University of Atlantis - QS Intelligence Unit
University of Atlantis - QS Intelligence Unit
University of Atlantis - QS Intelligence Unit
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Benchmarking Service<br />
Year 1 Report<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong>
Benchmarking Service<br />
<strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong> Benchmarking Service—Year 1<br />
Prepared exclusively for <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong> by the <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong>.<br />
Terms <strong>of</strong> Use<br />
The use <strong>of</strong> this report is subject to the following terms <strong>of</strong> use:<br />
The content <strong>of</strong> this report is for your general information and use only. It is subject to change without notice.<br />
This report contains material which is owned by/licensed to us. This material includes, but is not limited to, the design, layout,<br />
and content. Reproduction is prohibited other than in accordance with the copyright notice, which forms part <strong>of</strong> these terms<br />
and conditions.<br />
All information contained in this report is believed to be correct and unbiased, but the publisher does not accept responsibility<br />
for any loss arising from decisions made upon this information.<br />
Copyright notice<br />
Copyright © 2004-2010 <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong>. All rights reserved.<br />
No part <strong>of</strong> this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,<br />
mechanical, photocopying or otherwise without the prior permission <strong>of</strong> the publisher, with the following exceptions:<br />
You may print extracts for your personal and non-commercial use only.<br />
You may distribute copies <strong>of</strong> the report to individuals within your organisation for their personal use, but only if you ensure<br />
their understanding <strong>of</strong> these terms <strong>of</strong> use and acknowledge <strong>QS</strong> as the source <strong>of</strong> the material.<br />
This report and its contents are subject to the more detailed terms described in the Non-disclosure Agreement<br />
(Reference <strong>QS</strong>IU-ATL-2010-01) signed by XXXXX XXXXX, Pro Vice-Chancellor,<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong>, dated 00 January 2010<br />
Copyright © 2010 <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong>
CONTENTS<br />
CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................................. 1<br />
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 2<br />
Institutions Considered ............................................................................................................................................. 3<br />
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 4<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong> .................................................................................................................................................. 8<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Babylon ...............................................................................................................................................10<br />
City university <strong>of</strong> Troy ..............................................................................................................................................12<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> El Dorado ...........................................................................................................................................14<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Mombasa ............................................................................................................................................16<br />
Pompeii <strong>University</strong> ....................................................................................................................................................18<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Sumeria ...............................................................................................................................................20<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Sparta ..................................................................................................................................................22<br />
Joe Blogs <strong>University</strong> ..................................................................................................................................................24<br />
Technical <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Tatuin .................................................................................................................................26<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Theroux ..............................................................................................................................................28<br />
Carthage <strong>University</strong> ..................................................................................................................................................30<br />
MODULE 2: Comparative Analysis .......................................................................................................................32<br />
MODULE 3: Rankings Performance ......................................................................................................................34<br />
MODULE 4: Research Performance .....................................................................................................................38<br />
MODULE 5: Peer Review Performance ...............................................................................................................41<br />
Appendix I: Key enhancements in methodology for 2007 ...............................................................................45<br />
Appendix II: Data defi nitions used in 2009.......................................................................................................... 47<br />
www.qs.com 1
Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
Introduction<br />
The <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong> Benchmarking Service builds upon many years <strong>of</strong> experience collecting institutional data and compiling<br />
the <strong>QS</strong> World <strong>University</strong> Rankings. The objective is to provide institutions with a deeper insight into their comparative<br />
performance with their peers so as to guide strategy and investment.<br />
Performance in rankings is subject to many factors and progress in those areas <strong>of</strong>ten takes time to manifest itself in rankings<br />
performance. In addition, many other institutions will also attempt to react to the results as published potentially diminishing<br />
the impact <strong>of</strong> any action taken.<br />
Whilst this service provides an increased level <strong>of</strong> insight, it also highlights the complexity <strong>of</strong> what contributes to university<br />
quality. The research exercise resulting in the rankings involves the collection <strong>of</strong> a great deal more data than is actually utilised<br />
for the rankings themselves. The challenges preventing the inclusion <strong>of</strong> many additional indicators are the availability and compatibility<br />
<strong>of</strong> data across countries and markets. On an international scale, financial metrics, for example, are extremely difficult<br />
to deal with – not only is the trivial matter <strong>of</strong> converting currencies a complication, but political, social and cultural factors come<br />
in to play to a great degree.<br />
In addition, it is important to recognise that all <strong>of</strong> the data herein is merely quantitative and any conclusions based purely on<br />
them may not be entirely informed. Often qualitative factors not self evident may have an influence and additional research<br />
should be combined with this to form a complete picture.<br />
Notes<br />
<strong>QS</strong> has no continuing relationship with Times Higher Education, the results <strong>of</strong> the <strong>QS</strong> World <strong>University</strong> Rankings published between<br />
2004 and 2009 were published in Times Higher Education but remain the intellectual property <strong>of</strong> <strong>QS</strong>, as does the methodology<br />
upon which they have and will continue to be based. <strong>QS</strong> is in the process <strong>of</strong> establishing new partnerships and fully expects<br />
that the 2010 <strong>QS</strong> World <strong>University</strong> Rankings will attract a record audience.<br />
Further Assistance<br />
If you need any further help interpreting the content <strong>of</strong> this report, have any questions about processes or sources; have discovered<br />
any anomalies, peculiarities or errors please contact <strong>QS</strong>. Detailed feedback and ideas for improvements are also very<br />
welcome; if there are data <strong>of</strong> interest that could be collected in the future they can be considered and potentially added to the<br />
project.<br />
Susan Gatuguta<br />
Analyst<br />
<strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong><br />
susan@qs.com<br />
+44 (0)20 7428 2786<br />
Ben Sowter<br />
Head <strong>of</strong> Division<br />
<strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong><br />
ben@qs.com<br />
+44 (0)20 7428 2783<br />
2<br />
Copyright © 2010 <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong>
Institutions Considered<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Babylon<br />
Carthage <strong>University</strong><br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> El Dorado<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Mombasa<br />
Pompeii <strong>University</strong><br />
Technical <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
Tatuin<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Sumeria<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Sparta<br />
Joe Blogs <strong>University</strong> <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Theroux City university <strong>of</strong> Troy<br />
www.qs.com 3
Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
Executive Summary<br />
In 2009, the <strong>QS</strong> World <strong>University</strong> Rankings were published for the sixth consecutive year, with over 600 institutions<br />
from more than 50 countries competing on a global level. At its inception, four key criteria were identified as a<br />
basis for evaluation: Research Quality, Teaching Quality, Graduate Employability and International Outlook. Since<br />
2004, when the Rankings began, they have become increasingly sophisticated and a range <strong>of</strong> additional supporting<br />
data has been collected. Global interest in rankings seems unabated, with alternative schemes announced from the<br />
European Commission, the OECD and Times Higher Education to emerge in the immediate future.<br />
This Report is divided into sections, or modules, as the Benchmarking<br />
Service will evolve over time - even within the time<br />
frame <strong>of</strong> each individual <strong>of</strong>fering. Additional modules may be<br />
added in future but in 2010, the standard service involves five<br />
modules. An overview <strong>of</strong> what each module does, together<br />
with some key observations, is covered in this Executive<br />
Summary.<br />
MODULE 1: Institution Reports<br />
Module 1 provides a two-page overview <strong>of</strong> each individual institution<br />
selected to be included in the benchmarking exercise.<br />
The level <strong>of</strong> completeness <strong>of</strong> each institution’s report depends<br />
on a number <strong>of</strong> factors:<br />
• Whether the institution has been included in <strong>QS</strong>’ evaluations<br />
in the year leading up to the report compilation<br />
• How long the institution has been included<br />
• How forthcoming the institution is with data that does not<br />
directly contribute to any <strong>of</strong> the <strong>QS</strong> evaluations.<br />
A more detailed schematic <strong>of</strong> how these reports are structured<br />
can be found at the start <strong>of</strong> the module.<br />
To acquire a quick impression <strong>of</strong> an institution prior to a visit<br />
or call, reviewing this module is the easiest way to obtain a<br />
visual read <strong>of</strong> its key strengths and performance over time.<br />
Of key interest in this section will be the large amount <strong>of</strong><br />
ranking data that is not available in the public domain, and is<br />
protected under the terms <strong>of</strong> the Non-disclosure Agreement<br />
referenced on the inside cover <strong>of</strong> this document. This includes<br />
Rankings by Indicator and Faculty Area outside the top 300,<br />
which are not generally published, and overall rankings outside<br />
the top 400 where the results are generally published in<br />
ranges.<br />
A key reason for not making this information public is that the<br />
level <strong>of</strong> precision in the underlying data decays as the ranking<br />
descends. It is not necessarily meaningful therefore to discern<br />
in minute detail between positions 484 and 485, for example.<br />
<strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong> (<strong>QS</strong>IU) prefers to extend interpretative<br />
guidance in a comprehensive document such as this, when<br />
releasing this kind <strong>of</strong> data. As a result, this report may include<br />
specific information on some institutions which the university<br />
in question may not have.<br />
Additionally, Module 1 includes information on other rankings<br />
for each institution. This feature is planned to be enhanced<br />
in future. At present, data from the following exercises<br />
are included:<br />
• Ranking Web <strong>of</strong> World Universities (webometrics.info)<br />
• 4icu <strong>University</strong> Web Ranking (4icu.org)<br />
• Alexa Web Rankings (alexa.com)<br />
Finally, each institution’s report includes a dated snapshot <strong>of</strong><br />
the university website and its current logo, providing a quick,<br />
if basic, impression <strong>of</strong> the university’s brand positioning.<br />
MODULE 2: Comparative Analysis<br />
Module 2 provides a quick glance view <strong>of</strong> each selected institution<br />
in comparison with the <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong> across<br />
