, most institutions

portray a diversity in strengths. However, it is clear

PR = Academic Reputation

ER = Employer Reputation

KEY

FS = Faculty Student

CF = Citations per Faculty

IF = International Faculty

IS = International Students

2.10 2.11 2.12

2.13 2.14 2.15

2.16 2.17 2.18

www.qs.com 57

03 - MODULE 2 - Comparative Analysis.indd 57 5/11/2011 12:21:31 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1– Sample Report - Universitas 21

that the selected peers perform more strongly than Sample in

the research-based factor, Citations per Faculty as well as the

International Student index - two areas Sample should focus

on for improvement. It is also of interest that both domestic institutions,

Sample and KFUPM featured in this report, do not

do well in the Citations per Faculty index, indicating perhaps

a strategy in boosting research in Saudi Arabia is a key factor

to achieving overall improvement.

analysis.

Sample report performs similiarly to Sample in the Academic

Reputation, International Faculty, and Faculty Student indexes.

However, Sample Mary’s scores in Employer Reputation

at jason@qs.com.

and Citations per Faculty as well as its exceptional performance

in the International Student index, places it in a better

position.

Table 2.1 shows the development of the peer group over the

last three years. Icelandic institutions are only a recent addition

to the rankings and as a result have data only from

2010. Sample and Sample, which are part of the requested

peer set, have not yet been featured in a cycle of rankings

and have thus been excluded from this module. One can see

that Sample has improved in almost all indexes in 2006, with

the exception of the Employer Reputation and Citations per

Faculty indexes. Table 2.1 on page 72 shows the development

of the peer group over the last three years. Icelandic institutions

are only a recent addition to the rankings and as a result

have data only from 2009. Sample and Sample, which are part

of the requested peer set, have not yet been featured in a cycle

of rankings and have thus been excluded from this module.

One can see that Sample has improved in almost all indexes in

2010, with the exception of the Employer Reputation and Citations

per Faculty indexes.

Please note that this is only a sample report. Contents and any

data that have been included should not be treated as actual figures or

For more information regarding how you can obtain an official

benchmarking report for your institution, please contact Jason Newman

2.19 2.20

2.21

2.22 2.23

58

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

03 - MODULE 2 - Comparative Analysis.indd 58 5/11/2011 12:21:31 PM


2008 2009 2010

Institution AR ER FS CF IF IS AR ER FS CF IF IS AR ER FS CF IF IS

Amsterdam 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Auckland 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Birmingham 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

British Columbia 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Connecticut 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Delhi 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Dublin 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Edinburgh 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Fudan 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Glasgow 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Hong Kong 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Korea 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Lund 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

McGill 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Melbourne 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Monterrey 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Nottingham 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Queensland 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Shanghai Jiao Tong 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Singapore 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

UNSW 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Virginia 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Waseda 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 2.1 Rankings performance by indicator across peer group 2008-2010

www.qs.com 59

03 - MODULE 2 - Comparative Analysis.indd 59 5/11/2011 12:21:32 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

MODULE 3: Rankings Performance

Chart 3.1 Overall rankings performance of selected universities 2006-2010

This module examines the performance of selected institutions

under each indicator (and the overall performance) used for

the QS World University Rankings ® . dfd

fluctuating scores in this index, which also correlates with

their unstable overall performances. Sample is the top performer

in this indicator at 116. But if you take into account that

Please note that this is only it a performed sample report. at 78 Contents in 2006, then and their any performance in 2010, has

data that have been included should declined. not be treated as actual figures or

Overall Rankings Performance analysis. (Chart 3.1)

Sample has steadily improved in this indicator, from 483 in

For more information regarding

Chart 3.1 displays the overall rank position for the seldfadssdfaected

peers for the past five years. The chart displays a which please to base contact future Jason improvement. Newman Sample had a similar im-

2007, how to 292 you in can 2010. obtain This is an an official impressive performance on

benchmarking report for your institution,

at jason@qs.com.

unique balance of selected peers, all of which show volatile proved score between 2007 and 2009, but in 2010, the performance

stalled and fell 41 places to 320.

performances. Sample and Sample have the most work to do

in order to improve their performances. Sample and Sample

are the top performers in the selected peer list. Sample’s

performance has been unstable since it first entered the Rankings

in 2007. The sharpest decline was in 2008, when it fell 96

places.

