to download our latest brochure - QS Intelligence Unit
to download our latest brochure - QS Intelligence Unit
to download our latest brochure - 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.
MODULE 2<br />
The charts in this module represent a snapshot of performance across<br />
all the indica<strong>to</strong>rs utilised in the 2012 Rankings, each presented in contrast<br />
<strong>to</strong> Atlantis’ results. In each case, the area inside the line represents<br />
the all round strength of the institution across the six principal ranking<br />
indica<strong>to</strong>rs and would correlate perfectly with the overall ranking performance<br />
were it not for the influence of weightings; essentially this<br />
display approach implies that each indica<strong>to</strong>r carries the same weight.<br />
Some insights can be drawn from analysing the results of the peer<br />
institutions:<br />
• Typically the more hexagonal the ‘shape’ of the institution, the<br />
better the performance, as exemplified by Template (Chart 2.1).<br />
However this shape is not completely achieved for any of the<br />
selected peers as most of them, including <strong>to</strong>p performer Athenea<br />
University (Chart 2.1), exhibit a weakness in at least one<br />
area. An area of weakness, for the purposes of this module, is<br />
defined by an indica<strong>to</strong>r position below the 200 mark.<br />
• At position 212, Atlantis does not perform particularly well in<br />
the International Faculty indica<strong>to</strong>r. This may be a result of insufficient<br />
IPEDS data regarding international numbers, but overall,<br />
<strong>to</strong>p American institutions, with only f<strong>our</strong> exceptions in 2011,<br />
are not represented in the <strong>to</strong>p 50 in this indica<strong>to</strong>r. The exception<br />
is San Diez (Chart 2.1) which performs well in both international<br />
indica<strong>to</strong>rs.<br />
• Atlantis, ranked in the <strong>to</strong>p 100, similarly has weaknesses in the<br />
international indica<strong>to</strong>rs, performing at 249 in International Faculty<br />
and 396 in International Students.<br />
• Atlantis’s domestic peers, University 1 and University 2, also<br />
struggle in the international indica<strong>to</strong>rs: the former performs at<br />
541 in International Students and the latter at 239 in International<br />
Faculty.<br />
• University 4 outperforms the selected peers in both international<br />
indica<strong>to</strong>rs.<br />
• University 6 performs well overall at 84 however its ‘shape’ exhibits<br />
a distinct weakness in Faculty Student where it performs<br />
at 585. Otherwise, the selected peers perform well in the Faculty<br />
Student indica<strong>to</strong>r, averaging a rank of 56.<br />
• University 5 performs well in all of the indica<strong>to</strong>rs except for the<br />
Employer Reputation index, where it performs at 204. Despite<br />
this, University 2 is placed at 12 overall. Peer 1 and Peer 4 and<br />
Peer 6 all outperform the institution in this indica<strong>to</strong>r. University<br />
3’s stellar and stable performance in the remaining indica<strong>to</strong>rs<br />
have helped it <strong>to</strong> achieve an impressive overall result.<br />
• Peer 2 leads the selected peer group in both reputational indica<strong>to</strong>rs,<br />
performing at six in Academic Reputation and f<strong>our</strong> in<br />
Employer Reputation.<br />
KEY<br />
AR= Academic Reputation<br />
ER= Employer Reputation<br />
FS= Faculty Student<br />
CF= Citations per Faculty<br />
IF= International Faculty<br />
IS= International Student<br />
26 Copyright © 2013 <strong>QS</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> <strong>Unit</strong><br />
2.1<br />
2.2<br />
2.3<br />
2.4<br />
2.5<br />
2.7<br />
• Currently Atlantis performs at the bot<strong>to</strong>m of the group in both<br />
reputational indica<strong>to</strong>rs. It is placed at 232 in Academic Reputation<br />
and 432 in Employer Reputation. Top performer Peer 2 achieves<br />
the best performance among the domestic peer group, at 32 in Academic<br />
Reputation and 83 in the Employer Reputation indica<strong>to</strong>r.<br />
DOMESTIC ANALYSIS<br />
There is a clear division in regional performance in the<br />
Citations per Faculty and Faculty Student indica<strong>to</strong>rs.<br />
Chart 2.8 shows the average country performance<br />
in all six indica<strong>to</strong>rs. Analysts please write y<strong>our</strong> own<br />
analysis. In the Citations per Faculty indica<strong>to</strong>r, institutions<br />
based in Country 2 perform on average 35%<br />
better than those located in Country 3, and 24% better<br />
than those in Country 2 and 19% in Country 1.<br />
However, in terms of average country performance in the<br />
Faculty Student indica<strong>to</strong>r, institutions in the region clearly<br />
dominate. Sample Country’s institutions perform on average<br />
23% better than institutions located in the US.<br />
Benchmarking Service: Template - Year 1 Report 27<br />
2.8<br />
Benchmarking Deliverables<br />
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS<br />
Benchmarking Service<br />
University of Atlantis<br />
“Specifically, we will use y<strong>our</strong> information <strong>to</strong> identify<br />
institutions that could be a reference for us in key<br />
aspects, and <strong>to</strong> estimate the time we need <strong>to</strong> see changes<br />
reflected in <strong>our</strong> performance and in the perception of<br />
academics and employers...<br />
Modules 2 and 3 clearly explain where we should focus <strong>to</strong><br />
improve in <strong>our</strong> rankings performance. The benchmarking<br />
analysis by subject areas, citations and productivity<br />
(module 4) clearly describes the current situation<br />
and impact of research activities of <strong>our</strong> University in<br />
comparison with other institutions. The same kind of<br />
clarity can be found in Module 5, where we can get useful<br />
conclusions and successful examples that we can follow.”<br />
Dr. An<strong>to</strong>nio Elias Ochoa. Dirección de Planeación y<br />
Evaluación, Universidad de los Andes (Colombia)<br />
The Benchmarking Service is also available for the following ranking exercises:<br />
Regional Rankings: Asia and Latin America<br />
The purpose of each ranking is <strong>to</strong> provide a neutral and independent comparison of the quality of universities<br />
across the region, based on a set of criteria that commonly applies <strong>to</strong> all countries involved in the study.<br />
<strong>QS</strong> World University Rankings by Subject<br />
This ranking examines the institutional strength specific subject fields. Rankings in five key subject areas are<br />
produced: Arts & Humanities, Engineering & Technology, Life Sciences & Medicine, Natural Sciences and<br />
Social Sciences & Management.<br />
PRICING<br />
PRICING<br />
3 year <strong>to</strong>tal fee - US$45,000<br />
~ ~ 5 standard modules, benchmarking against six institutions<br />
5 year <strong>to</strong>tal fee - US$75,000<br />
~ ~ 5 standard modules, benchmarking against six institutions<br />
Additional institutions can be added <strong>to</strong> the benchmark list at a rate of $2,500<br />
per institution per year.<br />
Supplementary modules can be added at a rate of $ 3,000 per module per year.<br />
www.iu.qs.com | 9