all indicators used in the <strong>QS</strong> World <strong>University</strong> Rankings.<br />
Whilst the <strong>Atlantis</strong> trend line is provided in the charts in Module<br />
1, this only addresses one indicator at a time and therefore<br />
fails to depict the overall differences in ‘shape’ <strong>of</strong> each institution.<br />
Also included in Module 2 is a table illustrating the ranking<br />
by indicator for each <strong>of</strong> the last three years.<br />
Of particular interest in this module is the broad diversity <strong>of</strong><br />
peers that <strong>Atlantis</strong> has selected for comparison. Many <strong>of</strong> the<br />
British universities, for example, present a balanced picture,<br />
whereas many <strong>of</strong> the other institutions display certain key<br />
strengths.<br />
It is important to note that the charts in this module are not<br />
adjusted for the weightings used in the Rankings. For clarity<br />
these weightings are as follows:<br />
• Academic Peer Review 40%<br />
• Employer Review 10%<br />
• Student Faculty 20%<br />
• Citations per Faculty 20%<br />
• International Faculty 5%<br />
• International Students 5%<br />
4<br />
Copyright © 2010 <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong>
<strong>Atlantis</strong>’s ‘shape’ reveals key strengths in Student Faculty and<br />
International Faculty, with weaknesses in International Faculty<br />
and Citations per Faculty.<br />
the featured Newstralia institutions have grown in output,<br />
their level <strong>of</strong> production is relatively low in comparison to the<br />
selected peers.<br />
MODULE 3: Rankings Performance<br />
If Module 2 provides an institution-by-institution snapshot,<br />
Module 3 provides a deeper analysis on an indicator-by-indicator<br />
basis. For each indicator, a chart reveals the performance<br />
<strong>of</strong> each institution over the last five years.<br />
This not only indicates fluctuations in performance over time,<br />
but also highlights when enhancements to our methodology<br />
take effect, such as the switch from Essential Science<br />
Indicators (Thomson) to Scopus (Elsevier). Therefore it is<br />
important to read the accompanying text prior to drawing<br />
conclusions.<br />
This module can help <strong>Atlantis</strong> identify peers that have undergone<br />
an improvement pattern which would be both realistic<br />
and desirable to emulate.<br />
The final chart in this module looks at <strong>Atlantis</strong>’s performance<br />
against the maximum available score for each indicator. It<br />
shows that, in <strong>Atlantis</strong>’s case, the largest proportion <strong>of</strong> unallocated<br />
weighting falls across the Student Faculty ratio and<br />
Citations per Faculty indicators.<br />
MODULE 4: Research Performance<br />
There is more internationally comparable data available on<br />
the quantity and quality <strong>of</strong> research output than any other<br />
aspect <strong>of</strong> universities’ activities. This is partly because it is<br />
easy to measure, especially in the science and technical disciplines.<br />
It also reflects the reality that research output is central<br />
to the development <strong>of</strong> world-class universities and one <strong>of</strong><br />
the principal currencies in which universities and academics<br />
trade worldwide: the documented evidence <strong>of</strong> one’s academic<br />
achievements.<br />
MODULE 5: Peer Review Performance<br />
The Academic Peer Review is the well-documented centrepiece<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>QS</strong> World <strong>University</strong> Rankings. At 40% <strong>of</strong> the<br />
overall weighting, it divides opinion but remains the single<br />
most discipline-independent evaluation <strong>of</strong> research quality<br />
used in any worldwide ranking. Module 5 provides a more<br />
detailed view <strong>of</strong> institutions’ performance by faculty area,<br />
also distinguishing between international and domestic<br />
reputation.<br />
One conclusion from this analysis is that there are <strong>of</strong>ten considerable<br />
differences between the views <strong>of</strong> international and<br />
potentially more up-to-date domestic academics.<br />
Conclusion<br />
The <strong>QS</strong> World <strong>University</strong> Rankings are not exhaustive.<br />
There are other rankings and evaluations, and even combining<br />
them would still provide an over-simplified view <strong>of</strong> what<br />
makes a world-class university. A president <strong>of</strong> Harvard <strong>University</strong><br />
was once asked what it takes to build a world-class<br />
university; he replied “200 years and US$200bn”. Very few<br />
university leadership teams have that time or money.<br />
A university must devise its own path to performance improvement<br />
using a large set <strong>of</strong> data from diverse sources, a<br />
cutting-edge team <strong>of</strong> experienced pr<strong>of</strong>essionals, a healthy respect<br />
for the values on which it was founded and, perhaps the<br />
most important ingredient, the ambition and will to change.<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the challenges in ranking institutions - much discussed<br />
in the press - is how varying habits and patterns in different<br />
disciplines are accounted for. Currently, the <strong>QS</strong> World <strong>University</strong><br />
Rankings treat citations in all fields as equal.<br />
This module not only provides overall scores as used in the<br />
rankings, but also by faculty area, and looks at both productivity<br />
and quality patterns, as defined by citation level.<br />
This reveals some interesting strategic characteristics <strong>of</strong> the<br />
sample. In particular, the dramatic growth <strong>of</strong> output from<br />
Chinese institutions is strongly reflected in the publication trajectory<br />
<strong>of</strong> the two Chinese institutions featured here. Although<br />
www.qs.com 5
Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
The following section contains an individual report for each <strong>of</strong> the institutions<br />
from our lists that matched those requested. The vast majority <strong>of</strong> the data we<br />
hold for each institution are displayed in these pages. This page shows an annotated<br />
schematic <strong>of</strong> an institution report with some guidance notes to assist in<br />
their interpretation.<br />
Research Imp<br />
Subjects are g<br />
classifications<br />
able for Arts &<br />
simply citatio<br />
Personnel Data<br />
Full Time Equivalent data (or extrapolated alternative<br />
data) is used for the World <strong>University</strong> Rankings<br />
. Here, only data accurately verified is shown<br />
resulting in some blanks most commonly in the FTE<br />
column.<br />
Exchanges<br />
Exchanges are a potential future addition as a rankings<br />
indicator but the data completion levels are not<br />
yet sufficiently high. There will be some blanks here.<br />
Fees<br />
Almost all institutions <strong>of</strong>fer programs at a range<br />
<strong>of</strong> different levels and calculate these averages in<br />
slightly different ways. As a result these data <strong>of</strong>fer<br />
only an indication.<br />
Financial<br />
Financial data are not the most universally completed<br />
so more blanks will appear here than in<br />
other areas. There may also be exchange rate related<br />
anomalies.<br />
Entry Requirements<br />
Where entry requirements are present, institutions<br />
have been requested to translate their<br />
domestic secondary qualifications into US<br />
GPA scores.<br />
6<br />
Copyright © 2010 <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong>
act by Faculty Area<br />
ouped together from narrower subject<br />
in Scopus . The level <strong>of</strong> data avail-<br />
Humanities is limited. Scores are<br />
s/paper.<br />
At a Glance<br />
Grey lines on these charts reflect the performance <strong>of</strong><br />
the institution on whose behalf the report has been<br />
compiled.<br />
Comparisons on Rank<br />
Methodological changes and definition enhancements<br />
have made it impossible to draw<br />
comparison from scores. All charted comparisons<br />
over time are based on rank position.<br />
Web Capture<br />
A quick screen capture <strong>of</strong> the home page <strong>of</strong><br />
each institution’s website reveals a quick insight<br />
into their branding and priorities.<br />
www.qs.com 7
Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
Institution Details<br />
Institution Name:<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
Abbreviation:<br />
<strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
City:<br />
<strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
Country:<br />
Newstralia<br />
Foundation Year: 1949<br />
Website:<br />
www.qs.com<br />
Scopus Data<br />
Personnel Data Headcount FTE<br />
Papers Citations Impact<br />
Faculty: 4,770 2,334 Overall: 17,473 74,254 4.2<br />
International Faculty: 1,242 641 Arts & Humanities: 199 83 0.4<br />
Students: 45,342 31,572 Engineering & Technology: 6,590 13,822 2.1<br />
International Students: 9,404 - Life Sciences: 9,191 53,063 5.8<br />
Undergrads: 28,960 23,083 Natural Sciences: 3,990 16,863 4.2<br />
International Undergrads: 5,947 4,490 Social Sciences: 2,303 5,890 2.6<br />
Postgrads: 15,839 7,326<br />
International Postgrads: 4,508 3,168<br />
Additional Information:<br />
Exchange Data Headcount FTE<br />
Average Undergrad Class Size: 57<br />
Undergrads Inbound: 52 40<br />
Average Postgrad Class Size: -<br />
Undergrads Outbound: 476 188<br />
Average Class Size: 47<br />
Postgrads Inbound: 258 198<br />
PhDs Awarded: 646<br />
Postgrads Outbound: 35 18<br />
Graduate Employment Rate: 90%<br />
Students Pursuing Further Study: 16%<br />
Financial Data<br />
Average Entry Requirements: 3.0<br />
Domestic Undergraduate Fees: USD 17,077 Webometrics Ranking: 138<br />
International Undergraduate Fees: USD 17,077 4icu Web Popularity Ranking:<br />
117 (Overall)<br />
Domestic Postgraduate Fees: USD 15,195 Alexa Web Ranking: 12,020<br />
International Postgraduate Fees: USD 14,622<br />
Average Domestic Fees: USD 17,846<br />
Average International Fees: USD 16,226<br />
Annual Library Spending: USD 10,770,000<br />
Total Research Funding: USD 213,220,000<br />
Government: USD 103,850,000<br />
Industrial: USD 66,300,000<br />
Facilities Investment: USD 181,000,000<br />
Community Investment: US$ -<br />
Alumni Donations: US$ -<br />
Website Capture: 2010-01-18
ATLANTIS<br />
2009 <strong>QS</strong> World <strong>University</strong> Rank<br />
Student Faculty<br />
Overall Ranking<br />
57<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
268 370 294 373 337<br />
Citations per Faculty<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
50 51 55 55 57<br />
Academic Peer Review<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
265 198 156 128 149<br />
International Faculty<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
24 24 31 29 34<br />
Employer Review<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
41 142 66 97 106<br />
International Students<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
100 72 20 17 18<br />
Faculty Level Rankings<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
47 39 53 59 52<br />
Faculty Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
Arts & Humanities: 52 18 35 51 52<br />
Engineering & Technology 16 19 28 27 33<br />
Life Sciences & Biomedicine: 41 53 50 50 43<br />
Natural Sciences: 41 41 58 39 45<br />
Social Sciences: 24 21 30 28 35<br />
www.qs.com 9
Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Babylon<br />
Institution Details<br />
Institution Name:<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Babylon<br />
Abbreviation:<br />
Babylon<br />
City:<br />
Babylon<br />
Country:<br />
Lillana<br />
Foundation Year: 1891<br />
Website:<br />
www.qs.com<br />
Personnel Data Headcount FTE<br />
Faculty: - 395<br />
International Faculty: 341 336<br />
Students: 2,245 2,197<br />
International Students: 552 -<br />
Undergrads: - 921<br />
International Undergrads: 87 -<br />
Postgrads: - 1,205<br />
International Postgrads: 436 436<br />
Exchange Data Headcount FTE<br />
Undergrads Inbound: - -<br />
Undergrads Outbound: - -<br />
Postgrads Inbound: - -<br />
Postgrads Outbound: - -<br />
Financial Data<br />
Domestic Undergraduate Fees: USD 29,940<br />
International Undergraduate Fees: USD 29,940<br />
Domestic Postgraduate Fees: USD 29,940<br />
International Postgraduate Fees: USD 29,940<br />
Average Domestic Fees: USD 29,940<br />
Average International Fees: USD 29,940<br />
Annual Library Spending: USD -<br />
Total Research Funding: USD -<br />
Government: USD -<br />
Industrial: USD -<br />
Facilities Investment: USD -<br />
Community Investment: US$ -<br />
Alumni Donations: US$ -<br />
Scopus Data<br />
Papers Citations Impact<br />
Overall: 11,959 119,363 10<br />
Arts & Humanities: 47 52 1.1<br />
Engineering & Technology: 4,098 18,688 4.6<br />
Life Sciences: 2,085 25,972 12.5<br />
Natural Sciences: 7,323 71,458 9.8<br />
Social Sciences: 328 1,290 3.9<br />
Additional Information:<br />
Average Undergrad Class Size: -<br />
Average Postgrad Class Size: -<br />
Average Class Size: -<br />
PhDs Awarded: 187<br />
Graduate Employment Rate: -<br />
Students Pursuing Further Study: -<br />
Average Entry Requirements: -<br />
Webometrics Ranking: 11<br />
4icu Web Popularity Ranking:<br />
21 (Overall)<br />
Alexa Web Ranking: 9,779<br />
Website Capture: 2010-01-18<br />
10<br />
Copyright © 2010 <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong>
BABYLON<br />
2009 <strong>QS</strong> World <strong>University</strong> Rank<br />
Student Faculty<br />
Overall Ranking<br />
10<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
40 26 1 32 66<br />
Citations per Faculty<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
8 7 7 5 10<br />
Academic Peer Review<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
1 1 1 1 1<br />
International Faculty<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
27 26 21 20 23<br />
Employer Review<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
124 139 15 1 1<br />
International Students<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
225 177 227 133 142<br />
Faculty Level Rankings<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
29 35 55 52 69<br />
Faculty Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
Arts & Humanities: - 213 153 213 216<br />
Engineering & Technology 7 9 4 4 5<br />
Life Sciences & Biomedicine: 38 26 21 16 23<br />
Natural Sciences: 9 8 6 7 7<br />
Social Sciences: 127 171 70 78 114<br />
www.qs.com 11
Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
City university <strong>of</strong> Troy<br />
Institution Details<br />
Institution Name:<br />
City university <strong>of</strong> Troy<br />
Abbreviation:<br />
Troy<br />
City:<br />
Troy<br />
Country:<br />
Lillana<br />
Foundation Year: 1868<br />
Website:<br />
www.qs.com<br />
Personnel Data Headcount FTE<br />
Faculty: - 1,772<br />
International Faculty: 546 528<br />
Students: 32,910 -<br />
International Students: 6,224 -<br />
Undergrads: 26,597 25,100<br />
International Undergrads: 784 773<br />
Postgrads: 9,648 -<br />
International Postgrads: 1,839 1,736<br />
Exchange Data Headcount FTE<br />
Undergrads Inbound: - -<br />
Undergrads Outbound: - -<br />
Postgrads Inbound: - -<br />
Postgrads Outbound: - -<br />
Financial Data<br />
Domestic Undergraduate Fees: USD -<br />
International Undergraduate Fees: USD -<br />
Domestic Postgraduate Fees: USD 7,457<br />
International Postgraduate Fees: USD -<br />
Average Domestic Fees: USD 6,934<br />
Average International Fees: USD -<br />
Annual Library Spending: USD 58,903,000<br />
Total Research Funding: USD 403,436,000<br />
Government: USD -<br />
Industrial: USD -<br />
Facilities Investment: USD -<br />
Community Investment: US$ -<br />
Alumni Donations: US$ -<br />
Scopus Data<br />
Papers Citations Impact<br />
Overall: 29,105 213,826 7.3<br />
Arts & Humanities: 579 587 1<br />
Engineering & Technology: 10,257 45,647 4.5<br />
Life Sciences: 9,205 87,084 9.5<br />
Natural Sciences: 11,158 80,986 7.3<br />
Social Sciences: 4,133 13,261 3.2<br />
Additional Information:<br />
Average Undergrad Class Size: -<br />
Average Postgrad Class Size: -<br />
Average Class Size: -<br />
PhDs Awarded: 895<br />
Graduate Employment Rate: 51%<br />
Students Pursuing Further Study: 18%<br />
Average Entry Requirements: 3.9<br />
Webometrics Ranking: 4<br />
4icu Web Popularity Ranking:<br />
5 (Overall)<br />
Alexa Web Ranking: 1,855<br />
Website Capture: 2010-01-18<br />
12<br />
Copyright © 2010 <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong>
TROY<br />
2009 <strong>QS</strong> World <strong>University</strong> Rank<br />
Student Faculty<br />
Overall Ranking<br />
49<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
395 345 168 471 483<br />
Citations per Faculty<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
6 8 33 46 49<br />
Academic Peer Review<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
8 7 18 4 7<br />
International Faculty<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
3 4 1 1 3<br />
Employer Review<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
369 391 128 75 81<br />
International Students<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
12 9 11 10 11<br />
Faculty Level Rankings<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
240 243 67 326 355<br />
Faculty Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
Arts & Humanities: 4 4 2 2 4<br />
Engineering & Technology 2 2 2 2 2<br />
Life Sciences & Biomedicine: 9 11 5 4 5<br />
Natural Sciences: 3 3 1 2 3<br />
Social Sciences: 4 5 2 2 2<br />
www.qs.com 13
Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> El Dorado<br />
Institution Details<br />
Institution Name:<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> El Dorado<br />
Abbreviation:<br />
El Dorado<br />
City:<br />
El Dorado<br />
Country:<br />
Fantasia<br />
Foundation Year: 1209<br />
Website:<br />
www.qs.com<br />
Personnel Data Headcount FTE<br />
Faculty: - 3,765<br />
International Faculty: - 1,699<br />
Students: 25,465 18,309<br />
International Students: 5,430 4,227<br />
Undergrads: - 12,286<br />
International Undergrads: 1,645 1,577<br />
Postgrads: - 6,039<br />
International Postgrads: - 3,194<br />
Exchange Data Headcount FTE<br />
Undergrads Inbound: - -<br />
Undergrads Outbound: - -<br />
Postgrads Inbound: - -<br />
Postgrads Outbound: - -<br />
Financial Data<br />
Domestic Undergraduate Fees: GBP 3,145<br />
International Undergraduate Fees: GBP 10,773<br />
Domestic Postgraduate Fees: GBP 5,565<br />
International Postgraduate Fees: GBP 12,962<br />
Average Domestic Fees: GBP 4,355<br />
Average International Fees: GBP 11,868<br />
Annual Library Spending: GBP 3,942,008<br />
Total Research Funding: USD -<br />
Government: USD -<br />
Industrial: USD -<br />
Facilities Investment: USD -<br />
Community Investment: US$ -<br />
Alumni Donations: US$ -<br />
Scopus Data<br />
Papers Citations Impact<br />
Overall: 31,901 230,461 7.2<br />
Arts & Humanities: 769 845 1.1<br />
Engineering & Technology: 7,930 26,062 3.3<br />
Life Sciences: 15,320 147,541 9.6<br />
Natural Sciences: 11,839 70,848 6<br />
Social Sciences: 3,033 9,186 3<br />
Additional Information:<br />
Average Undergrad Class Size: -<br />
Average Postgrad Class Size: -<br />
Average Class Size: -<br />
PhDs Awarded: 951<br />
Graduate Employment Rate: 53%<br />
Students Pursuing Further Study: 39%<br />
Average Entry Requirements: -<br />
Webometrics Ranking: 27<br />
4icu Web Popularity Ranking:<br />
12 (Overall)<br />
Alexa Web Ranking: 4,969<br />
Website Capture: 2010-01-18<br />
14<br />
Copyright © 2010 <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong>
EL DORADO<br />
2009 <strong>QS</strong> World <strong>University</strong> Rank<br />
Student Faculty<br />
Overall Ranking<br />
3<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
82 32 23 20 20<br />
Citations per Faculty<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
4 3 3 4 3<br />
Academic Peer Review<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
39 52 83 49 42<br />
International Faculty<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
2 1 3 3 1<br />
Employer Review<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
15 24 28 32 30<br />
International Students<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
6 6 1 1 1<br />
Faculty Level Rankings<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
46 27 54 38 40<br />
Faculty Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
Arts & Humanities: 3 1 4 4 3<br />
Engineering & Technology 6 6 5 5 4<br />
Life Sciences & Biomedicine: 2 1 2 2 2<br />
Natural Sciences: 1 1 3 3 1<br />
Social Sciences: 8 4 7 5 4<br />
www.qs.com 15
Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Mombasa<br />
Institution Details<br />
Institution Name:<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Mombasa<br />
Abbreviation:<br />
Mombasa<br />
City:<br />
Mombasa<br />
Country:<br />
Hobbiton<br />
Foundation Year: 1981<br />
Website:<br />
www.qs.com<br />
Personnel Data Headcount FTE<br />
Faculty: - 2,586<br />
International Faculty: - 1,314<br />
Students: - 15,906<br />
International Students: - 4,597<br />
Undergrads: - 9,062<br />
International Undergrads: - 1,803<br />
Postgrads: - 7,342<br />
International Postgrads: - 2,115<br />
Exchange Data Headcount FTE<br />
Undergrads Inbound: 863 863<br />
Undergrads Outbound: 499 -<br />
Postgrads Inbound: 20 20<br />
Postgrads Outbound: 22 22<br />
Financial Data<br />
Domestic Undergraduate Fees: 0 -<br />
International Undergraduate Fees: 0 -<br />
Domestic Postgraduate Fees: 0 -<br />
International Postgraduate Fees: 0 -<br />
Average Domestic Fees: USD 12,595<br />
Average International Fees: USD 29,717<br />
Annual Library Spending: 0 -<br />
Total Research Funding: USD 273,488,396<br />
Government: USD 227,433,982<br />
Industrial: USD -<br />
Facilities Investment: USD -<br />
Community Investment: US$ -<br />
Alumni Donations: US$ -<br />
Scopus Data<br />
Papers Citations Impact<br />
Overall: 13,237 63,963 4.8<br />
Arts & Humanities: 187 213 1.1<br />
Engineering & Technology: 4,355 12,007 2.8<br />
Life Sciences: 6,795 43,113 6.3<br />
Natural Sciences: 3,005 12,921 4.3<br />
Social Sciences: 1,688 3,985 2.4<br />
Additional Information:<br />
Average Undergrad Class Size: -<br />
Average Postgrad Class Size: -<br />
Average Class Size: -<br />
PhDs Awarded: -<br />
Graduate Employment Rate: -<br />
Students Pursuing Further Study: 18%<br />
Average Entry Requirements: -<br />
Webometrics Ranking: 128<br />
4icu Web Popularity Ranking:<br />
84 (Overall)<br />
Alexa Web Ranking: 7,641<br />
Website Capture: 2010-01-18<br />
16<br />
Copyright © 2010 <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong>
MOMBASA<br />
2009 <strong>QS</strong> World <strong>University</strong> Rank<br />
Student Faculty<br />
Overall Ranking<br />
35<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
114 78 61 60 65<br />
Citations per Faculty<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
51 44 18 36 35<br />
Academic Peer Review<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
257 217 125 178 194<br />
International Faculty<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
40 33 40 43 36<br />
Employer Review<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
11 5 6 8 10<br />
International Students<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
58 51 66 65 71<br />
Faculty Level Rankings<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
143 95 64 54 47<br />
Faculty Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
Arts & Humanities: 52 34 44 46 34<br />
Engineering & Technology 80 67 68 69 63<br />
Life Sciences & Biomedicine: 37 32 36 39 32<br />
Natural Sciences: 64 71 61 103 78<br />
Social Sciences: 33 32 31 34 34<br />
www.qs.com 17
Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
Pompeii <strong>University</strong><br />
Institution Details<br />
Institution Name:<br />
Pompeii <strong>University</strong><br />
Abbreviation:<br />
Pompeii<br />
City:<br />
Pompeii<br />
Country:<br />
Fantasia<br />
Foundation Year: 1907<br />
Website:<br />
www.qs.com<br />
Personnel Data Headcount FTE<br />
Faculty: - 3,097<br />
International Faculty: - 1,261<br />
Students: 13,846 12,949<br />
International Students: 4,665 4,496<br />
Undergrads: - 8,377<br />
International Undergrads: 2,640 2,582<br />
Postgrads: - 4,572<br />
International Postgrads: - 2,158<br />
Exchange Data Headcount FTE<br />
Undergrads Inbound: - -<br />
Undergrads Outbound: - -<br />
Postgrads Inbound: - -<br />
Postgrads Outbound: - -<br />
Financial Data<br />
Domestic Undergraduate Fees: GBP 3,225<br />
International Undergraduate Fees: GBP 17,900<br />
Domestic Postgraduate Fees: GBP 4,830<br />
International Postgraduate Fees: USD -<br />
Average Domestic Fees: GBP 3,700<br />
Average International Fees: USD -<br />
Annual Library Spending: GBP 9,900,000<br />
Total Research Funding: GBP 347,500,000<br />
Government: GBP 207<br />
Industrial: GBP 141<br />
Facilities Investment: USD -<br />
Community Investment: US$ -<br />
Alumni Donations: GBP 3<br />
Scopus Data<br />
Papers Citations Impact<br />
Overall: 22,928 141,887 6.2<br />
Arts & Humanities: 80 106 1.3<br />
Engineering & Technology: 7,926 21,574 2.7<br />
Life Sciences: 10,277 82,946 8.1<br />
Natural Sciences: 8,192 43,777 5.3<br />
Social Sciences: 1,190 4,047 3.4<br />
Additional Information:<br />
Average Undergrad Class Size: -<br />
Average Postgrad Class Size: -<br />
Average Class Size: -<br />
PhDs Awarded: 727<br />
Graduate Employment Rate: 70%<br />
Students Pursuing Further Study: 27%<br />
Average Entry Requirements: -<br />
Webometrics Ranking: 157<br />
4icu Web Popularity Ranking:<br />
36 (Overall)<br />
Alexa Web Ranking: 21,713<br />
Website Capture: 2010-01-18<br />
18<br />
Copyright © 2010 <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong>
POMPEII<br />
2009 <strong>QS</strong> World <strong>University</strong> Rank<br />
Student Faculty<br />
Overall Ranking<br />
5<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
18 5 9 13 17<br />
Citations per Faculty<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
14 9 5 6 5<br />
Academic Peer Review<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
95 96 96 58 68<br />
International Faculty<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
14 14 23 25 22<br />
Employer Review<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
18 26 26 30 28<br />
International Students<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
72 38 7 5 5<br />
Faculty Level Rankings<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
12 10 9 8 11<br />
Faculty Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
Arts & Humanities: 246 119 170 208 136<br />
Engineering & Technology 5 4 6 7 6<br />
Life Sciences & Biomedicine: 6 5 7 11 17<br />
Natural Sciences: 10 9 13 14 10<br />
Social Sciences: 195 65 73 85 77<br />
www.qs.com 19
Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Sumeria<br />
Institution Details<br />
Institution Name:<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Sumeria<br />
Abbreviation:<br />
Sumeria<br />
City:<br />
Sumeria<br />
Country:<br />
Newstralia<br />
Foundation Year: 1853<br />
Website:<br />
www.qs.com<br />
Personnel Data Headcount FTE<br />
Faculty: 5,205 3,406<br />
International Faculty: 689 608<br />
Students: 44,589 34,677<br />
International Students: 11,000 9,869<br />
Undergrads: 28,000 25,255<br />
International Undergrads: 7,289 6,494<br />
Postgrads: 16,532 9,895<br />
International Postgrads: 4,027 2,891<br />
Exchange Data Headcount FTE<br />
Undergrads Inbound: 554 277<br />
Undergrads Outbound: 519 263<br />
Postgrads Inbound: 7 4<br />
Postgrads Outbound: 14 6<br />
Financial Data<br />
Domestic Undergraduate Fees: USD 14,903<br />
International Undergraduate Fees: USD -<br />
Domestic Postgraduate Fees: USD 12,869<br />
International Postgraduate Fees: USD 21,622<br />
Average Domestic Fees: USD 20,308<br />
Average International Fees: USD 16,807<br />
Annual Library Spending: USD 14,444,807<br />
Total Research Funding: USD 474,881,963<br />
Government: USD 226,382,065<br />
Industrial: USD 248,499,898<br />
Facilities Investment: USD 124,538,314<br />
Community Investment: USD 42,888,745<br />
Alumni Donations: USD 15,018,722<br />
Scopus Data<br />
Papers Citations Impact<br />
Overall: 19,929 105,295 5.3<br />
Arts & Humanities: 309 374 1.2<br />
Engineering & Technology: 3,948 10,347 2.6<br />
Life Sciences: 13,238 83,177 6.3<br />
Natural Sciences: 3,835 17,852 4.7<br />
Social Sciences: 2,584 6,335 2.5<br />
Additional Information:<br />
Average Undergrad Class Size: 16.5<br />
Average Postgrad Class Size: 12.5<br />
Average Class Size: 14<br />
PhDs Awarded: 558<br />
Graduate Employment Rate: 88%<br />
Students Pursuing Further Study: 33%<br />
Average Entry Requirements: 94.0<br />
Webometrics Ranking: 139<br />
4icu Web Popularity Ranking:<br />
122 (Overall)<br />
Alexa Web Ranking: 13,026<br />
Website Capture: 2010-01-18<br />
20<br />
Copyright © 2010 <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong>
SUMERIA<br />
2009 <strong>QS</strong> World <strong>University</strong> Rank<br />
Student Faculty<br />
Overall Ranking<br />
46<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
343 290 145 171 193<br />
Citations per Faculty<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
19 33 37 48 46<br />
Academic Peer Review<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
163 194 222 195 158<br />
International Faculty<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
11 8 20 21 20<br />
Employer Review<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
39 36 159 191 185<br />
International Students<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
36 42 10 9 6<br />
Faculty Level Rankings<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
36 43 38 36 33<br />
Faculty Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
Arts & Humanities: 8 7 17 16 17<br />
Engineering & Technology 18 16 21 28 29<br />
Life Sciences & Biomedicine: 10 8 17 26 13<br />
Natural Sciences: 33 27 33 27 23<br />
Social Sciences: 11 10 17 19 19<br />
www.qs.com 21
Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Sparta<br />
Institution Details<br />
Institution Name:<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Sparta<br />
Abbreviation:<br />
Sparta<br />
City:<br />
Sparta<br />
Country:<br />
Lillana<br />
Foundation Year: 1861<br />
Website:<br />
www.qs.com<br />
Personnel Data Headcount FTE<br />
Faculty: 1,805 1,510<br />
International Faculty: 131 112<br />
Students: 10,299 10,172<br />
International Students: 2,578 2,563<br />
Undergrads: 4,138 4,116<br />
International Undergrads: 377 377<br />
Postgrads: 6,539 5,991<br />
International Postgrads: 2,202 2,195<br />
Exchange Data Headcount FTE<br />
Undergrads Inbound: - -<br />
Undergrads Outbound: - -<br />
Postgrads Inbound: - -<br />
Postgrads Outbound: - -<br />
Financial Data<br />
Domestic Undergraduate Fees: USD 36,390<br />
International Undergraduate Fees: USD 36,390<br />
Domestic Postgraduate Fees: USD 36,390<br />
International Postgraduate Fees: USD 36,390<br />
Average Domestic Fees: USD 33,600<br />
Average International Fees: USD 36,390<br />
Annual Library Spending: USD 8,693,000<br />
Total Research Funding: USD 709,401,000<br />
Government: USD -<br />
Industrial: USD 99,219,000<br />
Facilities Investment: USD 251,100,000<br />
Community Investment: US$ -<br />
Alumni Donations: USD 84,641,000<br />
Scopus Data<br />
Papers Citations Impact<br />
Overall: 26,064 209,959 8.1<br />
Arts & Humanities: 337 894 2.7<br />
Engineering & Technology: 12,105 51,384 4.2<br />
Life Sciences: 6,390 87,952 13.8<br />
Natural Sciences: 10,766 72,120 6.7<br />
Social Sciences: 1,938 7,863 4.1<br />
Additional Information:<br />
Average Undergrad Class Size: -<br />
Average Postgrad Class Size: -<br />
Average Class Size: -<br />
PhDs Awarded: 607<br />
Graduate Employment Rate: 45%<br />
Students Pursuing Further Study: 42%<br />
Average Entry Requirements: -<br />
Webometrics Ranking: 396<br />
4icu Web Popularity Ranking:<br />
9 (Overall)<br />
Alexa Web Ranking: 2,763<br />
Website Capture: 2010-01-18<br />
22<br />
Copyright © 2010 <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong>
SPARTA<br />
2009 <strong>QS</strong> World <strong>University</strong> Rank<br />
Student Faculty<br />
Overall Ranking<br />
9<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
132 100 62 50 59<br />
Citations per Faculty<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
3 5 10 9 9<br />
Academic Peer Review<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
5 4 3 3 5<br />
International Faculty<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
5 6 6 5 6<br />
Employer Review<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
234 279 298 308 351<br />
International Students<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
3 2 6 6 10<br />
Faculty Level Rankings<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
27 37 44 45 44<br />
Faculty Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
Arts & Humanities: 12 21 25 20 27<br />
Engineering & Technology 1 1 1 1 1<br />
Life Sciences & Biomedicine: 13 14 9 8 8<br />
Natural Sciences: 5 5 2 1 2<br />
Social Sciences: 7 12 11 10 12<br />
www.qs.com 23
Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
Joe Blogs <strong>University</strong><br />
Institution Details<br />
Institution Name:<br />
Joe Blogs <strong>University</strong><br />
Abbreviation:<br />
Joe Blogs<br />
City:<br />
Windy<br />
Country:<br />
Celodim<br />
Foundation Year: 1905<br />
Website:<br />
www.qs.com<br />
Personnel Data Headcount FTE<br />
Faculty: 2,584 2,157<br />
International Faculty: 1,294 1,138<br />
Students: - -<br />
International Students: - 10,486<br />
Undergrads: - 22,776<br />
International Undergrads: - 5,860<br />
Postgrads: - 5,614<br />
International Postgrads: - 3,848<br />
Exchange Data Headcount FTE<br />
Undergrads Inbound: 1,288 1,288<br />
Undergrads Outbound: 1,318 1,318<br />
Postgrads Inbound: 236 236<br />
Postgrads Outbound: 142 142<br />
Financial Data<br />
Domestic Undergraduate Fees: USD 4,397<br />
International Undergraduate Fees: USD 4,994<br />
Domestic Postgraduate Fees: USD 3,051<br />
International Postgraduate Fees: USD 4,113<br />
Average Domestic Fees: USD 4,674<br />
Average International Fees: USD 4,500<br />
Annual Library Spending: USD 17,660,777<br />
Total Research Funding: USD 249,606,817<br />
Government: USD -<br />
Industrial: USD -<br />
Facilities Investment: USD -<br />
Community Investment: US$ -<br />
Alumni Donations: US$ -<br />
Scopus Data<br />
Papers Citations Impact<br />
Overall: 23,025 89,516 3.9<br />
Arts & Humanities: 193 147 0.8<br />
Engineering & Technology: 11,615 33,280 2.9<br />
Life Sciences: 8,715 47,469 5.4<br />
Natural Sciences: 7,189 30,540 4.2<br />
Social Sciences: 2,159 4,836 2.2<br />
Additional Information:<br />
Average Undergrad Class Size: -<br />
Average Postgrad Class Size: -<br />
Average Class Size: -<br />
PhDs Awarded: -<br />
Graduate Employment Rate: 90%<br />
Students Pursuing Further Study: -<br />
Average Entry Requirements: -<br />
Webometrics Ranking: 2<br />
4icu Web Popularity Ranking:<br />
1 (Overall)<br />
Alexa Web Ranking: 1,159<br />
Website Capture: 2010-01-18<br />
24<br />
Copyright © 2010 <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong>
JOE BLOGS<br />
2009 <strong>QS</strong> World <strong>University</strong> Rank<br />
Student Faculty<br />
Overall Ranking<br />
40<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
361 337 339 339 329<br />
Citations per Faculty<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
33 19 44 40 40<br />
Academic Peer Review<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
166 168 73 80 92<br />
International Faculty<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
13 11 17 18 19<br />
Employer Review<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
6 6 10 16 14<br />
International Students<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
100 40 52 26 38<br />
Faculty Level Rankings<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
20 19 12 16 15<br />
Faculty Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
Arts & Humanities: 56 22 21 30 23<br />
Engineering & Technology 9 8 10 11 14<br />
Life Sciences & Biomedicine: 15 10 12 17 20<br />
Natural Sciences: 35 22 25 31 27<br />
Social Sciences: 13 11 20 18 20<br />
www.qs.com 25
Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
Technical <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Tatuin<br />
Institution Details<br />
Institution Name:<br />
Technical <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Tatuin<br />
Abbreviation:<br />
Tatuin<br />
City:<br />
Tatunia<br />
Country:<br />
Othrikar<br />
Foundation Year: 1896<br />
Website:<br />
www.qs.com<br />
Personnel Data Headcount FTE<br />
Faculty: 1,420 -<br />
International Faculty: - -<br />
Students: - -<br />
International Students: - -<br />
Undergrads: 14,665 -<br />
International Undergrads: 740 -<br />
Postgrads: 13,628 -<br />
International Postgrads: 133 -<br />
Exchange Data Headcount FTE<br />
Undergrads Inbound: - -<br />
Undergrads Outbound: - -<br />
Postgrads Inbound: - -<br />
Postgrads Outbound: - -<br />
Financial Data<br />
Domestic Undergraduate Fees: USD -<br />
International Undergraduate Fees: USD -<br />
Domestic Postgraduate Fees: USD -<br />
International Postgraduate Fees: USD -<br />
Average Domestic Fees: USD -<br />
Average International Fees: USD -<br />
Annual Library Spending: USD -<br />
Total Research Funding: USD -<br />
Government: USD -<br />
Industrial: USD -<br />
Facilities Investment: USD -<br />
Community Investment: US$ -<br />
Alumni Donations: US$ -<br />
Scopus Data<br />
Papers Citations Impact<br />
Overall: 26,669 41,019 1.5<br />
Arts & Humanities: 49 15 0.3<br />
Engineering & Technology: 16,291 18,483 1.1<br />
Life Sciences: 6,148 13,393 2.2<br />
Natural Sciences: 7,670 17,156 2.2<br />
Social Sciences: 1,940 1,140 0.6<br />
Additional Information:<br />
Average Undergrad Class Size: -<br />
Average Postgrad Class Size: -<br />
Average Class Size: -<br />
PhDs Awarded: -<br />
Graduate Employment Rate: -<br />
Students Pursuing Further Study: -<br />
Average Entry Requirements: -<br />
Webometrics Ranking: 146<br />
4icu Web Popularity Ranking:<br />
19 (Overall)<br />
Alexa Web Ranking: 7,477<br />
Website Capture: 2010-01-18<br />
26<br />
Copyright © 2010 <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong>
TATUIN<br />
2009 <strong>QS</strong> World <strong>University</strong> Rank<br />
Student Faculty<br />
Overall Ranking<br />
154<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
294 381 312 114 164<br />
Citations per Faculty<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
169 179 164 155 154<br />
Academic Peer Review<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
361 387 350 441 322<br />
International Faculty<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
130 105 105 111 117<br />
Employer Review<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
219 256 289 293 335<br />
International Students<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
38 70 58 104 136<br />
Faculty Level Rankings<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
420 421 529 480 556<br />
Faculty Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
Arts & Humanities: - 173 211 263 225<br />
Engineering & Technology 65 48 55 48 53<br />
Life Sciences & Biomedicine: 103 117 93 82 114<br />
Natural Sciences: 215 171 145 139 149<br />
Social Sciences: 93 160 173 177 190<br />
www.qs.com 27
Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Theroux<br />
Institution Details<br />
Institution Name:<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Theroux<br />
Abbreviation:<br />
Theroux<br />
City:<br />
Linton<br />
Country:<br />
Othrikar<br />
Foundation Year: 1911<br />
Website:<br />
www.qs.com<br />
Personnel Data Headcount FTE<br />
Faculty: 4,651 4,651<br />
International Faculty: 613 613<br />
Students: 17,878 -<br />
International Students: 1,395 1,395<br />
Undergrads: 14,691 14,691<br />
International Undergrads: 1,097 1,097<br />
Postgrads: 13,131 13,131<br />
International Postgrads: 1,061 1,061<br />
Exchange Data Headcount FTE<br />
Undergrads Inbound: 299 299<br />
Undergrads Outbound: 253 253<br />
Postgrads Inbound: 102 102<br />
Postgrads Outbound: 330 330<br />
Financial Data<br />
Domestic Undergraduate Fees: USD 733<br />
International Undergraduate Fees: USD 4,279<br />
Domestic Postgraduate Fees: EUR -<br />
International Postgraduate Fees: EUR 3,580<br />
Average Domestic Fees: USD 733<br />
Average International Fees: USD 4,763<br />
Annual Library Spending: USD 3,483,494<br />
Total Research Funding: EUR 194,700,000<br />
Government: USD 168,385,950<br />
Industrial: USD 128,084,700<br />
Facilities Investment: USD 70,344,000<br />
Community Investment: USD 37,223,700<br />
Alumni Donations: USD 14,020,439<br />
Scopus Data<br />
Papers Citations Impact<br />
Overall: 35,846 58,674 1.6<br />
Arts & Humanities: 167 64 0.4<br />
Engineering & Technology: 26,420 33,020 1.2<br />
Life Sciences: 3,615 10,269 2.8<br />
Natural Sciences: 13,389 29,971 2.2<br />
Social Sciences: 1,122 1,585 1.4<br />
Additional Information:<br />
Average Undergrad Class Size: 29<br />
Average Postgrad Class Size: 20<br />
Average Class Size: -<br />
PhDs Awarded: 1,433<br />
Graduate Employment Rate: 99%<br />
Students Pursuing Further Study: 70%<br />
Average Entry Requirements: -<br />
Webometrics Ranking: 217<br />
4icu Web Popularity Ranking:<br />
11 (Overall)<br />
Alexa Web Ranking: 7,073<br />
Website Capture: 2010-01-18<br />
28<br />
Copyright © 2010 <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong>
THEROUX<br />
2009 <strong>QS</strong> World <strong>University</strong> Rank<br />
Student Faculty<br />
Overall Ranking<br />
59<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
103 7 4 42 41<br />
Citations per Faculty<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
63 38 50 56 59<br />
Academic Peer Review<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
348 389 325 396 386<br />
International Faculty<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
44 38 36 31 29<br />
Employer Review<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
138 176 444 473 241<br />
International Students<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
168 78 55 68 98<br />
Faculty Level Rankings<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
299 317 304 446 350<br />
Faculty Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
Arts & Humanities: 56 78 91 85 53<br />
Engineering & Technology 17 14 16 12 13<br />
Life Sciences & Biomedicine: 75 64 52 56 41<br />
Natural Sciences: 56 42 34 28 30<br />
Social Sciences: 128 102 44 44 43<br />
www.qs.com 29
Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
Carthage <strong>University</strong><br />
Institution Details<br />
Institution Name:<br />
Carthage <strong>University</strong><br />
Abbreviation:<br />
Carthage<br />
City:<br />
Cape Fantasia<br />
Country:<br />
Lillana<br />
Foundation Year: 1919<br />
Website:<br />
www.qs.com<br />
Personnel Data Headcount FTE<br />
Faculty: - 3,100<br />
International Faculty: 118 -<br />
Students: 39,088 -<br />
International Students: - -<br />
Undergrads: 28,399 -<br />
International Undergrads: 1,164 -<br />
Postgrads: 11,548 -<br />
International Postgrads: 1,696 -<br />
Exchange Data Headcount FTE<br />
Undergrads Inbound: - -<br />
Undergrads Outbound: - -<br />
Postgrads Inbound: - -<br />
Postgrads Outbound: - -<br />
Financial Data<br />
Domestic Undergraduate Fees: USD -<br />
International Undergraduate Fees: USD -<br />
Domestic Postgraduate Fees: USD -<br />
International Postgraduate Fees: USD -<br />
Average Domestic Fees: USD -<br />
Average International Fees: USD -<br />
Annual Library Spending: USD 529,533<br />
Total Research Funding: USD -<br />
Government: USD -<br />
Industrial: USD -<br />
Facilities Investment: USD -<br />
Community Investment: US$ -<br />
Alumni Donations: US$ -<br />
Scopus Data<br />
Papers Citations Impact<br />
Overall: 37,760 296,200 7.8<br />
Arts & Humanities: 547 509 0.9<br />
Engineering & Technology: 7,469 31,116 4.2<br />
Life Sciences: 27,552 251,318 9.1<br />
Natural Sciences: 7,295 49,096 6.7<br />
Social Sciences: 4,715 20,789 4.4<br />
Additional Information:<br />
Average Undergrad Class Size: -<br />
Average Postgrad Class Size: -<br />
Average Class Size: -<br />
PhDs Awarded: -<br />
Graduate Employment Rate: -<br />
Students Pursuing Further Study: -<br />
Average Entry Requirements: -<br />
Webometrics Ranking: 17<br />
4icu Web Popularity Ranking:<br />
51 (Overall)<br />
Alexa Web Ranking: 3,178<br />
Website Capture: 2010-01-18<br />
30<br />
Copyright © 2010 <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong>
CARTHAGE<br />
2009 <strong>QS</strong> World <strong>University</strong> Rank<br />
Student Faculty<br />
Overall Ranking<br />
43<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
233 166 177 238 263<br />
Citations per Faculty<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
47 41 51 40 43<br />
Academic Peer Review<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
14 19 29 9 9<br />
International Faculty<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
21 19 10 10 11<br />
Employer Review<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
483 484 443 468 488<br />
International Students<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
145 45 54 29 30<br />
Faculty Level Rankings<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
280 251 307 324 361<br />
Faculty Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
Arts & Humanities: 41 20 13 10 9<br />
Engineering & Technology 37 34 18 16 18<br />
Life Sciences & Biomedicine: 32 27 15 11 18<br />
Natural Sciences: 24 21 14 18 16<br />
Social Sciences: 26 23 15 13 14<br />
www.qs.com 31
Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
MODULE 2: Comparative Analysis<br />
The charts in this module display the performance <strong>of</strong> each <strong>of</strong><br />
the institutions featured in the report across all the indicators<br />
used for the 2009 Rankings, each presented in contrast to <strong>Atlantis</strong>’s<br />
results.<br />
In each case, the area inside the line represents the all round<br />
strength <strong>of</strong> the institution across the six principal ranking indicators<br />
and would correlate perfectly with the overall ranking<br />
performance were it not for the influence <strong>of</strong> weightings. Essentially<br />
this display approach implies that each indicator carries<br />
the same weight. <strong>Atlantis</strong> results have been emphasized<br />
in the chart by the bold blue line.<br />
The ‘shape’ <strong>of</strong> <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong> in 2009 is one <strong>of</strong> sharp<br />
contrasts with strengths: Academic Peer Review, International<br />
Students and Employer Review, and weaknesses: International<br />
Faculty, Student Faculty and Citations per Faculty, clearly<br />
revealed.<br />
These charts also reveal, in perhaps the most effective visual<br />
fashion, both the broad ambition <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong> and the diversity<br />
PR = Academic Peer Review<br />
ER = Employer Review<br />
KEY INDICATORS<br />
SF = Student Faculty<br />
CF = Citations per Faculty<br />
IF = International Faculty<br />
IS = International Students<br />
2.1 2.2 2.3<br />
2.4 2.5 2.6<br />
2.7 2.8 2.9<br />
32<br />
Copyright © 2010 <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong>
2.10 2.11<br />
<strong>of</strong> strengths to be found amongst the selected peer institutions.<br />
The range <strong>of</strong> strengths across the institutions included<br />
is very diverse with institutions such as <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> El Dorado<br />
(El Dorado), Pompeii <strong>University</strong> (Pompeii), <strong>University</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> Babylon (Babylon) and <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Sparta demonstrating<br />
comparatively consistent strong performance on all indicators,<br />
while the performance <strong>of</strong> others tends to be focused towards,<br />
or away from certain aspects.<br />
The table on below shows the development <strong>of</strong> the peer group<br />
over the last three years. Performance in each indicator is discussed<br />
in detail in Module 3 <strong>of</strong> this report.<br />
<strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
Tatuin<br />
Babylon<br />
Troy<br />
El Dorado<br />
Mombasa<br />
Pompeii<br />
Mombasa<br />
Sparta<br />
Joe Blogs<br />
Theroux<br />
Carthage<br />
2009<br />
PR 34 117 23 3 1 36 22 20 6 19 29 11<br />
ER 18 136 142 11 1 71 5 6 10 38 98 30<br />
SF 337 164 66 483 20 65 17 193 59 329 41 263<br />
CF 149 322 1 7 42 194 68 158 5 92 386 9<br />
IF 106 335 1 81 30 10 28 185 351 14 241 488<br />
IS 52 556 69 355 40 47 11 33 44 15 350 361<br />
2008<br />
PR 29 111 20 1 3 43 25 21 5 18 31 10<br />
ER 17 104 133 10 1 65 5 9 6 26 68 29<br />
SF 373 114 32 471 20 60 13 171 50 339 42 238<br />
CF 128 441 1 4 49 178 58 195 3 80 396 9<br />
IF 97 293 1 75 32 8 30 191 308 16 473 468<br />
IS 59 480 52 326 38 54 8 36 45 16 446 324<br />
2007<br />
PR 31 105 21 1 3 40 23 20 6 17 36 10<br />
ER 20 58 227 11 1 66 7 10 6 52 55 54<br />
SF 294 312 1 168 23 61 9 145 62 339 4 177<br />
CF 156 350 1 18 83 125 96 222 3 73 325 29<br />
IF 66 289 15 128 28 6 26 159 298 10 444 443<br />
IS 53 529 55 67 54 64 9 38 44 12 304 307<br />
Table 2.1 Rankings performance by indicator across peer group 2007-2009<br />
www.qs.com 33
Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
MODULE 3: Rankings Performance<br />
Chart 3.1 Overall rankings performance <strong>of</strong> selected universities 2005-2009<br />
This module examines the performance <strong>of</strong> selected institutions<br />
under each indicator (and the overall performance) used for<br />
the <strong>QS</strong> World <strong>University</strong> Rankings.<br />
Overall Rankings Performance (Chart 3.1)<br />
Chart 3.1 displays the overall rank position for the selected<br />
peers for the past five years. With the exception <strong>of</strong> Tatuin, <strong>Atlantis</strong>’s<br />
peers are ranked in the top 100. For the other selected<br />
institutions, this chart shows the range <strong>of</strong> performance fluctuations<br />
that are feasible. Whilst the rankings have stabilized<br />
in 2008 and 2009, significant changes in position, for better or<br />
worse, are still achievable. City <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Troy’s (Troy)<br />
performance is the most prominent, with a gradual decline<br />
since 2005. The <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Sumeria has also been in slow<br />
decline but achieved a slight improvement in 2009.<br />
Academic Peer Review Performance (Chart 3.2)<br />
Worth 40% <strong>of</strong> the overall score, the results <strong>of</strong> the Academic<br />
Peer Review are most closely correlated with the overall<br />
scores. <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Theroux (Theroux) has achieved consistent<br />
improvement in this indicator and has, in the main, converted<br />
in this into progress in the overall ranking.<br />
The same, however, is true in reverse. Troy has maintained<br />
ground in the Academic Peer Review but declined in the overall<br />
standings.<br />
As general response rates increase, the Academic Peer Review<br />
displays stronger consistency. Consequently any branding<br />
or promotional efforts designed to influence these results are<br />
unlikely to take effect for at least three to five years from their<br />
date <strong>of</strong> introduction. This is partly due to the three year cycle<br />
<strong>of</strong> the surveys and to the delayed impact <strong>of</strong> such work on the<br />
perception <strong>of</strong> an institution amongst reviewers. Key strategies<br />
that may contribute to an improved performance in this indicator<br />
include:<br />
• Consistent branding across all promotional materials<br />
• Ensuring that researchers are publishing under accurate<br />
and consistent affiliations<br />
• Encouraging and supporting academics’ attendance, and<br />
preferably presenting, at international conferences<br />
• Ensuring that international research partners are promoting<br />
any partnership and/or collaborations<br />
• Effective media relations and management around any<br />
‘breakthrough’ research<br />
Employer Review Performance (Chart 3.3)<br />
Over the last three years the total number <strong>of</strong> responses to the<br />
employer review has increased dramatically: 738 in 2006, 1,482<br />
in 2007, 2,339 in 2008 and 3,286 in 2009. This has had a dramatic<br />
influence on some <strong>of</strong> the results, particularly between<br />
2006 and 2007. Greater response means that there is greater<br />
global representation and, as a result, many universities that<br />
had not scored well earlier have done much better in later<br />
years. The decline in position for Sumeria between 2005 and<br />
2006 does not necessarily reflect a capitulation in their reputation<br />
amongst recruiters, for example.<br />
Chart 3.2 Academic Peer Review performance <strong>of</strong> selected universities 2005-2009<br />
34<br />
Copyright © 2010 <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong>
Chart 3.3 Employer review performance <strong>of</strong> selected universities 2005-2009<br />
In 2007, participating institutions were invited, for the first<br />
time, to supply lists <strong>of</strong> employers to supplement the independent<br />
promotion carried out by <strong>QS</strong>IU. This development<br />
contributed strongly to an increased response: over 180 institutions<br />
contributed lists in 2009, resulting in more than 25,000<br />
distinct contacts having been invited to complete the survey<br />
from this source alone.<br />
Since 2007, <strong>Atlantis</strong> has maintained its relative position. It<br />
could consider:<br />
• Supplying <strong>QS</strong>IU with a comprehensive list <strong>of</strong> employer<br />
contacts<br />
• Engaging with employers to create a dialogue in order to<br />
ascertain their expectations and identify gaps<br />
• Introducing career skills programs for final year graduates<br />
which, for example, include presentation and interview<br />
skills training<br />
Student Faculty Ratio Performance (Chart 3.4)<br />
To put Chart 3.4 in context, it helps to look at some <strong>of</strong> the underlying<br />
data.<br />
There has been some volatility in this measure as institutions<br />
get to grips with the calculation <strong>of</strong> Full Time Equivalent (FTE)<br />
numbers for both faculty and students. These have been emphasized<br />
more strongly since the 2007 results.<br />
Here, ratios are calculated simply by taking the number <strong>of</strong><br />
FTE faculty as a percentage <strong>of</strong> the total FTE students. Not<br />
many institutions in this selection have seen a significant<br />
improvement in 2009 with the exception <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong> and Joe<br />
Blogs <strong>University</strong> (Joe Blogs). The rest <strong>of</strong> the peers declined in<br />
performance and in some cases maintained the same position.<br />
.<br />
Ratio Score Rank<br />
Pompeii 23.9 99.8 17<br />
El Dorado 22.3 99.5 20<br />
Theroux 17.1 94.5 41<br />
Sparta 15.1 88.5 59<br />
Mombasa 14.7 87.1 65<br />
Babylon 14.7 87.0 66<br />
Tatuin 10.4 61.9 164<br />
Sumeria 9.7 57.0 193<br />
Carthage 8.3 46.4 263<br />
Joe Blogs 7.4 39.5 329<br />
<strong>Atlantis</strong> 7.3 38.6 337<br />
Troy 5.2 24.7 483<br />
This is likely to result from a combination <strong>of</strong> factors: other institutions<br />
may have genuinely improved their student faculty<br />
ratio, or their greater understanding <strong>of</strong> the FTE calculation<br />
requirements may have changed the dynamics <strong>of</strong> the data set<br />
for this indicator. In addition, further universities have been<br />
added to the study, some <strong>of</strong> which are likely to have strong<br />
student faculty ratios.<br />
Chart 3.4 Student faculty performance <strong>of</strong> selected universities 2005-2009<br />
www.qs.com 35
Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
Chart 3.5 Citations per faculty rankings <strong>of</strong> selected universities 2005-2009<br />
Citations per Faculty Performance (Chart 3.5)<br />
In understanding the results in this indicator over time, it is<br />
worth noting the switch from ESI to Scopus in 2007 (see Appendix<br />
I) .<br />
There are some major shifts in certain institutions’ performances<br />
that coincide with the switch from ESI to Scopus .<br />
Much improvement was made to the algorithms used to retrieve<br />
data between 2007 and 2008, eliminating double counting<br />
between disciplines and between different affiliations<br />
that are ultimately attributed to the same institution. In many<br />
cases, this has resulted in dramatically reduced overall paper<br />
and citation counts in 2008 (and beyond), as is evident with<br />
Theroux. In some cases this adjustment proved corrective, in<br />
others it further set them back.<br />
The results in Chart 3.5 reveal that <strong>Atlantis</strong> has gradually<br />
improved since 2005, despite the slight decline in 2009. The<br />
majority <strong>of</strong> the selected peers have extremely high performance<br />
in this ranking. This is an area that <strong>Atlantis</strong> could look at<br />
developing further. Sumeria has slowly been gaining ground<br />
following the decline in 2007.<br />
Unusually for Tatuin and Theroux, their strength in the Academic<br />
Peer Review does not seem to reflect deeper strengths<br />
in this indicator <strong>of</strong> research quality. In general terms, the output<br />
from an average university in is high in comparison with<br />
many others, but they achieve comparatively low citations per<br />
faculty. Tatuin and Theroux still hold positions as leaders in<br />
the region - which seems likely to have influenced performance<br />
in the peer review survey<br />
International Faculty Performance (Chart 3.6)<br />
Chart 3.6 reveals that some truly world class performers in<br />
this indicator have been selected amongst this group. Joe<br />
Blogs, El Dorado, Mombasa, Pompeii and Babylon all perform<br />
extremely well.<br />
In broad terms, US institutions tend not to be as individually<br />
strong as UK institutions, partly due to many universities<br />
demanding resident status as a prerequisite for faculty status<br />
(making it difficult to track data on origin) and partly due to<br />
the UK’s proximity to continental Europe, providing the opportunity<br />
to attract faculty from overseas without requiring<br />
such significant uprooting.<br />
<strong>Atlantis</strong> has maintained its performance in the top 150. Sumeria,<br />
originally ranked 36 in 2005, has struggled to achieve <strong>Atlantis</strong>’s<br />
position. Carthage, Tatuin and Sparta perform poorly<br />
in this indicator in comparison to selected peers.<br />
International Students Performance (Chart 3.7)<br />
Performance in the two international factors is strongly correlated<br />
throughout the sample, so it is perhaps no surprise that<br />
many <strong>of</strong> the leading universities in this indicator also do well<br />
in international faculty indicator. Mombasa goes against this<br />
correlative trend due to a large ex-pat community contributing<br />
to its faculty but not so strongly to its student body.<br />
There is an issue facing the effective evaluation <strong>of</strong> US institutions<br />
in the context <strong>of</strong> these international indicators. The central<br />
data source used for the US is a system known as IPEDS<br />
operated by the National Center for Education Statistics. The<br />
Chart 3.6 International faculty rankings <strong>of</strong> selected universities 2005-2009<br />
36<br />
Copyright © 2010 <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong>
Chart 3.7 International student rankings <strong>of</strong> selected universities 2005-2009<br />
system features data on ‘non-resident aliens’ but not on residents<br />
holding foreign passports, which is a common scenario<br />
in the US.<br />
As a result the international nature <strong>of</strong> US institutions is broadly<br />
underestimated in this measure. This probably has a stronger<br />
influence in the international faculty indicator but will also<br />
carry an influence here, particularly at graduate level.<br />
Fantasia and Newstralia institutions have traditionally fared<br />
well in this study as is evident from the chart above. <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
and Sumeria have maintained their impressive performance<br />
over the last five years.<br />
Conclusion<br />
Chart 3.8 shows the current status <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong> with respect<br />
to the maximum available score in each indicator. This chart<br />
demonstrates, in simple fashion, the key areas in which <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
would benefit most greatly from an improved performance.<br />
The institution performs very well in four <strong>of</strong> six indicators.<br />
Attracting more faculty to counter student numbers would<br />
be worthwhile, but it is in the citations per faculty indicator<br />
where the biggest gains can potentially be found.<br />
Chart 3.8 <strong>Atlantis</strong> results against the maximum available score<br />
www.qs.com 37
Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
MODULE 4: Research Performance<br />
The source <strong>of</strong> citations and publication data used in the <strong>QS</strong><br />
World <strong>University</strong> Rankings is Scopus - a database compiled<br />
and maintained by Elsevier and one <strong>of</strong> three key international<br />
sources <strong>of</strong> publication and citation. (More information<br />
about Scopus, its journal coverage, functionality and<br />
application is available at: http://info.scopus.com/, as is the<br />
option to subscribe as an institution or to undertake a 30-day<br />
free trial.)<br />
database, identifying many name variants for each institution,<br />
totalling over 975,000 unique references for the 600+ universities<br />
in the list. This mapping exercise is revised, adjusted and<br />
enhanced each year with an increasing amount <strong>of</strong> input from<br />
institutions themselves.<br />
The issue <strong>of</strong> identifying name variants is there in any database<br />
<strong>of</strong> this size but is particularly influential where an institution<br />
has affiliated components (such as hospitals or research<br />
institutes) that have their own distinct identity. Where this is<br />
Chart 4.1 Citations per paper by faculty area in Scopus 2004-2008<br />
The citation criterion uses a count <strong>of</strong> all papers published<br />
during the last complete five year period, and then totals the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> citations for those papers within the same period.<br />
The period in question for this report is 2004-2008.<br />
The measures utilized for rankings do not take into account<br />
different citation patterns for different disciplines. In general,<br />
for example, papers in a medical field will reach their citation<br />
peak much earlier than those in social sciences. Some work has<br />
been done at the <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Leiden to develop a discipline<br />
independent citation indicator, and more information can be<br />
found at www.cwts.nl/ranking/LeidenRankingWebSite.html.<br />
Module 4 sets out to provide an ‘under the surface’ evaluation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the indicators currently used in rankings, but also demonstrates<br />
the differences between different subject disciplines.<br />
In order to collate this data, <strong>QS</strong>IU undertook a major exercise<br />
in mapping all <strong>of</strong> the ranked institutions into the Scopus<br />
the case we depend on institutions themselves to notify us <strong>of</strong><br />
these, sometimes little known, relationships. For example at<br />
one point, Massachusetts Institute <strong>of</strong> Technology had 1,741<br />
identified name variants in Scopus, illustrating the complexity<br />
<strong>of</strong> this ongoing work.<br />
As a key piece <strong>of</strong> general advice, faculty members <strong>of</strong> the<br />
whole university, including affiliated components, should include<br />
the name <strong>of</strong> the university itself on all published work.<br />
Whilst the mapping exercise can ensure that all papers and<br />
citations are accounted for, there is reputational credit that<br />
may be missed where papers are published under alternate<br />
affiliations. Additionally, any other evaluation drawing on<br />
publication or citation data, from any database, is likely to find<br />
it easier to track the work <strong>of</strong> your faculty if they are publishing<br />
under the appropriate institution.<br />
The charts in this module are organised in descending order<br />
<strong>of</strong> productivity - i.e. the institutions producing the highest<br />
38<br />
Copyright © 2009 <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong>
Chart 4.2 Papers and citations Scopus 2004-2008<br />
number <strong>of</strong> papers in the five year period are displayed on the<br />
left.<br />
Chart 4.1 shows these data broken down into five broad subject<br />
areas (those used for the Rankings). It can be seen from<br />
this chart that different faculty areas have different citation<br />
patterns. For most institutions, life and natural sciences dominate<br />
the citation landscape. Carthage <strong>University</strong>, <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
El Dorado, City <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Troy and <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Sparta<br />
lead this chart, with particularly low scores on a citations per<br />
paper basis for institutions in Othrikar.<br />
Chart 4.2 shows the overall productivity, in research terms, <strong>of</strong><br />
selected institutions. The red line depicts citations against the<br />
right hand axis and the bars depict papers published against<br />
the left hand axis.<br />
As a general rule, each paper in the database received an<br />
average <strong>of</strong> between four and six citations during the period<br />
concerned. Carthage <strong>University</strong>, <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> El Dorado, <strong>University</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> Babylon, City <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Troy and <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
Sparta received between seven and nine citations per paper.<br />
Inevitably, higher productivity (assuming some degree <strong>of</strong><br />
quality control) leads to higher overall citation counts. There<br />
is a very clear difference in research strategy taken by Lillana<br />
institutions such as Carthage <strong>University</strong> and City <strong>University</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> Troy, and that taken by Othrikar institutions. This has received<br />
considerable press coverage over the last couple years<br />
Chart 4.3 Total citations by faculty area for selected institutions in Scopus 2004-2008<br />
www.qs.com 39
Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
as Othrikar universities have been growing dramatically.<br />
Of course, more papers is likely to lead to a higher number<br />
<strong>of</strong> citations - at least in absolute terms, but this ‘brute force’<br />
approach may not lead to strong reputational benefit and is<br />
unlikely to lead to strong citations per paper scores (as can be<br />
seen in Chart 4.1).<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong> is trailing behind <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Sumeria,<br />
evidenced by the disparity between the papers produced and<br />
the citations received. This could be as a result <strong>of</strong> journal selection,<br />
or variance in quality. Publishing papers in high impact,<br />
as opposed to local journals, could attract higher citations.<br />
shows the dominant role that Life Sciences and Biomedicine<br />
play in the overall citation landscape.<br />
Chart 4.4 shows the development in productivity (total papers<br />
published) over time for a selected subset <strong>of</strong> peer institutions.<br />
In general, particularly outside the Lillana, the total productivity<br />
from universities is increasing as international competition<br />
heats up. Nowhere is this more pr<strong>of</strong>ound than in Othrikar, as<br />
reflected by the dramatic growth in output from both <strong>University</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> Theroux and Technical <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Tatuin. <strong>University</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong> is on course, closely following <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Sumeria,<br />
however there was a slight dip in productivity in 2008.<br />
Chart 4.3 shows the total citation count for each institution by<br />
faculty area. Firstly, this displays the general lack <strong>of</strong> publication<br />
activity in the Arts and Humanities subject area. It also<br />
Chart 4.4 Total papers published by year for selected peer institutions<br />
40<br />
Copyright © 2009 <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong>
MODULE 5: Peer Review Performance<br />
The objective <strong>of</strong> this module is to provide a little more insight<br />
into the specific breakdown <strong>of</strong> respondents to the academic<br />
peer review and perhaps provide some insight into the difference<br />
between domestic and international responses.<br />
In 2008, the two survey components <strong>of</strong> the <strong>QS</strong> World <strong>University</strong><br />
Rankings evolved slightly, with the intention <strong>of</strong><br />
distinguishing international from domestic responses. In the<br />
broader rankings context this has a number <strong>of</strong> objectives:<br />
Firstly, the understanding <strong>of</strong> peer institutions from these two<br />
groups is likely to be fundamentally different. Additionally,<br />
it may reflect a stronger contextual influence to perform well<br />
among more remote respondents. Most importantly, however,<br />
separating different types <strong>of</strong> respondents will, over time, allow<br />
us to more ably adjust for any geographical bias.<br />
The first step was to run analyses <strong>of</strong> previous years’ responses<br />
to understand at what weighting domestic and international<br />
responses ought to be recombined. Based on the results <strong>of</strong> this<br />
analysis, combined with some expert input, these notional<br />
weightings have been set at 85/15 for the academic peer review<br />
and 70/30 for the employer review, each in favour <strong>of</strong> the<br />
international response levels. This, after all, is a world ranking.<br />
However, these surveys each draw on three years’ worth <strong>of</strong><br />
responses and the separate responses are only from 2008 and<br />
2009. As a result, the weighting applied to domestic responses<br />
for the 2009 results is two thirds <strong>of</strong> the eventual planned level.<br />
In this section, columns in the chart are labelled ‘international’<br />
and ‘domestic’. To clarify, ‘domestic’ refers to 2008/09 domestic<br />
respondents and ‘international’ relates to 2008/09 nondomestic<br />
respondents combined with global respondents from<br />
2007.<br />
One side-effect <strong>of</strong> this transition stage is that some universities<br />
have not yet registered any domestic responses in certain subject<br />
fields. As identifiable domestic responses grow over the<br />
next two years, the results should become more reflective <strong>of</strong><br />
genuine reputation in the given domestic market.<br />
Other market forces may also have an influence here: the<br />
Lillana, for example, has a very large number <strong>of</strong> genuinely<br />
world-class institutions in comparison with any other country<br />
worldwide. This results in interesting competitive dynamics in<br />
a ‘share <strong>of</strong> perception’ context which, if anything, is intensified<br />
in a domestic context. In a country with a smaller total number<br />
<strong>of</strong> institutions, those in the middle <strong>of</strong> the field are likely to perform<br />
better than in a more competitive one.<br />
The observations on this page relate to the charts overleaf.<br />
Arts & Humanities (Chart 5.1)<br />
In the Arts & Humanities evaluation, City <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Troy,<br />
Carthage and El Dorado are the dominant performers in terms<br />
<strong>of</strong> international reputation, although in Carthage’s case the<br />
domestic reputation seems not to reflect their international<br />
brand. This is a situation reflected with almost all the Lillana<br />
and Fantasia institutions included here: their international<br />
resonance is much stronger than their domestic.<br />
For example, Pompeii <strong>University</strong> and <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Babylon<br />
did not receive any domestic reviews. This could be attributed<br />
to the fact that they are specialist scientific institutions.<br />
Domestic peers would be aware <strong>of</strong> this but international peers<br />
review them based on international reputation.<br />
Engineering & Technology (Chart 5.2)<br />
This is <strong>Atlantis</strong>’s greatest area <strong>of</strong> strength internationally by<br />
comparison to all other subject areas. <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Sparta is<br />
the strongest in this field and predominantly higher internationally<br />
than domestically. City <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Troy and <strong>University</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> Babylon are also well placed internationally.<br />
El Dorado , Pompeii <strong>University</strong> , <strong>Atlantis</strong> and Sumeria are<br />
ranked higher by domestic peers. Discrepancies between international<br />
and domestic reviews could be attributed to the fact<br />
that international academic peers tend to look at the research<br />
produced rather than the quality <strong>of</strong> alumni. Joe Blogs <strong>University</strong>,<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Mombasa and Carthage received relatively<br />
low domestic scores in comparison to international reviews.<br />
Life Sciences & Medicine Chart (5.3)<br />
Perhaps the most interesting observation relates to the two<br />
Newstralia universities, which both received higher reviews<br />
from domestic peers in comparison to the selected peers in<br />
this sample. However, <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Sumeria shows a much<br />
stronger reputation domestically than internationally.<br />
El Dorado , City <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Troy and <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Sparta<br />
achieved high international scores. Among the Othrikar institutions,<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Theroux achieved both higher international<br />
and domestic scores. A little broader research reveals<br />
that the medical school at Technical <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Tatuin only<br />
merged with the university in 2005. Perhaps its part in delivering<br />
the academic ranking <strong>of</strong> world universities has helped<br />
it drive international acknowledgement <strong>of</strong> this development<br />
more quickly than domestic.<br />
Natural Sciences Chart (5.4)<br />
www.qs.com 41
Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
Chart 5.1 Academic Peer Review scores in Arts & Humanities<br />
Chart 5.2 Academic Peer Review scores in Engineering & IT<br />
Chart 5.3 Academic Peer Review scores in Life Sciences<br />
Chart 5.4 Academic Peer Review scores in Natural Sciences<br />
Chart 5.5 Academic Peer Review scores in Social Sciences<br />
42<br />
Copyright © 2010 <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong>
For <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Sumeria, domestic response outweighs international.<br />
Internationally, City <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Troy, El Dorado<br />
and <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Sparta, lead in this field. <strong>Atlantis</strong> received<br />
higher international reviews in the natural science field in<br />
comparison to life sciences and biomedicine.<br />
Joe Blogs <strong>University</strong> and <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Mombasa received low<br />
domestic scores by comparison with international reviews.<br />
Most <strong>of</strong> the peers received similar or equal reviews from domestic<br />
and international academic peers in this field.<br />
Social Sciences (Chart 5.5)<br />
In 2009, the strongest field <strong>of</strong> response was in Social Sciences,<br />
meaning this area is the least prone to anomaly and should be<br />
the most reflective <strong>of</strong> reputation on the ground.<br />
comparison with Arts and Humanities. It is perhaps no surprise<br />
that the specialist universities, such as <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Babylon<br />
and Pompeii <strong>University</strong>, received low domestic reviews.<br />
In conclusion...<br />
This is the second year <strong>of</strong> a three-year phased introduction<br />
<strong>of</strong> the separate treatment <strong>of</strong> domestic and international responses.<br />
Institutions with a dramatically stronger domestic<br />
performance than international in any given field could expect<br />
their overall performance in the Academic Peer Review to decline<br />
over the next two years.<br />
Any institution looking to minimize this effect needs to examine<br />
the global propagation <strong>of</strong> its research and institutional<br />
brand in association with that research.<br />
In this area, in terms <strong>of</strong> academic reputation, Newstralia<br />
institutions received higher reviews domestically. <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
received a higher domestic ranking for Social Sciences by<br />
www.qs.com 43
Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
Appendix I: Key enhancements in methodology for 2007<br />
Background<br />
The THE – <strong>QS</strong> World <strong>University</strong> Rankings began in 2004 and<br />
have attracted a great deal <strong>of</strong> comment, reaction and feedback<br />
since first publication in October <strong>of</strong> that year. Since that time<br />
the project has assimilated a great deal <strong>of</strong> new ideas and had<br />
evolved into a stronger, more robust measure <strong>of</strong> comparative<br />
international university quality. Inclusion <strong>of</strong> the employer<br />
review in 2005 and the increased response to the Peer Review<br />
questionnaire are examples <strong>of</strong> these enhancements. The process<br />
continues… aside from improved response rates in both<br />
survey elements there are four key developments in 2007 that<br />
have had an impact on results. In as simple terms as possible,<br />
this document outlines those changes.<br />
DEVELOPMENT: Peer reviewers prevented from promoting<br />
their own university.<br />
Since the inception <strong>of</strong> the rankings the Peer Review has been<br />
the centrepiece <strong>of</strong> the ranking, thus even the smallest alteration<br />
to its compilation can have a major effect on the overall<br />
performance <strong>of</strong> institutions. In the first three years <strong>of</strong> the rankings,<br />
no restrictions have been placed on universities identified<br />
as excellent by peer reviewers meaning that universities<br />
could potentially encourage their own academics to sign up<br />
and complete the questionnaire in their favour. Whilst there<br />
has been no evidence to suggest a deliberate assault by any<br />
single institution in this respect, as the awareness <strong>of</strong> both the<br />
ranking and the science behind it has become more widespread,<br />
it has become necessary to eliminate a reviewer’s<br />
own university from the list they are presented with in the<br />
questionnaire.<br />
EFFECT<br />
The effect <strong>of</strong> this development will be most pr<strong>of</strong>ound where<br />
the peer review has received a particularly impressive volume<br />
<strong>of</strong> response in a country in comparison to other countries in<br />
the same region. The effect is likely to be further exaggerated<br />
if that country has a small number <strong>of</strong> institutions in the<br />
original list. An academic from the <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Arkansas is<br />
perhaps less likely to select their own institution (one <strong>of</strong> over<br />
60 in the US) than an academic from Nanyang Technological<br />
<strong>University</strong> in Singapore (one <strong>of</strong> just two in Singapore).<br />
DEVELOPMENT: Switch to Scopus from ESI (Thomson)<br />
for citation data<br />
For the 2006 results the time period for citation counts was<br />
slashed from 10 years to 5 years in response to feedback suggesting<br />
that the rankings ought to be a more contemporary<br />
measure <strong>of</strong> university strength. In 2004, when the rankings began,<br />
the only reputable source <strong>of</strong> citation data was Thomson’s<br />
Web <strong>of</strong> Science – the ESI is an associated, simplified product<br />
that provides an indication <strong>of</strong> research strength by university<br />
and seemed the most appropriate basis for our citation indicators<br />
at the time.<br />
Coincidentally, Scopus was also born in 2004 and has rapidly<br />
evolved since that time. In 2007, Scopus has been able to answer<br />
many <strong>of</strong> the questions left unanswered in three years <strong>of</strong><br />
working with ESI – we have been able to find data for many<br />
institutions that have not been represented in this indicator in<br />
the past and we have also been able to query the entire Scopus<br />
database rather than simply the slices <strong>of</strong> Web <strong>of</strong> Science represented<br />
by ESI. The general consensus in published reviews <strong>of</strong><br />
both systems (e.g. Fingerman 2006) seems to be that they both<br />
have their merits and can be used to complement one another.<br />
The vast majority <strong>of</strong> any criticism for Scopus seems to relate to<br />
its tracking <strong>of</strong> research and, in particular, citations from before<br />
1996 but – since we are only concerned with the most recent<br />
complete 5 year window – any weaknesses in this respect have<br />
no bearing.<br />
EFFECT<br />
The Scopus database has a less pronounced bias towards the<br />
US, resulting in a reduced advantage in their favour in this<br />
indicator<br />
Scopus covers a larger number <strong>of</strong> papers and journals overall<br />
leading to greater representation from lesser known universities<br />
and institutions from academic systems with less emphasis<br />
on publication<br />
Scopus covers more sources in languages other than English<br />
resulting in better numbers for institutions with large volumes<br />
<strong>of</strong> high quality research in their own language<br />
DEVELOPMENT: Consistent usage <strong>of</strong> Full-Time Equivalent<br />
(FTE) data for all personnel related data<br />
When requesting “Number <strong>of</strong> Faculty” from a university,<br />
the diversity <strong>of</strong> response can be surprising. Indeed some institutions<br />
respond having read the question as “Number <strong>of</strong><br />
Faculties”. Each year, the <strong>QS</strong> research team has attempted to<br />
eliminate ambiguity by making the definitions sent out in the<br />
data request increasingly precise. In 2007, for the first time<br />
in an attempt to minimise confusion institutions were asked<br />
to provide both a Headcount and an FTE figure, where the<br />
FTE figure was to be utilised for the ranking. Where an FTE<br />
number has not been supplied, one has been extrapolated<br />
based on the relationship between Headcount and FTE numbers<br />
at other institutions in the same country or region. This<br />
ought to provide us with a much more accurate picture <strong>of</strong> the<br />
44<br />
Copyright © 2010 <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong>
scale <strong>of</strong> institutions and provide a stronger logic to our selection<br />
<strong>of</strong> indicators.<br />
EFFECT<br />
This will have its most pr<strong>of</strong>ound effect on institutions with<br />
large numbers <strong>of</strong> part-time faculty or students that may have<br />
been either over or under represented in key indicators in previous<br />
years.<br />
Extreme results will not undermine the weighting for any<br />
given indicator (Caltech scored 100 to Harvard’s 55 for Citations<br />
per Faculty in 2006 essentially halving the influence <strong>of</strong><br />
the indicator for all remaining institutions)<br />
Significant changes to an institution’s performance in any one<br />
indicator will now only have a proportionate and predictable<br />
influence on their overall position, thus… THE RANKINGS<br />
WILL BECOME MORE STABLE year on year.<br />
DEVELOPMENT: Z-score aggregation <strong>of</strong> indicators to generate<br />
overall scores<br />
In previous years, scores for each indicator have simply been<br />
scaled against the top performer in that indicator – the top<br />
institution awarded 100 and subsequent institution’s scores<br />
scaled against that maximum. There are some problems with<br />
that approach:<br />
The smallest <strong>of</strong> errors in the top institution’s data can cause<br />
dramatic “ripple” effects through the entire data for that<br />
indicator<br />
The curve for each indicator is exceptionally steep, leading to<br />
an emphasis on excellence in any given indicator that supersedes<br />
the weighting for that indicator. For example, the difference<br />
in score represented between coming first and second<br />
in “International Students” could represent the equivalent <strong>of</strong><br />
coming 150th as opposed to 200th in the Peer Review, despite<br />
the fact that the weighting is only 5% as opposed to 40%.<br />
A Z-score, also called a normal score or standard score, is a<br />
common and accepted method <strong>of</strong> standardising or normalising<br />
statistics and has been utilised for many years in certain<br />
domestic rankings <strong>of</strong> universities. There is a good technical explanation<br />
on the method on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.<br />
org/wiki/Standard_score).<br />
EFFECT<br />
Institutions demonstrating excellence in indicators with a low<br />
weighting will have less advantage (e.g. London School <strong>of</strong><br />
Economics for International Students)<br />
Small errors, if present, in top performing institutions’ data<br />
may influence their own position, but will have negligible influence<br />
on the whole dataset<br />
The curve for each indicator will be smoother resulting in a<br />
more functional application <strong>of</strong> the weightings<br />
www.qs.com 45
Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
Appendix II: Data definitions used in 2009<br />
Faculty<br />
Where both a headcount and a Full Time Equivalent (FTE) figure<br />
are requested, please supply both. The FTE figure will be<br />
the one utilized for comparative purposes. If you are unable<br />
to provide an FTE figure, a number will be calculated for you<br />
based on the average ratio between FTE and Headcount across<br />
other institutions in your country or region.<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> International Undergraduate Students [personnel]<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> undergraduate students who are foreign nationals.<br />
The term ‘international’ is hereby determined by citizenship.<br />
For EU countries, this includes all foreign nationals,<br />
even nationals <strong>of</strong> other EU states. In Hong Kong, this includes<br />
students from Mainland China. Please exclude all exchange<br />
students.<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> International Faculty Staff [personnel]<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> academic faculty staff who are <strong>of</strong> foreign nationality.<br />
The term ‘international’ is hereby determined by citizenship.<br />
For EU countries, this includes all foreign nationals, even<br />
if from another EU state. In Hong Kong, this includes pr<strong>of</strong>essors<br />
from Mainland China. Inclusion and exclusion mirrors<br />
those for academic faculty staff.<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> Faculty Staff [personnel]<br />
Total number <strong>of</strong> academic faculty staff who are responsible for<br />
planning, directing and undertaking teaching only, research<br />
only or both teaching and research. Please include: vicechancellors,<br />
deputy vice-chancellors, principals, pr<strong>of</strong>essors,<br />
heads <strong>of</strong> school, associate pr<strong>of</strong>essors, principal lecturers and<br />
tutors. Please exclude research assistants*, PhD students who<br />
contribute to teaching, and exchange scholars or visiting pr<strong>of</strong>essors<br />
who are members <strong>of</strong> another university. *FAQ: How is<br />
research assistant defined?<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> Inbound Exchange Undergraduate Students<br />
[personnel]<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> undergraduate students attending your university<br />
on international exchange programs for at least 1 semester in<br />
the last 12 months.<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> Outbound Exchange Undergraduate Students<br />
[personnel]<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> undergraduate students registered at your institution<br />
who have attended another institution abroad for at least<br />
1 semester on an exchange program in the last 12 months.<br />
Average International Undergraduate Fees [currency]<br />
Average tuition fees per academic year (two semesters) that<br />
an international student would be expected to pay for an<br />
undergraduate program, with ‘program’ referring to the complete<br />
range <strong>of</strong> courses contributing to a degree. FAQ: How do<br />
I calculate average fees?<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> Inbound Visiting Faculty Staff [personnel]<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> academic faculty staff contributing to teaching or<br />
research at your university in the last 12 months who are visiting<br />
from an overseas institution for a minimum period <strong>of</strong> at<br />
least 3 months.<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> Outbound Visiting Faculty Staff [personnel]<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> academic faculty staff employed by your institution<br />
contributing to teaching or research at an overseas institution<br />
in the last 12 months for a minimum period <strong>of</strong> at least 3<br />
months.<br />
Undergraduate Information<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> Undergraduate Students [personnel]<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> students pursuing a Bachelor’s level or equivalent<br />
degree. This excludes certificates/diplomas and associate’s<br />
degrees.<br />
Average Domestic Undergraduate Fees [currency]<br />
Average tuition fees per academic year (two semesters) that a<br />
domestic student would be expected to pay for an undergraduate<br />
program, with ‘program’ referring to the complete range<br />
<strong>of</strong> courses contributing to a degree. FAQ: How do I calculate<br />
average fees?<br />
Average Undergraduate Class Size [numeric]<br />
The average size <strong>of</strong> class across all undergraduate programs.<br />
The term ‘class’ refers to an unit <strong>of</strong> instruction or taught session<br />
in which a teacher has pre-defined material to cover. It<br />
does exclude tutorial seminars.<br />
Graduate / Postgraduate Information<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> Graduate / Postgraduate Students [personnel]<br />
46<br />
Copyright © 2010 <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong>
Students pursuing a higher-level degree (Master and Doctorate),<br />
including both taught and research postgraduates (e.g.<br />
PhD students)<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> International Graduate Students [personnel]<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> graduate / postgraduate students who are foreign<br />
nationals. The term ‘international’ is hereby determined by citizenship.<br />
For EU countries, this includes all foreign nationals,<br />
even nationals <strong>of</strong> other EU states. In Hong Kong, this includes<br />
students from Mainland China.<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> Inbound Exchange Postgraduate Students [personnel]<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> graduate / postgraduate students attending your<br />
university on international exchange programs for at least 1<br />
semester in the last 12 months.<br />
Only complete this section if you are unable to supply separate<br />
figures for undergraduates and graduates / postgraduates<br />
in the sections above. If you complete all three sections,<br />
this section will be ignored. If you do need to use this section,<br />
please exclude any "pre-degree" students that may be enrolled<br />
at your institution.<br />
Total Students [personnel]<br />
Total number <strong>of</strong> students.<br />
Total International Students [personnel]<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> students who are foreign nationals. The term<br />
‘international’ is hereby determined by citizenship. For EU<br />
countries, this includes all foreign nationals, even nationals<br />
<strong>of</strong> other EU states. In Hong Kong, this includes students from<br />
Mainland China.<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> Outbound Exchange Postgraduate Students<br />
[personnel]<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> postgraduate students registered at your institution<br />
who have attended another institution on an exchange<br />
program for at least 1 semester in the last 12 months.<br />
Average International Graduate / Postgraduate Fees [currency]<br />
Average tuition fees per academic year (two semesters) that an<br />
international student would be expected to pay for a graduate<br />
/ postgraduate program, with ‘program’ referring to the complete<br />
range <strong>of</strong> courses contributing to a degree. FAQ: How do<br />
I calculate average fees?<br />
Average Domestic Graduate / Postgraduate Fees [currency]<br />
Average tuition fees per academic year (two semesters) that a<br />
domestic student would be expected to pay for a graduate /<br />
postgraduate program, with ‘program’ referring to the complete<br />
range <strong>of</strong> courses contributing to a degree. FAQ: How do<br />
I calculate average fees?<br />
Total Outbound Exchange Students [personnel]<br />
Total number <strong>of</strong> students registered at your institution who<br />
have attended another institution on an exchange program for<br />
at least 1 semester in the last 12 months.<br />
Total Inbound Exchange Students [personnel]<br />
Total number <strong>of</strong> students attending your university on international<br />
exchange programs for at least 1 semester in the last<br />
12 months.<br />
Average International Student Fees [currency]<br />
Average tuition fees per year that an international student<br />
would be expected to pay for any course<br />
Average Domestic Student Fees [currency]<br />
Average tuition fees per academic year (two semesters) that a<br />
domestic student would be expected to pay for any program,<br />
with ‘program’ referring to the complete range <strong>of</strong> courses contributing<br />
to a degree. FAQ: How do I calculate average fees?<br />
Average Taught Graduate / Postgraduate Class Size [numeric]<br />
The average size <strong>of</strong> class across all taught graduate / postgraduate<br />
programs. The term ‘class’ refers to an unit <strong>of</strong> instruction<br />
or taught session in which a teacher has pre-defined<br />
material to cover. It does exclude tutorial seminars.<br />
Students<br />
Average Class Size [numeric]<br />
The average size <strong>of</strong> class across all programs. The term ‘class’<br />
refers to an unit <strong>of</strong> instruction or taught session in which a<br />
teacher has pre-defined material to cover. It does exclude tutorial<br />
seminars.<br />
Financial<br />
www.qs.com 47
Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Atlantis</strong><br />
Annual Library Spending [currency]<br />
Library expenditure for the most recent academic year. Please<br />
focus on acquisitions and exclude operating costs<br />
Community / Cultural Investment [currency]<br />
Total amount spent on community projects or cultural preservation<br />
in the last 12 months Community investment relates<br />
to investment in the community local to where the institution<br />
is based, this could be anything from urban redevelopment<br />
to investing in local primary and secondary education or to<br />
members <strong>of</strong> or groups within the local community through<br />
any other conduit (e.g hospitals, prisons, homeless shelters,<br />
students involved in community service etc...) Cultural preservation<br />
could be perceived as investment in projects that directly<br />
contribute to the preservation <strong>of</strong> otherwise waning aspects<br />
<strong>of</strong> an institution’s national culture. Universities in Wales, for<br />
example, spend a great deal on protecting the Welsh language<br />
and extending its use. There may be other aspects <strong>of</strong> a national<br />
culture which a university may explicitly or implicitly take a<br />
responsibility to preserve.<br />
Total Funding for Research [currency]<br />
Please provide a total figure for ONLY externally sourced<br />
funding, such as government and industrial funding, allocated<br />
specifically for research for the latest completed academic year<br />
or for the last 12 months.<br />
Facilities Investment [currency]<br />
Total amount spent in the last 12 months or the last complete<br />
financial year on infrastructure and facilities investment (e.g.<br />
new buildings, communications infrastructure, sports facilities,<br />
laboratory equipment etc...)This can include external<br />
sources as well as private donors.<br />
Government Funding for Research [currency]<br />
Please provide a total figure for government funding allocated<br />
specifically for research for the latest completed academic year<br />
or for the last 12 months - funds from the EU or similar transnational<br />
body can be included.<br />
Industrial Funding / Investment [currency]<br />
The total amount <strong>of</strong> income from industry either for use <strong>of</strong><br />
facilities, commissioning <strong>of</strong> research or licensing <strong>of</strong> intellectual<br />
property referring to the latest completed academic year or<br />
for the last 12 months. Please include only externally sourced<br />
funding from the public and private sectors and exclude private<br />
donor support.<br />
Alumni Donations [currency]<br />
Please provide a total figure for alumni donations in the last<br />
12 months<br />
Graduate Output<br />
Proportion <strong>of</strong> Graduates Pursuing Further Study [percentage]<br />
Proportion <strong>of</strong> graduates from undergraduate programs pursuing<br />
further study at your own institution or any other.<br />
Proportion <strong>of</strong> Graduates Employed [percentage]<br />
Proportion <strong>of</strong> graduates (excluding those opting to pursue<br />
further study) in permanent employment within 6 months <strong>of</strong><br />
graduation<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> PhDs Awarded [numeric]<br />
Total number <strong>of</strong> PhDs awarded in the last 12 months<br />
Entry Requirements<br />
Avg Entry Requirements [numeric]<br />
Please express the average academic achievement entry requirements<br />
for your institution. Please convert your domestic<br />
requirements to the US Grade Point Average system. The fivepoint<br />
numerical scale is typically correlated with the A-F/A-E<br />
quality index. (A=4.0, B=3.0, C=2.0, D=1.0, E or F = 0.0) In our<br />
context, a value <strong>of</strong> 0 will imply to us that your institution has<br />
an “open access” admissions policy and will in no way count<br />
against your institution in any future table built upon this<br />
data.<br />
You can use World Education Services (WES) Toolkit as<br />
guideline: http://www.wes.org/gradeconversionguide/index.asp<br />
(copy and paste)<br />
NOTE:<br />
Where FAQs are referred to here, they relate to listed<br />
FAQs on the website: www.topuniversities.com/<br />
worlduniversityrankings/faqs<br />
48<br />
Copyright © 2010 <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong>