University of Atlantis - QS Intelligence Unit

Benchmarking Service 

Year 1 Report 

University of Atlantis

Benchmarking Service 

QS Intelligence Unit Benchmarking Service—Year 1 

Prepared exclusively for University of Atlantis by the QS Intelligence Unit. 

Terms of Use 

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

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

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

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

and conditions. 

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

for any loss arising from decisions made upon this information. 

Copyright notice 

Copyright © 2004-2010 QS Intelligence Unit. All rights reserved. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Reference QSIU-ATL-2010-01) signed by XXXXX XXXXX, Pro Vice-Chancellor, 

University of Atlantis, dated 00 January 2010 

Copyright © 2010 QS Intelligence Unit

CONTENTS 

CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 

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

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

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

University of Atlantis .................................................................................................................................................. 8 

University of Babylon ...............................................................................................................................................10 

City university of Troy ..............................................................................................................................................12 

University of El Dorado ...........................................................................................................................................14 

University of Mombasa ............................................................................................................................................16 

Pompeii University ....................................................................................................................................................18 

University of Sumeria ...............................................................................................................................................20 

University of Sparta ..................................................................................................................................................22 

Joe Blogs University ..................................................................................................................................................24 

Technical University of Tatuin .................................................................................................................................26 

University of Theroux ..............................................................................................................................................28 

Carthage University ..................................................................................................................................................30 

MODULE 2: Comparative Analysis .......................................................................................................................32 

MODULE 3: Rankings Performance ......................................................................................................................34 

MODULE 4: Research Performance .....................................................................................................................38 

MODULE 5: Peer Review Performance ...............................................................................................................41 

Appendix I: Key enhancements in methodology for 2007 ...............................................................................45 

Appendix II: Data defi nitions used in 2009.......................................................................................................... 47 

www.qs.com 1

Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – University of Atlantis 

Introduction 

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

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

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

Performance in rankings is subject to many factors and progress in those areas often takes time to manifest itself in rankings 

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

the impact of any action taken. 

Whilst this service provides an increased level of insight, it also highlights the complexity of what contributes to university 

quality. The research exercise resulting in the rankings involves the collection of a great deal more data than is actually utilised 

for the rankings themselves. The challenges preventing the inclusion of many additional indicators are the availability and compatibility 

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

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

in to play to a great degree. 

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

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

should be combined with this to form a complete picture. 

Notes 

QS has no continuing relationship with Times Higher Education, the results of the QS World University Rankings published between 

2004 and 2009 were published in Times Higher Education but remain the intellectual property of QS, as does the methodology 

upon which they have and will continue to be based. QS is in the process of establishing new partnerships and fully expects 

that the 2010 QS World University Rankings will attract a record audience. 

Further Assistance 

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

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

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

project. 

Susan Gatuguta 

Analyst 

QS Intelligence Unit 

susan@qs.com 

+44 (0)20 7428 2786 

Ben Sowter 

Head of Division 

QS Intelligence Unit 

ben@qs.com 

+44 (0)20 7428 2783 

2 


Institutions Considered 

University of Atlantis 

University of Babylon 

Carthage University 

University of El Dorado 

University of Mombasa 

Pompeii University 

Technical University of 

Tatuin 

University of Sumeria 

University of Sparta 

Joe Blogs University University of Theroux City university of Troy 

www.qs.com 3


Executive Summary 

In 2009, the QS World University Rankings were published for the sixth consecutive year, with over 600 institutions 

from more than 50 countries competing on a global level. At its inception, four key criteria were identified as a 

basis for evaluation: Research Quality, Teaching Quality, Graduate Employability and International Outlook. Since 

2004, when the Rankings began, they have become increasingly sophisticated and a range of additional supporting 

data has been collected. Global interest in rankings seems unabated, with alternative schemes announced from the 

European Commission, the OECD and Times Higher Education to emerge in the immediate future. 

This Report is divided into sections, or modules, as the Benchmarking 

Service will evolve over time - even within the time 

frame of each individual offering. Additional modules may be 

added in future but in 2010, the standard service involves five 

modules. An overview of what each module does, together 

with some key observations, is covered in this Executive 

Summary. 

MODULE 1: Institution Reports 

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

selected to be included in the benchmarking exercise. 

The level of completeness of each institution’s report depends 

on a number of factors: 

• Whether the institution has been included in QS’ evaluations 

in the year leading up to the report compilation 

• How long the institution has been included 

• How forthcoming the institution is with data that does not 

directly contribute to any of the QS evaluations. 

A more detailed schematic of how these reports are structured 

can be found at the start of the module. 

To acquire a quick impression of an institution prior to a visit 

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

visual read of its key strengths and performance over time. 

Of key interest in this section will be the large amount of 

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

protected under the terms of the Non-disclosure Agreement 

referenced on the inside cover of this document. This includes 

Rankings by Indicator and Faculty Area outside the top 300, 

which are not generally published, and overall rankings outside 

the top 400 where the results are generally published in 

ranges. 

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

level of precision in the underlying data decays as the ranking 

descends. It is not necessarily meaningful therefore to discern 

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

QS Intelligence Unit (QSIU) prefers to extend interpretative 

guidance in a comprehensive document such as this, when 

releasing this kind of data. As a result, this report may include 

specific information on some institutions which the university 

in question may not have. 

Additionally, Module 1 includes information on other rankings 

for each institution. This feature is planned to be enhanced 

in future. At present, data from the following exercises 

are included: 

• Ranking Web of World Universities (webometrics.info) 

• 4icu University Web Ranking (4icu.org) 

• Alexa Web Rankings (alexa.com) 

Finally, each institution’s report includes a dated snapshot of 

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

if basic, impression of the university’s brand positioning. 

MODULE 2: Comparative Analysis 

Module 2 provides a quick glance view of each selected institution 

in comparison with the University of Atlantis across 

all indicators used in the QS World University Rankings. 

Whilst the Atlantis trend line is provided in the charts in Module 

1, this only addresses one indicator at a time and therefore 

fails to depict the overall differences in ‘shape’ of each institution. 

Also included in Module 2 is a table illustrating the ranking 

by indicator for each of the last three years. 

Of particular interest in this module is the broad diversity of 

peers that Atlantis has selected for comparison. Many of the 

British universities, for example, present a balanced picture, 

whereas many of the other institutions display certain key 

strengths. 

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

adjusted for the weightings used in the Rankings. For clarity 

these weightings are as follows: 

• Academic Peer Review 40% 

• Employer Review 10% 

• Student Faculty 20% 

• Citations per Faculty 20% 

• International Faculty 5% 

• International Students 5% 

4 


Atlantis’s ‘shape’ reveals key strengths in Student Faculty and 

International Faculty, with weaknesses in International Faculty 

and Citations per Faculty. 

the featured Newstralia institutions have grown in output, 

their level of production is relatively low in comparison to the 

selected peers. 

MODULE 3: Rankings Performance 

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

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

basis. For each indicator, a chart reveals the performance 

of each institution over the last five years. 

This not only indicates fluctuations in performance over time, 

but also highlights when enhancements to our methodology 

take effect, such as the switch from Essential Science 

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

important to read the accompanying text prior to drawing 

conclusions. 

This module can help Atlantis identify peers that have undergone 

an improvement pattern which would be both realistic 

and desirable to emulate. 

The final chart in this module looks at Atlantis’s performance 

against the maximum available score for each indicator. It 

shows that, in Atlantis’s case, the largest proportion of unallocated 

weighting falls across the Student Faculty ratio and 

Citations per Faculty indicators. 

MODULE 4: Research Performance 

There is more internationally comparable data available on 

the quantity and quality of research output than any other 

aspect of universities’ activities. This is partly because it is 

easy to measure, especially in the science and technical disciplines. 

