QSIU Benchmarking Sample Report 2011

Benchmarking ServiceYear 1 Report

Atlantis University

SAMPLE REPORT

Benchmarking Service: Year 1 - Sample Report

Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

QS Intelligence Unit Benchmarking Service—Year 1Prepared exclusively for Atlantis University by the QS Intelligence Unit.

Terms of Use

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

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

This report contains material which is owned by/licensed to QS. This material includes, but is not limited to, the design, layout, and content. Reproduction is prohibited other than in accordance with the copyright notice, which forms part of these terms and conditions.

All information contained in this report is believed to be correct and unbiased, but the publisher does not accept responsibility for any loss arising from decisions made based upon this information.

Copyright notice

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

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, elec-tronic, 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-Atlantis-2010-02) signed by Penelope Oppenheimer, Rector, dated 6 April 2010)

www.qs.com 1

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

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

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

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

Atlantis University ................................................................................................................... 10

University of Persephone ........................................................................................................ 12

University of Hsing Tua .......................................................................................................... 14

Siena Polytechnic ...................................................................................................................... 16

Universidad San Diez............................................................................................................... 18

Kowloon Private University .................................................................................................... 20

Polytechnic of Helena .............................................................................................................. 22

MODULE 2: Comparative Analysis ....................................................................................... 24

MODULE 3: Rankings Performance ...................................................................................... 26

MODULE 4: Research Performance ....................................................................................... 30

MODULE 5: Academic Reputation Performance ................................................................ 33

Appendix I: Key enhancements in methodology ................................................................ 37

Appendix II: Survey Results 2011 .......................................................................................... 39

Appendix III: Data definitions ................................................................................................ 41

Appendix IV: Country Report: Atlantis ................................not included in sample report

CONTENTS

SAMPLE REPORT

Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report - Sample Report

2 Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

Introduction

The QS Intelligence Unit (QSIU) Benchmarking Service builds upon many years of experience collecting institutional data and compiling the QS World University Rankings®. The objective is to provide institutions with a deeper insight into their compara-tive performance with their peers so as to guide strategy and investment.

An institution’s performance in rankings is subject to many factors. Any progress made may take time to be reflected in future rankings. In addition, many other institutions will also attempt to react to the results as published, potentially diminishing the impact of any action taken.

Whilst the QS Benchmarking Service provides an increased level of insight, it also highlights the complexity of what contrib-utes to university quality. The research exercise resulting in the rankings involves the collection of a great deal more data than is actually utilised for the rankings themselves. The challenges preventing the inclusion of many additional indicators are the availability and compatibility of data across countries and markets. On an international scale, financial metrics, for example, are extremely difficult to deal with – not only is the trivial matter of converting currencies a complication, but political, social and cultural factors come in to play to a great degree.

In addition, it is important to recognise that all of the data herein is merely quantitative and any conclusions based purely on them may not be entirely informed. Often qualitative factors which may not be self-evident may have an influence and addi-tional research should be combined with this to form a complete picture.

Notes

From 2004 to 2009, the results of the QS World University Rankings® were published in Times Higher Education. They remain the intellectual property of QS, as does the methodology upon which they have and will continue to be based. QS has no con-tinuing relationship with Times Higher Education and is currently in the process of developing new international partnerships.

Further Assistance

If you need any further help interpreting the content of this report, have any questions about processes or sources; have dis-covered any anomalies, peculiarities or errors, please contact QS. Detailed feedback and ideas for improvements are also very welcome; if there are data of interest that could be collected in the future they can be considered and potentially added to the project.

Abby ChauAnalystQS Intelligence [email protected]+44 (0)20 7428 2704

Ben SowterHead of DivisionQS Intelligence [email protected]+44 (0)20 7428 2783

www.qs.com 3

Institutions Considered

Atlantis University (Atlantis)

University of Persephone (Persephone) University of Hsing Tua (Hsing Tua)

Siena Polytechnic (Siena) Universidad San Diez (San Diez)

Kowloon Private University (Kowloon) Polytechnic of Helena (Helena)



Executive Summary

In 2011, the QS World University Rankings® were published for the eighth consecutive year, with more than 650 institu-tions from over 50 countries competing on a global level. Four key criteria were identified as a basis for evaluation: Research Quality, Teaching Quality, Graduate Employability and In-ternational Outlook. The rankings have become increasingly sophisticated and a range of additional supporting data has been collected. Global interest in rankings seems unabated, with alternative schemes sample report sample report.

The QSIU Benchmarking Service will evolve over time - even within the time frame of each individual offering. Additional modules may be added in the future, but in 2011, the stand-ard service involves five modules. An overview of what each module does, together with some key observations, is covered in this Executive Summary.

Currently there are five Atlantian universities which are con-sidered for the QS World University Rankings®. Atlantian institutions in particular are sample report. This means that they are sample report sample report. However as Atlantian countries develop and join the international stage, perceptions and sample report sample report follow suit. Atlantis Univer-sity (Atlantis) is poised for such a performance and it will be interesting to observe the sample report as Atlantian, and in particular Herculean, universities mature and strive for excel-lence during the next decade.

MODULE 1: Institution ReportsModule 1 provides a two-page overview of each individual in-stitution chosen to be included in the exercise. The complete-ness of each institution report depends on a number of factors:

• Whether the institution has been included in QSIU’s eval-uations in the year leading up to the report compilation

• How long the institution has been included in QSIU’s considerations

• How forthcoming the institution is with data that does not directly contribute to any of the QSIU’s evaluations

One will notice, for example, that there is some data miss-ing for 2006 for Atlantis University (Atlantis). This is because Atlantis first appeared in the QS World University Rankings® in 2007. A more detailed schematic of how these reports are structured can be found at the start of the module.

To acquire a quick feel for an institution, 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 a large amount of rank-ing data that is not available in the public domain, and is protected under the terms of the Non-disclosure Agreement referenced on the inside front cover. This includes rankings by indicator and faculty area outside the top 300 which are not generally published, and overall rankings outside the top 400 where the results are generally published in ranges.

A 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. QSIU prefers to extend interpretative guidance in a compre-hensive document such as this, when releasing this kind of data. As a result, this report may include specific information on some institutions which even the university in question may not, itself, have.

Additionally, included in Module 1 is information on other rankings for each institution. Data, if applicable, from the fol-lowing exercises are included:

• ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong)

• HEAACT

• Ranking Web of World Universities (Webometrics)

• Times Higher Education

• 4icu University Web Ranking

• Alexa Web Rankings

QSIU has endeavoured to present the most current institu-tional data, however, this may not always be possible. In the interests of providing the most up to date figures possible, data in the sections self-reported by institutions such as the Personnel, Exchanges, Financial, and Additional Information may not have been validated at the point at which this report was compiled.

Finally, each institution report includes a dated snapshot of the university website and its current logo, providing a quick, if basic, impression of the university’s brand position.

MODULE 2: Comparative AnalysisModule 2 provides a quick glance of each selected institution in comparison with 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 dif-ferences in ‘shape’ of each institution. Also included in Mod-ule 2 is a table illustrating the ranking by indicator for each of the last three years.

www.qs.com 5

Of particular interest in this module is the broad diversity of peers that Atlantis has selected for comparison. Kowloon for example, was established in 1556. The institutions closest in age to Atlantis are Persephone University (Persephone), Hele-na Polytechnic (Helena), and Siena Polytechnic (Siena). How-ever it is worth noting that Hsing Tua University (Hsing Tua) sample report sample undergoing a massive higher education restructuring and how this will ultimately affect its universi-ties is still unclear.

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 Reputation - 40%• Employer Reputation - 10%• Faculty Student Ratio - 20%• Citations per Faculty - 20%• International Faculty - 5%• International Students - 5%

Atlantis’s ‘shape’ reveals a key strength in the Employer Rep-utation index and the sample report sample, with weaknesses in the other indicators, including sample report and sample report and the Academic Reputation index. Although Atlantis performs well in the Employer Reputation index, it is worth noting that its score has declined since 2008. It is advisable for Atlantis to keep an up to date list of employers who have suc-cessfully recruited alumni.

In order to obtain a symmetrical hexagonal shape, Atlantis sample report sample report and Citations per Faculty indexes as it achieved scores of 220 and 333 respectively.

MODULE 3: Rankings PerformanceIf Module 2 provides an institution-by-institution snapshot, Module 3 provides a deeper analysis on an indicator-by-indi-cator 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 methodol-ogy take effect, such as the switch from Essential Science Indicators (Thomson) to ScopusTM (Elsevier). Therefore it is important to read the accompanying text prior to drawing conclusions.

This module shows that Atlantis sample report sample index, but also to influence its score in the sample report indicator. Atlantis outperforms Helena and Siena in the Citations per

Faculty index, however more work needs to be done to boost its sample report sample.

Recognition of research quality and output may take sample report sample report. Atlantis must work to make sure re-search output is regularly and consistently sample report.