Sample showed great promise in 2006, when it was placed at

256. But since then, this performance has seen a large decline.

In 2010, it was placed at 224. Sample, Sample, Sample, and

Sample have also performed similarly and have seen their

scores fall since 2006. Sample is the only selected peer institution

that has improved steadily since

analysis.

2006.

Aneral response rates increase, the Academic Reputation

index displays stronger consistency and robustness. In 2009,

over responses from academics with an average of 5 years in

academia were recorded and considered. Any branding or

promotional efforts designed to influence these results may

not take effect for at least three to five years from their date of

introduction. This is due both in part to the three year cycle

of the surveys and to the delayed impact of such work on the

perception of an institution amongst reviewers. Key strategies

Please note that this is only a sample report. Contents and any

data that have been included should that not may be treated contribute as actual to an improved figures or performance in this indicator

include:

For more information regarding • how Consistent you can branding obtain across an official all promotional materials

Academic Reputation Performance benchmarking (Chart report 3.2) for your institution, • Ensuring please contact that researchers Jason Newman are publishing under accurate

Worth 40% of the overall score, at jason@qs.com.

the results of the Academic and consistent affiliations

Reputation survey are most closely correlated with the overall • Encouraging and supporting academics’ attendance, and

scores. Sample and Sample have achieved relative stability in

• preferably presenting, at international conferences

this indicator and as mentioned, this also correlates with the

stability they have achieved in their overall scores. By contrast, • Ensuring that sample report pare any partnership and/or

Sample, Sample, Sample, and Sample have extremely

collaborations

Chart 3.2 Academic Reputation of selected universities 2006-2010

60

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

04 - MODULE 3 - Rankings Performance latest.indd 60 5/11/2011 12:22:22 PM


Chart 3.3 Employer Reputation of selected universities 2006-2010

• Effective media relations and management for any ‘breakthrough’

research

• Actively recruiting high profile domestic and international • Run soft skills or ‘work readiness’ training for all students

faculty members

Please note that this is only a sample • Establish report. and/or Contents maintain and any a well resourced careers advisory

treated service as actual figures or

data that have been included should not be

Employer Reputation (Chart analysis. 3.3)

• Make sure the careers services also offers job postings and

Over the last three years the total number of responses to the

For more information regarding how keeps you up can to date obtain with an new official recruitment practices such as

Employer Reputation survey has increased dramatically from

benchmarking report for your institution, please online contact forums Jason and websites Newman

738 in 2006, 1,482 in 2007, 2,339 in 2008, 3,286 in 2010, to 5,007

at jason@qs.com.

• Ensure QSIU is given the most up to date lists of employers

who will vouch for the employability and calibre of

in 2010. This has had a dramatic impact on some of the results,

particularly between 2006 and 2007, as in the case for Sample

Sample’s alumni.

and Sample. Greater response levels mean that there is greater

global representation and, as a result, there is a wider playing

field for competition. The inclusion of more responses in Faculty Student Ratio Performance (Chart 3.4)

this index for this peer group has not necessarily had a positive

impact, as most of the institutions saw a decline or have derlying data:

To put Chart 3.4 in context, it helps to look at some of the un-

been quite unstable in performance. Sample, Sample, Sample,

Sample, Sample, and Sample have Please seen their note star that fade this in is this only a sample report. Contents and any

Ratio Score Rank

index.

data that have been included should not Sample be treated as actual figures or 20:1 17 42

analysis.

Sample 22.2:1 249 563

In 2007, for the first time, participating institutions were invited

to supply lists of employers to For supplement more information the independent regarding how you can obtain an official

Sample 9.8:1 56.7 183

Sample 10.3:1 55 213

Sample 11.3:1 46.6 249

promotion carried out by benchmarking QS. Institutions report are encouraged for your institution, to please contact Jason Newman

participate in this exercise at to jason@qs.com.

raise their profiles.

