to download our latest brochure - QS Intelligence Unit

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Benchmarking Service: Year 3 Report – City University of Hong Kong Personnel Data Headcount FTE Faculty 1,535 783 International Faculty 500 245 Students 19,200 13,453 International Students 9,305 6,869 Undergraduates 10,010 8,412 International Undergraduates 4,520 3,701 Postgraduates 9,190 5,041 International Postgraduates 5,785 3,168 Exchange Data Headcount FTE Undergraduates Inbound 622 221 Undergraduates Outbound 45 45 Postgraduates Inbound 22 20 Postgraduates Outbound 5 5 Financial Data Commissioning institution US$ Domestic Undergraduate Fees 14,300 International Undergraduate Fees 19,400 Domestic Postgraduate Fees 12,700 International Postgraduate Fees 19,100 Average Domestic Fees 14,000 Average International Fees 17,000 Annual Library Spending 20,000,00 Total Research Funding 50,000,000 Government 20,000,000 Industrial 30,000,000 Facilities Investment - Community Investment 1,500,000 Alumni Donations 5,230,000 Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact Overall 3,134 8,150 2.6 Arts & Humanities 28 49 1.8 Engineering & Technology 1,456 2,826 1.9 Life Sciences & Medicine 1,255 4,789 3.8 Natural Sciences 537 1,715 3.2 Social Sciences & Mgmt 630 1,988 3.2 Additional Information Staff with PhD 250 Patents 25 Overall Student Satisfaction Rate 87 Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate 92 PhDs Awarded 123 Graduate Employment Rate 82 Students Pursuing Further Study 52 Average Entry Requirements - Name: Commissioning institution Abbreviation: Client Location: City , Country Foundation Year: 1923 Classification: Size: L ; Focus: CO ; Research: HI ; Age: 5 ; Status: A QS Indicator Scores Client Global Overall 38.1 - Academic Reputation 41.2 39.2 Employer Reputation 69.9 39.0 Faculty Student 12.1 44.3 Citations per Faculty 32.2 34.5 International Faculty 34.2 38.4 International Students 21.4 38.3 QS Faculty Area Scores Client Global Arts & Humanities 17.7 15.6 Engineering & Technology 44.9 12.1 Life Sciences & Medicine 10.2 12.0 Natural Sciences 63.7 14.4 Social Sciences & Mgmt 11.7 13.7 Other Rankings ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) 282 (236) URAP 153 (182) Webometrics Ranking 504 ( 699) THE 123 (110) 4icu Web Popularity Ranking 323 Alexa Web Ranking 38752 Website Capture Web Address: www.university.com Date Taken: 2013-04-10 8 Copyright © 2013 QS Intelligence Unit Overall Ranking 2012 QS World University Rank ® 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 401 382 301 295 240 Academic Reputation 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 218 245 217 200 182 Employer Reputation 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 118 102 121 132 120 Faculty Level Rankings Faculty Student 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 219 193 345 229 230 Citations per Faculty 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 332 430 420 435 423 International Faculty 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 91 91 80 63 72 International Students 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 103 132 156 124 110 Faculty Area 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Arts & Humanities - 50 114 620 147 Engineering & Technology - 496 543 174 40 Life Sciences & Medicine - 155 71 153 196 Natural Sciences - 32 134 91 157 Social Sciences & Management - 63 288 224 568 Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report 9 Benchmarking Services The Benchmarking Service utilizes the core data which has been collected over a period of ten years for the QS World University Rankings® and regional projects. The service provides a method of measuring and comparing a university’s performance and standards with those of its peers. It highlights institutional trends by presenting robust data in an accessible and comprehensive format and has been extensively used by institutions around the world as an important tool for strategic planning and research. 240 Benchmarking Methodology Institutions select a number (between 6 and 30) of target institutions from the QS World University Rankings list with which to compare themselves. A mixture of domestic and international institutions is ideal and a 3 to 5 year cycle is recommended in order to develop a comprehensive perspective. Utilizing our QS Classifications System, we are able to assist clients in choosing their peer list, which is a critical starting point for the benchmarking process. What is included? ~ ~ World rank estimation for non-ranked institutions ~ ~ Trend data on ranking positions, including information not publicly available ~ ~ Access to the data behind the rankings, including Academic Reputation, Employer Reputation and Research Performance results ~ ~ Variances in performance and a variety of other metrics Advantages to Institutions ~ ~ Allow institutions exclusive access to data used for the QS World University Rankings ~ ~ Help institutions understand their position regionally, nationally and globally ~ ~ Provides context to assist in setting realistic and achievable targets ~ ~ Challenges operational complacency ~ ~ Creates an atmosphere conducive to continuous improvement ~ ~ Identify gaps and weak areas to indicate what is required to improve competitiveness 8 | QSIU Services
MODULE 2 The charts in this module represent a snapshot of performance across all the indicators utilised in the 2012 Rankings, each presented in contrast to Atlantis’ 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. Some insights can be drawn from analysing the results of the peer institutions: • Typically the more hexagonal the ‘shape’ of the institution, the better the performance, as exemplified by Template (Chart 2.1). However this shape is not completely achieved for any of the selected peers as most of them, including top performer Athenea University (Chart 2.1), exhibit a weakness in at least one area. An area of weakness, for the purposes of this module, is defined by an indicator position below the 200 mark. • At position 212, Atlantis does not perform particularly well in the International Faculty indicator. This may be a result of insufficient IPEDS data regarding international numbers, but overall, top American institutions, with only four exceptions in 2011, are not represented in the top 50 in this indicator. The exception is San Diez (Chart 2.1) which performs well in both international indicators. • Atlantis, ranked in the top 100, similarly has weaknesses in the international indicators, performing at 249 in International Faculty and 396 in International Students. • Atlantis’s domestic peers, University 1 and University 2, also struggle in the international indicators: the former performs at 541 in International Students and the latter at 239 in International Faculty. • University 4 outperforms the selected peers in both international indicators. • University 6 performs well overall at 84 however its ‘shape’ exhibits a distinct weakness in Faculty Student where it performs at 585. Otherwise, the selected peers perform well in the Faculty Student indicator, averaging a rank of 56. • University 5 performs well in all of the indicators except for the Employer Reputation index, where it performs at 204. Despite this, University 2 is placed at 12 overall. Peer 1 and Peer 4 and Peer 6 all outperform the institution in this indicator. University 3’s stellar and stable performance in the remaining indicators have helped it to achieve an impressive overall result. • Peer 2 leads the selected peer group in both reputational indicators, performing at six in Academic Reputation and four in Employer Reputation. KEY AR= Academic Reputation ER= Employer Reputation FS= Faculty Student CF= Citations per Faculty IF= International Faculty IS= International Student 26 Copyright © 2013 QS Intelligence Unit 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.7 • Currently Atlantis performs at the bottom of the group in both reputational indicators. It is placed at 232 in Academic Reputation and 432 in Employer Reputation. Top performer Peer 2 achieves the best performance among the domestic peer group, at 32 in Academic Reputation and 83 in the Employer Reputation indicator. DOMESTIC ANALYSIS There is a clear division in regional performance in the Citations per Faculty and Faculty Student indicators. Chart 2.8 shows the average country performance in all six indicators. Analysts please write your own analysis. In the Citations per Faculty indicator, institutions based in Country 2 perform on average 35% better than those located in Country 3, and 24% better than those in Country 2 and 19% in Country 1. However, in terms of average country performance in the Faculty Student indicator, institutions in the region clearly dominate. Sample Country’s institutions perform on average 23% better than institutions located in the US. Benchmarking Service: Template - Year 1 Report 27 2.8 Benchmarking Deliverables COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Benchmarking Service University of Atlantis “Specifically, we will use your information to identify institutions that could be a reference for us in key aspects, and to estimate the time we need to see changes reflected in our performance and in the perception of academics and employers... Modules 2 and 3 clearly explain where we should focus to improve in our rankings performance. The benchmarking analysis by subject areas, citations and productivity (module 4) clearly describes the current situation and impact of research activities of our University in comparison with other institutions. The same kind of clarity can be found in Module 5, where we can get useful conclusions and successful examples that we can follow.” Dr. Antonio Elias Ochoa. Dirección de Planeación y Evaluación, Universidad de los Andes (Colombia) The Benchmarking Service is also available for the following ranking exercises: Regional Rankings: Asia and Latin America The purpose of each ranking is to provide a neutral and independent comparison of the quality of universities across the region, based on a set of criteria that commonly applies to all countries involved in the study. QS World University Rankings by Subject This ranking examines the institutional strength specific subject fields. Rankings in five key subject areas are produced: Arts & Humanities, Engineering & Technology, Life Sciences & Medicine, Natural Sciences and Social Sciences & Management. PRICING PRICING 3 year total fee - US$45,000 ~ ~ 5 standard modules, benchmarking against six institutions 5 year total fee - US$75,000 ~ ~ 5 standard modules, benchmarking against six institutions Additional institutions can be added to the benchmark list at a rate of $2,500 per institution per year. Supplementary modules can be added at a rate of $ 3,000 per module per year. www.iu.qs.com | 9
Page 1 and 2: Trusted. Independent. Global Guide
Page 3 and 4: QS Quacquarelli Symonds QS Quacquar
Page 5 and 6: Kazakhstan Al-Farabi Kazakh Nationa
Page 7 and 8: Benefits QS Stars offers your unive
Page 9: PRICING PRICING QS Stars audit fee
Page 13 and 14: www.iu.qs.com | 11
Page 15 and 16: Global Clientele Careful Reviews En
Page 17 and 18: www.iu.qs.com | 15
Page 19 and 20: Format QS World University Rankings
Page 21 and 22: The QSIU Website The QSIU Library V
Page 23 and 24: Contact us Head of sales Jason Newm

to download our latest brochure - QS Intelligence Unit

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?