The final chart in this module looks at Atlantis’s performance against the maximum available score for each indicator. Clear-ly sample report most indicators, particularly in the Academic Reputation sample report sample report. However Atlantis has been making strides in this indicator and has dramatically improved sample report.

More sample report activities may help to boost Atlantis’s reputation as an institution with a global outlook. Atlantian universities may find the international indexes a struggle in coming years as new visa requirements and other factors may affect this index in particular.

MODULE 4: Research PerformanceThere is more internationally comparable data available on the quantity and quality of research output than for any other aspect of universities’ activities. Partially this is because, es-pecially in the science and technical disciplines, it is easy to measure. It also reflects the reality that research output is cen-tral 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.

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 Uni-versity 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 produc-tivity and quality, sample report sample report.

This reveals some interesting strategic characteristics of differ-ent institutions. Among its selected peer group Atlantis is the only institution, along with Siena, which sample report sam-ple report sample report sample report. The selected peers in this sample report sample report.

Kowloon clearly dominates this landscape, producing a large volume of papers isample report sample report. However, its Citations per Faculty levels are not sufficient to achieve sam-ple report sample report. The University of Siena (Siena) in-stead dominates the Citations per Faculty index with a modest

SAMPLE REPORT



number of sample report sample report impressive Faculty Student ratio.

Atlantis sample report sample in volume but sample report, which is an internationally recognised indication of quality. Atlantis is not currently producing at a sufficient level to sam-ple report.

MODULE 5: Academic Reputation PerformanceAcademic Reputation is the well-documented centrepiece of the QS World University Rankings®. At 40% of the overall weighting, it divides opinion but remains the single most dis-cipline-independent evaluation of research quality used in any worldwide ranking. Module 5 provides a more detailed view of institutions’ performance by faculty area, also discerning between international and domestic reputation.

One conclusion from this analysis is that, in many cases, there are sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report this can be seen in most of the performances of the selected peers.

Atlantis achieves its highest score in the Arts & Humanities faculty in the domestic context, obtaining sample report sam-ple. However if you take into account sample report sample report, then sample report Atlantis sample sample report its reputation in both the domestic and international context. Of the selected peer institutions, Hsing Tua achieved the highest score in the same faculty, obtaining a score of 37.5 in the do-mestic context.

Supplying the QSIU research team with sample report sample raise Atlantis’s profile. Producing more sample report sample-faculties would also be of help.

Atlantis does not perform well enough in any of the faculties to sample report sample. Because Academic Reputation is tied to sample report practices, Atlantis sample report sample re-port reputational perceptions.

ConclusionThe QS World University Rankings® are not exhaustive. A university must devise its own path to performance improve-ment and should seek advice from many sources. There are many studies and evaluations that seek to define a world class university. Although obtaining the status of a ‘world class university’ has entered the higher education lexicon in recent years, it is advisable for universities to focus their resources to

provide a top-notch teaching and research environment which is conducive to its own mission and goals.

Atlantis is clearly making strides by sample report sample. However it needs work in most sample report sample global scale. Atlantis must focus on its sample report sample report as well as its sample report sample and International Faculty indexes.

It will be interesting sample report sample how Atlantian institutions position themselves on the world stage over the coming years sample report sample report sample report sample report who may look elsewhere for their international experience. A world class university is built upon many foun-dations and Atlantis needs to look at its overall structure, not just those aspects included in this report, to position itself on the global stage.

www.qs.com 7

SAMPLE REPORT

Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report – Sample Report


Institution Reports

The following section contains an individual report for each of the institutions. This page shows an annotated schematic of an institution report with some guidance notes to assist in their interpretation.

*QSIU has endeavoured to present the most current institutional data, however, this may not always be possible. In the interests of providing the most up to date figures possible, data in the sections self-reported by institutions such as the Personnel, Exchanges, Financial, and Additional Information may not have been validated at the point at which this report was compiled.

Personnel Data*

Full Time Equivalent data (or extrapolated alternative data) is used for the QS 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 suf-ficiently high. There will be some blanks here.

Financial*

Financial data are not the most universally completed so more blanks will appear here than in other areas. There may also be exchange rate related anomalies. The amounts appear in US dollars.

Scopus Data

Scopus results for Papers, Citations, and Impact appear in this section with overall results as well as in five faculty areas: Arts & Humanities, Engineering & Technology, Life Sciences & Medicine, Natural Sciences, and Social Sciences & Management.

Additional Information*

Additional information, including patents, staff with PhDs, teaching and student satisfaction, student graduation rate, students pursuing further study, and average entry requirements have been added to our report.

MODULE 1: Institution Reports

Other Rankings

Latest results, if applicable, for the various major ranking systems are listed. Previous results are in parentheses. At present, 2011 results are available only for Webometrics and 4ICU. Alexa web traffic results are dynamic.

www.qs.com 9

At a Glance

Grey lines on these charts reflect the performance of the institution on behalf of whom the report has been compiled.

Indicator and Faculty Area Scores

Institutional performance in each Indicator and Faculty Area is presented here along with global averages. The figures presented here have been through a rigorous validation process.

Comparisons on Rank

Methodological changes and definition enhance-ments have made it impossible to draw comparison from scores. All charted comparisons over time are based on rank position.

Web Capture

A quick screen capture of the home page of each institution’s website reveals a quick insight into its branding and priorities.



$

w

Personnel Data Headcount FTE Faculty 5,566 6,882 International Faculty 2,245 1,220 Students - - International Students 11,391 11,156 Undergraduates 26,327 21,255 International Undergraduates 140 136 Postgraduates 9,009 9,005 International Postgraduates 1,521 1,461

Exchange Data Headcount FTE Undergraduates Inbound 2,117 2,517 Undergraduates Outbound 3,181 4,181 Postgraduates Inbound 36 55 Postgraduates Outbound 24 44

Financial Data US$ Domestic Undergraduate Fees 11,700 International Undergraduate Fees 17,000 Domestic Postgraduate Fees 11,700 International Postgraduate Fees 17,000 Average Domestic Fees 14,200 Average International Fees 14,200 Annual Library Spending 26,213,400 Total Research Funding 43,600 Government 786,401,700 Industrial - Facilities Investment - Community Investment - Alumni Donations -

Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact Overall 15,613 86,964 5.6 Arts & Humanities 234 202 0.9 Engineering & Technology 604 911 1.5 Life Sciences & Medicine 1,899 17,024 9 Natural Sciences 1,778 13,750 7.7 Social Sciences & Mgmt 899 2,068 2.3

Additional Information Staff with PhD - Patents - Overall Student Satisfaction Rate - Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate - PhDs Awarded 1,001 Graduate Employment Rate - Students Pursuing Further Study - Average Entry Requirements -

QS Indicator Scores Atlantis GlobalOverall 51.4 -Academic Reputation 58.9 47.3 Employer Reputation 52.6 45.6 Faculty Student 61.3 48.7 Citations per Faculty 34.5 42.2 International Faculty 30.4 41.2 International Students 18.8 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores Atlantis GlobalArts & Humanities 19.7 19.4 Engineering & Technology 12.2 16.6 Life Sciences & Medicine 22.0 15.5 Natural Sciences 16.5 18.7 Social Sciences & Mgmt 24.7 18.6

Other Rankings ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) 111 (151) HEEACT 233 (223) Webometrics Ranking 284 (226) THE 111 4icu Web Popularity Ranking 248 Alexa Web Ranking 38333

Website CaptureWeb Address: www.atlantis.tu Date Taken: 2011-07-28

662 Institution Details


Institution Details Institution Name Atlantis University Abbreviation Atlantis Location Evian , Netherlands Foundation Year 1112 Classifi cation Size: XL ; Focus: FC ; Research: MD

Atlantis University

www.qs.com 11

Faculty Level Rankings

Faculty Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Arts & Humanities 210 126 500 167 301

Engineering & Technology 240 230 218 188 123

Life Sciences & Medicine 197 555 145 122 100

Natural Sciences 555 227 235 555 66

Social Sciences & Management 104 128 124 133 114

2011 QS World University Rank®

122 Overall Ranking

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 183 304 155 165 122

Academic Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 174 241 152 151 51

Employer Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 322 253 258 145 32

Faculty Student

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 500 288 65 141 56

Citations per Faculty

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 99 526 322 201 345

International Faculty

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 33 52 22 55 35

International Students

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2 22 52 56 56

SAMPLE REPORT



$

w

Personnel Data Headcount FTE Faculty 6,342 6,923 International Faculty 1,181 1,178 Students 7,726 7,715 International Students 4,226 1,226 Undergraduates 5,793 6,787 International Undergraduates 5,915 6,915 Postgraduates 4,333 3,328 International Postgraduates 5,311 5,511