Sample gave a strong initial performance in this index in 2007

at 150. However, in 2009, this score has dropped 61 places to 2.

There are a number of strategies that may help an institution

either attain, or maintain a top position in this indicator.

• Build sample report sample report both domestically and

sample report

• Recruit more international students who are likely to gain

employment outside the country

Sample 22.6:1 15.5 570

Sample 18.6:1 21.1 498

Sample 18.4:1 21.2 498

Sample 9.3:1 60.0 55

There has been some volatility in this measure as institutions

get to grips with the calculation of Full Time Equivalent (FTE)

numbers for both faculty and students. These have been

Chart 3.4 Faculty Student performance of selected universities 2006-2010

www.qs.com 61

04 - MODULE 3 - Rankings Performance latest.indd 61 5/11/2011 12:22:23 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

Chart 3.5 Citations per Faculty rankings of selected universities 2006-2010

emphasised more strongly since the 2006 results. This may

have had an adverse affect on scores, as seen in Sample’s performance.

Not all the universities were affected in the same

way. Sample’s performance improved dramatically during the

same period.

corrective, in others it further set them back. Sample performed

at 402 in 2007 but in 2008, this score fell to 46.

Sample tops this indicator with an impressive score of 197.

Sample’s shine in this index has suffered since 2008, when it

Please note that this is only a sample report. Contents and any

fell 203 places to 323 in 2009. Sample is making slow headway,

data that have been included should not be treated as actual figures or

Here, ratios are calculated simply by taking the number of improving year on year since 2008.

analysis.

FTE faculty as a percentage of the total FTE students. Not

many institutions in this selection have seen a significant improvement

in 2010. In fact, most of the peers do not perform

The results in Chart 3.5 reveal that this is an area ripe for significant

improvement for Sample as recognition of research

For more information regarding how you can obtain an official

benchmarking report your institution, please contact Jason Newman

very well in this index. Sample, Sample, Sample, and Sample

quality also translates into institutional branding and thus

at jason@qs.com.

in particular struggle in this indicator. It is well reported that

prestige. An efficient way of achieving this can be sending

institutions around the world are now struggling with budget

more researchers to conferences as well as collaborative work

cuts. The financial reality for many institutions will be difficult,

potentially affecting this indicator in particular.

with fellow global peers. This can be an effective starting point

in which Sample can disseminate its academic achievements.

It is also important to note that research quality is just as important

as quantity.

Citations per Faculty Performance (Chart 3.5)

In understanding the results in this indicator over time, it is

Please note that this is only International a sample report. Faculty Contents Performance and any (Chart 3.6)

worth noting the switch from ESI to Scopus TM in 2007 (see Appendix

I).

data that have been included should Chart not 3.6 be reveals treated that as Sample actual has figures lost or ground in this indicator.

analysis.

In 2007, it recorded a score of 73 but in 2010 this has fallen to

There are some major shifts in certain institutions’ performance

that coincide with the switch: Sample, Sample, and ple, are continuing to make strides in this index. Sample per-

296. By contrast, Sample’s domestic peers, Sample and Sam-

For more information regarding how you can obtain an official

benchmarking report for your institution, please contact Jason Newman

Sample, for example. Much improvement was made to the forms quite steadily, scoring 58 in 2010. Sample tops the peer

at jason@qs.com.

algorithms used to retrieve data between 2007 and 2008, group with an impressive score of 20.

eliminating double counting between disciplines and double

counting between different affiliations that are ultimately attributable

to the same institution. In many cases, this has re-

The selected peers collectively perform unstably in this indicator.

Sample has lost ground year on year and settles into

sulted in increased reduced overall paper and citation counts

4 in 2010. Sample has also continuously declined since 2006.

in 2010 (and beyond). In some cases this adjustment proved

Sample has an uphill battle to regain the position it achieved

in 2009.