It also reflects the reality that research output is central 

to the development of world-class universities and one of 

the principal currencies in which universities and academics 

trade worldwide: the documented evidence of one’s academic 

achievements. 

MODULE 5: Peer Review Performance 

The Academic Peer Review is the well-documented centrepiece 

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

overall weighting, it divides opinion but remains the single 

most discipline-independent evaluation of research quality 

used in any worldwide ranking. Module 5 provides a more 

detailed view of institutions’ performance by faculty area, 

also distinguishing between international and domestic 

reputation. 

One conclusion from this analysis is that there are often considerable 

differences between the views of international and 

potentially more up-to-date domestic academics. 

Conclusion 

The QS World University Rankings are not exhaustive. 

There are other rankings and evaluations, and even combining 

them would still provide an over-simplified view of what 

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

was once asked what it takes to build a world-class 

university; he replied “200 years and US$200bn”. Very few 

university leadership teams have that time or money. 

A university must devise its own path to performance improvement 

using a large set of data from diverse sources, a 

cutting-edge team of experienced professionals, a healthy respect 

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

most important ingredient, the ambition and will to change. 

One of the challenges in ranking institutions - much discussed 

in the press - is how varying habits and patterns in different 

disciplines are accounted for. Currently, the QS World University 

Rankings treat citations in all fields as equal. 

This module not only provides overall scores as used in the 

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

and quality patterns, as defined by citation level. 

This reveals some interesting strategic characteristics of the 

sample. In particular, the dramatic growth of output from 

Chinese institutions is strongly reflected in the publication trajectory 

of the two Chinese institutions featured here. Although 

www.qs.com 5


The following section contains an individual report for each of the institutions 

from our lists that matched those requested. The vast majority of the data we 

hold for each institution are displayed in these pages. This page shows an annotated 

schematic of an institution report with some guidance notes to assist in 

their interpretation. 

Research Imp 

Subjects are g 

classifications 

able for Arts & 

simply citatio 

Personnel Data 

Full Time Equivalent data (or extrapolated alternative 

data) is used for the World University Rankings 

. Here, only data accurately verified is shown 

resulting in some blanks most commonly in the FTE 

column. 

Exchanges 

Exchanges are a potential future addition as a rankings 

indicator but the data completion levels are not 

yet sufficiently high. There will be some blanks here. 

Fees 

Almost all institutions offer programs at a range 

of different levels and calculate these averages in 

slightly different ways. As a result these data offer 

only an indication. 

Financial 

Financial data are not the most universally completed 

so more blanks will appear here than in 

other areas. There may also be exchange rate related 

anomalies. 

Entry Requirements 

Where entry requirements are present, institutions 

have been requested to translate their 

domestic secondary qualifications into US 

GPA scores. 

6 


act by Faculty Area 

ouped together from narrower subject 

in Scopus . The level of data avail- 

Humanities is limited. Scores are 

s/paper. 

At a Glance 

Grey lines on these charts reflect the performance of 

the institution on whose behalf the report has been 

compiled. 

Comparisons on Rank 

Methodological changes and definition enhancements 

have made it impossible to draw 

comparison from scores. All charted comparisons 

over time are based on rank position. 

Web Capture 

A quick screen capture of the home page of 

each institution’s website reveals a quick insight 

into their branding and priorities. 

www.qs.com 7



Institution Details 

Institution Name: 


Abbreviation: 

Atlantis 

City: 


Country: 

Newstralia 

Foundation Year: 1949 

Website: 

www.qs.com 

Scopus Data 

Personnel Data Headcount FTE 

Papers Citations Impact 

Faculty: 4,770 2,334 Overall: 17,473 74,254 4.2 

International Faculty: 1,242 641 Arts & Humanities: 199 83 0.4 

Students: 45,342 31,572 Engineering & Technology: 6,590 13,822 2.1 

International Students: 9,404 - Life Sciences: 9,191 53,063 5.8 

Undergrads: 28,960 23,083 Natural Sciences: 3,990 16,863 4.2 

International Undergrads: 5,947 4,490 Social Sciences: 2,303 5,890 2.6 

Postgrads: 15,839 7,326 

International Postgrads: 4,508 3,168 

Additional Information: 

Exchange Data Headcount FTE 

Average Undergrad Class Size: 57 

Undergrads Inbound: 52 40 

Average Postgrad Class Size: - 

Undergrads Outbound: 476 188 

Average Class Size: 47 

Postgrads Inbound: 258 198 

PhDs Awarded: 646 

Postgrads Outbound: 35 18 

Graduate Employment Rate: 90% 

Students Pursuing Further Study: 16% 

Financial Data 

Average Entry Requirements: 3.0 

Domestic Undergraduate Fees: USD 17,077 Webometrics Ranking: 138 

International Undergraduate Fees: USD 17,077 4icu Web Popularity Ranking: 

117 (Overall) 

Domestic Postgraduate Fees: USD 15,195 Alexa Web Ranking: 12,020 

International Postgraduate Fees: USD 14,622 

Average Domestic Fees: USD 17,846 

Average International Fees: USD 16,226 

Annual Library Spending: USD 10,770,000 

Total Research Funding: USD 213,220,000 

Government: USD 103,850,000 

Industrial: USD 66,300,000 

Facilities Investment: USD 181,000,000 

Community Investment: US$ - 

Alumni Donations: US$ - 

Website Capture: 2010-01-18

ATLANTIS 

2009 QS World University Rank 

Student Faculty 

Overall Ranking 

57 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

268 370 294 373 337 

Citations per Faculty 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

50 51 55 55 57 

Academic Peer Review 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

265 198 156 128 149 

International Faculty 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

24 24 31 29 34 

Employer Review 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

41 142 66 97 106 

International Students 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

100 72 20 17 18 

Faculty Level Rankings 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

47 39 53 59 52 

Faculty Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Arts & Humanities: 52 18 35 51 52 

Engineering & Technology 16 19 28 27 33 

Life Sciences & Biomedicine: 41 53 50 50 43 

Natural Sciences: 41 41 58 39 45 

Social Sciences: 24 21 30 28 35 

www.qs.com 9






Abbreviation: 

Babylon 

City: 

Babylon 

Country: 

Lillana 


Website: 

www.qs.com 


Faculty: - 395 

International Faculty: 341 336 

Students: 2,245 2,197 

International Students: 552 - 

Undergrads: - 921 

International Undergrads: 87 - 

Postgrads: - 1,205 

International Postgrads: 436 436 


Undergrads Inbound: - - 

Undergrads Outbound: - - 

Postgrads Inbound: - - 

Postgrads Outbound: - - 


Domestic Undergraduate Fees: USD 29,940 

International Undergraduate Fees: USD 29,940 

Domestic Postgraduate Fees: USD 29,940 




Annual Library Spending: USD - 

Total Research Funding: USD - 

Government: USD - 

Industrial: USD - 

Facilities Investment: USD - 



Scopus Data 


Overall: 11,959 119,363 10 

Arts & Humanities: 47 52 1.1 

Engineering & Technology: 4,098 18,688 4.6 

Life Sciences: 2,085 25,972 12.5 

Natural Sciences: 7,323 71,458 9.8 

Social Sciences: 328 1,290 3.9 


Average Undergrad Class Size: - 


Average Class Size: - 


Graduate Employment Rate: - 

Students Pursuing Further Study: - 

Average Entry Requirements: - 

Webometrics Ranking: 11 

4icu Web Popularity Ranking: 

21 (Overall) 

Alexa Web Ranking: 9,779 

Website Capture: 2010-01-18 

10 


BABYLON 




10 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

40 26 1 32 66 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

8 7 7 5 10 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

1 1 1 1 1 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

27 26 21 20 23 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

124 139 15 1 1 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

225 177 227 133 142 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

29 35 55 52 69 

Faculty Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Arts & Humanities: - 213 153 213 216 





www.qs.com 11


City university of Troy 



City university of Troy 

Abbreviation: 