Exchange Data Headcount FTE Undergraduates Inbound 4,030 4,660 Undergraduates Outbound 3,622 3,617 Postgraduates Inbound 4,080 4,560 Postgraduates Outbound 8,822 7,717

Financial Data US$ Domestic Undergraduate Fees 11,500 International Undergraduate Fees 25,000 Domestic Postgraduate Fees 11,500 International Postgraduate Fees 25,000 Average Domestic Fees 12,000 Average International Fees 12,000 Annual Library Spending 11,014,400 Total Research Funding 130,829,500 Government 96,311,900 Industrial 33,930,100 Facilities Investment 40,785,600 Community Investment 13,469,000 Alumni Donations -

Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact Overall 23,249 109,484 4.7 Arts & Humanities 334 303 0.9 Engineering & Technology 1,662 2,874 1.7 Life Sciences & Medicine 5,812 29,118 5 Natural Sciences 3,993 16,357 4.1 Social Sciences & Mgmt 349 843 2.4

Additional Information Staff with PhD 6,248 Patents 190 Overall Student Satisfaction Rate 30 Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate 88 PhDs Awarded 1,001 Graduate Employment Rate 21 Students Pursuing Further Study 65 Average Entry Requirements -

QS Indicator Scores Persephone GlobalOverall 50.9 -Academic Reputation 80.9 47.3 Employer Reputation 55.0 45.6 Faculty Student 27.8 48.7 Citations per Faculty 24.0 42.2 International Faculty 12.6 41.2 International Students 20.4 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores Persephone GlobalArts & Humanities 38.6 19.4 Engineering & Technology 20.1 16.6 Life Sciences & Medicine 16.2 15.5 Natural Sciences 28.1 18.7 Social Sciences & Mgmt 29.5 18.6

Other Rankings ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) 125 (258) HEEACT 225 (121) Webometrics Ranking 87 (52) THE 287 4icu Web Popularity Ranking 1571 (487) Alexa Web Ranking 12460

Website CaptureWeb Address: www.persephone.av Date Taken: 2011-07-28



Institution Details Institution Name University of Persephone Abbreviation Persephone Location Langhamire , Italy Foundation Year 1001 Classifi cation Size: XL ; Focus: FC ; Research: VH

University of Persephone

www.qs.com 13








22 Overall Ranking

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 22 173 192 45 22

Academic Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 65 88 86 86 81

Employer Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 350 171 153 55 172

Faculty Student

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 529 428 233 383 434


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 142 294 306 382 357


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 456 555 409 566 431


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 365 374 390 406 402



$

w

Personnel Data Headcount FTE Faculty 12,786 10,000 International Faculty 5,270 10,000 Students 11,786 12,475 International Students 5,270 2,364 Undergraduates 14,080 14,080 International Undergraduates 8,822 8,822 Postgraduates 4,080 4,080 International Postgraduates 58,477 2,249

Exchange Data Headcount FTE Undergraduates Inbound 7,726 7,726 Undergraduates Outbound 4,226 4,226 Postgraduates Inbound 11,786 11,786 Postgraduates Outbound 5,270 5,270

Financial Data US$ Domestic Undergraduate Fees 3,300 International Undergraduate Fees 12,100 Domestic Postgraduate Fees - International Postgraduate Fees 12,600 Average Domestic Fees - Average International Fees - Annual Library Spending 235,600 Total Research Funding 456,800 Government 321,700 Industrial - Facilities Investment 456,900 Community Investment - Alumni Donations -

Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact Overall 5,791 18,808 3.2 Arts & Humanities 91 501 5.5 Engineering & Technology 662 1,004 1.5 Life Sciences & Medicine 383 1,980 5.2 Natural Sciences 763 8,520 11.2 Social Sciences & Mgmt 467 6,774 14.5

Additional Information Staff with PhD - Patents 36 Overall Student Satisfaction Rate - Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate - PhDs Awarded 563 Graduate Employment Rate - Students Pursuing Further Study - Average Entry Requirements -

QS Indicator Scores Hsing Tua GlobalOverall 31.9 -Academic Reputation 19.8 47.3 Employer Reputation 55.0 45.6 Faculty Student 23.1 48.7 Citations per Faculty 22.4 42.2 International Faculty 89.6 41.2 International Students 85.6 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores Hsing Tua GlobalArts & Humanities 2.9 19.4 Engineering & Technology 9.9 16.6 Life Sciences & Medicine 5.8 15.5 Natural Sciences 9.1 18.7 Social Sciences & Mgmt 9.2 18.6

Other Rankings ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) 265 (404) HEEACT 256 Webometrics Ranking - THE 113 4icu Web Popularity Ranking 762 Alexa Web Ranking 47913

Website CaptureWeb Address: www.sample.ch Date Taken: 2011-07-28



Institution Details Institution Name University of Hsing Tua Abbreviation Hsing Tua Location Hsing Tua , China Foundation Year 1333 Classifi cation Size: L ; Focus: FO ; Research: MD

University of Hsing Tua

www.qs.com 15








361 Overall Ranking

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 305 292 296 318 361

Academic Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 413 438 384 422 523

Employer Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 212 153 124 222 122

Faculty Student

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 289 296 55 555 366


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 334 389 403 555 450


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 61 63 52 2 44


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 22 75 89 88 76



$

w

Personnel Data Headcount FTE Faculty 3,799 3,081 International Faculty 267 248 Students 5,191 5,191 International Students 1,434 1,011 Undergraduates 2,648 24,995 International Undergraduates 529 507 Postgraduates 6,049 3,763 International Postgraduates 905 504

Exchange Data Headcount FTE Undergraduates Inbound 3,799 24,995 Undergraduates Outbound 267 507 Postgraduates Inbound 17,579 17,579 Postgraduates Outbound 15,118 15,118

Financial Data US$ Domestic Undergraduate Fees 19,200 International Undergraduate Fees 36,300 Domestic Postgraduate Fees 19,900 International Postgraduate Fees 36,700 Average Domestic Fees 19,200 Average International Fees 30,300 Annual Library Spending 122,097,000 Total Research Funding 45,445,600 Government 564,621,400 Industrial - Facilities Investment 142,000,000 Community Investment - Alumni Donations 19,901,000

Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact Overall 28,187 210,560 7.5 Arts & Humanities 490 1,600 3.3 Engineering & Technology 1,336 2,361 1.8 Life Sciences & Medicine 4,545 49,045 10.8 Natural Sciences 3,044 29,347 9.6 Social Sciences & Mgmt 670 2,596 3.9

Additional Information Staff with PhD 30 Patents 211 Overall Student Satisfaction Rate 88 Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate 89 PhDs Awarded 58 Graduate Employment Rate 1,001 Students Pursuing Further Study 63 Average Entry Requirements 12

QS Indicator Scores Siena GlobalOverall 51.5 -Academic Reputation 47.1 47.3 Employer Reputation 18.3 45.6 Faculty Student 48.9 48.7 Citations per Faculty 91.5 42.2 International Faculty 25.0 41.2 International Students 9.6 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores Siena GlobalArts & Humanities 8.2 19.4 Engineering & Technology 20.4 16.6 Life Sciences & Medicine 12.6 15.5 Natural Sciences 24.5 18.7 Social Sciences & Mgmt 12.6 18.6





Institution Details Institution Name Siena Polytechnic Abbreviation Siena Location Siena , United States Foundation Year 1531 Classifi cation Size: M ; Focus: CO ; Research: VH

Siena Polytechnic

www.qs.com 17








70 Overall Ranking

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 211 11 56 86 70

Academic Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 244 164 208 111 100

Employer Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 361 445 46 222 213

Faculty Student

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 124 56 20 16 11


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 67 71 44 25 59


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 286 300 106 316 222


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 398 333 516 497 400



$

w

Personnel Data Headcount FTE Faculty 12,786 12,786 International Faculty 5,270 5,270 Students 47 407 International Students 178 178 Undergraduates 14,080 14,080 International Undergraduates 8,822 8,822 Postgraduates 1,014 1,014 International Postgraduates 3,747 3,747

Exchange Data Headcount FTE Undergraduates Inbound 7,726 7,726 Undergraduates Outbound 37 37 Postgraduates Inbound 1,292 1,292 Postgraduates Outbound 14 14

Financial Data US$ Domestic Undergraduate Fees 1,200 International Undergraduate Fees 4,200 Domestic Postgraduate Fees 2,400 International Postgraduate Fees 5,500 Average Domestic Fees 4,600 Average International Fees 5,700 Annual Library Spending 3,667,500 Total Research Funding 21,395,700 Government 268,090,000 Industrial 34,211,500 Facilities Investment 94,165,600 Community Investment 9,759,900 Alumni Donations 2,334,000

Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact Overall 7,982 32,708 4.1 Arts & Humanities 750 17,100 22.8 Engineering & Technology 3,039 7,522 2.5 Life Sciences & Medicine 1,454 8,384 5.8 Natural Sciences 527 2,455 4.7 Social Sciences & Mgmt 374 1,266 3.4

Additional Information Staff with PhD 522 Patents 19 Overall Student Satisfaction Rate 63 Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate 12 PhDs Awarded 181 Graduate Employment Rate 50 Students Pursuing Further Study 96 Average Entry Requirements -

QS Indicator Scores San Diez GlobalOverall 50.1 -Academic Reputation 46.4 47.3 Employer Reputation 68.1 45.6 Faculty Student 56.7 48.7 Citations per Faculty 27.2 42.2 International Faculty 84.8 41.2 International Students 54.3 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores San Diez GlobalArts & Humanities 14.7 19.4 Engineering & Technology 14.5 16.6 Life Sciences & Medicine 21.3 15.5 Natural Sciences 15.3 18.7 Social Sciences & Mgmt 14.3 18.6

Other Rankings ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) 123 (360) HEEACT 437 (377) Webometrics Ranking - (321) THE 456 4icu Web Popularity Ranking 306 Alexa Web Ranking 61198




Institution Details Institution Name Universidad San Diez Abbreviation San Diez Location San Diez , Colombia Foundation Year 1456 Classifi cation Size: L ; Focus: FO ; Research: HI

Universidad San Diez

www.qs.com 19








56 Overall Ranking

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 386 286 226 111 56

Academic Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 304 353 55 45 21

Employer Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 361 164 111 99 256

Faculty Student

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 420 348 86 45 83


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 243 354 456 366 211


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 231 95 76 45 56


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 153 182 198 111 123

SAMPLE REPORT



$

w

Personnel Data Headcount FTE Faculty 3,844 2,015 International Faculty 954 554 Students 19,573 18,455 International Students 4,880 4,821 Undergraduates 16,895 1,618 International Undergraduates 1,520 1,026 Postgraduates 4,890 6,000 International Postgraduates 2,345 2,978

Exchange Data Headcount FTE Undergraduates Inbound 461 359 Undergraduates Outbound 209 195 Postgraduates Inbound 90 56 Postgraduates Outbound - 75

Financial Data US$ Domestic Undergraduate Fees 3,300 International Undergraduate Fees 15,900 Domestic Postgraduate Fees 4,200 International Postgraduate Fees 12,800 Average Domestic Fees - Average International Fees - Annual Library Spending 8,310,400 Total Research Funding 194,688,700 Government 146,796,500 Industrial 30,478,600 Facilities Investment 82,687,200 Community Investment 27,559,700 Alumni Donations 8,059,800

Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact Overall 12,466 78,668 6.3 Arts & Humanities 95 1,678 17.7 Engineering & Technology 661 832 1.3 Life Sciences & Medicine 2,488 22,528 9.1 Natural Sciences 677 4,766 7 Social Sciences & Mgmt 380 1,288 3.4

Additional Information Staff with PhD 625 Patents 226 Overall Student Satisfaction Rate 95 Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate 88 PhDs Awarded 526 Graduate Employment Rate 63 Students Pursuing Further Study 56 Average Entry Requirements 4

QS Indicator Scores Kowloon GlobalOverall 56.1 -Academic Reputation 41.2 47.3 Employer Reputation 72.9 45.6 Faculty Student 64.9 48.7 Citations per Faculty 52.2 42.2 International Faculty 81.3 41.2 International Students 74.6 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores Kowloon GlobalArts & Humanities 17.7 19.4 Engineering & Technology 14.4 16.6 Life Sciences & Medicine 17.2 15.5 Natural Sciences 8.0 18.7 Social Sciences & Mgmt 12.9 18.6

Other Rankings ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) 231 (126) HEEACT 554 (526) Webometrics Ranking - THE 222 4icu Web Popularity Ranking 1571 (487) Alexa Web Ranking 55611




Institution Details Institution Name Kowloon Private University Abbreviation Kowloon Location Kowloon , Hong Kong Foundation Year 1236 Classifi cation Size: L ; Focus: FO ; Research: VH

Kowloon Private University

www.qs.com 21








111 Overall Ranking

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 133 129 162 158 111

Academic Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 178 259 312 555 25

Employer Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 148 181 133 122 188

Faculty Student

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 145 98 124 152 155


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 192 259 209 193 221


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 80 102 102 111 122


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 57 102 111 83 222



$

w

Personnel Data Headcount FTE Faculty 3,994 4,752 International Faculty 230 4,092 Students 50,225 51,225 International Students 2,080 2,080 Undergraduates 17,766 13,094 International Undergraduates 4,405 1,230 Postgraduates 230 6,005 International Postgraduates 3,094 7,450

Exchange Data Headcount FTE Undergraduates Inbound 3,009 13,300 Undergraduates Outbound 3,094 12,003 Postgraduates Inbound 230 230 Postgraduates Outbound 230 230

Financial Data US$ Domestic Undergraduate Fees 2,600 International Undergraduate Fees 6,000 Domestic Postgraduate Fees 3,300 International Postgraduate Fees 6,000 Average Domestic Fees 4,000 Average International Fees 6,000 Annual Library Spending - Total Research Funding 18,952,000 Government 51,416,000 Industrial 17,137,000 Facilities Investment 5,011,700 Community Investment 17,137,000 Alumni Donations 5,011,700

Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact Overall 34,284 66,667 1.9 Arts & Humanities 182 950 5.2 Engineering & Technology 6,114 6,164 1 Life Sciences & Medicine 3,153 7,372 2.3 Natural Sciences 2,724 9,267 3.4 Social Sciences & Mgmt 1,432 1,098 0.8

Additional Information Staff with PhD 639 Patents 123 Overall Student Satisfaction Rate - Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate - PhDs Awarded - Graduate Employment Rate - Students Pursuing Further Study - Average Entry Requirements -

QS Indicator Scores Helena GlobalOverall 53.7 -Academic Reputation 68.9 47.3 Employer Reputation 62.4 45.6 Faculty Student 59.8 48.7 Citations per Faculty 27.5 42.2 International Faculty 19.2 41.2 International Students 8.6 44.9

QS Faculty Area Scores Helena GlobalArts & Humanities 15.3 19.4 Engineering & Technology 37.3 16.6 Life Sciences & Medicine 18.3 15.5 Natural Sciences 22.0 18.7 Social Sciences & Mgmt 17.5 18.6


Website CaptureWeb Address: www.helena.pp Date Taken: 2011-07-28



Institution Details Institution Name Polytechnic of Helena Abbreviation Helena Location Underbridge , Czech Foundation Year 1553 Classifi cation Size: L ; Focus: CO ; Research: LO

Polytechnic of Helena

www.qs.com 23








51 Overall Ranking

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 84 163 144 153 51

Academic Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 105 105 111 65 15

Employer Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 70 58 104 33 42

Faculty Student

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 381 312 114 56 11


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 387 350 441 33 22


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 256 289 293 335 400


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 421 529 480 489 566

Benchmarking Service: Year 1 – Sample Report


The charts in this module display the performance of each of the institutions featured in the report across all the indicators utilised for the rankings in 2011, each presented in contrast to Atlantis’s results. In each case, the area inside the line rep-resents 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 infl u-ence of weightings - essentially this display approach implies that each indicator carries the same weight.

The ‘shape’ of Atlantis in 2011 clearly reveals a particular strength in the International Student index, sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report. This is an area in which Atlantis is performing on a competitive level. However, it has been widely reported that Atlantis sample report sample report sample report sam-ple report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report. . It will be interesting to see if Atlantis remains as popular a destination for foreign stu-dents but at the moment, sample report sample report sample

report sample report sample report sample report sample re-port sample report sample report.

Atlantis also does well in the Employer Reputation index, surpassing report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report.. These two in-dexes, however are not enough to propel Atlantis into a high position as its ‘shape’ lacks an overall excellence. More work is needed if Atlantis is to improve its performance.

Ranked 169th in the world, Siena’s near hexagonal shape clearly reveals strengths report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report. Employer Reputation surveys, however its scores in the four remaining indicators has propelled it to an impressive result.

Atlantis‘s shape also reveals several weaknesses in the four remaining indicators, Academic Reputation, Faculty Student, Citations per Faculty, sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample re-port sample report sample report sample report sample report

MODULE 2: Comparative Analysis

2.1 2.3

2.4 2.5 2.6

AR = Academic ReputationER = Employer Reputation

KEYFS = Faculty Student

CF = Citations per FacultyIF = International Faculty

IS = International Students

2.2

www.qs.com 25

sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report.

Atlantis also needs to work in the Faculty Student index. In 2007, it stood at 426, sample report sample report sample re-port sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report. The Faculty Student ratio is, at present, the only globally compara-ble and available indicator that has been identified to address the stated objective of evaluating teaching quality. Clearly it is not as satisfactory as a qualitative classroom evaluation as might be considered for a teaching assessment, but it does speak to the notion of ‘commitment to teaching’, which ought to correlate strongly, if not completely, with the level of teach-ing quality.