Chart 3.6 International Faculty rankings of selected universities 2006-2010

62

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

04 - MODULE 3 - Rankings Performance latest.indd 62 5/11/2011 12:22:23 PM


Chart 3.7 International Students rankings of selected universities 2006-2010

International Students Performance (Chart 3.7)

• Increase sample report exchange programs from a wider

Sample Report international indicators can be strongly correlated,

so it is perhaps sample report that many of the leading • Develop sample report universities in terms of mutual de-

sample report

universities in this index also do well in International Faculty. gree recognition as well as joint programs

Sample and Sample again top this indicator with the former

• Create an international student office which seeks to support

incoming students as well as promote the change to

institution achieving a score of 4. The two Asian institutions,

Sample and Sample do not perform well in this index which

follows global trends on mobile students. Please note that this is only a sample

increase

report.

international

Contents

student

and any

numbers

data that have been included should • not Target be treated markets as that actual are figures specifically or open to a as a

Although Sample does not perform analysis. well in the International destination.

Faculty indicator, it achieves a respectable score in the International

Student index at 75. This is, in For fact, more Sample’s information most stable regarding

A focus

how

on

you

international

can obtain

student

an official

recruitment will not only

performing indicator. However benchmarking it has been reported for

influence this indicator, but will also lead to a growing number

of international alumni. This will contribute, in time, to

that your due institution, please contact Jason Newman

to new visa restrictions and alleged at jason@qs.com. aggression toward international

students, Australian universities may have an uphill

the international recognition of the institution and may assist

in building future links with international universities and

challenge in the area of internationalisation.

businesses.

In order to increase international student numbers further, institutions

typically consider the following actions:

Conclusion

• Increase sample report marketing activity in international

markets; faculty student scores sample report investment

in international sample report, and work closely with

sample report worldwide

Chart 3.8 shows the current status of Sample with respect to

the maximum available score in each indicator. This chart

demonstrates in simple fashion the key areas where Sample

would benefit most greatly from an improved performance.

Chart 3.8 Sample’s results against the maximum available score

www.qs.com 63

04 - MODULE 3 - Rankings Performance latest.indd 63 5/11/2011 12:22:24 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

MODULE 4: Research Performance

The source of citations and publication data used in the QS

World University Rankings ® is Scopus TM (www.scopus.com)

- a database compiled and maintained by Elsevier and one of

three key international sources of publication and citation.

Module 4 sets out to provide an ‘under the surface’ evaluation

of the indicators currently used in rankings, but also demonstrates

the differences between different subject disciplines.

In order to collate this data, QS undertook a major exercise

in mapping all of the ranked institutions into the Scopus database,

identifying many name variants for each institution,

totalling over 975,000 unique references for the 600+ universities

in the list. This mapping exercise is revised, adjusted and

enhanced each year with an increasing amount of input from

institutions themselves. analysis.

one point, Sample had 1,741 identified name variants in Scopus,

illustrating the complexity of this ongoing work.

As a key piece of general advice, faculty members of the whole

university including affiliated components should include

The citation criterion uses a count of all papers published the name of the university on all published work. Whilst the

during the last complete five year period, Please and note then that totals this is the only a mapping sample report. exercise Contents can ensure and that any all papers and citations are

number of citations for those data papers that within have been the same included period. should accounted not be treated for, there as actual is reputational figures or credit that may be missed

The period in question for this analysis. report is 2005-2009.

where papers are published under alternate affiliations. Additionally,

any other evaluation drawing on publication or

The measures utilised for rankings For do more not take information into account regarding citation how data, you can from obtain any database, an official is likely to find it easier to

different citation patterns for benchmarking different disciplines. report for In your general, institution, track please the work contact of your Jason faculty Newman if they are publishing under the

for example, papers in a medical at jason@qs.com. field will reach their citation

appropriate institutional name.

peak much earlier than those in social sciences.