Troy 

City: 

Troy 

Country: 

Lillana 


Website: 

www.qs.com 


Faculty: - 1,772 


Students: 32,910 - 

International Students: 6,224 - 

Undergrads: 26,597 25,100 

International Undergrads: 784 773 

Postgrads: 9,648 - 








Domestic Undergraduate Fees: USD - 

International Undergraduate Fees: USD - 


International Postgraduate Fees: USD - 


Average International Fees: USD - 








Scopus Data 


Overall: 29,105 213,826 7.3 

Arts & Humanities: 579 587 1 


Life Sciences: 9,205 87,084 9.5 


Social Sciences: 4,133 13,261 3.2 











5 (Overall) 



12 


TROY 




49 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

395 345 168 471 483 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

6 8 33 46 49 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

8 7 18 4 7 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

3 4 1 1 3 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

369 391 128 75 81 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

12 9 11 10 11 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

240 243 67 326 355 

Faculty Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 






www.qs.com 13






Abbreviation: 

El Dorado 

City: 

El Dorado 

Country: 

Fantasia 


Website: 

www.qs.com 



International Faculty: - 1,699 

Students: 25,465 18,309 

International Students: 5,430 4,227 

Undergrads: - 12,286 

International Undergrads: 1,645 1,577 


International Postgrads: - 3,194 







Domestic Undergraduate Fees: GBP 3,145 

International Undergraduate Fees: GBP 10,773 

Domestic Postgraduate Fees: GBP 5,565 

International Postgraduate Fees: GBP 12,962 

Average Domestic Fees: GBP 4,355 

Average International Fees: GBP 11,868 

Annual Library Spending: GBP 3,942,008 







Scopus Data 


Overall: 31,901 230,461 7.2 



Life Sciences: 15,320 147,541 9.6 

Natural Sciences: 11,839 70,848 6 

Social Sciences: 3,033 9,186 3 











12 (Overall) 



14 


EL DORADO 




3 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

82 32 23 20 20 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

4 3 3 4 3 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

39 52 83 49 42 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

2 1 3 3 1 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

15 24 28 32 30 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

6 6 1 1 1 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

46 27 54 38 40 

Faculty Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 






www.qs.com 15






Abbreviation: 

Mombasa 

City: 

Mombasa 

Country: 

Hobbiton 


Website: 

www.qs.com 




Students: - 15,906 

International Students: - 4,597 


International Undergrads: - 1,803 





Undergrads Outbound: 499 - 




Domestic Undergraduate Fees: 0 - 

International Undergraduate Fees: 0 - 

Domestic Postgraduate Fees: 0 - 

International Postgraduate Fees: 0 - 



Annual Library Spending: 0 - 







Scopus Data 


Overall: 13,237 63,963 4.8 



Life Sciences: 6,795 43,113 6.3 







PhDs Awarded: - 






84 (Overall) 



16 


MOMBASA 




35 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

114 78 61 60 65 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

51 44 18 36 35 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

257 217 125 178 194 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

40 33 40 43 36 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

11 5 6 8 10 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

58 51 66 65 71 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

143 95 64 54 47 

Faculty Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 






www.qs.com 17






Abbreviation: 

Pompeii 

City: 

Pompeii 

Country: 

Fantasia 


Website: 

www.qs.com 




Students: 13,846 12,949 












Domestic Undergraduate Fees: GBP 3,225 

International Undergraduate Fees: GBP 17,900 

Domestic Postgraduate Fees: GBP 4,830 


Average Domestic Fees: GBP 3,700 


Annual Library Spending: GBP 9,900,000 

Total Research Funding: GBP 347,500,000 

Government: GBP 207 

Industrial: GBP 141 



Alumni Donations: GBP 3 

Scopus Data 


Overall: 22,928 141,887 6.2 



Life Sciences: 10,277 82,946 8.1 













36 (Overall) 



18 


POMPEII 




5 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

18 5 9 13 17 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

14 9 5 6 5 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

95 96 96 58 68 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

14 14 23 25 22 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

18 26 26 30 28 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

72 38 7 5 5 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

12 10 9 8 11 

Faculty Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 






www.qs.com 19






Abbreviation: 

Sumeria 

City: 

Sumeria 

Country: 

Newstralia 


Website: 

www.qs.com 


Faculty: 5,205 3,406 


Students: 44,589 34,677 


Undergrads: 28,000 25,255 


Postgrads: 16,532 9,895 



















Community Investment: USD 42,888,745 

Alumni Donations: USD 15,018,722 

Scopus Data 


Overall: 19,929 105,295 5.3 



Life Sciences: 13,238 83,177 6.3 




Average Undergrad Class Size: 16.5 

Average Postgrad Class Size: 12.5 

Average Class Size: 14 







122 (Overall) 



20 


SUMERIA 




46 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

343 290 145 171 193 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

19 33 37 48 46 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

163 194 222 195 158 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

11 8 20 21 20 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

39 36 159 191 185 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

36 42 10 9 6 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

36 43 38 36 33 

Faculty Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 






www.qs.com 21






Abbreviation: 

Sparta 

City: 

Sparta 

Country: 

Lillana 


Website: 

www.qs.com 


Faculty: 1,805 1,510 


Students: 10,299 10,172 


Undergrads: 4,138 4,116 

International Undergrads: 377 377 

Postgrads: 6,539 5,991 





















Scopus Data 


Overall: 26,064 209,959 8.1 



Life Sciences: 6,390 87,952 13.8 













9 (Overall) 



22 


SPARTA 




9 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

132 100 62 50 59 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

3 5 10 9 9 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

5 4 3 3 5 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

5 6 6 5 6 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

234 279 298 308 351 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

3 2 6 6 10 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

27 37 44 45 44 

Faculty Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 






www.qs.com 23


Joe Blogs University 



Joe Blogs University 

Abbreviation: 

Joe Blogs 

City: 

Windy 

Country: 

Celodim 


Website: 

www.qs.com 


Faculty: 2,584 2,157 

International Faculty: 1,294 1,138 

Students: - - 

International Students: - 10,486 


International Undergrads: - 5,860 




Undergrads Inbound: 1,288 1,288 

Undergrads Outbound: 1,318 1,318 

















Scopus Data 


Overall: 23,025 89,516 3.9 



Life Sciences: 8,715 47,469 5.4 













1 (Overall) 



24 


JOE BLOGS 




40 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

361 337 339 339 329 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

33 19 44 40 40 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

166 168 73 80 92 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

13 11 17 18 19 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

6 6 10 16 14 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

100 40 52 26 38 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

20 19 12 16 15 

Faculty Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 






www.qs.com 25


Technical University of Tatuin 



Technical University of Tatuin 

Abbreviation: 

Tatuin 

City: 

Tatunia 

Country: 

Othrikar 


Website: 

www.qs.com 


Faculty: 1,420 - 

International Faculty: - - 

Students: - - 

International Students: - - 

Undergrads: 14,665 - 

International Undergrads: 740 - 


International Postgrads: 133 - 









Domestic Postgraduate Fees: USD - 


Average Domestic Fees: USD - 


Annual Library Spending: USD - 







Scopus Data 


Overall: 26,669 41,019 1.5 



Life Sciences: 6,148 13,393 2.2 













19 (Overall) 



26 


TATUIN 




154 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

294 381 312 114 164 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

169 179 164 155 154 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

361 387 350 441 322 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

130 105 105 111 117 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

219 256 289 293 335 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

38 70 58 104 136 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

420 421 529 480 556 

Faculty Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Arts & Humanities: - 173 211 263 225 





www.qs.com 27


University of Theroux 



University of Theroux 

Abbreviation: 

Theroux 

City: 

Linton 

Country: 

Othrikar 


Website: 

www.qs.com 


Faculty: 4,651 4,651 




Undergrads: 14,691 14,691 


Postgrads: 13,131 13,131 








Domestic Undergraduate Fees: USD 733 


Domestic Postgraduate Fees: EUR - 

International Postgraduate Fees: EUR 3,580 

Average Domestic Fees: USD 733 



Total Research Funding: EUR 194,700,000 




Community Investment: USD 37,223,700 


Scopus Data 


Overall: 35,846 58,674 1.6 



Life Sciences: 3,615 10,269 2.8 




Average Undergrad Class Size: 29 

Average Postgrad Class Size: 20 


PhDs Awarded: 1,433 






11 (Overall) 



28 


THEROUX 




59 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

103 7 4 42 41 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

63 38 50 56 59 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

348 389 325 396 386 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

44 38 36 31 29 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

138 176 444 473 241 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

168 78 55 68 98 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

299 317 304 446 350 

Faculty Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 






www.qs.com 29






Abbreviation: 

Carthage 

City: 

Cape Fantasia 

Country: 

Lillana 


Website: 

www.qs.com 



International Faculty: 118 - 


International Students: - - 

Undergrads: 28,399 - 

International Undergrads: 1,164 - 


International Postgrads: 1,696 - 









Domestic Postgraduate Fees: USD - 


Average Domestic Fees: USD - 


Annual Library Spending: USD 529,533 







Scopus Data 


Overall: 37,760 296,200 7.8 



Life Sciences: 27,552 251,318 9.1 













51 (Overall) 



30 


CARTHAGE 




43 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

233 166 177 238 263 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

47 41 51 40 43 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

14 19 29 9 9 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

21 19 10 10 11 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

483 484 443 468 488 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

145 45 54 29 30 


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

280 251 307 324 361 

Faculty Area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 






www.qs.com 31


MODULE 2: Comparative Analysis 

The charts in this module display the performance of each of 

the institutions featured in the report across all the indicators 

used for the 2009 Rankings, each presented in contrast to Atlantis’s 

results. 

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

strength of the institution across the six principal ranking indicators 

and would correlate perfectly with the overall ranking 

performance were it not for the influence of weightings. Essentially 

this display approach implies that each indicator carries 

the same weight. Atlantis results have been emphasized 

in the chart by the bold blue line. 

The ‘shape’ of University of Atlantis in 2009 is one of sharp 

contrasts with strengths: Academic Peer Review, International 

Students and Employer Review, and weaknesses: International 

Faculty, Student Faculty and Citations per Faculty, clearly 

revealed. 

These charts also reveal, in perhaps the most effective visual 

fashion, both the broad ambition of Atlantis and the diversity 

PR = Academic Peer Review 

ER = Employer Review 

KEY INDICATORS 

SF = Student Faculty 

CF = Citations per Faculty 

IF = International Faculty 

IS = International Students 

2.1 2.2 2.3 

2.4 2.5 2.6 

2.7 2.8 2.9 

32 


2.10 2.11 

of strengths to be found amongst the selected peer institutions. 

The range of strengths across the institutions included 

is very diverse with institutions such as University of El Dorado 

(El Dorado), Pompeii University (Pompeii), University 

of Babylon (Babylon) and University of Sparta demonstrating 

comparatively consistent strong performance on all indicators, 

while the performance of others tends to be focused towards, 

or away from certain aspects. 

The table on below shows the development of the peer group 

over the last three years. Performance in each indicator is discussed 

in detail in Module 3 of this report. 


Tatuin 

Babylon 

Troy 

El Dorado 

Mombasa 

Pompeii 

Mombasa 

Sparta 

Joe Blogs 

Theroux 

Carthage 

2009 

PR 34 117 23 3 1 36 22 20 6 19 29 11 

ER 18 136 142 11 1 71 5 6 10 38 98 30 

SF 337 164 66 483 20 65 17 193 59 329 41 263 

CF 149 322 1 7 42 194 68 158 5 92 386 9 

IF 106 335 1 81 30 10 28 185 351 14 241 488 

IS 52 556 69 355 40 47 11 33 44 15 350 361 

2008 

PR 29 111 20 1 3 43 25 21 5 18 31 10 

ER 17 104 133 10 1 65 5 9 6 26 68 29 

SF 373 114 32 471 20 60 13 171 50 339 42 238 

CF 128 441 1 4 49 178 58 195 3 80 396 9 

IF 97 293 1 75 32 8 30 191 308 16 473 468 

IS 59 480 52 326 38 54 8 36 45 16 446 324 

2007 

PR 31 105 21 1 3 40 23 20 6 17 36 10 

ER 20 58 227 11 1 66 7 10 6 52 55 54 

SF 294 312 1 168 23 61 9 145 62 339 4 177 

CF 156 350 1 18 83 125 96 222 3 73 325 29 

IF 66 289 15 128 28 6 26 159 298 10 444 443 

IS 53 529 55 67 54 64 9 38 44 12 304 307 

Table 2.1 Rankings performance by indicator across peer group 2007-2009 

www.qs.com 33


MODULE 3: Rankings Performance 

Chart 3.1 Overall rankings performance of selected universities 2005-2009 

This module examines the performance of selected institutions 

under each indicator (and the overall performance) used for 

the QS World University Rankings. 

Overall Rankings Performance (Chart 3.1) 

Chart 3.1 displays the overall rank position for the selected 

peers for the past five years. With the exception of Tatuin, Atlantis’s 

peers are ranked in the top 100. For the other selected 

institutions, this chart shows the range of performance fluctuations 

that are feasible. Whilst the rankings have stabilized 

in 2008 and 2009, significant changes in position, for better or 

worse, are still achievable. City University of Troy’s (Troy) 

performance is the most prominent, with a gradual decline 

since 2005. The University of Sumeria has also been in slow 

decline but achieved a slight improvement in 2009. 

Academic Peer Review Performance (Chart 3.2) 

Worth 40% of the overall score, the results of the Academic 

Peer Review are most closely correlated with the overall 

scores. University of Theroux (Theroux) has achieved consistent 

improvement in this indicator and has, in the main, converted 

in this into progress in the overall ranking. 

The same, however, is true in reverse. Troy has maintained 

ground in the Academic Peer Review but declined in the overall 

standings. 

As general response rates increase, the Academic Peer Review 

displays stronger consistency. Consequently any branding 

or promotional efforts designed to influence these results are 

unlikely to take effect for at least three to five years from their 

date of introduction. This is partly due to the three year cycle 

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

perception of an institution amongst reviewers. Key strategies 

that may contribute to an improved performance in this indicator 

include: 

• Consistent branding across all promotional materials 

• Ensuring that researchers are publishing under accurate 

and consistent affiliations 

• Encouraging and supporting academics’ attendance, and 

preferably presenting, at international conferences 

• Ensuring that international research partners are promoting 

any partnership and/or collaborations 

• Effective media relations and management around any 

‘breakthrough’ research 

Employer Review Performance (Chart 3.3) 

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

employer review has increased dramatically: 738 in 2006, 1,482 

in 2007, 2,339 in 2008 and 3,286 in 2009. This has had a dramatic 

influence on some of the results, particularly between 

2006 and 2007. Greater response means that there is greater 

global representation and, as a result, many universities that 

had not scored well earlier have done much better in later 

years. The decline in position for Sumeria between 2005 and 

2006 does not necessarily reflect a capitulation in their reputation 

amongst recruiters, for example. 

Chart 3.2 Academic Peer Review performance of selected universities 2005-2009 

34 


Chart 3.3 Employer review performance of selected universities 2005-2009 

In 2007, participating institutions were invited, for the first 

time, to supply lists of employers to supplement the independent 

promotion carried out by QSIU. This development 

contributed strongly to an increased response: over 180 institutions 

contributed lists in 2009, resulting in more than 25,000 

distinct contacts having been invited to complete the survey 

from this source alone. 

Since 2007, Atlantis has maintained its relative position. It 

could consider: 

• Supplying QSIU with a comprehensive list of employer 

contacts 

• Engaging with employers to create a dialogue in order to 

ascertain their expectations and identify gaps 

• Introducing career skills programs for final year graduates 

which, for example, include presentation and interview 

skills training 

Student Faculty Ratio Performance (Chart 3.4) 

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

data. 

There has been some volatility in this measure as institutions 

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

numbers for both faculty and students. These have been emphasized 

more strongly since the 2007 results. 

Here, ratios are calculated simply by taking the number of 

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

many institutions in this selection have seen a significant 

improvement in 2009 with the exception of Atlantis and Joe 

Blogs University (Joe Blogs). The rest of the peers declined in 

performance and in some cases maintained the same position. 

. 

Ratio Score Rank 

Pompeii 23.9 99.8 17 

El Dorado 22.3 99.5 20 

Theroux 17.1 94.5 41 

Sparta 15.1 88.5 59 

Mombasa 14.7 87.1 65 

Babylon 14.7 87.0 66 

Tatuin 10.4 61.9 164 

Sumeria 9.7 57.0 193 

Carthage 8.3 46.4 263 

Joe Blogs 7.4 39.5 329 

Atlantis 7.3 38.6 337 

Troy 5.2 24.7 483 

This is likely to result from a combination of factors: other institutions 

may have genuinely improved their student faculty 

ratio, or their greater understanding of the FTE calculation 

requirements may have changed the dynamics of the data set 

for this indicator. In addition, further universities have been 

added to the study, some of which are likely to have strong 

student faculty ratios. 

Chart 3.4 Student faculty performance of selected universities 2005-2009 

www.qs.com 35


Chart 3.5 Citations per faculty rankings of selected universities 2005-2009 

Citations per Faculty Performance (Chart 3.5) 

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

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

I) . 

There are some major shifts in certain institutions’ performances 

that coincide with the switch from ESI to Scopus . 

Much improvement was made to the algorithms used to retrieve 

data between 2007 and 2008, eliminating double counting 

between disciplines and between different affiliations 

that are ultimately attributed to the same institution. In many 

cases, this has resulted in dramatically reduced overall paper 

and citation counts in 2008 (and beyond), as is evident with 

Theroux. In some cases this adjustment proved corrective, in 

others it further set them back. 

The results in Chart 3.5 reveal that Atlantis has gradually 

improved since 2005, despite the slight decline in 2009. The 

majority of the selected peers have extremely high performance 

in this ranking. This is an area that Atlantis could look at 

developing further. Sumeria has slowly been gaining ground 

following the decline in 2007. 

Unusually for Tatuin and Theroux, their strength in the Academic 

Peer Review does not seem to reflect deeper strengths 

in this indicator of research quality. In general terms, the output 

from an average university in is high in comparison with 

many others, but they achieve comparatively low citations per 

faculty. Tatuin and Theroux still hold positions as leaders in 

the region - which seems likely to have influenced performance 

in the peer review survey 

International Faculty Performance (Chart 3.6) 

Chart 3.6 reveals that some truly world class performers in 

this indicator have been selected amongst this group. Joe 

Blogs, El Dorado, Mombasa, Pompeii and Babylon all perform 

extremely well. 

In broad terms, US institutions tend not to be as individually 

strong as UK institutions, partly due to many universities 

demanding resident status as a prerequisite for faculty status 

(making it difficult to track data on origin) and partly due to 

the UK’s proximity to continental Europe, providing the opportunity 

to attract faculty from overseas without requiring 

such significant uprooting. 

Atlantis has maintained its performance in the top 150. Sumeria, 

originally ranked 36 in 2005, has struggled to achieve Atlantis’s 

position. Carthage, Tatuin and Sparta perform poorly 

in this indicator in comparison to selected peers. 

International Students Performance (Chart 3.7) 

Performance in the two international factors is strongly correlated 

throughout the sample, so it is perhaps no surprise that 

many of the leading universities in this indicator also do well 

in international faculty indicator. Mombasa goes against this 

correlative trend due to a large ex-pat community contributing 

to its faculty but not so strongly to its student body. 

There is an issue facing the effective evaluation of US institutions 

in the context of these international indicators. The central 

data source used for the US is a system known as IPEDS 

operated by the National Center for Education Statistics. The 

Chart 3.6 International faculty rankings of selected universities 2005-2009 

36 


Chart 3.7 International student rankings of selected universities 2005-2009 

system features data on ‘non-resident aliens’ but not on residents 

holding foreign passports, which is a common scenario 

in the US. 

As a result the international nature of US institutions is broadly 

underestimated in this measure. This probably has a stronger 

influence in the international faculty indicator but will also 

carry an influence here, particularly at graduate level. 

Fantasia and Newstralia institutions have traditionally fared 

well in this study as is evident from the chart above. Atlantis 

and Sumeria have maintained their impressive performance 

over the last five years. 

Conclusion 

Chart 3.8 shows the current status of Atlantis with respect 

to the maximum available score in each indicator. This chart 

demonstrates, in simple fashion, the key areas in which Atlantis 

would benefit most greatly from an improved performance. 

The institution performs very well in four of six indicators. 

Attracting more faculty to counter student numbers would 

be worthwhile, but it is in the citations per faculty indicator 

where the biggest gains can potentially be found. 

Chart 3.8 Atlantis results against the maximum available score 

www.qs.com 37


MODULE 4: Research Performance 

The source of citations and publication data used in the QS 

World University Rankings is Scopus - a database compiled 

and maintained by Elsevier and one of three key international 

sources of publication and citation. (More information 

about Scopus, its journal coverage, functionality and 

application is available at: http://info.scopus.com/, as is the 

option to subscribe as an institution or to undertake a 30-day 

free trial.) 

database, identifying many name variants for each institution, 

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

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

enhanced each year with an increasing amount of input from 

institutions themselves. 

The issue of identifying name variants is there in any database 

of this size but is particularly influential where an institution 

has affiliated components (such as hospitals or research 

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

Chart 4.1 Citations per paper by faculty area in Scopus 2004-2008 

The citation criterion uses a count of all papers published 

during the last complete five year period, and then totals the 

number of citations for those papers within the same period. 

The period in question for this report is 2004-2008. 

The measures utilized for rankings do not take into account 

different citation patterns for different disciplines. In general, 

for example, papers in a medical field will reach their citation 

peak much earlier than those in social sciences. Some work has 

been done at the University of Leiden to develop a discipline 

independent citation indicator, and more information can be 

found at www.cwts.nl/ranking/LeidenRankingWebSite.html. 

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

of the indicators currently used in rankings, but also demonstrates 

the differences between different subject disciplines. 

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

in mapping all of the ranked institutions into the Scopus 

the case we depend on institutions themselves to notify us of 

these, sometimes little known, relationships. For example at 

one point, Massachusetts Institute of Technology had 1,741 

identified name variants in Scopus, illustrating the complexity 

of this ongoing work. 

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

whole university, including affiliated components, should include 

the name of the university itself on all published work. 

Whilst the mapping exercise can ensure that all papers and 

citations are accounted for, there is reputational credit that 

may be missed where papers are published under alternate 

affiliations. Additionally, any other evaluation drawing on 

publication or citation data, from any database, is likely to find 

it easier to track the work of your faculty if they are publishing 

under the appropriate institution. 

The charts in this module are organised in descending order 

of productivity - i.e. the institutions producing the highest 

38 


Chart 4.2 Papers and citations Scopus 2004-2008 

number of papers in the five year period are displayed on the 

left. 

Chart 4.1 shows these data broken down into five broad subject 

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

this chart that different faculty areas have different citation 

patterns. For most institutions, life and natural sciences dominate 

the citation landscape. Carthage University, University of 

El Dorado, City University of Troy and University of Sparta 

lead this chart, with particularly low scores on a citations per 

paper basis for institutions in Othrikar. 

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

selected institutions. The red line depicts citations against the 

right hand axis and the bars depict papers published against 

the left hand axis. 

As a general rule, each paper in the database received an 

average of between four and six citations during the period 

concerned. Carthage University, University of El Dorado, University 

of Babylon, City University of Troy and University of 

Sparta received between seven and nine citations per paper. 

Inevitably, higher productivity (assuming some degree of 

quality control) leads to higher overall citation counts. There 

is a very clear difference in research strategy taken by Lillana 

institutions such as Carthage University and City University 

of Troy, and that taken by Othrikar institutions. This has received 

considerable press coverage over the last couple years 

Chart 4.3 Total citations by faculty area for selected institutions in Scopus 2004-2008 

www.qs.com 39


as Othrikar universities have been growing dramatically. 

Of course, more papers is likely to lead to a higher number 

of citations - at least in absolute terms, but this ‘brute force’ 

approach may not lead to strong reputational benefit and is 

unlikely to lead to strong citations per paper scores (as can be 

seen in Chart 4.1). 

University of Atlantis is trailing behind University of Sumeria, 

evidenced by the disparity between the papers produced and 

the citations received. This could be as a result of journal selection, 

or variance in quality. Publishing papers in high impact, 

as opposed to local journals, could attract higher citations. 

shows the dominant role that Life Sciences and Biomedicine 

play in the overall citation landscape. 

Chart 4.4 shows the development in productivity (total papers 

published) over time for a selected subset of peer institutions. 

In general, particularly outside the Lillana, the total productivity 

from universities is increasing as international competition 

heats up. Nowhere is this more profound than in Othrikar, as 

reflected by the dramatic growth in output from both University 

of Theroux and Technical University of Tatuin. University 

of Atlantis is on course, closely following University of Sumeria, 

however there was a slight dip in productivity in 2008. 

Chart 4.3 shows the total citation count for each institution by 

faculty area. Firstly, this displays the general lack of publication 

activity in the Arts and Humanities subject area. It also 

Chart 4.4 Total papers published by year for selected peer institutions 

40 


MODULE 5: Peer Review Performance 

The objective of this module is to provide a little more insight 

into the specific breakdown of respondents to the academic 

peer review and perhaps provide some insight into the difference 

between domestic and international responses. 

In 2008, the two survey components of the QS World University 

Rankings evolved slightly, with the intention of 

distinguishing international from domestic responses. In the 

broader rankings context this has a number of objectives: 

Firstly, the understanding of peer institutions from these two 

groups is likely to be fundamentally different. Additionally, 

it may reflect a stronger contextual influence to perform well 

among more remote respondents. Most importantly, however, 

separating different types of respondents will, over time, allow 

us to more ably adjust for any geographical bias. 

The first step was to run analyses of previous years’ responses 

to understand at what weighting domestic and international 

responses ought to be recombined. Based on the results of this 

analysis, combined with some expert input, these notional 

weightings have been set at 85/15 for the academic peer review 

and 70/30 for the employer review, each in favour of the 

international response levels. This, after all, is a world ranking. 

However, these surveys each draw on three years’ worth of 

responses and the separate responses are only from 2008 and 

2009. As a result, the weighting applied to domestic responses 

for the 2009 results is two thirds of the eventual planned level. 

In this section, columns in the chart are labelled ‘international’ 

and ‘domestic’. To clarify, ‘domestic’ refers to 2008/09 domestic 

respondents and ‘international’ relates to 2008/09 nondomestic 

respondents combined with global respondents from 

2007. 

One side-effect of this transition stage is that some universities 

have not yet registered any domestic responses in certain subject 

fields. As identifiable domestic responses grow over the 

next two years, the results should become more reflective of 

genuine reputation in the given domestic market. 

Other market forces may also have an influence here: the 

Lillana, for example, has a very large number of genuinely 

world-class institutions in comparison with any other country 

worldwide. This results in interesting competitive dynamics in 

a ‘share of perception’ context which, if anything, is intensified 

in a domestic context. In a country with a smaller total number 

of institutions, those in the middle of the field are likely to perform 

better than in a more competitive one. 

The observations on this page relate to the charts overleaf. 

Arts & Humanities (Chart 5.1) 

In the Arts & Humanities evaluation, City University of Troy, 

Carthage and El Dorado are the dominant performers in terms 

of international reputation, although in Carthage’s case the 

domestic reputation seems not to reflect their international 

brand. This is a situation reflected with almost all the Lillana 

and Fantasia institutions included here: their international 

resonance is much stronger than their domestic. 

For example, Pompeii University and University of Babylon 

did not receive any domestic reviews. This could be attributed 

to the fact that they are specialist scientific institutions. 

Domestic peers would be aware of this but international peers 

review them based on international reputation. 

Engineering & Technology (Chart 5.2) 

This is Atlantis’s greatest area of strength internationally by 

comparison to all other subject areas. University of Sparta is 

the strongest in this field and predominantly higher internationally 

than domestically. City University of Troy and University 

of Babylon are also well placed internationally. 

El Dorado , Pompeii University , Atlantis and Sumeria are 

ranked higher by domestic peers. Discrepancies between international 

and domestic reviews could be attributed to the fact 

that international academic peers tend to look at the research 

produced rather than the quality of alumni. Joe Blogs University, 

University of Mombasa and Carthage received relatively 

low domestic scores in comparison to international reviews. 

Life Sciences & Medicine Chart (5.3) 

Perhaps the most interesting observation relates to the two 

Newstralia universities, which both received higher reviews 

from domestic peers in comparison to the selected peers in 

this sample. However, University of Sumeria shows a much 

stronger reputation domestically than internationally. 

El Dorado , City University of Troy and University of Sparta 

achieved high international scores. Among the Othrikar institutions, 

University of Theroux achieved both higher international 

and domestic scores. A little broader research reveals 

that the medical school at Technical University of Tatuin only 

merged with the university in 2005. Perhaps its part in delivering 

the academic ranking of world universities has helped 

it drive international acknowledgement of this development 

more quickly than domestic. 

Natural Sciences Chart (5.4) 

www.qs.com 41


Chart 5.1 Academic Peer Review scores in Arts & Humanities 

Chart 5.2 Academic Peer Review scores in Engineering & IT 

Chart 5.3 Academic Peer Review scores in Life Sciences 

Chart 5.4 Academic Peer Review scores in Natural Sciences 

Chart 5.5 Academic Peer Review scores in Social Sciences 

42 


For University of Sumeria, domestic response outweighs international. 

Internationally, City University of Troy, El Dorado 

and University of Sparta, lead in this field. Atlantis received 

higher international reviews in the natural science field in 

comparison to life sciences and biomedicine. 

Joe Blogs University and University of Mombasa received low 

domestic scores by comparison with international reviews. 

Most of the peers received similar or equal reviews from domestic 

and international academic peers in this field. 

Social Sciences (Chart 5.5) 

In 2009, the strongest field of response was in Social Sciences, 

meaning this area is the least prone to anomaly and should be 

the most reflective of reputation on the ground. 

comparison with Arts and Humanities. It is perhaps no surprise 

that the specialist universities, such as University of Babylon 

and Pompeii University, received low domestic reviews. 

In conclusion... 

This is the second year of a three-year phased introduction 

of the separate treatment of domestic and international responses. 

Institutions with a dramatically stronger domestic 

performance than international in any given field could expect 

their overall performance in the Academic Peer Review to decline 

over the next two years. 

Any institution looking to minimize this effect needs to examine 

the global propagation of its research and institutional 

brand in association with that research. 

In this area, in terms of academic reputation, Newstralia 

institutions received higher reviews domestically. Atlantis 

received a higher domestic ranking for Social Sciences by 

www.qs.com 43


Appendix I: Key enhancements in methodology for 2007 

Background 

The THE – QS World University Rankings began in 2004 and 

have attracted a great deal of comment, reaction and feedback 

since first publication in October of that year. Since that time 

the project has assimilated a great deal of new ideas and had 

evolved into a stronger, more robust measure of comparative 

international university quality. Inclusion of the employer 

review in 2005 and the increased response to the Peer Review 

questionnaire are examples of these enhancements. The process 

continues… aside from improved response rates in both 

survey elements there are four key developments in 2007 that 

have had an impact on results. In as simple terms as possible, 

this document outlines those changes. 

DEVELOPMENT: Peer reviewers prevented from promoting 

their own university. 

Since the inception of the rankings the Peer Review has been 

the centrepiece of the ranking, thus even the smallest alteration 

to its compilation can have a major effect on the overall 

performance of institutions. In the first three years of the rankings, 

no restrictions have been placed on universities identified 

as excellent by peer reviewers meaning that universities 

could potentially encourage their own academics to sign up 

and complete the questionnaire in their favour. Whilst there 

has been no evidence to suggest a deliberate assault by any 

single institution in this respect, as the awareness of both the 

ranking and the science behind it has become more widespread, 

it has become necessary to eliminate a reviewer’s 

own university from the list they are presented with in the 

questionnaire. 

EFFECT 

The effect of this development will be most profound where 

the peer review has received a particularly impressive volume 

of response in a country in comparison to other countries in 

the same region. The effect is likely to be further exaggerated 

if that country has a small number of institutions in the 

original list. An academic from the University of Arkansas is 

perhaps less likely to select their own institution (one of over 

60 in the US) than an academic from Nanyang Technological 

University in Singapore (one of just two in Singapore). 

DEVELOPMENT: Switch to Scopus from ESI (Thomson) 

for citation data 

For the 2006 results the time period for citation counts was 

slashed from 10 years to 5 years in response to feedback suggesting 

that the rankings ought to be a more contemporary 

measure of university strength. In 2004, when the rankings began, 

the only reputable source of citation data was Thomson’s 

Web of Science – the ESI is an associated, simplified product 

that provides an indication of research strength by university 

and seemed the most appropriate basis for our citation indicators 

at the time. 

Coincidentally, Scopus was also born in 2004 and has rapidly 

evolved since that time. In 2007, Scopus has been able to answer 

many of the questions left unanswered in three years of 

working with ESI – we have been able to find data for many 

institutions that have not been represented in this indicator in 

the past and we have also been able to query the entire Scopus 

database rather than simply the slices of Web of Science represented 

by ESI. The general consensus in published reviews of 

both systems (e.g. Fingerman 2006) seems to be that they both 

have their merits and can be used to complement one another. 

The vast majority of any criticism for Scopus seems to relate to 

its tracking of research and, in particular, citations from before 

1996 but – since we are only concerned with the most recent 

complete 5 year window – any weaknesses in this respect have 

no bearing. 

EFFECT 

The Scopus database has a less pronounced bias towards the 

US, resulting in a reduced advantage in their favour in this 

indicator 

Scopus covers a larger number of papers and journals overall 

leading to greater representation from lesser known universities 

and institutions from academic systems with less emphasis 

on publication 

Scopus covers more sources in languages other than English 

resulting in better numbers for institutions with large volumes 

of high quality research in their own language 

DEVELOPMENT: Consistent usage of Full-Time Equivalent 

(FTE) data for all personnel related data 

When requesting “Number of Faculty” from a university, 

the diversity of response can be surprising. Indeed some institutions 

respond having read the question as “Number of 

Faculties”. Each year, the QS research team has attempted to 

eliminate ambiguity by making the definitions sent out in the 

data request increasingly precise. In 2007, for the first time 

in an attempt to minimise confusion institutions were asked 

to provide both a Headcount and an FTE figure, where the 

FTE figure was to be utilised for the ranking. Where an FTE 

number has not been supplied, one has been extrapolated 

based on the relationship between Headcount and FTE numbers 

at other institutions in the same country or region. This 

ought to provide us with a much more accurate picture of the 

44 


scale of institutions and provide a stronger logic to our selection 

of indicators. 

EFFECT 

This will have its most profound effect on institutions with 

large numbers of part-time faculty or students that may have 

been either over or under represented in key indicators in previous 

years. 

Extreme results will not undermine the weighting for any 

given indicator (Caltech scored 100 to Harvard’s 55 for Citations 

per Faculty in 2006 essentially halving the influence of 

the indicator for all remaining institutions) 

Significant changes to an institution’s performance in any one 

indicator will now only have a proportionate and predictable 

influence on their overall position, thus… THE RANKINGS 

WILL BECOME MORE STABLE year on year. 

DEVELOPMENT: Z-score aggregation of indicators to generate 

overall scores 

In previous years, scores for each indicator have simply been 

scaled against the top performer in that indicator – the top 

institution awarded 100 and subsequent institution’s scores 

scaled against that maximum. There are some problems with 

that approach: 

The smallest of errors in the top institution’s data can cause 

dramatic “ripple” effects through the entire data for that 

indicator 

The curve for each indicator is exceptionally steep, leading to 

an emphasis on excellence in any given indicator that supersedes 

the weighting for that indicator. For example, the difference 

in score represented between coming first and second 

in “International Students” could represent the equivalent of 

coming 150th as opposed to 200th in the Peer Review, despite 

the fact that the weighting is only 5% as opposed to 40%. 

A Z-score, also called a normal score or standard score, is a 

common and accepted method of standardising or normalising 

statistics and has been utilised for many years in certain 

domestic rankings of universities. There is a good technical explanation 

on the method on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia. 

org/wiki/Standard_score). 

EFFECT 

Institutions demonstrating excellence in indicators with a low 

weighting will have less advantage (e.g. London School of 

Economics for International Students) 

Small errors, if present, in top performing institutions’ data 

may influence their own position, but will have negligible influence 

on the whole dataset 

The curve for each indicator will be smoother resulting in a 

more functional application of the weightings 

www.qs.com 45


Appendix II: Data definitions used in 2009 

Faculty 

Where both a headcount and a Full Time Equivalent (FTE) figure 

are requested, please supply both. The FTE figure will be 

the one utilized for comparative purposes. If you are unable 

to provide an FTE figure, a number will be calculated for you 

based on the average ratio between FTE and Headcount across 

other institutions in your country or region. 

Number of International Undergraduate Students [personnel] 

Number of undergraduate students who are foreign nationals. 

The term ‘international’ is hereby determined by citizenship. 

For EU countries, this includes all foreign nationals, 

even nationals of other EU states. In Hong Kong, this includes 

students from Mainland China. Please exclude all exchange 

students. 

Number of International Faculty Staff [personnel] 

Number of academic faculty staff who are of foreign nationality. 

The term ‘international’ is hereby determined by citizenship. 

For EU countries, this includes all foreign nationals, even 

if from another EU state. In Hong Kong, this includes professors 

from Mainland China. Inclusion and exclusion mirrors 

those for academic faculty staff. 

Number of Faculty Staff [personnel] 

Total number of academic faculty staff who are responsible for 

planning, directing and undertaking teaching only, research 

only or both teaching and research. Please include: vicechancellors, 

deputy vice-chancellors, principals, professors, 

heads of school, associate professors, principal lecturers and 

tutors. Please exclude research assistants*, PhD students who 

contribute to teaching, and exchange scholars or visiting professors 

who are members of another university. *FAQ: How is 

research assistant defined? 

Number of Inbound Exchange Undergraduate Students 

[personnel] 

Number of undergraduate students attending your university 

on international exchange programs for at least 1 semester in 

the last 12 months. 

Number of Outbound Exchange Undergraduate Students 

[personnel] 

Number of undergraduate students registered at your institution 

who have attended another institution abroad for at least 

1 semester on an exchange program in the last 12 months. 

Average International Undergraduate Fees [currency] 

Average tuition fees per academic year (two semesters) that 

an international student would be expected to pay for an 

undergraduate program, with ‘program’ referring to the complete 

range of courses contributing to a degree. FAQ: How do 

I calculate average fees? 

Number of Inbound Visiting Faculty Staff [personnel] 

Number of academic faculty staff contributing to teaching or 

research at your university in the last 12 months who are visiting 

from an overseas institution for a minimum period of at 

least 3 months. 

Number of Outbound Visiting Faculty Staff [personnel] 

Number of academic faculty staff employed by your institution 

contributing to teaching or research at an overseas institution 

in the last 12 months for a minimum period of at least 3 

months. 

Undergraduate Information 

Number of Undergraduate Students [personnel] 

Number of students pursuing a Bachelor’s level or equivalent 

degree. This excludes certificates/diplomas and associate’s 

degrees. 

Average Domestic Undergraduate Fees [currency] 

Average tuition fees per academic year (two semesters) that a 

domestic student would be expected to pay for an undergraduate 

program, with ‘program’ referring to the complete range 

of courses contributing to a degree. FAQ: How do I calculate 

average fees? 

Average Undergraduate Class Size [numeric] 

The average size of class across all undergraduate programs. 

The term ‘class’ refers to an unit of instruction or taught session 

in which a teacher has pre-defined material to cover. It 

does exclude tutorial seminars. 

Graduate / Postgraduate Information 

Number of Graduate / Postgraduate Students [personnel] 

46 


Students pursuing a higher-level degree (Master and Doctorate), 

including both taught and research postgraduates (e.g. 

PhD students) 

Number of International Graduate Students [personnel] 

Number of graduate / postgraduate students who are foreign 

nationals. The term ‘international’ is hereby determined by citizenship. 

For EU countries, this includes all foreign nationals, 

even nationals of other EU states. In Hong Kong, this includes 

students from Mainland China. 

Number of Inbound Exchange Postgraduate Students [personnel] 

Number of graduate / postgraduate students attending your 

university on international exchange programs for at least 1 

semester in the last 12 months. 

Only complete this section if you are unable to supply separate 

figures for undergraduates and graduates / postgraduates 

in the sections above. If you complete all three sections, 

this section will be ignored. If you do need to use this section, 

please exclude any "pre-degree" students that may be enrolled 

at your institution. 

Total Students [personnel] 

Total number of students. 

Total International Students [personnel] 

Number of students who are foreign nationals. The term 

‘international’ is hereby determined by citizenship. For EU 

countries, this includes all foreign nationals, even nationals 

of other EU states. In Hong Kong, this includes students from 

Mainland China. 

Number of Outbound Exchange Postgraduate Students 

[personnel] 

Number of postgraduate students registered at your institution 

who have attended another institution on an exchange 

program for at least 1 semester in the last 12 months. 

Average International Graduate / Postgraduate Fees [currency] 

Average tuition fees per academic year (two semesters) that an 

international student would be expected to pay for a graduate 

/ postgraduate program, with ‘program’ referring to the complete 



Average Domestic Graduate / Postgraduate Fees [currency] 


domestic student would be expected to pay for a graduate / 

postgraduate program, with ‘program’ referring to the complete 



Total Outbound Exchange Students [personnel] 

Total number of students registered at your institution who 

have attended another institution on an exchange program for 

at least 1 semester in the last 12 months. 

Total Inbound Exchange Students [personnel] 

Total number of students attending your university on international 

exchange programs for at least 1 semester in the last 

12 months. 

Average International Student Fees [currency] 

Average tuition fees per year that an international student 

would be expected to pay for any course 

Average Domestic Student Fees [currency] 


domestic student would be expected to pay for any program, 

with ‘program’ referring to the complete range of courses contributing 

to a degree. FAQ: How do I calculate average fees? 

Average Taught Graduate / Postgraduate Class Size [numeric] 

The average size of class across all taught graduate / postgraduate 

programs. The term ‘class’ refers to an unit of instruction 

or taught session in which a teacher has pre-defined 

material to cover. It does exclude tutorial seminars. 

Students 

Average Class Size [numeric] 

The average size of class across all programs. The term ‘class’ 

refers to an unit of instruction or taught session in which a 

teacher has pre-defined material to cover. It does exclude tutorial 

seminars. 

Financial 

www.qs.com 47


Annual Library Spending [currency] 

Library expenditure for the most recent academic year. Please 

focus on acquisitions and exclude operating costs 

Community / Cultural Investment [currency] 

Total amount spent on community projects or cultural preservation 

in the last 12 months Community investment relates 

to investment in the community local to where the institution 

is based, this could be anything from urban redevelopment 

to investing in local primary and secondary education or to 

members of or groups within the local community through 

any other conduit (e.g hospitals, prisons, homeless shelters, 

students involved in community service etc...) Cultural preservation 

could be perceived as investment in projects that directly 

contribute to the preservation of otherwise waning aspects 

of an institution’s national culture. Universities in Wales, for 

example, spend a great deal on protecting the Welsh language 

and extending its use. There may be other aspects of a national 

culture which a university may explicitly or implicitly take a 

responsibility to preserve. 

Total Funding for Research [currency] 

Please provide a total figure for ONLY externally sourced 

funding, such as government and industrial funding, allocated 

specifically for research for the latest completed academic year 

or for the last 12 months. 

Facilities Investment [currency] 

Total amount spent in the last 12 months or the last complete 

financial year on infrastructure and facilities investment (e.g. 

new buildings, communications infrastructure, sports facilities, 

laboratory equipment etc...)This can include external 

sources as well as private donors. 

Government Funding for Research [currency] 

Please provide a total figure for government funding allocated 

specifically for research for the latest completed academic year 

or for the last 12 months - funds from the EU or similar transnational 

body can be included. 

Industrial Funding / Investment [currency] 

The total amount of income from industry either for use of 

facilities, commissioning of research or licensing of intellectual 

property referring to the latest completed academic year or 

for the last 12 months. Please include only externally sourced 

funding from the public and private sectors and exclude private 

donor support. 

Alumni Donations [currency] 

Please provide a total figure for alumni donations in the last 

12 months 

Graduate Output 

Proportion of Graduates Pursuing Further Study [percentage] 

Proportion of graduates from undergraduate programs pursuing 

further study at your own institution or any other. 

Proportion of Graduates Employed [percentage] 

Proportion of graduates (excluding those opting to pursue 

further study) in permanent employment within 6 months of 

graduation 

Number of PhDs Awarded [numeric] 

Total number of PhDs awarded in the last 12 months 

Entry Requirements 

Avg Entry Requirements [numeric] 

Please express the average academic achievement entry requirements 

for your institution. Please convert your domestic 

requirements to the US Grade Point Average system. The fivepoint 

numerical scale is typically correlated with the A-F/A-E 

quality index. (A=4.0, B=3.0, C=2.0, D=1.0, E or F = 0.0) In our 

context, a value of 0 will imply to us that your institution has 

an “open access” admissions policy and will in no way count 

against your institution in any future table built upon this 

data. 

You can use World Education Services (WES) Toolkit as 

guideline: http://www.wes.org/gradeconversionguide/index.asp 

(copy and paste) 

NOTE: 

Where FAQs are referred to here, they relate to listed 

FAQs on the website: www.topuniversities.com/ 

worlduniversityrankings/faqs 

48

University of Atlantis - QS Intelligence Unit

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?