As depicted in the charts, all of the peers in the selected list have weaknesses in one or several indicators. Kowloon does extremely well overall, placed at 177. Sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample re-port sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report.

Atlantis also needs to improve its report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample re-port sample report sample report sample report. . It is interest-ing to note that Helena does not perform well in this indicator, positioned at 301. However, it is ranked 169 in the world, an impressive score. Helena’s scores in the Citations per Faculty report sample report sample report sample report sample

report sample report sample report sample report sample re-port sample report.

Table 2.1 shows the development of the peer group over the last three years and reveals a clearer picture of performance. Atlantis’s performance in the International Student index has remained fairly consistent. However its score in the Employer Reputation index has fallen from 231 in 2008, to 265 in 2009, and 289 in 2010.

The Academic Reputation and Citations per Faculty indexes can be closely aligned because a world class institution also produces a high volume of quality research. These two indica-tors also account for 60% of the overall score. Atlantis’s perfor-mance in the Academic Reputation has been quite impressive. It performed at sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report. Atlantis’s performance in both of these indicators, however, is not high enough to propel sample.

Hsing Tua also does not perform particularly well in the re-port sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report However its stellar score of 56 in the Academic Reputation survey has helped sample report sample report sample report sample report high quality research work if it is going to boost its performance.

2009 2010 2011

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

Atlantis 53 445 53 445 53 445 53 445 53 445 53 445 53 445 53 445 53 445

Helena 143 65 143 65 143 65 143 65 143 65 143 65 143 65 143 65 143 65

Hsing Tua 171 347 171 347 171 347 171 347 171 347 171 347 171 347 171 347 171 347

Kowloon 291 23 291 23 291 23 291 23 291 23 291 23 291 23 291 23 291 23

Persephone 220 130 220 130 220 130 220 130 220 130 220 130 220 130 220 130 220 130

San Diez 133 143 133 143 133 143 133 143 133 143 133 143 133 143 133 143 133 143

Siena 26 460 26 460 26 460 26 460 26 460 26 460 26 460 26 460 26 460

Table 2.1 Rankings performance by indicator across peer group 2009-2011

SAMPLE REPORT



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 fi ve years. The chart displays a unique bal-ance of selected peers, all of which show volatile performanc-es. Atlantis and sample report the most work to do in order to improve their performances. Sample report and sample report are the top performers in the selected peer list. Atlantis’s per-formance has been unstable since it fi rst entered the Rankings in 2005. The sharpest decline was sample report sample.

Kowloon showed sample report, when it was placed at 16. But since then, this performance has seen sample report. In 2011, it was placed sample report. Persephone, Siena, Atlantis, and Hsing Tua have also performed similarly and have seen their scores fall since 2007. Sample report is the only selected peer institution that has improved steadily since sample report.

Academic Reputation Performance (Chart 3.2)

Worth 40% of the overall score, the results of the Academic Reputation survey are most closely correlated with the overall scores. Atlantis and Helena have achieved relative stability in this indicator and as mentioned, this also correlates with the stability they have achieved in their overall scores. By contrast, San Diez, Kowloon, Atlantis, and Siena have extremely

fl uctuating sample report sample report, which also correlates with their unstable overall sample. Helena is the top per-former in this indicator at 15. But if you take into account that it performed at 17 in sample report, then their performance in 2011, has declined.

Atlantis has steadily improved in this indicator, from sample report in 2011. This is an impressive performance on which to base future improvement. Atlantis had a similar improved score between sample, but in 2011, the performance stalled and fell 411 places to 632.

As general response rates increase, the Academic Reputation index displays stronger consistency and robustness. In 2011, over 15,000 responses from academics with an average of 19.5 years in academia were recorded and considered. Sample re-port and sample report results may not take effect for at least sample report sample report from their date of introduction. This is due both in part to the sample report of the surveys and to the sample report of such work on the perception of an institution amongst sample report. Key strategies that may contribute to an improved performance in this indicator include:

• sample report sample report





MODULE 3: Rankings Performance

Chart 3.1 Overall rankings performance of selected universities 2007-2011

Chart 3.2 Academic Reputation of selected universities 2007-2011

www.qs.com 27

Employer Reputation (Chart 3.3)

Over the last three years the total number of responses to the Employer Reputation survey has increased dramatically from sample report sample report sample report in 2011. Sample report on some of the results, particularly between sample report, as in the case for Atlantis and Kowloon. Greater re-sponse levels sample report global representation and, as a result, there is a wider playing sample report competition. The inclusion of more responses in this index for this peer group sample report impact, as most of the institutions saw sample report or have been quite sample report. Atlantis, Atlantis, Atlantis, Helena, Persephone, and Kowloon have seen sample report.

In 2007, for the fi rst time, participating institutions were invit-ed to supply lists of employers to supplement the independent promotion carried out by QS. Institutions are encouraged to participate in this exercise to raise their profi les.

Atlantis gave a strong initial performance in this index in 2007 at 3. However, in 2011, this score has sample report 24. There are a number of strategies that may help an institution either attain, or maintain a top position in this indicator.

• sample report

• sample report

• sample report

• sample report

• sample report

• sample report

Faculty Student Ratio Performance (Chart 3.4)

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

Ratio Score RankAtlantis 10:1 48.8 230Helena 12.2:1 16 463Hsing Tua 7.8:1 45.7 283Kowloon 15.3:1 36.8 113Persephone 10.3:1 26.6 29San Diez 12.6:1 25.5 70Siena 28.6:1 21.2 198

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 sam-ple report. This may have had an adverse affect sample report, as seen in Atlantis’s performance. Not all the universities were affected in sample report. Kowloon’s performance improved dramatically sample report.

Here, ratios are calculated simply by taking the number of FTE faculty as a percentage of the sample report. Not many institutions in this sample report have seen a signifi cant im-provement in 2011. In fact, most of the peers do not perform very well in this index. Atlantis, Atlantis, Persephone, and Persephone in particular struggle in this sample report. It is well reported that institutions around the world sample. The sample report for many institutions will be diffi cult, potential-ly affecting sample report sample report sample report sample report.

Chart 3.3 Employer Reputation of selected universities 2007-2011

Chart 3.4 Faculty Student performance of selected universities 2007-2011

SAMPLE REPORT



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 ScopusTM in 2007 (see Ap-pendix I).

There are some major shifts in certain institutions’ perfor-mance that sample report sample: Helena, Atlantis, and Kow-loon, for example. Much improvement was made to the algo-rithms used to sample eliminating double counting between sample report sample report sample report sample report. In many cases, this has resulted in dramatically reduced overall sample report sample report sample report sample report. In some cases this adjustment proved corrective, sample report sample report sample report sample report. Atlantis per-formed at sample report sample report sample report.

Atlantis tops this indicator with an impressive score of 93. Persephone’s sample report in this index has suffered since sample report sample report sample report sample report. At-lantis is making slow headway, sample report sample report sample report sample report.

The results in Chart 3.5 reveal that this is an area ripe for sig-nifi cant improvement for Atlantis as sample report sample re-port sample report sample report. An effi cient way of achiev-ing this can be sending more sample report sample report sample report sample report. This can be an effective starting point in which Atlantis can disseminate its sample report sam-ple report sample report sample report. It is also important to note that sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report.

International Faculty Performance (Chart 3.6)

Chart 3.6 reveals that Atlantis has lost ground in this indica-tor. In 2007, it recorded a score of 63 but in 2011 this has fallen to sample report. By contrast, Atlantis’s domestic peers, Kow-loon and Persephone, are continuing to make strides in this index. Atlantis performs quite steadily, scoring sample report. Persephone tops the peer group with an impressive score of 2.

The selected peers collectively perform sample report. Kobe has lost ground year on year and settles into sample report that sample report sample report and sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report, sample re-port sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report. . Persephone has also continuously declined since 2006. Atlantis has an uphill battle to regain the sample report.

International Students Performance (Chart 3.7)

Performance in the two international indicators can be strong-ly correlated, so it is perhaps no surprise that many of the leading universities in this index also do well in International Faculty. Persephone and Atlantis again top this indicator with the former institution achieving a score of 4. The two Asian in-stitutions, Kobe and Helena do not perform well in this index which follows global trends on mobile students.

Although Atlantis does not perform well in the International Faculty indicator, it achieves sample report. This is, in fact, At-lantis’s most stable performing indicator. However it has been reported that sample report sample report and sample report

Chart 3.5 Citations per Faculty rankings of selected universities 2007-2011

Chart 3.6 International Faculty rankings of selected universities 2007-2011

www.qs.com 29

sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report, sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report.

In order to increase international student numbers further, in-stitutions typically consider the following actions:

• sample report

• sample report

• sample report

• sample report

• sample report

A focus on international student recruitment will not only in-fl uence this indicator, but will also lead to a growing number of sample report sample report. This will contribute, in time, to the international recognition of the institution and may as-sist in sample report sample report sample report sample re-port with international universities and businesses.

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 where Atlantis would benefi t sample report sample report. Clearly attracting sample report sample report. However, improving in sample report sample report that sample report sample report and sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report, sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report. also extremely important, as this will also help to improve the sample report.

Chart 3.7 International Students rankings of selected universities 2007-2011

Chart 3.8 Atlantis’ results against the maximum available score

SAMPLE REPORT



The source of citations and publication data used in the QS World University Rankings® is ScopusTM (www.scopus.com) - a database compiled and maintained by Elsevier and one of three key international sources of publication and citation.

The citation criterion uses a count of all papers published during the last complete fi ve year period, and then totals the number of citations for those papers within the same period. The period in question for this report is 2006-2010.

The measures utilised for rankings do not take into account different citation patterns for different disciplines. In general, for example, papers in a medical fi eld will reach their citation peak much earlier than those in social sciences.

Module 4 sets out to provide an ‘under the surface’ evaluation of the indicators currently used in rankings, but also demon-strates the differences between different subject disciplines.

In order to collate this data, QS undertook a major exercise in mapping all of the ranked institutions into the Scopus da-tabase, identifying many name variants for each institution, totalling over 975,000 unique references for the 600+ universi-ties 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 present in any data-base of this size but is particularly infl uential where an institu-tion has affi liated components (such as hospitals or research institutes) that have their own distinct identity. Where this is the case we depend on institutions themselves to notify us of these, sometimes little known, relationships. For example at

one point, MIT had 1,741 identifi ed name variants in Scopus, illustrating the complexity of this ongoing work.

As a key piece of general advice, faculty members of the whole university sample report sample report sample report sample report. Whilst the mapping exercise can ensure that all papers and citations are accounted for, there sample report sample re-port sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report. Additionally, any other evalu-ation drawing on publication or citation data, from any data-base, is likely to fi nd it easier to track the work of your faculty sample report sample report sample report sample report.

Chart 4.1 shows these data broken down into fi ve broad sub-ject areas (those used for the Rankings). It can be seen from this chart that different faculty areas have different citation patterns. For most institutions, sample report sample report sample report sample report. Atlantis and Kowloon lead this chart in both sample report sample report. Helena also pub-lishes a high volume of papers sample report.

Atlantis’s highest citations per paper is in the sample report. In terms of output in this faculty, Atlantis performs in the top tier of the sample report.

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 sample report during the period concerned. Inevitably, higher productivity (assuming some degree of quality control) sam-ple report. However, this does not seem to be the case with

MODULE 4: Research Performance

Chart 4.1 Citations per paper by faculty area in Scopus 2006-2010

www.qs.com 31

the sample report sample report. Siena in particular produces a relatively high volume of work, however its sample report score in this index. It is well documented in the press that institutions in sample report increased their research paper output in sample report. However, this has not necessarily correlated with a higher Citations per Faculty performance as some sample report sample.

Atlantis, for example, sample report third for publishing the highest amount of papers. However it far outperforms the selected peer group sample report sample. For the years be-tween 2006-2010, it produced 12,557 papers and received a to-tal of 69,576 citations. In stark contrast, Siena produced 21,006 papers and received 58,639 citations.

In the same period, Atlantis produced 6,433 papers and re-ceived 22,919 citations. San Diez produces slightly more pa-pers and is more highly cited than Atlantis and thus its score is slightly higher. The Faculty Student ratio is also factored into the score but Atlantis and San Diez’s Faculty Student per-formances are relatively close, and thus this has not give either institution an advantage.

Research is the central foundation upon which world-class universities are built and this is currently an area in which Atlantis sample report sample report. Its score in this indica-tor has remained quite stable but it has settled in the sample report. The highest result was seen in 2006 when it was placed at 522. The Citations per Faculty index also affects sample

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

Chart 4.2 Papers and citations Scopus 2005-2009

SAMPLE REPORT



report as institutions which are recognised as top universities are also sample report.

Chart 4.3 shows the distribution of total citations by discipline. Again it reinforces the domination sample report sample report. Siena clearly produces a stellar amount of Natural Sci-ences research, whilst Atlantis dominates the Life Sciences. Ci-tations in sample report, Social Sciences & Management, and Arts & Humanities lag behind.

Clearly Olympia receives the lowest citations and most of the sample report. Atlantis, San Diez, and Kowloon also receive lower citation rates.

Chart 4.4 shows the development in productivity (total num-ber of papers published) over time. In general, productivity seems to have taken sample report, with the exception of

Olympia which has steadily increased its output since 2007. Siena easily outperforms the selected peers in terms of total papers. Atlantis must focus on improving in this index in order to improve its overall performance. Because it is a rela-tively young institution, sample report sample report.

Chart 4.4 Total papers published by year for selected peer institutions

www.qs.com 33

This module seeks to shed more light on the Academic Repu-tation indicator, which draws on responses from the global ac-ademic community in order to evaluate institutions. In order to understand performance in this indicator, it may be useful to look at the breakdown of responses both from a global as well as a domestic perspective.

To boost the size and stability of the sample, QS combines responses from the last three years where any respondent has responded more than once in the three year period; previ-ous responses are discarded in favour of the latest numbers. (Please refer to Appendix II: Survey Results 2010 for further information.) It should be noted, however, that international responses carry a heavier weighting than domestic responses.

Since 2007, institutions have been invited to submit lists of employers for QSIU to invite to participate in the Employer Survey. In 2010, that invitation was also extended to lists of academics. Since they are not allowed to submit in favour of their own institution, the risk of bias is minimal, nonPersepho-neeless submissions are screened and sampling applied where any institution submits more than 400 records.

In 2011, over sample report institutions supplied lists contrib-uting more than sample report additional academic contacts. Wherever sampling is required, respondents are selected randomly with a focus on delivering a balanced sample by discipline and geography. Naturally, all databases carry a certain amount of ‘noise’ and email invitations do get passed on. Responses are screened to remove any inappropriate ones prior to analysis.

The QSIU research continues to expand and diversify its re-sponse levels, particularly for countries that have, hitherto, been largely underrepresented. As response levels grow so will the playing field for competition.

Key Findings - Domestic and International Performance

The charts on the opposite page show performance in the Academic Reputation indicator in each faculty area. The horizontal bar chart indicates the proportion of the overall faculty score that is attributed to international and domestic responses.

The vertical bar chart highlights performance in the domestic sphere and indicates what percentage of the overall pos-sible domestic response rate, represented by the number, is achieved in each country.

Arts & Humanities (Chart 5.1)

• Kowloon achieves an overall score of 10.7 in this faculty. Its domestic score of sample report accounts for approxi-mately 60% of the overall score. However, in regards to the proportion of domestic responses achieved (In this instance, Korea received a total of 50 domestic responses.), Kowloon falls slightly below its domestic peer Atlantis.

• Despite being a technically-focused institution, Atlantis achieves a reputable overall score of 36.6. Its international response rates accounts for over 98% of the final score.

• Atlantis and Siena dominate this faculty, both with scores in the mid-twenties. Both institutions clearly have a healthy proportion of international responses. In terms of the proportion of domestic responses received, Atlantis sample report sample report.

Engineering & Technology (Chart 5.2)• Atlantis dominate the selected peer group in this faculty.

It is interesting to note that although Atlantis performs better overall, Siena has a slightly higher international re-sponse rate.

• Kowloon trails behind the selected peers in terms of over-all score. However its total domestic response rates (Korea has a total domestic rate of 111 respondents.) is slightly higher than Atlantis. This implies that Kowloon performs competitively in the domestic realm but should focus on its international response rates if it is to improve in this faculty.

• Persephone, Hsing Tua, and Helena enjoy a high rate of international responses which accounts for almost all of its overall score.

Life Sciences & Medicine (Chart 5.3)• Siena has widened its lead in this faculty. The institution

has built a sizable reputation for being a top university in this field. It is ranked high in Medicine and in Biological Sciences in the QS Rankings by Subject.

• Kowloon performs relatively well, achieving its second highest score in this faculty at 56.8. As with all the selected peers, domestic response sample report sample report sample report.

• Persephone does not perform particularly well in terms of domestic responses sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report.

MODULE 5: Academic Reputation Performance



Chart 5.3 Academic Reputation scores in Life Sciences & Medicine

Chart 5.2 Academic Reputation scores in Engineering & Technology

Chart 5.1 Academic Reputation scores in Arts & Humanities

www.qs.com 35

Chart 5.5 Academic Reputation scores in Social Sciences & Management

Chart 5.4 Academic Reputation scores in Natural Sciences

SAMPLE REPORT



Natural Sciences (Chart 5.4)• Kowloon achieves its highest score of 45.4 in this faculty

area. Helena’s performs similarly however its internation-al reputation rate is higher.

• Atlantis has retained a stellar performance however Perse-phone outperforms all the sample report sample report sample report.

• Persephone’s achieves a higher overall score than Kow-loon however in terms of domestic responses received as a sample report sample, Kowloon’s performance is much higher.

Social Sciences & Management (Chart 5.5)

In 2011, the strongest field of response was in the sample re-port, meaning that this area is the least prone to anomaly and should be the most reflective of reputation on the ground.

• Atlantis outperforms the selected peers, with 98% of its overall score attributed to international respondents.

• Helena dominates the group in terms of the number of do-mestic responses sample report sample report.

• Kowloon performs on a par with Persephone, Siena, and Tokyo in terms of domestic recognition of excellence.

ConclusionKowloon can work on improving in each individual faculty with an eye on producing sample report in order to boost its academic recognition of excellence both domestically and internationally.

Kowloon could also find that sending more sample report sample report improve recognition of academic rigour as well as brand recognition. Brand recognition is also achieved by sample report sample report sample report sample report.

Some institutions find that reputation is also tied to sample report sample report sample report sample report. Many sample report sample report sample report sample report, are currently forming sample report sample report sample report sample report. Kowloon may want to consider sample report sample report sample report sample report in order to share knowledge and to build a broader profile. Affiliations with sample report sample report sample report sample report can help Kowloon to improve its research range and quality, and its international and domestic perceptions.

As commented in earlier reports, it remains the case that the Academic Reputation index is the sample report sample report sample report sample report that results are slow to

come, but if consistent work sample report sample report sam-ple report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample re-port sample report.Natural Sciences (Chart 5.4)

• Kowloon achieves its highest score of 45.4 in this faculty area. Helena’s performs similarly however its internation-al reputation rate is higher.

• Atlantis has retained a stellar performance however Perse-phone outperforms all the sample report sample report sample report.

• Persephone’s achieves a higher overall score than Kow-loon however in terms of domestic responses received as a sample report sample, Kowloon’s performance is much higher.

www.qs.com 37

BackgroundThe THE – QS World University Rankings was first published in 2004 and has attracted a large volume of comment, reac-tion and feedback since. The project has assimilated a great many new ideas and has evolved into a stronger, more robust measure of comparative international university quality. In-clusion of the Employer Reputation in 2005 and the increased response to the Academic Reputation questionnaire are exam-ples of these enhancements. 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: Academic reviewers prevented from pro-moting their own university.Since the inception of the rankings the Academic Reputation has been the centrepiece of the ranking. 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 were placed on universities identified as excellent by academic reviewers, meaning that universities could potentially encourage their own academ-ics to sign up and complete the questionnaire in their favour. Whilst there has been no evidence to suggest a deliberate as-sault 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.

EFFECTThe effect of this development will be most profound where the Academic Reputation has received a particularly impres-sive 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 Ar-kansas, for example, 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 dataFor the 2006 results the time period for citation counts was slashed from 10 years to 5 years in response to feedback sug-gesting that the rankings ought to be a more contemporary measure of university strength. In 2004, when the rankings be-gan, 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 indica-tors at the time.

Coincidentally, Scopus was also born in 2004 and has rapidly evolved since that time. In 2007, Scopus has been able to an-swer 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 repre-sented 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.

EFFECTThe 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 universi-ties and institutions from academic systems with less empha-sis 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 dataWhen requesting “Number of Faculty” from a university, the diversity of response can be surprising. Indeed some in-stitutions 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 a FTE figure, where the FTE figure was to be utilised for the ranking. Where an FTE num-ber 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 scale

Appendix I: Key enhancements in methodology


of institutions and provide a stronger logic to our selection of indicators.

EFFECTThis 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 pre-vious years.

DEVELOPMENT: Z-score aggregation of indicators to gen-erate overall scoresIn previous years, scores for each indicator have simply been scaled against the top performer in that indicator – the top institution awarded 100 and subsequent institutions’ scores scaled against that maximum. There are some problems with that approach:

The smallest of errors in the top institutions 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 super-sedes the weighting for that indicator. For example, the dif-ference in score represented between coming first and second in “International Students” could represent the equivalent of coming 150th as opposed to 200th in the Academic Reputa-tion, 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 normalis-ing statistics and has been utilised for many years in certain domestic rankings of universities. There is a good technical ex-planation on the method on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_score).

EFFECTInstitutions 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 in-fluence on the whole dataset.

The curve for each indicator will be smoother resulting in a more functional application of the weightings.

Extreme results will not undermine the weighting for any giv-en indicator (Caltech scored 100 to Harvard’s 55 for Citations

per Faculty in 2006 essentially halving the influence of the in-dicator 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 its overall position.

www.qs.com 39

Academic Reputation

The Academic Reputation Index is the centrepiece of the QS World University Rankings® carrying a weighting of 40%. It is an approach to international university evaluation that QS pi-oneered in 2004 and is the component that attracts the greatest interest and scrutiny. In concert with the Employer Reputation Index it is the aspect which sets this ranking most clearly apart from any other.

Academic Respondents by Job Classifi cation

This seniority is refl ected further upon examination of the roles held by responding academics; the category “Other” features teaching assistants, students, librarians and others that have received and completed the survey but are excluded from our analysis. Over 300 Presidents and Vice-Chancellors of universities have taken the time to complete our survey.

Academic Respondents by Years in Academia

In 2010, a total of 15,050 responses were considered to compile the Academic Reputation Index. In general terms respond-ents are very experienced with an average of over 19.5 years

in academia and 48.5% of respondents with over 20 years’ experience.

Academic Respondents by Country

It is important to note that a higher number of responses from a given country does not lead directly to an improved perfor-mance for institutions in that country. Domestic responses are balanced and international responses carry a great deal more weight. On a country by country basis the picture looks like this.

balanced and international responses carry a great deal more weight. On a country by country basis the picture looks like this.

Appendix II: Survey Results 2011

Sample Report


Employer Reputation

The Employer Reputation component is unique amongst cur-rent international evaluations in taking into consideration the important component of employability. The majority of undergraduate students leave university in search of employ-ment after their fi rst degree, making the reputation of their university amongst employers a crucial consideration.

A common approach to the evaluation of employability in do-mestic rankings is graduate employment rate. There are two reasons why this indicator does not work at an international level - the fi rst is that this evaluation looks at the top universi-ties in the world - all of whom have very high employment rates - so it doesn’t provide very much discernment. The sec-ond is that, since we are looking at different countries, the re-sults would react to local economic conditions and not neces-sarily just the quality of the institution. So, instead, we survey employers to ask their opinion on the quality of graduates.

Employer Respondents by Sector

Responses by sector seem to favour sectors where recruitment tends not to favour any specifi c discipline with fi nancial and professional services appearing strongly.

Employer Respondents by Country

As in the Academic Reputation survey results, a higher num-ber of responses from a given country does not lead directly

to an improved performance for institutions in that country. India’s response rate is very high, accounting for almost a quarter of the survey respondents. However, this does not contribute to the country’s standing in the rankings, with the fi rst Indian institution (the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi) appearing at 202.

www.qs.com 41

Faculty

The FTE figure is utilised for comparative purposes. If a FTE figure is not provided, a number will be calculated based on the average ratio between FTE and Headcount across other institutions in a country or region.

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.

Included: vice-chancellors, deputy vice-chancellors, principals, professors, heads of school, associate professors, assistant pro-fessors, principal lecturers, tutors or postdoctoral researchers.

Excluded: research assistants*, PhD students who contribute to teaching, hospital residents and exchange scholars or visit-ing faculty staff who are members of another university.

* The important distinction for us is that staff counted as ‘re-search only’ should be academically involved in that research and should be likely to publish research outputs. A research assistant, in our understanding, is any individual who is not conducting their own research and is therefore not likely to publish research outputs. Said individual is (only) involved in research in terms of operational execution, such as a lab technician or equipment operator.

International Faculty Staff [personnel]

Number of academic faculty staff who are of foreign national-ity. The term ‘international’ is hereby determined by citizen-ship. For EU countries, this includes all foreign nationals, even if from another EU state. In Hong Kong, this includes profes-sors from Mainland China. Inclusion and exclusion mirrors those for academic faculty staff.

In case of dual citizenship, the ‘deciding’ criteria should be ‘citizenship obtained through birth’, basically first passport obtained.

Visiting International Faculty Staff – Inbound [personnel]

Number of academic faculty staff contributing to teaching or research at the university in the last annual reporting period who are visiting from an international institution for a mini-mum period of at least 3 months.

Visiting International Faculty Staff – Outbound [personnel]

Number of academic faculty staff employed by the institution contributing to teaching or research at an international institu-tion in the annual reporting period* for a minimum period of at least 3 months.

* The annual reporting period is the last complete academic, financial or calendar year.

Staff with PhD [personnel]

Number of academic faculty staff employed during the last annual reporting period1 by the institution that have been awarded a PhD or equivalent terminal degree2

1 The annual reporting period is the last complete academic, financial or calendar year.

2 A terminal degree is the highest academic qualification in a

given field.

Students - Overall

Students [personnel]

Total number of students. Where possible, it includes students pursuing degree level programs or higher.

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. In case of dual citizenship, the ‘deciding’ cri-teria should be ‘citizenship obtained through birth’, basically first passport obtained.

Total Outbound Exchange Students [personnel]

Total number of students registered at the 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 the university on interna-tional exchange programs for at least 1 semester in the last 12

Appendix III: Data definitions


months.

Student Fees – Domestic [currency]

Average tuition fees per academic year (two semesters) that a domestic student would be expected to pay for any program, with program referring to the complete range of courses con-tributing to a degree.

Student Fees – International [currency]

Average tuition fees per academic year (two semesters) that an international student would be expected to pay for a program, with program referring to the complete range of courses con-tributing to a degree.

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 tuto-rial seminars.

Undergraduate Information

Undergraduate Students [personnel]

Number of students pursuing a Bachelors level or equivalent degree. This excludes certificates/diplomas and associates degrees.

Undergraduate Students - First Year [personnel]

Number of students pursuing a Bachelor’s level or equivalent degree in their first year of study. This excludes certificates/diplomas and associate’s degrees.

Undergraduate International 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. In case of dual citizenship, the ‘deciding’ criteria should be ‘citizenship obtained through birth’, basically first passport obtained.

As for language students, if the language students take up a

particular language course that is outlined as ‘undergraduate degree program’ they should be included under ‘international undergraduate students’.

Language students who take part in a course not contribut-ing to a degree qualification should be counted under ‘Total International Students’.

Undergraduate Exchange Students – Inbound [personnel]

Number of undergraduate students attending the university on international exchange programs for at least 1 semester during the annual reporting period1.


Undergraduate Exchange Students – Outbound [person-nel]

Number of undergraduate students registered at the institu-tion who have attended another institution on an exchange program for at least 1 semester during the last annual report-ing period1.


Undergraduate Fees – Domestic [currency]

Average tuition fees per academic year (two semesters) that a domestic student would be expected to pay for an undergrad-uate program, with program referring to the complete range of courses contributing to a degree.

Undergraduate Fees – International [currency]

Average tuition fees per academic year (two semesters) that an international student would be expected to pay for an under-graduate program, with program referring to the complete range of courses contributing to a degree.

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 ses-sion in which a teacher has pre-defined material to cover. It does exclude tutorial seminars.

www.qs.com 43

Graduate/Postgraduate Information

Students - Graduate / Postgraduate [personnel]

This category draws together statistics pertaining to the graduate / postgraduate1 student body.

1 For clarity, graduate and postgraduate are synonyms to embrace all students pursuing Masters or Doctoral programs. The term graduate is more broadly used in US institutions and postgraduate in British and European institutions.

Graduate / Postgraduate International Students [person-nel]

Number of graduate / postgraduate students who are foreign nationals. The term ‘international’ is hereby determined by citizenship. For EU countries, this includes all foreign na-tionals, even nationals of other EU states.In Hong Kong, this includes students from Mainland China.

In case of dual citizenship, the ‘deciding’ criteria should be ‘citizenship obtained through birth’, basically first passport obtained.

As for language students, if they take up a particular language course that is outlined as ‘postgraduate degree program’, they should be included under ‘international postgraduate students’. Language students who take part in a course not contributing to a degree qualification should be counted un-der ‘Total International Students’.

Graduate / Postgraduate Exchange Students – Inbound [personnel]

Number of graduate / postgraduate students attending the university on international exchange programs for at least 1 semester during the annual reporting period*.


Graduate / Postgraduate Exchange Students – Outbound [personnel]

Number of graduate / postgraduate students registered at the institution who have attended another institution on an ex-change program for at least 1 semester during the last annual reporting period1.


Graduate / Postgraduate Fees – Domestic [currency]

Average tuition fees per academic year (two semesters) that a domestic student would be expected to pay for a graduate / postgraduate program, with program referring to the com-plete range of courses contributing to a degree.

Graduate / Postgraduate Fees – International [currency]

Average tuition fees per academic year (two semesters) that an international student would be expected to pay for a gradu-ate / postgraduate program, with program referring to the complete range of courses contributing to a degree.

Average Taught Graduate / Postgraduate Class Size [nu-meric]

The average size of class across all taught graduate / post-graduate programs. The term ‘class’ refers to an unit of in-struction or taught session in which a teacher has pre-defined material to cover. It does exclude tutorial seminars.

Financial

This category includes a range of statistics relating to funding and financial status.

In time, with sufficient data, we hope to use this data for deeper analysis – perhaps to identify institutions that are able to deliver a substantial impact with limited resources.

Annual Library Spending [currency]

Library expenditure for the most recent annual reporting period1.

1 The annual reporting period is the last complete academic or calendar year.

Research Funding – Total [currency]

A total figure for externally sourced funding, such as govern-ment and industrial funding, allocated specifically for re-search for the latest completed academic year or for the last 12 months.


Research Funding - Government [currency]

A total figure for government funding allocated specifically for research for the last annual reporting period* – funds from the EU or similar trans-national body can be included.


Research Funding – Industry [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 annual reporting period*.

Includes only externally sourced funding from the public and private sectors and excludes private donor support.

*The annual reporting period is the last complete academic, financial or calendar year.

Facilities Investment [currency]

Total amount spent in the last annual reporting period* on infrastructure and facilities investment (e.g. new buildings, refurbishments and upgrades, communications infrastructure, sports facilities, laboratory equipment etc…).

This can include external sources as well as private donors.

*The annual reporting period is the last complete academic, financial or calendar year.

Community / Cultural Investment [currency]

Total amount spent on community projects or cultural preser-vation in the last annual reporting period.1

Community investment relates to investment in the commu-nity local to where the institution is based, this could be any-thing 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 oth-erwise waning aspects of an institution’s national culture. Universities in Wales, for example, spend a great deal on pro-

tecting 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.

1 The annual reporting period is the last complete academic or calendar year.

Alumni Donations [currency]

A total figure for alumni donations in the last annual report-ing period.1

1 The annual reporting period is the last complete financial, academic or calendar year.

Graduate Output

PhDs Awarded [numeric]

Total number of PhDs (or equivalent terminal degree2) awarded in the last annual reporting period.1


2 A terminal degree is the highest academic qualification in a given field.

Graduate Employment [percentage]

Proportion of graduates (excluding those opting to pursue further study) in permanent employment within 12 months of graduation.

Graduates Pursuing Further Study [percentage]

Percentage of graduates (from undergraduate programs in the academic year ending prior to the last annual reporting period1) pursuing further study at the institution or any other within 6 months after graduation.


Entry Requirements

Average Entry Requirements [numeric]

The average academic achievement entry requirements for an

www.qs.com 45

institution.

Includes domestic requirements to the US Grade Point Aver-age system. The five-point numerical scale is typically cor-related 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 an institution has an “open access” admissions policy and will in no way count against an institution in any future table built upon this data.

World Education Services (WES) Toolkit is used as a guideline for conversion.

Full-Time Careers Advisors [numeric]

Total number of staff employed by an institution on a full-time basis who are exclusively responsible for career support for students (undergraduate and/or postgraduate).

Patents [numeric]

Number of current patents registered with national and/or international patent offices.

Student Satisfaction [percentage]

Student satisfaction is an increasingly popular measure in university rankings and evaluations at a domestic level. In principle, it serves as a measure both of teaching quality and related factors contributing to the student experience.

In practice, it is difficult to collect reliably and data is likely to prove challenging to compare internationally.

This category represents our first attempt to assess what infor-mation might be available on a global level.

Student Satisfaction – Teaching [percentage]

Percentage of all students expressing satisfaction with the quality of their program. This data can be sourced from an existing survey completed by students, for example the NSS (UK) or AuSSI (Australia).

Student Satisfaction – Overall [numeric]

Percentage of all students expressing satisfaction with their

overall university experience. This data can be sourced from an existing survey completed by students, for example the NSS (UK) or AuSSI (Australia).

Research Productivity & Quality

QSIU gathers these data once annually from Scopus – the larg-est abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature.

Number of Citations [numeric]

Total number of citations in the past 5 years for papers pub-lished in the past 5 years

Publications and citations are counted from the five years leading up to December 31 in the last completed calendar year.

Number of Papers [numeric]

Total number of papers published in the past 5 years obtained from Scopus.

Publications and citations are counted from the five years leading up to December 31 in the last completed calendar year.

www.qs.com

Copyright © 2009 QS Intelligence Unit

Date post:	25-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	qs
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

QSIU Benchmarking Sample Report 2011

Documents