Chart 4.1 shows these data broken down into five broad subject

areas (those used for the Rankings). It can be seen from

this chart that different faculty areas have different citation

patterns. For most institutions, Life Sciences and Natural Sciences

dominate the citation landscape. Sample and Sample

lead this chart in both the Natural Sciences and the Life Sciences

faculty. Newcastle also publishes a high volume of papers

in Life Sciences.

Please note that this is only a sample report. Contents and any

Sample’s highest citations per paper is in the Natural Sciences.

data that have been included should not be treated as actual figures or

In terms of output in this faculty, Sample performs in the top

tier of the selected peer group.

The issue of identifying name variants For more is present information any database

of this size but is particularly benchmarking influential report where for an your institu-

institution, please contact Jason Newman

regarding how you can obtain an official

Chart 4.2 shows the overall productivity, in research terms, of

selected institutions. The red line depicts citations against the

tion has affiliated components at jason@qs.com.

(such hospitals or research

right hand axis and the bars depict papers published against

institutes) that have their own distinct identity. Where this is

the left hand axis.

the case we depend on institutions themselves to notify us of

these, sometimes little known, relationships. For example at As a general rule, each paper in the database received an

average of between four and five citations during the period

Chart 4.1 Citations per paper by faculty area in Scopus 2005-2009

64

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

05 - MODULE 4 - Research Performance.indd 64 5/11/2011 12:29:19 PM


Chart 4.2 Papers and citations Scopus 2005-2009

concerned. Inevitably, higher productivity (assuming some

degree of quality control) can also lead to higher overall citation

counts. However, this does not seem to be the case with

the selected peer group. Sample in particular produces a relatively

high volume of work, however its citation level is not

enough to achieve a high score in this index. It is well documented

in the press that institutions analysis. in Asia have dramatically

increased their research paper output in recent years.

However, this has not necessarily correlated with a higher Citations

per Faculty performance as some questions of quality

at jason@qs.com.

have been raised. Asian, as well as Australian, universities, are

emerging on the world stage. Particular lessons must be learnt

in terms of producing high research output, as well as highly

cited papers.

Sample, for example, third for publishing the highest amount

of papers. However it far outperforms the selected peer group

with an impressive score of 97. For the years between 2005-09,

it produced 9,417 papers and received a total of 65,500 citations.

In stark contrast, Sample produced 16,106 papers and

received 46,469 citations.

Please note that this is only a sample report. Contents and any

data that have been included should not be treated as actual figures or

In the same period, Sample produced 4,422 papers and received

how 14,899 you citations. can obtain Sample an official produces slightly more papers

For more information regarding

benchmarking report for your institution, and is please more highly contact cited Jason than Newman Sample and thus its score is

slightly higher. The Faculty Student ratio is also catered into

the score but Sample and Sample’s Faculty Student performances

are relatively close, and thus this has not give either

institution an advantage.

Chart 4.3 Total citations by faculty area for selected institutions in Scopus 2005-2009

www.qs.com 65

05 - MODULE 4 - Research Performance.indd 65 5/11/2011 12:29:19 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

Research is the central foundation upon which world-class

universities are built and this is currently an area in which

Sample is substantially weaker than the majority of its selected

peers. Its score in this indicator has remained quite stable but

it has settled in the mid-400s. The highest result was seen in

2008 when it was placed at 402. The Citations per Faculty index

also affects Academic Reputation as institutions which are

analysis.

recognised as top universities are also deemed to be research

giants.

Clearly Sample receives the lowest citations and most of the

Australian universities, Sample, Sample, and R Sample also

receive lower citation rates.

Chart 4.4 shows the development in productivity (total number

a of sample papers report. published) Contents over and time. any In general, productivity

Please note that this is only

data that have been included should seems not to be have treated taken as a actual dip in figures 2009, with or the exception of Sample

which has steadily increased its output since 2005. Sample

easily outperforms the selected peers in terms of total papers.

For more information regarding how you can obtain an official

Sample must focus on improving in this index in order to improve

its overall performance. Because it is a relatively young

benchmarking report for your institution, please contact Jason Newman

Chart 4.3 shows the distribution of total citations by discipline.

Again it reinforces the domination of Life Sciences and institution, improvement in this indicator will be hard earned.

at jason@qs.com.

Natural Sciences. Sample clearly produces a stellar amount

of Natural Sciences research, whilst Sample dominates the

Life Sciences. Citations in Engineering & IT, Social Sciences &

Management, and Arts & Humanities fall behind.

Chart 4.4 Total papers published by year for selected peer institutions

66

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

05 - MODULE 4 - Research Performance.indd 66 5/11/2011 12:29:19 PM


MODULE 5: Academic Reputation Performance

This module seeks to shed more light on the Academic Reputation

indicator, which draws on responses from the global academic

community in order to evaluate institutions. In order

to understand performance in this indicator, it may be useful

to look at the breakdown of responses both from a global as

well as a domestic perspective.

Since 2007, institutions have been invited to submit lists of

employers for QSIU to invite to participate in the Employer

Survey. In 2010, that invitation was also extended to lists of

academics. Since they are not allowed to submit in favour of

their own institution, the risk of bias is minimal, nonetheless

submissions are screened and sampling applied where any

institution submits more than 400 records. In 2010, over 160

institutions supplied lists contributing more than 40,000 additional

academic contacts. Wherever sampling is required,

respondents are selected randomly with a focus on delivering

a balanced sample by discipline and geography. Naturally, all

databases carry a certain amount of ‘noise’ and email invitations

do get passed on. Responses analysis. are screened to remove any

inappropriate ones prior to analysis.

In the Arts & Humanities evaluation, Sample, Sample, and

Sample are the dominant performers in terms of domestic

reputation, although this does not seem to be equally reflected

in their international brands. Sample’s domestic reputation is

equal to its international perception in this discipline.

In the Arts & Humanities evaluation, Sample, Sample, and

Sample are the dominant performers in terms of domestic

reputation, although this does not seem to be equally reflected

in their international brands. Sample’s domestic reputation is

equal to its international perception in this discipline.

Sample, Sample, and Sample perform relatively equally in the

domestic and international context. Sample’s highest result in

the domestic context is in this discipline with 10.4. This forms

a solid basis on which to build future recognition across all

faculties. It is interesting to note that the institutions in non-

English speaking countries, Singapore, China, and France,

outperform their peers.

Engineering & Technology (Chart 5.2)

Performance in this discipline is quite interesting. Sample,

Please note that this is only a sample report. Contents and any

To boost the size and stability of the sample, QS combines Sample, and Sample clearly dominate both the international

data that have been included should not be treated as actual figures or

responses from the last three years where any respondent has and domestic context. Again, Sample shows a larger gap between

the domestic and international, with the domestic out-

analysis.

responded more than once in the three year period, previous

responses are discarded in favour of For the more latest information numbers. One regarding performing how you global can perceptions.

obtain an official

should refer to Appendix II: benchmarking Survey Results report 2010 for for further your institution, please contact Jason Newman

information. It should be noted, however, that international Sample enjoys a better international perception than domestic.

at jason@qs.com.

responses carry a larger weighting than domestic responses. Sample does not perform well enough in the international

context to yield a result in the chart. Generally, several institutions

including Sample, Sample, Sample, and Sample have a

better international response in this discipline than they do

domestically.

Life Sciences & Medicine (Chart 5.3)

The top performers in this discipline echo the performance

seen in the Arts & Humanities discipline. Sample dominates

this discipline in the domestic context. This is followed by

Sample and Sample.

Please note that this is only a sample report. Contents and any

Sample, Sample, and Sample achieved relatively higher responses

in the international context. Sample, Sample, and

data that have been included should not be treated as actual figures or

Sample perform at the bottom of the charts. All three perform

For more information regarding better how in the you international can obtain context an official and struggled to make a

The QSIU research continues benchmarking to expand and report diversify for its your response

levels, particularly for at countries jason@qs.com. that have, at present, scores relatively high in the international context.

institution, showing please in the contact domestic. Jason Sample Newman does considerably better and

been largely underrepresented. As response levels grow so

will the playing field for competition.

It is worth noting that research in the Life Sciences faculty

is important in order to draw attention to an institution’s

academic rigour as most research output and citations are

Arts & Humanities (Chart 5.1)

achieved in this discipline and the Natural Sciences faculty.

Natural Sciences (Chart 5.4)

Sample, Sample, Sample, Sample, Sample, Sample, Sample,

and Sample do better domestically than internationally. Sample

dominates the domestic context again with Sample a close

second.

Sample, Sample, and Sample are the dominant performers in

terms of domestic reputation, although this does not seem to

be equally reflected in their international brands. Sample’s

domestic reputation is equal to its international perception in

this discipline.

As stated previously, there is a higher percentage of output

in this faculty. Sample does not perform high enough in the

www.qs.com 67

06 - MODULE 5 - Academic Reputation Performance.indd 67 5/11/2011 12:37:44 PM


Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report - Universitas 21

Chart 5.1 Academic Reputation scores in Arts & Humanities

Chart 5.2 Academic Reputation scores in Engineering & Technology

Chart 5.3 Academic Reputation scores in Life Sciences & Medicine

Chart 5.4 Academic Reputation scores in Natural Sciences

Chart 5.5 Academic Reputation scores in Social Sciences & Management

68

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

06 - MODULE 5 - Academic Reputation Performance.indd 68 5/11/2011 12:37:45 PM


domestic context to appear on the chart. Its international response

rates are also not particularly high.

domestic reputation is equal to its international perception in

this discipline.

Social Sciences & Management (Chart 5.5)

In 2010, the strongest field of response was in the Social Sciences

& Management, meaning that this area is the least prone

to anomaly and should be the most Please reflective note that of reputation this is only on a sample report. Contents and any

the ground.

data that have been included should not be treated as actual figures or

analysis.

All the selected peers perform better in the domestic context.

Sample again has a much higher For domestic more information brand with regarding Sample how you can obtain an official

close behind and Sample benchmarking trailing third report position. for your Sample institution, please contact Jason Newman

performs slightly better at in jason@qs.com.

the domestic context but response

levels are not sufficiently high.

Sample receives its highest international brand recognition

in this discipline. However Sample trails behind its domestic

peers in survey responses.

Conclusion

Because faculty scores are not sample report a closer look will

reveal that most sample report in this report do not perform

particularly well in any of these faculties, if you take into account

that the maximum possible score in each faculty is 100.

For example, Sample’s highest score, obtained in the Arts &

Humanities faculty, is 2.4. Sample can work on improving in

each individual faculty with an eye on producing stellar research

in order to boost its academic recognition of excellence

Please note that this is only a sample report. Contents and any

data that have been included should not be treated as actual figures or

both domestically and internationally.

analysis.

Sample may also find that sending more of its academic professors

to conferences and symposia may help improve recog-

For more information regarding how you can obtain an official

benchmarking report for your institution, please contact Jason Newman

nition of academic rigour as well as brand recognition. Brand

at jason@qs.com.

recognition is also achieved by producing research using a

correct and consistent institutional name and affiliations.

Some institutions find that reputation is also tied to associations

and partnership with elite universities. Many Asian

universities, particularly in Iceland and Singapore, are currently

forming partnerships with universities in the Sample

and the UK. Sample may want to consider forming sample

report partnerships with other institutions in order to share

knowledge and to build a Sample, Sample, and Sample are

the dominant performers in terms of domestic reputation,

although this does not seem to be equally reflected in their

international brands. Sample’s domestic reputation is equal to

its international perception in this discipline.

Sample, Sample, and Sample are the dominant performers in

terms of domestic reputation, although this does not seem to

be equally reflected in their international brands. Sample’s

www.qs.com 69

06 - MODULE 5 - Academic Reputation Performance.indd 69 5/11/2011 12:37:45 PM

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines