Global University Rankings

Global University Rankings:

An Overview

CONTENTS

1. Introduction 2. Rankings Overview 3. Other Rankings 4. Rankings Methodologies & Results First Published i. US News & World Report 1985 ii. CHE (CHE Centre for Higher Education Development) 1998 iii. Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) (Shanghai Jiao Tong) 2003 iv. QS World University Rankings® (Quacquarelli Symonds) 2004 v. Webometrics* Ranking Web of World Universities (Cybermetrics Lab) 2004 vi. 4icu*.org University Web Ranking 2005 vii. HEEACT (Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan) 2007 viii. Mines ParisTech* 2007 ix. Leiden (Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University) 2007 x. Global Universities Ranking (Independent Rating Agency RatER) 2009 xi. SCImago Institutions Rankings (SIR) 2009 xii. Times Higher Education 2010 xiii. High Impact University (University of Western Australia) 2010

*Non-academic rankings

INTRODUCTION International university rankings are a comparatively recent phenomenon, with the first such exercise emerging in 2003. Rankings of international business schools, such as those published in the Financial Times or Business Week, have been with us for some time. However, the notion of comparing universities comprehensively on an international scale first emerged from Shanghai Jiao Tong University, with its Academic Ranking of World Universities in 2003, and from QS, with the THE-QS World University Rankings in 2004. Domestic rankings have been part of the higher education landscape for many years, with US News & World Report’s ‗America‘s Best Colleges‘ report being one of the first, emerging in 1983. However, that very landscape is being transformed by the onward march of globalisation, with international student mobility serving as a key indicator of change. The 2010 edition of the OECD‘s Education at a Glance estimates that there are 3.3 million students studying outside of their home country - a rise of more than 10% from 2009. According to the Chinese Ministry of Education, in 1950 there were just 20 international students studying in China, all from the Soviet Union; in 2009 this had grown to 240,000, representing 190 countries. The world has changed and with this change has emerged an increasing desire for comparative information - not only from prospective students and their parents, but also from universities themselves, governments, employers, investors and other stakeholders. Interest in rankings continues to grow. After Shanghai, QS and Webometrics emerged in 2004, the Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan joined the mix in 2007 and Times Higher Education has published a new evaluation in 2010. Along the way a variety of less well-known evaluations have emerged, such as the SCImago and Leiden exercises, based on publication and citation data; Mines ParisTech, a French Engineering School, has run an exercise counting CEOs of Fortune 500 companies; an NGO in Russia has released a Global Universities Ranking; and some faculty members from the University of Western Australia have taken a different approach to evaluating research impact. In this briefing pack we have attempted to draw together as much information on results and methodologies from as many of these sources as would allow us to reproduce their material. Our intention is to provide you with a valuable reference tool, reflecting the current reality of university rankings.

Ben Sowter Head of Division, QSIU October 2010

Rankings Overview

US News & World Report (Established 1985) http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges Editorial Offices: 1050 Thomas Jefferson Street NW Washington, DC 20007 202-955-2000 *Why does U.S. News rank colleges and universities? It's a controversial question with a simple answer: We do it to help you make one of the most important decisions of your life. Your investment in a college education could profoundly affect your career opportunities, financial well-being, and quality of life. As in the past, U.S. News recommends that readers think of the rankings as one tool for selecting a college. We recognize that prospective students must consider their academic and professional goals, financial resources, scholastic record, and special needs when choosing a school. And we recommend that students gather information on colleges in a number of ways—by talking to parents, high school guidance counselors, and other advisers; from college catalogs, view books, and websites; and from campus visits to form firsthand impressions.

*Text taken verbatim from http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-colleges/2010/08/17/why-us-news-ranks-colleges-and- universities.html

CHE UniversityRanking (Established 1998) CHE Centre for Higher Education Development Phone: +49 5241 97 61 0 Fax: +49 5241 97 61 40 E-Mail: [email protected] http://www.che-ranking.de *The CHE UniversityRanking, first published 1998, is the most comprehensive and detailed ranking of German higher education institutions. It includes 35 subjects and therefore serves more than three-quarters of all first-year higher education students. In addition to facts about study programmes, teaching, equipment, and research, the ranking also includes the assessments of 250,000 students on the study conditions at their HEI as well as an evaluation of the reputation of the departments by professors of the individual subjects. Since its launch, the CHE UniversityRanking has always provided fair, informative and qualified information for both the primary target group of first-year students, existing students, and for HEIs. All results are freely available on the Internet under Results (Ergebnisse des HochschulRankings). In 1998, the CHE published its first ranking in co-operation with Stiftung Warentest. The first ranking analysed business administration and chemistry programmes. In subsequent years, the range of subjects analysed has been continually expanded. From 1999 until 2004, the ranking was issued with the German magazine stern. Since 2005 it has been published by the German weekly newspaper DIE ZEIT. The CHE's is responsible for conception, data collection and analysis. The co-operation partner DIE ZEIT is in charge of publication, sales and marketing.

*Text taken verbatim from http://www.che-ranking.de/cms/?getObject=615&getLang=en

Shanghai JiaoTong – Academic Ranking of World Universities (Established 2003) [email protected] http://www.arwu.org/ First published in 2003 by the faculty of Shanghai Jiao Tong University, the Academic Ranking of World Universities was the first global rankings to appear on a major scale. The ARWU methodology awards 10% to each institution for alumni who have a Nobel Prize or a Fields Medal. 20% is given to an institution who has faculty members who have a Nobel prize and/or Fields medal. A further 20% is attributed to highly cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories. The final indicators measure research output with 20% attributed to papers published in Nature and Science journals. A following 20% is given to papers indexed in Science Citation Index-expanded and Social Science Citation Index. The final 10% is taken by using the weighted scores of these five indicators divided by the institution‘s number of full-time equivalent academic staff.

QS World University Rankings® (Established 2004) www.topuniversities.com Address: 1 Tranley Mews, Fleet Road London, NW3 2DG Phone: +44 (0) 20 7428 2782 QS has been conducting research in a range of areas since 1990, beginning with a global survey of MBA employers. The QS World University Rankings®, the most well-known research project that QS operates, has been in existence since 2004. To meet the increasing public interest for comparative data on universities and organisations, and the growing demand for institutions to develop deeper insight into their competitive environment, the QS Intelligence Unit (QSIU) was formed in 2008 as a distinct and autonomous department. Headed by Ben Sowter, QSIU is tasked with the research and production of the QS World University Rankings® as well as the QS Asian University Rankings, Subject Rankings, and future developments of more distilled rankings.

Webometrics Ranking Web of World Universities (Established 2004) http://www.webometrics.info/index.html For more information please contact: Isidro F. Aguillo CCHS - CSIC Albasanz, 26-28 28037 Madrid. SPAIN Currently the members of our team are Isidro F. AGUILLO, José Luis ORTEGA, Mario FERNÁNDEZ (Webmaster), Ana UTRILLA and Ana ALARCÓN. *The ―Ranking Web of World universities‖ is an initiative of the Cybermetrics Lab, a research group of the Centro de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales (CCHS), part of the National Research Council (CSIC), the largest public research body in Spain. Cybermetrics Lab is devoted to the quantitative analysis of the Internet and Web contents specially those related to the processes of generation and scholarly communication of scientific knowledge. This is a new emerging discipline that has been called Cybermetrics (our team developed and publishes the free electronic journal Cybermetrics since 1997) or Webometrics. With these rankings we intend to provide extra motivation to researchers worldwide for publishing more and better scientific content on the Web, making it available to colleagues and people wherever they are located. The "Webometrics Ranking of World Universities" was officially launched in 2004, and it is updated every 6 months (data collected in January and July and published one month later). The Web indicators used are based and correlated with traditional scientometric and bibliometric indicators and the goal of the project is to convince academic and political communities of the importance of the web publication not only for dissemination of the academic knowledge but for measuring scientific activities, performance and impact too. *Text taken verbatim from http://www.webometrics.info/methodology.html?zoom_highlight=wif

4icu.org University Web Ranking (Established 2005) http://www.4icu.org/ [email protected] *Your gateway to World Universities and Colleges

4 International Colleges & Universities is an international higher education search engine and directory reviewing accredited Universities and Colleges in the world. 4icu.org includes 10,000 Colleges and Universities, ranked by web popularity, in 200 countries. Being a non-paid directory, 4icu.org is free of charge to both visitors and organisations included. No registration is also required. *Text taken verbatim from http://www.4icu.org/

Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers of World Universities (HEEACT) (Established 2007) http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2010/homepage/ Contact: Mu-Hsuan Huang Professor, Department of Library and Information Science and Deputy Dean, College of Liberal Arts, National Taiwan University Researcher, Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan *This ranking system evaluates and ranks the scientific paper performance for the top 500 universities worldwide. Three criteria represented by eight indicators were used to assess a university‘s overall scientific paper performance: research productivity (accounting for 20% of the score), research impact (30%), and research excellence (50%). *Text taken verbatim from http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2010/Page/

Professional Ranking of World Universities (Established 2007) Service communication [email protected] 60, boulevard Saint Michel 75272 PARIS Cedex 06 France

International Professional Classification of Higher Education Institutions *The Ecole des Mines de Paris – MINES ParisTech – has proposed, for the third time in 2009, an International Professional Classification of Higher Education Institutions, established on the basis of the number of alumni listed among CEOs in the 500 largest worldwide companies. *Text taken verbatim from http://www.ensmp.fr/Actualites/PR/EMP-ranking.html

Leiden Ranking (Established 2007) Leiden University PO Box 905 2300 AX Leiden, The Netherlands tel. +31 71 527 3909 fax. +31 71 527 3911 e-mail: [email protected] *The Leiden Ranking aims at comparison of research institutions with impact measures that take the differences in disciplines into account. The Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, has developed a ranking system based on its own bibliometric indicators. This Leiden ranking focuses on all universities worldwide with more than 400 Web of Science indexed publications per year. This means that the 500 largest universities (in terms of publication numbers) in the world are covered. Thus, our bibliometric analysis is based on the scientific output of many hundreds to thousands of researchers in each of these universities. The Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University base the findings on bibliometric indicators. The ranking utilises 400 Web of Science indexed publications to analyse the top 500 global universities in terms of research. *Text taken verbatim from http://www.socialsciences.leiden.edu/cwts/products-services/leiden-ranking-2010-cwts/

Global Universities Ranking (Established 2009)

The Independent Rating Agency RatER 58, 3-d Tverskaya-Yamskaya Str., construction 5 Moscow 125047 Russia +7 495 720 49 29 +7 495 720 49 29 http://www.reitor.ru [email protected] http://www.globaluniversitiesranking.org/

*An independent rating agency RatER presents its first experience in formation of global ranking of the world‘s leading universities. We have picked out more than 500 world-known universities, including almost one hundred higher educational institutions of Russia, the CIS countries and Baltic, from almost 15 thousand universities throughout the world for further estimation. The definitive variant of the Ranking has included 430 universities. *Text taken verbatim from http://www.globaluniversitiesranking.org/

SCImago Institutions Rankings (Established 2009) SCImago Research Group University of Granada Communication and Information Science Faculty Campus Cartuja 18071 Granada, Spain e-mail: [email protected] http://www.scimagoir.com/ *About SCImago SCImago is a research group devoted to Science Evaluation by means of analysis, visualization and evaluation of the information contained in large scientific databases. SCImago Research Group has members at Spanish Research Council (CSIC) and Universities of Granada, Alcalá de Henares and Carlos III in Madrid, Extremadura in Spain and Porto (Portugal), National University of La Plata (Argentina) and Catholic University of Valparaiso (Chile). SCImago Research Group participates in the development of several scientific information analysis tools, being the most notable the journal evaluation environment SCImago Journal & Country Rank (http://www.scimagojr.com) which includes the SJR indicator used by Scopus to evaluate journal's scientific prestige. And the SCImago Institutions Rankings (http://www.scimagoir.com) to analyse the research performance of worldwide universities and research-focused institutions.

*Text taken verbatim from http://www.scimagoir.com/methodology.php?page=indicators

Times Higher Education 2010 (Established 2010) http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/ Times Higher Education, or THE, utilises a total of 13 indicators to define a world class university. Five indicators attributed to teaching account for 30% of the weighting. These component indicators include survey responses from academics asked to rate teaching quality at other universities, PhDs awarded per academic, undergraduates admitted per academic, bachelor and PhD awards, and income per faculty. International mix of students and staff gets a further 5% and industry income receives 2.5%. Research influence is measured by citations scaled per paper, which is given a weighting of 32.5%. Research reputation, income, and volume is attributed 30% which is further divided into four indicators – reputation, income, papers per academic and staff, and public research income.

HIGH IMPACT UNIVERSITIES (Established 2010) www.highimpactuniversities.com *This project is undertaken by a small team: Ba-Tuong Vo, Victor Sreeram and Ba-Ngu Vo, in our spare time. We also happen to be staff in the School of Electrical, Electronic, and Computer Engineering at the University of Western Australia. For any comments, positive or negative, or just some thoughts, please let our team know. An email address is provided below. [email protected]

*Text taken verbatim from http://www.highimpactuniversities.com/methods.html

Other Rankings

Canada – Canadian universities rankings http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2009/11/05/our-19th-annual-rankings/

China Research Center for Chinese Science Evaluation at Wuhan University http://rccse.whu.edu.cn/college/sjdxkyjzl.htm

India India Today and Nielsen Company – Leading Indian Universities http://indiatoday.intoday.in/special/bestcolleges/2010/

Pakistan Higher Education Commission – Pakistan universities ranking http://www.hec.gov.pk/insidehec/divisions/QALI/Others/RankingofUniversities/Pages/Default.aspx

United States Bloomberg Business Week – Top Undergraduate Business Programs http://www.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/bschools_undergraduate_10rankings.html

Forbes – America‘s Best Colleges http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/94/best-colleges-10_Americas-Best-Colleges_Rank.html

United Kingdom Guardian University Guide – All UK universities according to teaching excellence http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2010/jun/04/university-league-table

The Sunday Times University Guide – UK universities http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/stug/universityguide.php

The Independent Complete University Guide http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/the-complete-university-guide-top-10-universities-by-subject-1976144.html

Methodology: Undergraduate Ranking Criteria and Weights - US News ... http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-colleges/2010/08/17/m...

Subscribe | Contact Us | Article Index

HOME POLITICS & POLICY HEALTH MONEY EDUCATION SCIENCE TRAVEL CARS U.S.NEWS RANKINGS

Methodology: Undergraduate Ranking Criteria and Weights By Robert Morse Posted August 17, 2010

The U.S. News Best Colleges rankings 2011 edition, published online on Aug. 17, 2010, are based on up to 16 key measures of quality, described below. U.S. News uses these measures to capture the various dimensions of academic quality at each college. The measures fall into seven broad categories: peer assessment; graduation and retention rates; faculty resources (for example, class size); student selectivity (for example, average admissions test scores of incoming students); financial resources; alumni giving; and, only for national universities and national liberal arts colleges, graduation rate performance and high school counselor undergraduate academic reputation ratings. The indicators include both input measures, which reflect the quality of students, faculty, and other resources used in education, and outcome measures, which capture the results of the education an individual receives.

Scores for each measure are weighted as shown below to arrive at a final overall score. A more detailed explanation of the ranking indicators and methods appears below in our methodology and our definitions of ranking criteria.

This table below shows the relative percentage weights assigned to each ranking category and subfactor for the variables used in the rankings for National Universities, National Liberal Arts Colleges, Regional Universities, and Regional Colleges.

Category Weight Subfactor Weight

National Regional National Regional Universities Universities Universities Universities and and and and National Liberal Regional National Liberal Regional Ranking Category Arts Colleges Colleges Subfactor Arts Colleges Colleges

Undergraduate 22.5% 25% Peer assessment survey 66.7% 100% Academic Reputation High School counselor's rating 33.3% 0%

Student selectivity for 15% 15% Acceptance rate 10% 10% fall 2009 entering class High school class standing in top 40% 0% 10%

High school class standing in top 0% 40% 25%

Critical Reading and Math 50% 50% portions of the SAT and the composite ACT scores

Faculty resources for 20% 20% Faculty compensation 35% 35% 2009-2010 academic year Percent faculty with top terminal 15% 15% degree in their field

Percent faculty that is full time 5% 5%

Student/faculty ratio 5% 5%

Class size, 1-19 students 30% 30%

Class size, 50+ students 10% 10%

Graduation and 20% 25% Average graduation rate 80% 80% retention rates Average freshman retention rate 20% 20%

Financial resources 10% 10% Financial resources per student 100% 100%

Alumni giving 5% 5% Average alumni giving rate 100% 100%

Graduation rate 7.5% 0% Graduation rate performance 100% 0% performance

3 Methodology: Undergraduate Ranking Criteria and Weights - US News ... http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-colleges/2010/08/17/m...

Total 100% 100% — 100% 100%

Definitions of Ranking Criteria

Acceptance rate. The ratio of the number of students admitted to the number of applicants for fall 2009 admission. The acceptance rate is equal to the total number of students admitted divided by the total number of applicants. Both the applications and acceptances counted only first-time, first-year students. A lower acceptance rate scores higher in the ranking model and a higher acceptance rate scores lower.

Average alumni giving rate. The average percentage of undergraduate alumni of record who donated money to the college or university. Alumni of record are former full- or part-time students who received an undergraduate degree and for whom the college or university has a current address. Graduates who earned only a graduate degree are excluded. Undergraduate alumni donors are alumni with undergraduate degrees from an institution who made one or more gifts for either current operations or capital expenses during the specified academic year. The alumni giving rate is calculated by dividing the number of alumni donors during a given academic year by the number of alumni of record for that same year. These two separate alumni giving rates were then averaged for the 2008 and 2009 academic years. The percentage of alumni giving serves as a proxy for how satisfied students are with the school. A higher average alumni giving rate percentage scores better in the ranking model than a lower average alumni giving rate.

Average freshman retention rate. The percentage of first-year freshmen who returned to the same college or university the following fall. Average freshman retention rate indicates the average proportion of the first-year classes entering from fall 2005 through fall 2008 who returned the following fall. If a school submits fewer than four years of freshman retention rate data, then the average is based on the number of years that are submitted. A higher average freshman retention rate scores better in the ranking model than a lower retention rate.

Average graduation rate. The percentage of entering freshmen who graduated within a six-year period or less, averaged over the classes entering from fall 2000 through fall 2003. (Note: This excludes students who transferred into the school and then graduate.) If a school submits fewer than four years of graduation rate data, then the average is based on the number of years that are submitted. A higher average graduation rate scores better in the ranking model than a lower graduation rate.

Class size, 1-19 students. The percentage of undergraduate classes, excluding class subsections, with fewer than 20 students enrolled during fall 2009. A larger percentage of small classes scores higher in the ranking model than a lower percentage of small classes.

Class size, 50+ students. The percentage of undergraduate classes, excluding class subsections, with 50 students or more enrolled during fall 2009. A smaller percentage of large classes scores higher in the ranking model than a larger percentage of large classes.

Expenditures per student. Financial resources are measured by the average spending per full-time-equivalent student on instruction, research, public service, academic support, student services, institutional support, and operations and maintenance (for public institutions only) during the 2008 and 2009 fiscal years. The number of full-time-equivalent students is equal to the number of full-time students plus one third of the number of part-time students. (Note: This includes both undergraduate and graduate students.)

We first scaled the public service and research values by the percentage of full-time-equivalent undergraduate students attending the school. Next, we added in total instruction, academic support, student services, institutional support, and operations and maintenance (for public institutions only) and then divided by the number of full-time- equivalent students. After calculating this value, we applied a logarithmic transformation to the spending per full-time- equivalent student, prior to standardizing the value. This calculation process was done for all schools. If a school submits fewer than two years of expenditures per student, then the average is based on the one year that is submitted. Higher expenditures per student score better in the ranking model than lower expenditures per student.

Faculty compensation. The average faculty pay and benefits are adjusted for regional differences in cost of living. This includes full-time assistant, associate, and full professors. The values are taken for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 academic years and then averaged. If a school submits fewer than two years of faculty salary data, then 4 Methodology: Undergraduate Ranking Criteria and Weights - US News ... http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-colleges/2010/08/17/m...

only one year is used. (The regional differences in cost of living are taken from indexes from Runzheimer International.) If a school submits fewer than two years of faculty salary data, then the average is based on the one year that is submitted. Higher average faculty salaries after adjusting for regional cost of living score better in the ranking model than lower faculty salaries.

Faculty with Ph.D.'s or top terminal degree. The percentage of full-time faculty members with a doctorate or the highest degree possible in their field or specialty during the 2009-2010 academic year. A larger proportion of full-time faculty with the top terminal degree in their field scores better in the ranking model than schools with a lower proportion.

Graduation rate performance. The difference between the actual six-year graduation rate for students entering in fall 2003 and the predicted graduation rate. The predicted graduation rate is based upon characteristics of the entering class, as well as characteristics of the institution. This indicator of added value shows the effect of the college's programs and policies on the graduation rate of students after controlling for spending and student characteristics such as test scores and the proportion receiving Pell grants. If the actual graduation rate is higher than the predicted rate, the college is enhancing achievement or is over performing. If it's actual graduation is lower than the predicted rate, then it's underperforming.

This measure is included in the rankings for schools in the national universities and national liberal arts colleges categories only. The more a school's actual graduation rate is greater than the U.S. News predicted rate, the better it does in the ranking model. The more a school's actual graduation rate is less than the U.S. News predicted rate, the lower it scores in the ranking model.

High school class standing. The proportion of students enrolled for the academic year beginning in fall 2009 who graduated in the top 10 percent (for national universities and national liberal arts colleges) or 25 percent (regional universities and regional colleges) of their high school class. A higher proportion of students from either the top 10 percent or top 25 percent of their high school class scores better in the ranking model than lower proportions from either the top 10 percent or top 25 percent.

High school counselor rating score. For the first time, U.S. News counts guidance counselors' opinions in ranking the national universities and liberal arts colleges. This means that in the 2011 edition of the Best Colleges rankings, public school counselor ratings are used as part of the academic reputation measure for national universities and liberal arts colleges along with ratings by college admissions deans, provosts, and presidents. The rating by high school guidance counselors are weighted 7.5 percent in the national universities and liberal arts colleges rankings. The high school counselors we asked to participate were all from the 1,787 public high schools nationwide in 48 states and the District of Columbia that made the 2010 U.S.News & World Report's Best High Schools rankings. The high school counselor survey was conducted in spring 2010.

One survey to rate colleges in the National Universities ranking category was sent to one counselor at each of nearly 900 of these high schools nationwide, and a separate survey to rate colleges in the National Liberal Arts Colleges ranking category was sent to one counselor at each of the other 900 schools. Each state's ranked high schools were then divided in half, so the high school counselors were able to give an assessment of the nation's colleges and universities that is balanced geographically and by state. We asked the high school counselors to take into account the insights they use to direct students to particular colleges in addition to their knowledge about these schools in general. Also, we asked them to consider what they know about each college's academic record, curriculum, faculty, programs, and graduates. The counselors rated the quality of a school's undergraduate academic programs on a scale from 1 (marginal) to 5 (distinguished). Those who didn't know enough about a school to evaluate it fairly were asked to mark "don't know."

Scores for each school were totaled and divided by the number of counselors who rated that school, and then they were ranked in descending order based on the average high school counselor reputation score. Schools receiving the same rank and average reputation score are tied. Of those who received the High School Counselor National Universities survey and the High School Counselor National Liberal Arts Colleges survey, 21 percent responded. A higher average high school counselor reputation score does better in the ranking model than a lower average score.

Peer assessment. How the school is regarded by administrators at peer institutions. A school's peer assessment score is determined by surveying the presidents, provosts, and deans of admissions (or equivalent positions) at

5 Methodology: Undergraduate Ranking Criteria and Weights - US News ... http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-colleges/2010/08/17/m...

institutions in the school's category. Each individual was asked to rate peer schools' undergraduate academic programs on a scale from 1 (marginal) to 5 (distinguished). Those individuals who did not know enough about a school to evaluate it fairly were asked to mark "don't know." A school's score is the average score of all the respondents who rated it. Responses of "don't know" counted neither for nor against a school. The survey was conducted in spring 2010, and 48 percent of those surveyed responded, the same as in the previous year. A higher average peer assessment score does better in the ranking model than a lower per assessment score.

Proportion of full-time faculty. The proportion of the 2009-2010 full-time-equivalent faculty that is full time. The number of full-time-equivalent faculty is equal to the number of full-time faculty plus one third of the number of part-time faculty. (Note: We do not include faculty in preclinical and clinical medicine; administrative officers with titles such as dean of students, librarian, registrar, or coach, even though they may devote part of their time to classroom instruction and may have faculty status; undergraduate or graduate students who are teaching assistants or teaching fellows; faculty on leave without pay; or replacement faculty for those faculty members on sabbatical leave.) To calculate this percentage, the total full-time faculty is divided by the full-time-equivalent faculty (full-time equivalent faculty is full-time faculty plus one third of part-time faculty). A higher proportion of faculty who are full time scores better in the ranking model than a lower proportion.

SAT/ACT scores. Average test scores on both the Critical Reading and Math portions of the SAT and Composite ACT of all enrolled first-time, first-year students entering in fall 2009 are combined for the ranking model. Before being used as a ranking indicator, the scores from both tests are converted to the percentile of the national distribution corresponding to that school's scores on the Critical Reading and Math portions of the SAT and the Composite ACT. The SAT Writing section of the SAT was not used in the ranking model. For the second consecutive year, in order to better represent the entire entering class, we are now using a value that combines the values of both the Critical Reading and Math portions of the SAT and the Composite ACT of all entering students. A higher average entering class test score on the Critical Reading and Math portions of the SAT and Composite ACT scores better in the ranking model than lower SAT and ACT test scores.

Student/faculty ratio. The ratio of full-time-equivalent students to full-time-equivalent faculty during the fall of 2009, as reported by the school. Note: This excludes faculty and students of law, medical, business, and other stand-alone graduate or professional programs in which faculty teach virtually only graduate-level students. Faculty numbers also exclude graduate or undergraduate students who are teaching assistants. A lower student-to-faculty ratio scores higher in the ranking model than a higher ratio.

Tags: colleges | rankings | methodology

2011 Total 2011 Total Rank Institution Name Score Rank Institution Name Score 1 Harvard University 100 51 George Washington University 56 2 Princeton University 99 51 Tulane University 56 3 Yale University 98 53 Pepperdine University 55 4 Columbia University New 93 53 University of Florida 55 5 Stanford University 92 55 Syracuse University 54 5 University of Pennsylvania 92 56 Boston University 53 7 California Institute of Technology 91 56 Fordham University 53 7 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 91 56 Ohio State University--Columbus 53 9 Dartmouth College 90 56 Purdue University--West Lafayette 53 9 Duke University 90 56 Southern Methodist University 53 9 University of Chicago 90 56 University of Georgia 53 12 Northwestern University 89 56 University of Maryland--College Park 53 13 Johns Hopkins University 86 63 Texas A&M University--College Station 52 13 Washington University in St. Louis 86 64 Clemson University 51 15 Brown University 85 64 Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey 51 15 Cornell University 85 64 University of Minnesota--Twin Cities 51 17 Rice University 82 64 University of Pittsburgh 51 17 Vanderbilt University 82 64 Worcester Polytechnic Institute 51 19 University of Notre Dame 81 69 Northeastern University 50 20 Emory University 80 69 University of Connecticut 50 21 Georgetown University 77 69 Virginia Tech 50 22 University of California--Berkeley 76 72 Colorado School of Mines 49 23 Carnegie Mellon University 74 72 University of California--Santa Cruz 49 23 University of Southern California 74 72 University of Iowa 49 25 University of California--Los Angeles 73 75 Brigham Young University--Provo 48 25 University of Virginia 73 75 Indiana University--Bloomington 48 25 Wake Forest University 73 75 Marquette University 48 28 Tufts University 72 75 University of Delaware 48 29 University of Michigan--Ann Arbor 71 79 American University 47 30 University of North Carolina--Chapel Hill 70 79 Baylor University 47 31 Boston College 67 79 Miami University--Oxford 47 31 College of William and Mary 67 79 Michigan State University 47 SUNY College of Environmental Science and 33 New York University 66 79 Forestry 47 34 Brandeis University 65 79 University of Alabama 47 35 Georgia Institute of Technology 63 85 Auburn University Auburn 46 35 University of California--San Diego 63 86 Binghamton University--SUNY 45 37 Lehigh University 62 86 Clark University 45 37 University of Rochester 62 86 Drexel University 45 39 University of California--Davis 61 86 Stevens Institute of Technology 45 39 University of California--Santa Barbara 61 86 St. Louis University 45 41 Case Western Reserve University 60 86 University of Colorado--Boulder 45 41 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 60 86 University of Denver 45 41 University of California--Irvine 60 93 University of Tulsa 44 41 University of Washington 60 94 Iowa State University 43 45 University of Texas--Austin 59 94 University of California--Riverside 43 45 University of Wisconsin--Madison 59 94 University of Missouri 43 Pennsylvania State University--University 47 Park 58 94 University of San Diego 43 47 University of Illinois--Urbana-Champaign 58 94 University of Vermont 43 47 University of Miami Coral 58 99 Stony Brook--SUNY Stony 42 50 Yeshiva University 57 99 Texas Christian University 42

7 2011 Total 2011 Total Rank Institution Name Score Rank Institution Name Score 99 University of Dayton 42 151 Mississippi State University 31 99 University of Massachusetts--Amherst 42 151 University of Alabama--Birmingham 31 99 University of the Pacific 42 153 Polytechnic Institute of New York 30 104 Florida State University 41 153 University of Idaho 30 104 Howard University 41 153 University of Wyoming 30 104 Samford University 41 156 Illinois State University 29 104 University of Kansas 41 156 Pacific University 29 104 University of Nebraska--Lincoln 41 156 University of Cincinnati 29 104 University of New Hampshire 41 159 Adelphi University 28 104 University of Tennessee 41 159 Florida Institute of Technology 28 111 Illinois Institute of Technology 40 159 Texas Tech University 28 111 North Carolina State University--Raleigh 40 159 University of Hawaii--Manoa 28 111 University of Oklahoma 40 159 University of Maine 28 111 University of Oregon 40 159 University of Maryland--Baltimore County 28 111 University of South Carolina 40 159 University of North Dakota 28 111 Washington State University 40 159 Widener University 28 117 Loyola University Chicago 39 167 Azusa Pacific University 27 117 Michigan Technological University 39 167 University of Rhode Island 27 117 University of San Francisco 39 167 Virginia Commonwealth University 27 120 Catholic University of America 38 170 Biola University La Mirada 26 120 Duquesne University 38 170 Bowling Green State 26 120 University at Buffalo--SUNY 38 170 George Fox University 26 120 University of Arizona 38 170 Pace University 26 124 Clarkson University 37 170 South Carolina State 26 124 Colorado State University 37 170 Utah State University 26 124 Louisiana State University--Baton Rouge 37 176 Immaculata University 25 124 Ohio University 37 176 University of Louisville 25 124 University of St. Thomas 37 176 West Virginia University 25 Missouri University of Science and 129 Technology 36 179 Ball State University 24 129 University of Kentucky 36 179 University of Alabama--Huntsville 24 129 University of Utah 36 179 University of Central Florida 24 132 Kansas State University 35 179 Western Michigan University 24 132 Oklahoma State University 35 183 Kent State University 23 132 Temple University 35 183 Montana State University 23 132 University of Arkansas 35 183 San Diego State University 23 136 DePaul University 34 183 Southern Illinois University--Carbondale 23 136 Seton Hall University 34 183 St. Mary's University 23 136 University of La Verne 34 183 University of Hartford 23 139 Hofstra University 33 183 University of Massachusetts--Lowell 23 139 New Jersey Institute of Technology 33 183 University of South Florida 23 139 New School 33 191 Andrews University Berrien 22 139 Oregon State University 33 191 North Dakota State University 22 143 Arizona State University 32 191 University of Colorado--Denver 22 143 George Mason University 32 191 University of Montana 22 143 Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey 32 191 University of Nevada--Reno 22 143 St. John's University 32 191 University of North Carolina--Charlotte 22 143 University at Albany--SUNY 32 191 University of North Carolina--Greensboro 22 143 University of Illinois--Chicago 32 Tier 2 Barry University NA 143 University of Mississippi 32 Tier 2 Central Michigan University NA 143 University of Texas--Dallas 32 Tier 2 Clark Atlanta University NA

8 05/11/2010 Methodology

Methodology

The CHE UniversityRanking is drawn up on the basis of methodical standards that distinguish the various CHE rankings from other German or English rankings in four key areas:

It is strictly subject-related. There is no comparison of entire HEIs on a level that goes beyond the subjects. This is based on the belief that there is no such thing as "the best HEI". HEIs have individual profiles with strengths and weaknesses in different subjects It is multi-dimensional. This means that, for a given subject, no overall value is derived from weighted individual indicators. HEIs have very individual strengths and weaknesses even within a subject (such as course offerings, tutoring and equipment). In addition, there is no empirical or theoretical basis on which to give weighting to individual indicators. We have to assume that the preferences that lead the target group of first-year students to make decisions are heterogeneous. A pre-determined weighting of indicators would contradict this. It gives a picture of HEIs from different perspectives. In addition to facts about departments and study programmes, the views of lecturers and students are also taken into account when drawing up the ranking. This forms a more differentiated picture than that which exists in rankings that are based only on one particular group (such as students or staff managers) and therefore allows for contrasts to be made between subjective assessments and objective indicators. They do not give HEIs an individual ranking position but rather assign HEIs to three ranking groups, namely top group, middle group and end group. This is in order to avoid the misinterpretation of minor differences in the nominal value indicator as differences in performance and quality.

10 05/11/2010 Data collection

Data collection

To compile the UniversityRanking, the CHE conducts a number of different data collection phases. This data is collected through questionnaires administered to member of departments/faculties, professors, students as well as on an analysis of the publication activity of the academics of the respective department.

In addition, institutional level data is collected from the HEIs involved as well as from alumni and/or graduates. An analysis of invention disclosures in certain engineering and natural sciences subjects is also conducted.

An advisory board, consisting of representatives of the subjects analysed, provides expert support for the investigations. The questionnaires used for the data collection are customized to reflect special aspects of each subject being examined.

Different programms are evaluated in different years. These programms are currently re-evaluated in 2009: Mathematics, natural sciences, and medicine . Sports studies will also be included for the first time.

11 05/11/2010 Bibliometrics

Bibliometrics

Research findings will only become relevant in the academic world once they are made public. Depending on the discipline, this may be done through trade journals, articles in edited volumes, monographs and increasingly via electronic media. Such disswmination can be traced by utilising bibliometric analyses. As the preferred dissemination methods, as well as available databases vary highly in the respective disciplines, each subject included in the ranking has been analysed differently. For this reason, there can also be no interdisciplinary comparison of the key indicators.

Essentially, the investigation of the key indicators covers (i) activity indicators that indicate involvement in the dissemination of academic research, and (ii) quality indicators that measure the response to publications among members of the public that are experts in the respective field. Selecting publications via a database search on individual people covers a significant subset of the publications, but not the total publication output of the departments. For the first time in 2006, the ranking also included publications by young researchers, except for the field of medicine.

12 05/11/2010 Error bar diagrams

Ranking group formation and error bar diagrams

For the student assessments, the mean values of the specific study programmes are classified in relation to their relative position to the average value of all study programmes. A confidence interval vis-à-vis the respective mean value is a decisive factor in terms of the allocation to a particular ranking group. In addition to the number of assessments, this confidence interval takes into consideration the homogeneity of the assessments within a single department.

For the student assessments, a 95% confidence interval based on the assumption of normal distribution is used. If the confidence interval for a subject at an HEI is completely above or below the mean value for all study programmes (determined on a national basis) then the programme is allocated to the top or bottom group; otherwise the programme is placed in the middle group. The results therefore ensure that there are substantial and statistically significant differences in the mean values of programmes belonging to the top group and those belonging to the bottom group.

In contrast to rankings from other organizations based on quartiles (i.e. top 25%, top 50%, etc.) or that allocate HEIs to "Top 10" lists, the CHE UniversityRanking procedure does not define the number of HEIs that can be allocated to each group. The size of each group can vary based upon the extent of the internal variance between individual study programmes and the variance between analysed study programmes. As an example, if for a given subject, the differences between individual HEIs are minimal, and the responses from the departments are very heterogeneous, then most HEIs will be in the middle group with only a few HEIs found in the top or bottom groups.

It may occur that study programmes with the same or similar mean values but confidence intervals of different sizes are sometimes allocated to different ranking groups if these programmes are borderline cases in terms of the medium group and top/bottom groups. As a result, in rare cases, it may occur that a study programme with a better mean value is placed in the medium group whereas one characterised by a "worse" mean value is allocated to the top group.

Such a ranking procedure that deviates from a purely mean value-orientated group formation process is quite unusual but not at all implausible: the orientation towards confidence intervals shows consideration of the homogeneity of the assessments with respect to content; technically, on the other hand, it gives greater credibility to the "real" mean (statistical) value of the population. From this standpoint, it therefore makes sense that in those rare cases, a slightly worse but more homogeneous assessment from students leads to a better position than a slightly better but more heterogeneous assessment from the students. In the later case while the mean is higher, the confidence of that mean being a statistically accurate representation is lower. A demonstration of this situation can be seen in the figure below.

13 05/11/2010 Error bar diagrams

Figure: Ranking groups based on confidence intervals

The rank groups have the function of giving only a rough orientation. Within the top and bottom groups there may be significant differences between individual departments. Conversely, it is also possible that there is no significant difference in the mean value between some departments of the middle group and some of those in the top or bottom group. However, if the average assessment of the subject as a whole is taken for standard, the rank group allocation allows for a reliable identification of “good evaluation” and “bad evaluation”. It is part of the nature of groupings/group formations that in the case of very insignificant mean value differences, even very small differences may decide the placement into the top/middle/bottom groups.

When considering the position of the confidence intervals in the error bar diagram below, it is clear that for example HEI7 is on average evaluated better than the overall mean value. However, the length of the confidence interval does not allow the HEI to be placed in the top group. This may be the result of too large a dispersion/statistical spread/mean variation of the assessments or by a rather small number of cases. In contrast, for the same reasons, HEI32 is not allocated to the bottom group, whereas HEI28, which has a better mean value, is placed in the bottom group. In this example, the top group includes HEIs 1 to 6 and 8, while the bottom group includes HEIs 26, 28, 30, 31, 33 and 34.

14 05/11/2010 Error bar diagrams

Example: Error bar diagram for overall study situation

The pdf downloads for individual subjects contain an overview of the total mean value for ten selected indices from the student questionnaires well as the related error bar diagrams.

15 RANKINGS

German Language and Literature Here you find a first view of the universities offering the subject and their results Click on the names of the universities to see the detailed results! [more information]

BACHELOR'S DEGREE TEACHER'S QUALIFICATION

alphabetical order

Third party funds per academic [?] Library [?] Teacher support [?] Overall study situation [?]

RWTH Aachen

Uni Augsburg

Uni Bamberg

Uni Bayreuth

FU Berlin

HU Berlin

TU Berlin

Uni Bern (CH)

Uni Bielefeld

Uni Bochum

TU Braunschweig

TU Chemnitz

TU Dortmund

TU Dresden

Uni Düsseldorf

Uni Duisburg-Essen/Essen

Uni Eichst.-Ing./Eichstätt

Uni Erfurt

Uni Erl.-Nürnb./Erlangen

Uni Flensburg

Uni Freiburg

16 Uni Gießen

Uni Göttingen

Uni Greifswald

Uni Hamburg

Uni Hannover

Uni Heidelberg

Uni Hildesheim

Uni Jena

Karlsruher Institut für Technologie KIT

Uni Kassel

Uni Kiel Philosophische Fakultät

Uni Klagenfurt (A)

Uni Kobl.-Land./Koblenz

Uni Kobl.-Land./Landau

Uni Köln

Uni Konstanz

Uni Leipzig

Uni Magdeburg

Uni Mainz

Uni Mannheim

Uni Marburg

LMU München

Uni Münster

Uni Oldenburg

Uni Osnabrück

Uni Paderborn

Uni Passau

Uni Potsdam

Uni Regensburg

Uni Rostock

Uni Saarbrücken

Uni Stuttgart

Uni Trier

Uni Tübingen

17 HS Vechta

Uni Würzburg

Uni Wuppertal

Uni Zürich (CH)

Last update 2010: Data colleted by the CHE Center for Higher Education Development.

Finden Sie weitere passende Studienangebote zum Thema German Language and Literature in der ZEIT ONLINE Studiengang-Suchmaschine

18 ARWU Ranking Methodology 2010 http://www.arwu.org/ARWUMethodology2010.jsp

Ranking Methodology Selection of Universities | Ranking Criteria and Weights | Definition of Indicators Data Sources

Selection of Universities

ARWU considers every university that has any Nobel Laureates, Fields Medalists, Highly Cited Researchers, or papers published in Nature or Science. In addition, universities with significant amount of papers indexed by Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCIE) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) are also included. In total, more than 1000 universities are actually ranked and the best 500 are published on the web.

Ranking Criteria and Weights

Universities are ranked by several indicators of academic or research performance, including alumni and staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals, highly cited researchers, papers published in Nature and Science, papers indexed in major citation indices, and the per capita academic performance of an institution.

For each indicator, the highest scoring institution is assigned a score of 100, and other institutions are calculated as a percentage of the top score. The distribution of data for each indicator is examined for any significant distorting effect; standard statistical techniques are used to adjust the indicator if necessary.

Scores for each indicator are weighted as shown below to arrive at a final overall score for an institution. The highest scoring institution is assigned a score of 100, and other institutions are calculated as a percentage of the top score. An institution's rank reflects the number of institutions that sit above it.

Indicators and Weights for ARWU

Criteria Indicator Code Weight Quality of Education Alumni of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals Alumni 10% Staff of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals Award 20% Quality of Faculty Highly cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories HiCi 20% Papers published in Nature and Science* N&S 20% Research Output Papers indexed in Science Citation Index-expanded and Social Science PUB 20% Citation Index Per Capita Performance Per capita academic performance of an institution PCP 10% Total 100% * For institutions specialized in humanities and social sciences such as London School of Economics, N&S is not considered, and the weight of N&S is relocated to other indicators.

Definition of Indicators

Indicator Definition The total number of the alumni of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals. Alumni are defined as those who obtain bachelor, Master's or doctoral degrees from the institution. Different weights are set according to the periods of obtaining degrees. The weight is 100% for alumni obtaining degrees in after 1991, 90% for alumni Alumni obtaining degrees in 1981-1990, 80% for alumni obtaining degrees in 1971-1980, and so on, and finally 10% for alumni obtaining degrees in 1901-1910. If a person obtains more than one degrees from an institution, the institution is considered once only. The total number of the staff of an institution winning Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Medicine and Economics and Fields Medal in Mathematics. Staff is defined as those who work at an institution at the time of winning the prize. Different weights are set according to the periods of winning the prizes. The weight is 100% for winners in after Award 2001, 90% for winners in 1991-2000, 80% for winners in 1981-1990, 70% for winners in 1971-1980, and so on, and finally 10% for winners in 1911-1920. If a winner is affiliated with more than one institution, each institution is assigned the reciprocal of the number of institutions. For Nobel prizes, if a prize is shared by more than one person, weights are set for winners according to their proportion of the prize. The number of highly cited researchers in 21 subject categories. These individuals are the most highly cited within HiCi each category. The definition of categories and detailed procedures can be found at the website of Thomson ISI. The number of papers published in Nature and Science between 2005 and 2009. To distinguish the order of author affiliation, a weight of 100% is assigned for corresponding author affiliation, 50% for first author affiliation (second N&S author affiliation if the first author affiliation is the same as corresponding author affiliation), 25% for the next author affiliation, and 10% for other author affiliations. Only publications of 'Article' and 'Proceedings Paper' types are considered. Total number of papers indexed in Science Citation Index-Expanded and Social Science Citation Index in 2009. Only PUB publications of 'Article' and 'Proceedings Paper' types are considered. When calculating the total number of papers of an institution, a special weight of two was introduced for papers indexed in Social Science Citation Index. The weighted scores of the above five indicators divided by the number of full-time equivalent academic staff. If the number of academic staff for institutions of a country cannot be obtained, the weighted scores of the above five PCP indicators is used. For ARWU 2010, the numbers of full-time equivalent academic staff are obtained for institutions in USA, UK, France, Canada, Japan, Italy, China, Australia, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, South Korea, Czech, Slovenia, New Zealand etc.

Data Sources

Indicator Data Source Nobel laureates http://nobelprize.org/ 20 ARWU 2010 http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp

Academic Ranking of World Universities - 2010

Methodology | Statistics | Analysis

Top 100 101-200 201-300 301-400 401-500 Score Score Score Score Score Score World Regional National Total Institution* Region Country on on on on on on Rank Rank Rank Score Alumni Award HiCi N&S PUB PCP 1 Harvard University Americas 1 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 69.2 100.0 2 University of California, Berkeley Americas 2 2 67.6 79.3 69.0 70.9 70.6 54.2 72.4 3 Stanford University Americas 3 3 40.2 78.4 87.6 68.4 69.7 50.1 72.1 4 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Americas 4 4 70.5 80.3 66.8 70.1 61.4 64.5 71.4 5 University of Cambridge Europe 1 1 88.5 92.6 53.9 54.3 65.7 53.1 69.6 6 California Institute of Technology Americas 5 5 50.3 68.8 56.7 64.8 46.9 100.0 64.4 7 Princeton University Americas 6 6 56.4 84.8 61.1 43.3 44.3 65.5 60.8 8 Columbia University Americas 7 7 70.7 67.4 56.2 47.6 69.9 32.1 60.4 9 University of Chicago Americas 8 8 65.5 83.9 50.9 39.8 50.5 40.0 57.3 10 University of Oxford Europe 2 2 56.2 57.6 48.8 49.8 68.5 41.1 56.4 11 Yale University Americas 9 9 48.6 44.9 58.5 56.3 62.0 37.0 54.6 12 Cornell University Americas 10 10 42.3 51.1 54.3 49.9 59.5 38.1 52.6 13 University of California, Los Angeles Americas 11 11 27.2 42.6 56.9 49.2 75.1 31.2 52.2 14 University of California, San Diego Americas 12 12 15.1 35.8 60.2 54.6 65.1 37.9 50.0 15 University of Pennsylvania Americas 13 13 32.9 34.3 57.1 46.9 68.6 28.5 49.0 16 University of Washington Americas 14 14 24.4 31.7 53.9 51.6 72.5 28.1 48.7 17 University of Wisconsin - Madison Americas 15 15 36.5 35.4 51.9 40.2 66.1 25.7 46.4 18 The Johns Hopkins University Americas 16 16 43.6 32.1 42.0 49.4 64.0 27.2 46.0 18 University of California, San Francisco Americas 16 17 0.0 40.1 53.4 51.8 60.7 33.6 46.0 20 The University of Tokyo Asia/Pacific 1 1 33.3 14.1 42.0 52.0 80.4 34.5 45.9 21 University College London Europe 3 3 32.9 32.1 39.4 44.6 67.0 31.6 44.4 22 University of Michigan - Ann Arbor Americas 18 18 36.5 0.0 59.8 43.4 79.8 26.3 44.2 23 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich Europe 4 1 34.1 36.1 36.3 43.6 53.6 47.1 43.4 24 Kyoto University Asia/Pacific 2 2 33.7 34.7 38.1 36.0 67.6 31.0 43.1 25 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Americas 19 19 35.4 36.5 42.6 37.1 58.6 27.8 42.6 26 The Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine Europe 5 4 17.7 37.2 41.4 36.9 62.3 33.0 41.9 27 University of Toronto Americas 20 1 23.8 19.2 38.8 38.3 80.3 27.9 41.8 28 University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Americas 21 20 30.6 16.2 50.4 36.1 66.6 23.9 40.6 29 Northwestern University Americas 22 21 18.5 18.9 48.3 35.9 59.7 28.4 38.4 30 Washington University in St. Louis Americas 23 22 21.3 25.9 38.8 41.0 54.8 26.7 38.1 31 New York University Americas 24 23 32.4 24.4 40.7 36.2 54.4 22.4 37.8 32 University of California, Santa Barbara Americas 25 24 16.0 35.1 42.0 33.3 42.6 37.3 37.1 32 University of Colorado at Boulder Americas 25 24 14.1 30.7 38.8 41.7 44.7 33.5 37.1 34 Rockefeller University Americas 27 26 19.2 58.4 28.8 42.3 21.0 35.6 36.7 35 Duke University Americas 28 27 17.7 0.0 45.8 42.2 62.0 24.4 35.3 36 University of British Columbia Americas 29 2 17.7 18.9 32.2 30.8 65.7 23.7 34.7 36 University of Maryland, College Park Americas 29 28 22.0 19.9 41.4 29.0 53.6 26.2 34.7 38 The University of Texas at Austin Americas 31 29 18.5 16.6 46.1 28.4 54.4 24.7 34.5 39 Pierre and Marie Curie University - Paris 6 Europe 6 1 34.8 23.5 24.9 28.8 59.9 21.9 34.2

40 University of Copenhagen Europe 7 1 26.1 24.1 26.0 26.0 56.4 32.3 33.4 41 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Americas 32 30 10.7 16.2 39.4 27.7 60.6 23.9 33.3 42 Karolinska Institute Europe 8 1 26.1 27.2 31.4 20.5 49.9 38.1 33.2 43 Pennsylvania State University - University Park Americas 33 31 11.9 0.0 46.6 37.4 56.1 23.2 32.6 44 The University of Manchester Europe 9 5 23.2 18.9 27.9 28.0 59.1 23.1 32.4 45 University of Paris Sud (Paris 11) Europe 10 2 31.7 46.0 12.5 20.8 49.9 23.6 32.3 46 University of California, Davis Americas 34 32 0.0 0.0 47.2 31.7 63.0 26.0 32.0 46 University of California, Irvine Americas 34 32 0.0 29.3 36.7 26.3 49.3 26.9 32.0 46 University of Southern California Americas 34 32 0.0 26.7 38.8 26.3 53.1 20.0 32.0 49 The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas Americas 37 35 20.6 33.1 30.5 29.9 38.4 23.5 31.8 50 Utrecht University Europe 11 1 26.1 20.9 27.9 30.4 48.2 26.1 31.7 51 University of Zurich Europe 12 2 10.7 26.7 26.4 28.7 50.6 27.0 31.2 52 University of Munich Europe 13 1 31.5 22.8 16.1 26.3 54.5 30.7 31.1 53 Vanderbilt University Americas 38 36 17.7 29.5 31.4 20.2 50.8 19.1 31.0

21 ARWU 2010 http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp

Score Score Score Score Score Score World Regional National Total Institution* Region Country on on on on on on Rank Rank Rank Score Alumni Award HiCi N&S PUB PCP 54 Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey - New Brunswick Americas 39 37 13.1 19.9 40.1 27.9 43.7 23.2 30.9 54 The University of Edinburgh Europe 14 6 19.2 16.6 26.0 34.2 51.3 23.9 30.9 56 Technical University Munich Europe 15 2 39.2 23.5 24.9 19.5 46.5 29.2 30.7 56 University of Pittsburgh Americas 40 38 21.3 0.0 42.0 23.4 63.1 19.0 30.7 58 Carnegie Mellon University Americas 41 39 32.9 32.7 30.5 15.2 34.2 34.3 30.2 59 The Australian National University Asia/Pacific 3 1 15.1 12.6 36.0 27.8 43.8 31.1 29.6 59 The Ohio State University - Columbus Americas 42 40 15.1 0.0 41.7 22.8 62.0 19.1 29.6 61 McGill University Americas 43 3 31.1 0.0 32.2 22.9 59.6 25.3 29.5 62 University of Melbourne Asia/Pacific 4 2 19.9 14.1 22.8 18.7 63.1 27.0 29.3 63 King's College London Europe 16 7 14.1 23.0 31.4 16.7 50.7 25.0 29.1 63 University of Heidelberg Europe 16 3 16.9 27.0 17.6 23.0 50.6 28.6 29.1 65 Brown University Americas 44 41 16.0 13.6 31.4 29.6 41.9 32.1 29.0 66 University of Bristol Europe 18 8 9.2 17.8 28.8 29.1 47.3 25.1 28.9 66 Uppsala University Europe 18 2 22.0 32.1 14.4 19.9 49.5 26.6 28.9 68 University of Florida Americas 45 42 19.2 0.0 36.7 20.6 63.9 17.5 28.8 69 Purdue University - West Lafayette Americas 46 43 16.0 16.6 29.7 22.4 51.8 20.6 28.6 70 Leiden University Europe 20 2 21.3 15.4 27.9 19.9 47.8 32.4 28.4

71 Ecole Normale Superieure - Paris Europe 21 3 50.8 24.4 12.5 18.7 27.9 56.7 28.3

72 The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Asia/Pacific 5 1 31.5 19.9 24.9 20.8 41.6 26.5 28.1 72 University of Helsinki Europe 22 1 16.0 17.8 22.8 20.6 52.7 28.2 28.1 74 Moscow State University Europe 23 1 46.8 34.1 0.0 9.6 52.4 31.2 27.9 75 Osaka University Asia/Pacific 6 3 10.7 0.0 26.9 27.9 60.2 27.8 27.7

75 University of Oslo Europe 24 1 22.0 33.3 17.6 13.5 46.6 24.3 27.7 77 Boston University Americas 47 44 13.1 11.5 29.7 24.7 50.0 19.3 27.3 78 University of Arizona Americas 48 45 0.0 0.0 29.7 37.5 52.1 21.6 26.8 79 Stockholm University Europe 25 3 25.0 29.5 16.1 20.4 37.5 24.2 26.4 79 Nagoya University Asia/Pacific 7 4 24.4 14.1 16.1 24.3 48.1 26.1 26.4 81 Arizona State University - Tempe Americas 49 46 0.0 19.9 24.9 26.9 44.3 21.1 26.1 82 University of Rochester Americas 50 47 0.0 11.5 30.5 27.0 46.6 19.2 25.8 82 University of Utah Americas 50 47 28.2 8.9 26.9 20.6 43.3 21.9 25.8 84 Tohoku University Asia/Pacific 8 5 16.0 0.0 21.6 20.8 60.3 27.4 25.7 84 University of Nottingham Europe 26 9 13.1 19.9 23.9 16.1 47.6 20.9 25.7 86 Michigan State University Americas 52 49 10.7 0.0 37.4 19.1 52.4 18.7 25.5 86 University of Basel Europe 27 3 22.0 17.0 22.8 19.4 36.2 34.5 25.5 88 McMaster University Americas 53 4 14.1 18.9 22.8 14.8 47.3 22.8 25.2 88 The University of Sheffield Europe 28 10 19.9 14.1 21.0 21.3 44.3 22.6 25.2 90 Ghent University Europe 29 1 7.5 15.4 17.6 15.1 54.4 30.4 25.1 90 Indiana University Bloomington Americas 54 50 11.9 22.7 24.9 18.5 39.9 19.6 25.1 92 University of Sydney Asia/Pacific 9 3 16.9 0.0 20.4 18.4 61.4 25.1 25.0 93 University of Bonn Europe 30 4 16.9 19.9 14.4 23.3 42.5 24.3 24.9 93 University of Goettingen Europe 30 4 32.9 19.9 14.4 17.2 40.7 24.3 24.9 95 Texas A&M University - College Station Americas 55 51 0.0 0.0 34.5 21.0 54.0 21.0 24.8 96 University of Virginia Americas 56 52 0.0 0.0 34.5 26.8 47.5 19.5 24.5 97 Case Western Reserve University Americas 57 53 34.5 11.5 21.6 14.3 41.9 22.7 24.3 98 University of Aarhus Europe 32 2 13.1 18.9 7.2 23.5 48.4 25.4 24.2 99 Rice University Americas 58 54 18.5 21.8 21.6 18.8 30.2 29.6 24.0 99 University of Birmingham Europe 33 11 21.3 10.9 21.6 16.2 46.4 20.7 24.0 * Institutions within the same rank range are listed alphabetically. Top 100 101-200 201-300 301-400 401-500

22 Methodology: A simple overview | Top Universities http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-universi...

HOME UNIVERSITY RANKINGS STUDY ABROAD COUNTRY GUIDES SUBJECT GUIDES STUDENT SURVIVAL

World University Rankings Asian University Rankings Press Releases

home ›› university rankings ›› world university rankings ›› methodology: a simple overview

Methodology: A simple overview

The QS World University Rankings™ were conceived to present a multi-faceted view of the relative strengths of the world's leading universities. The research yields results on over 600 "in the round" and 300 in each of five broad faculty areas. The overall rankings are compiled based in six distinct indicators:

Indicator Explanation Weighting

Composite score drawn from peer review survey (which is Academic Peer divided into five subject areas). 9,386 responses in 2009 (6,354 40% Review in 2008).

Employer Score based on responses to employer survey. 3,281 10% Review responses in 2009 (2,339 in 2008).

Faculty Student Score based on student faculty ratio 20% Ratio

Citations per Score based on research performance factored against the size 20% Faculty of the research body

International Score based on proportion of international faculty 5% Faculty

International Score based on proportion of international students 5% Students

ACADEMIC PEER REVIEW

The Academic Peer Review is the centrepiece of the QS World University Rankings™ and is based on an online survey distributed to academics worldwide. Results are compiled based on three years worth of responses totaling 9,386 in 2009. Respondents are not permitted to submit their own institution or to respond more than once (their latest response is counted). Weightings are applied both geographically and by discipline to ensure as fair a representative spread as possible.

More on International Factors

1 of 2 07/12/2010 17:27 QS TOP 500 UNIVERSITIES 2010 rank 2009 rank Institution Country/ Territory Classification Academic Reputation Employer Reputation Faculty Student per Citations Faculty International Faculty International Students Overall Size Focus Res. Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank 1 2 University of Cambridge GB L FC VH 100 1 100 3 100 18 93 36 96 38= 95 39= 100.0 2 1 Harvard University US L FC VH 100 2 100 1 97 40 100 3 71 125 87 70= 99.2 3 3 Yale University US M FC VH 100 10 100 10 100 7 98 22 78 109= 66 149= 98.7 4 4 UCL (University College London) GB L FC VH 99 23 93 34 99 24= 91 41 94 45 99 18 98.5 5 9 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) US M CO VH 100 6 100 4= 100 21 100 9 31 265= 98 24 98.2 6 5= University of Oxford GB L FC VH 100 3 100 2 100 12 84 52 96 40 95 38 98.2 7 5= Imperial College London GB L FC VH 100 16 100 8 100 17 81 68 99 29= 100 11= 97.8 8 7 University of Chicago US M FC VH 100 13 96 25 98 32= 93 34 68 135= 89 64 97.5 9 10 California Institute of Technology (Caltech) US S CO VH 99 26 71 96= 93 49 100 1 99 22= 85 78 96.5 10 8 Princeton University US M CO VH 100 9 88 45= 82 83= 100 4 96 38= 82 94= 96.0 11 11 Columbia University US L FC VH 100 14 100 12= 98 37 97 25 17 301+ 91 56= 96.0 12 12 University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) US L FC VH 98 31 98 18 99 26= 96 28= 60 163= 64 153= 96.0 13 16 Stanford University US L FC VH 100 5 100 6 80 91= 100 2 19 301+ 99 17 93.6 14 14 Duke University US L FC VH 95 38 93 33 100 15= 97 24 17 301+ 57 187= 92.3 15 19 University of Michigan US XL FC VH 100 21 99 16 92 51= 87 48 52 184= 50 222= 92.2 16 15 Cornell University US L FC VH 100 15 95 28= 76 102= 98 23 26 292= 67 142= 90.4 17 13 Johns Hopkins University US L FC VH 96 36 65 129 98 35= 100 8 17 301+ 55 195= 89.7 18 20= ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) CH L FO VH 99 27 89 44 47 249= 99 13 100 13 98 22 89.3 19 18 McGill University CA L FC VH 99 25 98 19 87 70 63 126 66 149 95 44 89.3 20 17 Australian National University (ANU) AU M CO VH 100 18 80 64 75 106= 72 89 99 26 95 41 88.6 21 23 King's College London (KCL) GB L FC VH 92 49 88 49 90 56= 70 96 92 56 89 63 88.5 22 20= University of Edinburgh GB L FC VH 99 28 96 26 78 97= 65 118 83 88= 87 68= 88.0 23 24 University of Hong Kong (HKU) HK L FC VH 96 34 74 85 94 48 55 156 100 15 98 28 87.3 24 22 University of Tokyo, The JP L FC VH 100 8 97 21= 89 61= 75 80 12 301+ 39 278= 86.7 25 25 Kyoto University JP L FC VH 100 20 88 45= 96 41 72 86 14 301+ 24 301+ 85.9 26 32= Northwestern University US L FC VH 90 55 91 36= 86 74= 82 65= 12 301+ 92 54 85.4 27 34 University of Bristol GB L FC VH 90 53 99 15 79 96 71 94 84 84 71 126= 85.2 28 39 University of California, Berkeley (UCB) US XL FC VH 100 4 100 7 38 301+ 97 27 92 55 40 266= 85.2 29 29 University of Toronto CA XL FC VH 100 11 94 31 57 183= 79 70 79 105= 46 238= 84.3 30 26 University of Manchester GB XL FC VH 98 32 100 11 65 141= 55 158 85 77= 90 58= 83.3 31 30 National University of Singapore (NUS) SG XL FC VH 100 12 97 23 64 150= 44 224 100 7 100 13 82.8 32 42 Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) CH M FO VH 74 95 71 98 98 35= 71 90 100 3 100 7 82.3 33 28 École Normale Supérieure de Paris (ENS Paris) FR S SP VH 95 39 72 93 97 39 51 182 35 241= 75 115 82.1 34 27 Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) US M FC VH 89 57 83 55= 73 111= 76 77 37 232= 96 35 81.8 35 32= University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) US XL FC VH 100 7 98 17 43 278= 100 5 4 301+ 27 301+ 81.5 36 36= École Polytechnique, ParisTech FR S CO VH 75 92 98 20 100 8 58 142 70 128 95 42= 81.3 37 36= University of Sydney AU XL FC VH 99 24 93 32 54 199= 51 184 99 25 94 46= 81.3 38 36= University of Melbourne AU XL FC VH 100 19 100 9 40 300= 63 129 78 109= 95 39= 80.6 39 31 Brown University US M FC VH 87 61 71 101 60 167= 99 18 58 168 53 205= 80.5 40 35 Hong Kong University of Science and Technology HK M CO VH 86 64 71 99 82 85= 48 204= 100 5 98 26= 78.7 41 52= New York University (NYU) US XL FC VH 94 45 90 40 91 55 44 227= 22 301+ 51 212= 78.4 42 46 Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) HK L FC VH 88 58 64 133 74 110 55 161 97 37 86 76= 77.9 43 41 University of Queensland (UQ) AU XL FC VH 90 54 85 51 43 274= 69 101= 98 32 84 83= 77.6 44 40 University of British Columbia (UBC) CA XL FC VH 100 17 79 68 38 301+ 82 57 24 301+ 57 187= 77.4 45 51 University of Copenhagen DE L FC VH 87 60 66 126= 100 14 44 225 57 175 45 240 76.7 46 47= University of New South Wales (UNSW) AU XL FC VH 95 40= 91 35 40 300= 57 147= 81 95= 93 50 76.7 47 52= Peking University CN L FC VH 100 22 90 38 95 44= 23 301+ 18 301+ 34 299= 76.4 48 61= University of Wisconsin-Madison US XL FC VH 94 42 63 140 70 119= 69 101= 27 286 34 301+ 76.3 49 43= Osaka University JP L FC VH 84 68 69 109= 90 56= 72 88 13 301+ 25 301+ 76.2 50 47= Seoul National University (SNU) KR L FC VH 96 33 62 142= 90 58= 43 233 28 281= 38 281= 76.1 51 57 Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg DE L FC VH 93 48 38 276= 82 85= 55 162= 49 186= 74 119 75.9 52 43= Trinity College Dublin IE L FC HI 86 63 81 63 64 145= 46 214 99 29= 84 83= 75.0 53 58 University of Warwick GB L FC HI 92 50 100 12= 55 195= 31 301+ 85 80= 96 34 74.3 54 49= Tsinghua University CN L FC VH 98 30 78 70= 88 68 24 301+ 42 214= 27 301+ 74.2 55 80 University of Washington US XL FC VH 91 52 49 203 47 243= 100 7 9 301+ 25 301+ 73.8 56 49= University of Amsterdam NL XL FC VH 94 47 67 119 60 167= 64 124 37 234 27 301+ 73.5 57 78 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill US L FC VH 78 86 64 131 76 102= 88 46 10 301+ 17 301+ 73.2 58 55= Technische Universität München (TUM) DE L FC VH 78 85 81 61 97 38 34 278 46 195= 70 131= 73.0 59 66 University of Birmingham GB L FC VH 81 78 84 54 58 176= 56 153 80 100= 72 124= 72.7 60 55= Tokyo Institute of Technology JP M FO VH 75 94 73 91 88 69 67 111 22 301+ 44 245= 72.6 4 QS World University Rankings 2010 www.qs.com

WUR Mag 2010.indd 4 03/09/2010 16:40 QS TOP 500 UNIVERSITIES 2010 rank 2009 rank Institution Country/ Territory Classification Academic Reputation Employer Reputation Faculty Student per Citations Faculty International Faculty International Students Overall Size Focus Res. Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank 61 45 Monash University AU XL FC VH 95 40= 96 27 48 242 32 297= 57 174 97 31 72.5 62 75 Uppsala University SE L FC VH 85 65 45 230= 45 263= 86 50 75 118= 45 241= 72.2 63 63= University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) US XL FC VH 96 35 56 167= 23 301+ 89 43 32 257= 49 226= 71.8 64 54 Boston University US L FC VH 76 89 72 94 66 135= 71 93 14 301+ 88 65 71.7 65 76= University of California, San Diego (UCSD) US L FC VH 98 29 54 182 23 301+ 100 6 5 301+ 18 301+ 71.6 66 98 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LMU) DE XL FC VH 94 44 49 209 29 301+ 82 63 46 193= 59 178= 71.3 67 76= University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) US XL FC VH 96 37 84 53 26 301+ 68 107 55 181 35 292= 71.2 68 61= University of Auckland NZ L FC VH 94 43 90 39 29 301+ 40 248 92 57 98 29= 71.1 69 82 University of Sheffield GB L FC VH 72 101 81 62 67 131= 57 147= 80 102= 77 109= 70.8 70 94 Freie Universität Berlin DE XL FC VH 89 56 31 301+ 27 301+ 97 26 43 206= 73 121= 70.6 71 72 University of Geneva CH L FC VH 63 135 28 301+ 63 152= 93 35 99 19 100 16 70.5 72 67= Lund University SE L FC VH 85 67 66 125 40 300= 84 53 36 237 41 263= 70.4 73 91 University of Nottingham GB L FC VH 76 90 94 30 59 173= 42 234 85 77= 88 66= 70.0 74 73= Nanyang Technological University (NTU) SG L CO VH 82 76 75 82 69 122= 22 301+ 100 4 99 19 69.8 75= 108= University of Helsinki FI L CO VH 83 71 45 229 72 114= 71 92 28 284= 13 301+ 69.6 75= 73= Washington University in St. Louis US L FC VH 54 176 38 270 100 20 99 19 14 301+ 54 200= 69.6 77 79 University of Glasgow GB L FC VH 77 88 69 109= 61 158= 62 130 62 154 57 187= 69.5 78 59 University of Alberta CA XL FC VH 79 84 71 96= 57 183= 51 189 90 63 67 146= 69.3 79 69 KAIST - Korea Advanced Institute of Sci. & Tech. KR M CO VH 81 80 53 185= 88 66= 46 216 39 219= 25 301+ 69.1 80 67= London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) GB M SP VH 88 59 100 4= 47 249= 15 301+ 100 16 100 1 68.9 81 95= University of Southampton GB L FC VH 71 105 72 95 66 135= 53 172= 86 76 77 111 68.9 82 60 Leiden University NL L FC VH 83 72 46 223 27 301+ 99 14 70 129= 22 301+ 68.8 83 70= Utrecht University NL L FC VH 82 74 52 190 57 183= 76 78 39 222= 18 301+ 68.8 84 63= Aarhus University DE L FC VH 70 111 52 192= 91 53 48 203 56 177 67 142= 68.6 85 99 University of Leeds GB L FC VH 80 83 88 48 52 217= 41 244 72 123= 81 96= 68.1 86 65 Katholieke Universiteit Leuven BE XL FC VH 84 69 66 123 26 301+ 78 74 48 189 59 182= 67.6 87 87= Purdue University US XL FC VH 78 87 89 41= 37 301+ 57 150 93 49 60 173= 67.5 88 70= University of York GB M FC VH 66 124 80 66 67 131= 53 172= 76 114= 80 99= 67.4 89 84 University of Western Australia (UWA) AU L FC VH 71 104 67 118 40 300= 66 113 99 24 87 70= 67.0 90 85 Dartmouth College US M FC VH 45 231 77 75 86 74= 99 21 11 301+ 50 218= 66.9 91 92= Nagoya University JP L FC VH 66 123 66 126= 87 71= 63 127 18 301+ 28 301+ 66.4 92 103= Durham University GB L FC HI 66 122 97 24 50 232= 56 154 89 66 70 135= 66.3 93 101= Lomonosov Moscow State University RU XL FC VH 83 70 79 67 100 10 5 301+ 9 301+ 43 249= 66.1 94 95= National Taiwan University (NTU) TW XL FC VH 94 46 68 115 37 301+ 57 146 17 301+ 17 301+ 66.0 95 87= University of St Andrews GB M FC VH 60 144 77 77 64 145= 52 177 92 52= 100 11= 65.7 96 105 University of Minnesota US XL FC VH 81 79 45 230= 21 301+ 99 16 42 212= 24 301+ 65.6 97 122= Universität Freiburg DE L FC VH 73 97 25 301+ 94 46 39 254 44 204 67 146= 65.1 98 120= Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) US XL FC VH 74 96 70 103 39 301+ 82 60 24 301+ 33 301+ 64.9 99 108= Erasmus University Rotterdam NL L FO VH 52 188 89 41= 54 205= 88 47 32 255= 75 116= 64.5 100 101 University of Oslo NO L FC VH 72 100 50 201 89 61= 32 301+ 34 244= 68 139 64.2 101 92= University of Zurich CH L FC VH 75 91 35 299= 34 301+ 71 91 99 22= 64 155 64.0 102 97 Tohoku University JP L FC VH 59 152 59 153 96 42 58 140 25 297= 23 301+ 64.0 103 81 University of Adelaide AU L FC VH 69 113 72 92 33 301+ 61 133 85 77= 94 46= 63.9 104 122= University of Maryland, College Park US XL FC VH 67 121 35 301+ 68 127= 79 72 31 265= 31 301+ 63.7 105 103= Fudan University CN L FC VH 85 66 82 58 50 232= 36 268= 17 301+ 41 263= 63.4 106 86 Georgia Institute of Technology US L CO VH 64 133 82 59= 18 301+ 99 20 32 259= 73 120 63.3 107 90 Emory University US L FC VH 42 246 55 178 86 74= 95 31 27 287 44 245= 63.2 108 83 Delft University of Technology (TU Delft) NL L FO VH 72 99 73 87 50 232= 40 246 88 69= 66 149= 63.1 109 102 Hebrew University of Jerusalem IL L FC VH 72 102 23 301+ 54 199= 80 69 59 166= 25 301+ 63.1 110 108= University of California, Davis (UCD) US L FC VH 71 106 36 292 42 286= 96 30 22 301+ 23 301+ 62.9 111 116 Maastricht University NL L FO VH 41 247 60 151 80 91= 74 83 66 148 100 10 62.8 112 134 Pohang University of Scie. and Tech. (POSTECH) KR S FO VH 49 206 31 301+ 95 44= 83 56 61 158= 7 301+ 62.8 113 112 University of Southern California (USC) US XL FC VH 57 159 53 184 65 141= 68 106 52 184= 87 68= 62.7 114 89 University College Dublin (UCD) IE L FC HI 67 120 79 69 60 167= 27 301+ 94 44 90 61 62.4 115 100 Rice University US M FC VH 48 210 34 301+ 72 114= 93 37 34 244= 60 172 61.5 116 106 University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) US L CO VH 82 77 32 301+ 14 301+ 99 17 24 301+ 10 301+ 61.4 117 129= University of Aberdeen GB L FC HI 58 154 56 166 63 152= 50 194 85 82 90 62 61.3 118 117 Université Pierre et Marie Curie (UPMC) FR XL FO VH 71 107 21 301+ 83 82 36 268= 19 301+ 85 81= 60.5 119 114= University of Pittsburgh US L FC VH 47 216= 24 301+ 84 79= 82 61 70 127 23 301+ 60.4 120 138= University of Groningen NL L FC VH 61 140 49 205= 58 176= 63 128 64 151= 47 234= 60.3 www.qs.com QS World University Rankings 2010 5

WUR Mag 2010.indd 5 03/09/2010 16:40 QS TOP 500 UNIVERSITIES 2010 rank 2009 rank Institution Country/ Territory Classification Academic Reputation Employer Reputation Faculty Student per Citations Faculty International Faculty International Students Overall Size Focus Res. Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank 121 137 University of Liverpool GB L FC VH 52 185 63 141 67 131= 50 195= 95 43 62 162= 59.5 122 135 Cardiff University GB L FC VH 61 141 70 107 54 199= 46 215 67 143 70 131= 59.5 123 146= Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin DE L FC HI 91 51 37 282 31 301+ 36 267 36 235= 52 208= 59.3 124 126= Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL) BE L FC HI 70 108 52 192= 14 301+ 82 62 39 224= 71 129 59.1 125 129= Ohio State University US XL FC VH 65 128 63 134 36 301+ 67 109 66 147 35 292= 59.1 126 120= Eindhoven University of Technology (TU Eindhoven) NL M FO VH 49 208 47 220 99 29 34 282 99 27 39 278= 58.5 127= 119 Case Western Reserve University US M FC VH 39 273 28 301+ 87 71= 92 38 10 301+ 57 190= 58.4 127= 141 University of Rochester US M FC VH 39 262= 18 301+ 99 22 68 108 68 135= 61 169= 58.4 129 124 City University of Hong Kong HK M CO VH 62 137 46 228 61 165= 38 257= 100 14 64 153= 58.4 130 128 University of Virginia US L FC VH 52 186 76 80 53 213= 82 59 9 301+ 27 301+ 58.3 131 149= Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen DE L FC VH 64 131 26 301+ 51 225= 59 138 70 129= 67 146= 58.2 132 118 Queen's University CA L FC VH 63 136 76 78= 47 243= 55 159= 60 161= 18 301+ 58.2 133 144= University of Bergen NO M FC VH 49 205 42 247 69 126 59 137 79 105= 69 137= 57.9 134 140 Vanderbilt University US M FC VH 39 260 61 146 100 5= 59 139 21 301+ 29 301+ 57.2 135 125 University of Otago NZ L FC VH 60 142 63 138 32 301+ 51 188 100 6 82 93 57.1 136 107 Université de Montréal CA XL FC VH 66 125 26 301+ 30 301+ 64 122 82 93 84 83= 56.9 137 108= University of Basel CH M FC VH 60 145 30 301+ 69 122= 27 301+ 100 8 88 66= 56.7 138 114= Tel Aviv University IL L FC VH 68 117 32 301+ 17 301+ 100 11 28 279= 10 301+ 56.4 139 126= École Normale Supérieure de Lyon (ENS Lyon) FR S CO VH 42 243 45 232 100 3 41 241= 45 200= 68 140 56.2 140 158 Newcastle University GB L FC VH 41 249 73 88 65 141= 52 174 81 94 75 118 56.1 141 159 Technical University of Denmark DE M FO VH 34 301+ 36 298 98 32= 55 165 91 61 49 226= 55.6 142 151= Yonsei University KR XL FC VH 70 110 42 248= 82 83= 18 301+ 13 301+ 31 301+ 55.5 143 132= University of Vienna AT XL FC HI 81 82 47 216 8 301+ 44 227= 60 163= 78 105= 55.3 144 144= University of Bath GB L CO VH 51 193 89 43 40 301+ 40 247 86 75 95 42= 55.3 145 113 University of Waterloo CA L CO VH 70 109 64 132 16 301+ 54 167 67 144= 38 284= 54.7 146 161 University of California, Irvine US L FC VH 64 132 20 301+ 23 301+ 99 15 9 301+ 20 301+ 54.7 147 164 Queen Mary, University of London (QMUL) GB L FC HI 59 150 49 204 69 122= 11 301+ 92 54 87 70= 54.5 148 171= Universitat de Barcelona ES XL FC VH 82 73 49 205= 23 301+ 45 221 7 301+ 28 301+ 54.3 149 220= Radboud University Nijmegen NL L FC VH 35 298 36 288 77 101 81 67 49 188 29 301+ 54.2 150 174= KTH, Royal Institute of Technology SE L CO VH 53 179 49 208 63 152= 32 297= 58 169= 94 48 53.7 151 153 Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU) CN L FC VH 69 115 62 142= 60 167= 28 301+ 19 301+ 9 301+ 53.7 152 168= University of Lausanne CH M FO VH 41 248 37 284= 57 183= 62 131 90 64= 80 99= 53.4 153 155= Kyushu University JP L FC VH 44 233 58 156= 94 47 42 235= 8 301+ 22 301+ 53.3 154 154 University of Science and Technology of China CN L CO VH 65 129 50 199= 54 205= 52 178= 4 301+ 2 301+ 53.3 155 129= Georgetown University US L FC HI 51 195 75 81 66 137= 39 255 18 301+ 52 208= 53.1 156 166= University of Sussex GB M FC VH 54 167= 34 301+ 44 268= 50 192= 87 71 76 112 53.1 157 160 Tufts University US M FC VH 26 301+ 42 245 58 181= 94 33 100 12 38 284= 52.7 158 182 RWTH Aachen DE XL FC HI 51 189 82 57 72 114= 17 301+ 43 206= 60 173= 52.6 159 132= Technion - Israel Institute of Technology IL M FC VH 65 130 44 236 37 301+ 66 115 7 301+ 7 301+ 52.4 160 166= University of Arizona US XL FC VH 57 157 34 301+ 31 301+ 83 55 25 299= 24 301+ 52.4 161 146= University of Cape Town ZA L FC HI 54 175 65 128 34 301+ 47 209= 68 135= 69 137= 52.0 162= 193= University of Bern CH L FO VH 34 301+ 21 301+ 53 213= 89 44 91 59 44 245= 51.9 162= 143 McMaster University CA L FC VH 59 147 39 269 25 301+ 76 76 24 301+ 35 292= 51.9 164 151= University of Western Ontario CA L FC VH 50 199 59 155 19 301+ 90 42 46 195= 17 301+ 51.8 165 149= University of Calgary CA L FC VH 60 143 53 183 8 301+ 88 45 18 301+ 25 301+ 51.7 166= 195 Hong Kong Polytechnic University HK L CO VH 58 155 38 272 40 301+ 34 283 99 21 82 91= 51.7 166= 184 Universität Karlsruhe DE L CO VH 49 203 70 106 72 114= 20 301+ 42 214= 70 135= 51.7 168 215= Stockholm University SE L CO VH 73 98 35 301+ 24 301+ 41 241= 83 88= 15 301+ 51.5 169 196= University of Leicester GB L FC HI 35 301+ 37 283 53 213= 70 97 81 98= 85 79= 51.5 170 186= University of Colorado at Boulder US L CO VH 47 216= 18 301+ 49 240= 92 40 25 297= 10 301+ 51.5 171 165 Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU Amsterdam) NL L FC VH 59 151 53 185= 61 158= 35 276 30 268= 19 301+ 51.4 172 174= University of Tsukuba JP L FC VH 54 167= 42 248= 76 102= 37 266 13 301+ 30 301+ 51.4 173 211= Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona ES L FC VH 71 103 32 301+ 40 301+ 40 249 16 301+ 37 287= 51.3 174 186= Georg-August-Universität Göttingen DE L FC VH 58 156 20 301+ 64 145= 43 230 33 253= 41 265 51.2 175 171= Hokkaido University JP L FC VH 41 253= 58 156= 67 131= 67 110 5 301+ 18 301+ 51.1 176 174= Università di Bologna IT XL FC VH 81 81 55 172 28 301+ 24 301+ 13 301+ 20 301+ 50.9 177 168= Nanjing University CN L FC VH 69 116 47 218 47 249= 29 301+ 42 212= 6 301+ 50.6 178 155= Wageningen University NL M FO VH 37 286 30 301+ 99 23 31 301+ 13 301+ 98 29= 50.4 179 177= University of Antwerp BE M FC VH 39 268 35 299= 99 26= 26 301+ 57 172= 51 214= 50.3 180 138= Chulalongkorn University TH XL FC HI 75 93 66 122 51 225= 7 301+ 17 301+ 3 301+ 50.2 6 QS World University Rankings 2010 www.qs.com

WUR Mag 2010.indd 6 03/09/2010 16:40 QS TOP 500 UNIVERSITIES 2010 rank 2009 rank Institution Country/ Territory Classification Academic Reputation Employer Reputation Faculty Student per Citations Faculty International Faculty International Students Overall Size Focus Res. Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank 181 162 Lancaster University GB M FC VH 43 238 60 150 56 191= 33 285= 77 112 85 79= 50.2 182 148 Waseda University JP XL CO VH 70 112 88 45= 39 301+ 8 301+ 32 255= 33 301+ 50.1 183 185 University of Gothenburg SE L FC VH 46 223 26 301+ 35 301+ 64 125 81 97 90 58= 50.1 184 207= University College Cork (UCC) IE L FC HI 46 219 68 112 57 183= 27 301+ 85 80= 54 200= 50.1 185 191= University of Reading GB L CO VH 46 225 57 163 47 243= 38 257= 81 98= 80 98 50.0 186 228 Université Paris Sorbonne, Paris 4 FR L SP VH 86 62 56 167= 17 301+ 1 301+ 7 301+ 78 104 49.0 187 163 Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IITB) IN M CO VH 62 138 87 50 39 301+ 33 291 3 301+ 2 301+ 48.8 188 225 University of Iowa US L FC VH 37 289= 28 301+ 54 205= 84 51 32 259= 24 301+ 48.7 189 188 University of Canterbury NZ L CO VH 54 173= 74 83 21 301+ 28 301+ 99 18 78 105= 48.5 190 205 Sapienza Università di Roma IT XL FC VH 82 75 40 258= 11 301+ 37 261 3 301+ 18 301+ 48.4 191 211= Korea University KR XL FC VH 67 119 39 263= 59 173= 17 301+ 16 301+ 15 301+ 48.4 192 136 University of Ghent BE L FC VH 54 173= 39 265 61 158= 37 265 20 301+ 27 301+ 48.4 193 201= University of Florida US XL FC VH 51 194 35 301+ 31 301+ 75 81 18 301+ 29 301+ 48.3 194 173 Stony Brook University US L FC VH 40 258 26 301+ 42 286= 68 105 55 179 81 96= 48.2 195 233 Universität Frankfurt am Main DE XL FC VH 55 165 37 280 33 301+ 55 164 16 301+ 67 142= 48.2 196 223= National Tsing Hua University TW M CO VH 60 146 39 262 25 301+ 64 123 18 301+ 11 301+ 47.9 197 201= Queen's University of Belfast GB L FC HI 39 267 68 113= 54 199= 35 275 98 33 38 281= 47.9 198 179 Texas A&M University US XL FC VH 51 190 52 195 21 301+ 73 85 21 301+ 31 301+ 47.9 199 200 University of Twente NL M FO VH 41 251 41 252= 51 221= 39 253 83 90= 83 87= 47.7 200 237= Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn DE L FC VH 55 164 21 301+ 64 150= 32 297= 16 301+ 53 205= 47.5 201 215= University of Dundee GB M FC VH 31 301+ 24 301+ 64 145= 61 134 80 102= 55 195= 47.5 202 181 Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (IITD) IN M CO VH 55 162 78 74 41 292= 41 238 1 301+ 2 301+ 47.4 203 204 Sciences Po, Paris FR M SP VH 33 301+ 82 59= 89 65 1 301+ 45 200= 97 32= 47.4 204 198 Chalmers University of Technology SE M CO VH 46 220= 39 267 47 249= 46 213 42 209= 70 133= 47.3 205 206 Universität Stuttgart DE L CO VH 42 242 48 211= 79 94= 14 301+ 36 238= 86 74 47.2 206 142 Keio University JP XL FC VH 55 163 85 52 59 173= 14 301+ 15 301+ 9 301+ 47.2 207 180 Universiti Malaya (UM) MY L FC HI 50 198 55 177 68 127= 4 301+ 68 141 57 190= 47.1 208 222 Michigan State University (MSU) US XL FC VH 51 191= 57 162 29 301+ 54 166 23 301+ 41 260= 47.1 209 191= Universite Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) BE L FC HI 51 191= 44 235 34 301+ 29 301+ 75 120= 96 36 46.7 210 168= St.-Petersburg University RU L FC HI 49 207 51 196 98 31 3 301+ 3 301+ 16 301+ 46.7 211 264= University of Turku FI M FC VH 37 280 29 301+ 74 108= 53 171 34 251= 9 301+ 46.4 212 214 Dalhousie University CA L FC VH 39 270 36 297 46 257= 65 120 38 228= 50 222= 46.4 213 215= Universidad Autónoma de Madrid ES L FC VH 65 126 38 273= 15 301+ 54 170 15 301+ 17 301+ 46.1 214 196= Simon Fraser University CA L CO VH 53 178 37 279 18 301+ 48 207 83 87 52 211 45.9 215 309= Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg DE M FC VH 28 301+ 15 301+ 78 97= 66 116 31 264 39 278= 45.9 216 183 Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey US XL CO VH 54 171= 26 301+ 38 301+ 50 195= 39 222= 20 301+ 45.6 217 211= Technische Universität Berlin DE L CO VH 61 139 41 252= 34 301+ 16 301+ 41 216 80 101 45.5 218 247= Zhejiang University CN XL FC VH 65 127 23 301+ 43 278= 33 284 14 301+ 8 301+ 45.5 219 199 University of Notre Dame US M CO VH 37 288 61 147 50 232= 58 143 11 301+ 27 301+ 45.0 220 189 Macquarie University AU L FC HI 50 200 63 136 12 301+ 32 301+ 84 83 100 14 45.0 221 247= King Saud University (KSU) SA XL FC LO 50 196 37 284= 75 106= 2 301+ 89 67 9 301+ 44.9 222 190 Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) MX XL FC VH 63 134 67 116 51 221= 4 301+ 16 301+ 4 301+ 44.9 223 209 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute US M CO VH 30 301+ 34 301+ 47 249= 82 65= 24 301+ 40 274= 44.8 224 223= RMIT University AU XL CO VH 52 187 77 76 21 301+ 7 301+ 99 20 100 4 44.8 225 229= Victoria University of Wellington NZ L CO VH 54 171= 63 135 19 301+ 15 301+ 100 17 77 109= 44.4 226 218= Université Paris 11, Sud FR L FO VH 40 257 8 301+ 55 195= 50 192= 46 198 63 156= 44.2 227 193= Indiana University Bloomington US XL FC VH 50 201 56 164 25 301+ 51 186= 18 301+ 34 299= 44.1 228 220= Mahidol University TH L FC HI 45 229 46 226 84 79= 11 301+ 16 301+ 8 301+ 43.7 229 277= Université Paris 1, Panthéon-Sorbonne FR XL FO VH 69 114 61 144 18 301+ 3 301+ 17 301+ 83 87= 43.7 230 237= University of Massachusetts, Amherst US L CO VH 53 182 31 301+ 27 301+ 55 162= 30 268= 15 301+ 43.6 231 226 University of Ottawa CA XL FC VH 44 232 30 301+ 18 301+ 68 104 76 114= 18 301+ 43.5 232 243 National University of Ireland, Galway IE M FC HI 35 301+ 58 159 61 158= 14 301+ 93 50 68 141 43.5 233 237= Wake Forest University US M FC VH 5 301+ 43 241 100 9 75 82 2 301+ 17 301+ 43.2 234 218= Kobe University JP L FC VH 45 230 55 179= 57 183= 30 301+ 10 301+ 20 301+ 43.0 235 244= University of Miami US L FC VH 21 301+ 22 301+ 72 114= 58 141 69 134 40 266= 43.0 236 201= University of Indonesia ID XL FC LO 59 149 59 152 58 181= 1 301+ 12 301+ 3 301+ 42.9 237 270 Norwegian University of Science and Technology NO L FC VH 38 276= 51 197 49 240= 33 285= 60 161= 44 245= 42.8 238 227 Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) BE M FC VH 36 293 43 243 73 111= 31 301+ 9 301+ 40 266= 42.8 239 295= Tulane University US M FC VH 15 301+ 46 224 88 66= 52 178= 17 301+ 48 228= 42.7 240 264= Vienna University of Technology AT M FO VH 34 301+ 33 301+ 65 141= 28 301+ 47 191= 78 103 42.7 www.qs.com QS World University Rankings 2010 7

WUR Mag 2010.indd 7 03/09/2010 16:40 QS TOP 500 UNIVERSITIES 2010 rank 2009 rank Institution Country/ Territory Classification Academic Reputation Employer Reputation Faculty Student per Citations Faculty International Faculty International Students Overall Size Focus Res. Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank 241 241= University of Victoria CA L CO VH 32 301+ 36 290 11 301+ 83 54 74 122 57 186 42.6 242 272 Universität Hamburg DE XL FC HI 57 158 26 301+ 50 232= 15 301+ 19 301+ 50 218= 42.6 243 249 University of Surrey GB M CO VH 31 301+ 56 165 39 301+ 32 294= 89 68 95 45 42.4 244 259= Universität Mannheim DE M FO VH 27 301+ 70 105 5 301+ 99 12 11 301+ 49 225 42.4 245 301 Universität Köln DE XL FC HI 52 184 35 301+ 23 301+ 46 217 24 301+ 47 234= 42.3 246 254= Université de Strasbourg FR XL FC MD 59 148 33 301+ 21 301+ 25 301+ 29 277= 72 123 42.1 247 279= Universität Ulm DE M FO VH 11 301+ 19 301+ 99 24= 57 145 30 271= 42 256= 42.1 248 291= University of Liege BE L FC VH 32 301+ 31 301+ 24 301+ 79 71 19 301+ 75 116= 42.0 249 237= Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur (IITK) IN S CO VH 43 239 58 158 40 301+ 51 185 - 301+ 1 301+ 42.0 250 210 Aalto University FI L SP VH 31 301+ 38 271 89 61= 15 301+ 39 224= 42 253= 41.9 251 254= Flinders University AU L FC MD 33 301+ 36 293= 93 50 10 301+ 5 301+ 71 130 41.9 252 - University of Illinois, Chicago (UIC) US L FC VH 26 301+ 8 301+ 45 263= 94 32 6 301+ 34 299= 41.9 253 207= Universidad de São Paulo BR XL FC VH 58 153 39 261 38 301+ 24 301+ 20 301+ 7 301+ 41.7 254 259= Hiroshima University JP L FC VH 34 301+ 34 301+ 81 90 31 301+ 9 301+ 19 301+ 41.7 255 266= King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals (KFUPM) SA M FO VH 27 301+ 31 301+ 92 51= 5 301+ 100 2 51 214= 41.5 256 266= University of Newcastle AU L FC HI 46 222 52 194 16 301+ 33 288= 78 111 72 124= 41.5 257 232 University of Technology, Sydney AU L CO VH 43 237 74 84 21 301+ 11 301+ 99 28 92 53 41.4 258 234= SOAS - School of Oriental and African Studies GB S SP VH 39 262= 47 217 50 232= 1 301+ 98 31 100 8 41.3 259 266= University of Exeter GB L FC HI 33 301+ 67 117 31 301+ 32 301+ 78 108 78 105= 41.1 260 317 Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg DE L FC VH 33 301+ 16 301+ 39 301+ 65 121 62 155= 35 292= 41.0 261 312= Università degli Studi di Padova (UNIPD) IT XL FC VH 54 170 30 301+ 9 301+ 65 119 3 301+ 13 301+ 40.9 262 284 Indian Institute of Technology Madras (IITM) IN S CO VH 45 226= 67 120 36 301+ 41 239 - 301+ - 301+ 40.9 263 291= Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) MY L FC MD 46 224 37 281 61 165= 3 301+ 72 123= 37 287= 40.8 264 262= George Washington University US L FC HI 42 244 53 185= 40 300= 39 252 3 301+ 38 281= 40.8 265 254= University of Strathclyde GB L CO VH 37 281= 71 100 38 301+ 21 301+ 71 126 52 208= 40.7 266 288= Technische Universität Darmstadt DE L FO VH 30 301+ 31 301+ 78 97= 15 301+ 44 203 80 102 40.7 267= 229= Charles University CZ XL FC VH 50 197 29 301+ 52 217= 15 301+ 9 301+ 60 173= 40.7 267= 251 University of Wollongong AU L FC HI 31 301+ 69 108 37 301+ 21 301+ 92 51 93 52 40.7 269 252= Universidad Complutense de Madrid ES XL FC HI 68 118 40 258= 20 301+ 17 301+ 15 301+ 14 301+ 40.6 270 229= Loughborough University GB L FO VH 36 296 78 70= 34 301+ 19 301+ 75 120= 63 156= 40.3 271 258 Laval University CA L FC VH 35 301+ 31 301+ 11 301+ 78 73 57 172= 25 301+ 39.8 272 269 North Carolina State University US L CO VH 24 301+ 43 239= 29 301+ 86 49 12 301+ 26 301+ 39.5 273 281= Université Grenoble, Joseph Fourier FR L FO VH 38 275 31 301+ 41 292= 43 231= 18 301+ 48 228= 39.2 274 244= Curtin University of Technology AU L CO VH 37 281= 63 137 26 301+ 11 301+ 100 9 100 9 39.2 275= 288= University of Cincinnati US L FC VH 22 301+ 33 301+ 54 205= 69 100 11 301+ 24 301+ 39.1 275= 330 Iowa State University US L CO VH 30 301+ 22 301+ 25 301+ 69 103 61 158= 47 231 39.1 277 273= University of Hawaii at Mānoa US L FC VH 29 301+ - 301+ 61 158= 56 151= 23 301+ 42 256= 39.1 278 361= Universität Innsbruck AT L FC MD 45 226= 19 301+ 9 301+ 35 272= 87 72 98 21 39.0 279 271 École des Ponts, ParisTech FR S FO VH 20 301+ 64 130 100 13 6 301+ 26 292= 25 301+ 38.8 280 234= Brandeis University US M CO VH 28 301+ 26 301+ 34 301+ 70 95 11 301+ 61 169= 38.8 281 295= University of South Australia AU L CO VH 37 285 66 124 28 301+ 9 301+ 100 10 82 91= 38.8 282 334 Université Paris 7, Diderot FR L FC HI 47 213 12 301+ 46 257= 25 301+ 38 228= 31 301+ 38.5 283 281= National Cheng Kung University TW L FC VH 37 281= 42 244 54 199= 30 301+ 10 301+ 23 301+ 38.5 284 252= University of California, Santa Cruz US L CO VH 39 272 - 301+ 13 301+ 96 28= 7 301+ 5 301+ 38.5 285 285 University of California, Riverside US L FC HI 33 301+ 19 301+ 15 301+ 92 39 10 301+ 16 301+ 38.4 286= 177= University of Athens GR XL FC VH 47 215 35 301+ 21 301+ 43 231= - 301+ 46 236= 38.3 286= 241= La Trobe University AU L CO VH 41 250 47 221 21 301+ 18 301+ 91 60 85 81= 38.3 288 288= Université Montpellier 2, Sciences et Techniques FR M FO VH 24 301+ 23 301+ 66 137= 45 220 13 301+ 55 195= 38.2 289 244= Queensland University of Technology AU L CO VH 47 214 70 104 21 301+ 18 301+ 12 301+ 63 160= 38.1 290 306 National Yang Ming University TW S FC VH 12 301+ 24 301+ 98 34 46 218 13 301+ 13 301+ 38.0 291 316 Royal Holloway University of London GB M CO VH 32 301+ 21 301+ 41 292= 22 301+ 94 48 98 26= 38.0 292 295= Universidade Estadual de Campinas BR L FC VH 46 220= 25 301+ 40 301+ 34 280 26 294= 7 301+ 37.9 293 302= University of Tromsø NO S FC VH 16 301+ 28 301+ 100 11 23 301+ 39 219= 25 301+ 37.8 294 328= Universität Leipzig DE L FC VH 39 265 20 301+ 19 301+ 66 114 15 301+ 31 301+ 37.8 295 286 Politecnico di Milano IT L SP VH 47 218 83 55= 19 301+ 20 301+ 11 301+ 35 298 37.7 296 287 Aston University GB M CO VH 28 301+ 74 86 20 301+ 27 301+ 88 69= 93 51 37.7 297 318= Umeå University SE L FC HI 29 301+ 17 301+ 40 300= 48 202 90 62 25 301+ 37.5 298 300 University of Southern Denmark DE M FO VH 24 301+ 20 301+ 66 137= 32 293 49 186= 63 158= 37.4 299 302= University of East Anglia (UEA) GB L FC HI 27 301+ 25 301+ 40 301+ 40 245 76 114= 71 126= 37.3 300= 322 Università di Pisa IT XL FC VH 56 161 22 301+ 10 301+ 47 209= 1 301+ 9 301+ 37.2 8 QS World University Rankings 2010 www.qs.com

WUR Mag 2010.indd 8 03/09/2010 16:40 QS TOP 500 UNIVERSITIES 2010 rank 2009 rank Institution Country/ Territory Classification Academic Reputation Employer Reputation Faculty Student per Citations Faculty International Faculty International Students Overall Size Focus Res. Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank 300= - Tokyo Medical and Dental University JP S FO VH 7 301+ - 301+ 100 2 61 132 4 301+ 22 301+ 37.2 302 299 Massey University NZ L CO VH 38 274 39 263= 32 301+ 19 301+ 95 41 45 241= 37.0 303 401-450 University of Jyväskylä FI M CO VH 31 301+ 28 301+ 84 81 13 301+ 23 301+ 14 301+ 37.0 304 302= Jagiellonian University PL XL CO VH 48 209 31 301+ 55 195= 10 301+ 5 301+ 11 301+ 36.9 305 273= University of Essex GB M CO VH 37 287 23 301+ 28 301+ 19 301+ 95 42 96 37 36.7 306 259= University of Utah US L FC VH 16 301+ 26 301+ 51 221= 70 99 30 270 21 301+ 36.5 307 234= Ateneo de Manila University PH M FC LO 53 180 60 149 35 301+ 1 301+ 12 301+ 12 301+ 36.4 308 328= University of Eastern Finland FI M CO VH 11 301+ 23 301+ 87 71= 49 200 23 301+ 13 301+ 36.3 309 314= Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) MY L FC HI 48 211 41 254 40 300= 6 301+ 27 288= 33 301+ 36.2 310 346= Ruhr-Universität Bochum DE XL FC HI 36 291 26 301+ 36 301+ 34 279 38 226= 50 218= 36.1 311 335 Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur (IITKGP) IN M FO VH 30 301+ 52 191 42 286= 48 201 - 301+ - 301+ 36.1 312 346= Universität Konstanz DE S CO VH 40 259 13 301+ 42 286= 30 301+ 58 169= 22 301+ 36.1 313 331= University of Oulu FI M FC VH 22 301+ 13 301+ 86 74= 31 301+ 23 301+ 9 301+ 35.9 314 262= University of the Philippines PH XL FC LO 57 160 63 139 29 301+ 2 301+ 3 301+ 1 301+ 35.9 315 357= Universität des Saarlandes DE L FC HI 23 301+ - 301+ 26 301+ 72 87 67 144= 59 178= 35.8 316= 342 Universität Bielefeld DE L CO VH 42 241 12 301+ 11 301+ 58 144 32 257= 31 301+ 35.7 316= 314= University of Waikato NZ M CO VH 35 299 36 293= 28 301+ 13 301+ 94 47 91 56= 35.7 318 307= Chiba University JP L FC VH 22 301+ 33 301+ 89 61= 18 301+ 5 301+ 20 301+ 35.6 319 345 Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) MY L FC HI 39 269 40 255= 61 158= 3 301+ 9 301+ 42 256= 35.5 320 326= University of Tasmania AU L CO VH 30 301+ 34 301+ 34 301+ 25 301+ 68 135= 90 60 35.5 321 250 Universitas Gadjah Mada ID XL FC LO 54 167= 55 175 29 301+ 1 301+ 22 301+ 5 301+ 35.3 322 281= Technische Universität Dresden DE XL FC HI 39 266 35 301+ 37 301+ 24 301+ 29 273= 38 284= 35.2 323 291= Griffith University AU L FC HI 33 301+ 52 189 16 301+ 18 301+ 92 58 92 55 35.0 324 324= Universität Düsseldorf DE L FC VH 14 301+ 16 301+ 43 278= 74 84 10 301+ 66 151 35.0 325 401-450 Westfälische Wilhelms-Universitat Münster DE L FC VH 31 301+ 17 301+ 61 158= 26 301+ 29 275= 27 301+ 34.9 326 298 Universidad de Buenos Aires AR XL FC HI 49 202 69 111 24 301+ 3 301+ 14 301+ 26 301+ 34.7 327 389= National Chiao Tung University TW M CO VH 21 301+ 36 291 50 232= 45 223 38 228= 20 301+ 34.5 328 377= Università degli Studi di Firenze (UNIFI) IT XL FC VH 53 181 13 301+ 12 301+ 39 251 8 301+ 17 301+ 34.5 329 364= Université Paris 5, Descartes FR L FC VH 29 301+ 17 301+ 28 301+ 51 190 19 301+ 82 94= 34.4 330 279= Dublin City University IE M FO VH 25 301+ 59 154 37 301+ 15 301+ 86 74 65 152 34.4 331 277= Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile CL L FC HI 39 271 61 145 31 301+ 19 301+ 19 301+ 25 301+ 34.2 332 360 Bilkent University TR M CO VH 41 253= 9 301+ 57 183= 7 301+ 68 142 4 301+ 34.2 333 273= York University CA XL CO VH 48 212 56 171 16 301+ 13 301+ 45 199 18 301+ 34.2 334 363 Colorado State University US L CO VH 26 301+ 26 301+ 14 301+ 82 58 12 301+ 9 301+ 34.1 335 309= Arizona State University US XL CO VH 44 235 33 301+ 16 301+ 38 256 13 301+ 20 301+ 34.0 336 324= Universitat Pompeu Fabra ES M FO VH 38 276= 8 301+ 39 301+ 28 301+ 55 180 24 301+ 34.0 337 323 Ben Gurion University of The Negev IL L FC VH 41 252 16 301+ 33 301+ 40 250 12 301+ 5 301+ 33.9 338 339= University of Connecticut US L FC VH 21 301+ 17 301+ 38 301+ 66 117 24 301+ 21 301+ 33.9 339 399= Universität Bremen DE L CO VH 34 301+ 28 301+ 30 301+ 31 301+ 34 244= 54 200= 33.8 340 311 Virginia Polytechnic Institute (virginia Tech) US XL FC VH 32 301+ 45 233 31 301+ 33 288= 32 259= 24 301+ 33.6 341 351= American University of Beirut (AUB) LB M FC HI 23 301+ 29 301+ 58 176= 15 301+ 40 217 83 90 33.4 342 307= Hong Kong Baptist University HK M CO VH 4 301+ 66 121 64 145= 21 301+ 94 46 58 185 33.4 343 357= Sungkyunkwan University KR L FC VH 22 301+ 22 301+ 80 91= 16 301+ 16 301+ 35 292= 33.4 344 331= Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz DE XL FC HI 26 301+ 11 301+ 11 301+ 82 64 17 301+ 40 266= 33.3 345 374= Kyung Hee University KR L FC HI 24 301+ 15 301+ 82 85= 7 301+ 19 301+ 57 190= 33.1 346 333 Université Lille 1 FR L FO VH 27 301+ 25 301+ 51 225= 16 301+ 28 279= 87 70= 33.1 347 368= University of Georgia US XL FC VH 32 301+ 33 301+ 28 301+ 51 186= 2 301+ 13 301+ 33.1 348 397= Ewha Womans University KR L FC MD 33 301+ 23 301+ 56 191= 12 301+ 15 301+ 43 251= 32.8 349 336 Karl-franzens-universitaet Graz AT L FO VH 38 279 26 301+ 10 301+ 45 222 38 226= 33 301+ 32.7 350 401-450 University of Kentucky US L FC VH 11 301+ 24 301+ 45 263= 75 79 11 301+ 17 301+ 32.7 351= 337= University of Alabama US L CO VH 25 301+ 22 301+ 19 301+ 67 112 46 195= 12 301+ 32.6 351= 366= Washington State University US L FC HI 29 301+ 27 301+ 37 301+ 30 301+ 70 131 20 301+ 32.6 353 381= Universidad de Navarra ES M FC VH 20 301+ 38 276= 58 176= 22 301+ 20 301+ 59 182= 32.4 354= 339= Hanyang University KR L FC VH 28 301+ 24 301+ 66 137= 13 301+ 18 301+ 26 301+ 32.3 354= 355= James Cook University AU M FC VH 14 301+ 30 301+ 27 301+ 49 198= 92 52= 63 158= 32.3 356 374= Heriot-watt University GB M CO VH 17 301+ 49 210 29 301+ 26 301+ 82 92 98 23 32.1 357 389= University of Manitoba CA L FC VH 28 301+ 22 301+ 38 301+ 44 227= 33 301+ 32.1 358 305 Universidad Austral AR S FO VH 19 301+ 56 169 82 85= 3 301+ 7 301+ 25 301+ 32.1 359 343= Boston College US L CO VH 29 301+ 28 301+ 32 301+ 23 301+ 97 36 27 301+ 31.9 360 321 University of The Witwatersrand ZA L FC HI 33 301+ 40 260 13 301+ 32 297= 68 135= 31 301+ 31.9 www.qs.com QS World University Rankings 2010 9

WUR Mag 2010.indd 9 03/09/2010 16:40 QS TOP 500 UNIVERSITIES 2010 rank 2009 rank Institution Country/ Territory Classification Academic Reputation Employer Reputation Faculty Student per Citations Faculty International Faculty International Students Overall Size Focus Res. Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank 361 318= Brunel University GB L CO VH 20 301+ 55 174 23 301+ 22 301+ 90 64= 86 76= 31.9 362 355= Deakin University AU L FC MD 36 292 48 214 19 301+ 14 301+ 25 296 86 75 31.9 363 401-450 Università degli Studi di Pavia (UNIPV) IT L FC HI 34 301+ 17 301+ 16 301+ 60 136 6 301+ 15 301+ 31.8 364 349 Warsaw University PL XL CO VH 45 226= 48 211= 29 301+ 9 301+ 6 301+ 6 301+ 31.6 365 320 Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) MY L CO HI 32 301+ 49 207 43 274= 2 301+ 22 301+ 59 178= 31.6 366 350 National University of Sci. and Tech. (NUST) Islamabad PK M FC LO 29 301+ 31 301+ 77 100 1 301+ 6 301+ 6 301+ 31.6 367 343= Universidad de Chile CL XL FC HI 42 245 44 237 23 301+ 21 301+ 11 301+ 9 301+ 31.5 368 394= Bangor University GB M FC HI 22 301+ 21 301+ 41 292= 29 301+ 66 146 57 190= 31.5 369 401-450 University of Tampere FI M FO VH 33 301+ 23 301+ 43 274= 25 301+ 24 301+ 12 301+ 31.5 370 351= National Taiwan University of Science and Technology TW M FO VH 33 301+ 35 301+ 52 217= 12 301+ 10 301+ 16 301+ 31.5 371 291= University of Delhi IN XL FC MD 54 166 68 113= 2 301+ 7 301+ 3 301+ 3 301+ 31.2 372 374= United Arab Emirates University AE L FC MD 22 301+ 24 301+ 43 278= 9 301+ 100 1 84 83= 31.2 373 386= Universität Bayreuth DE M CO VH 23 301+ - 301+ 63 152= 27 301+ 43 205 25 301+ 31.1 374 392= Illinois Institute of Technology US M CO VH 17 301+ 14 301+ 51 225= 24 301+ 48 190 100 3 31.1 375 312= Novosibirsk State University RU M FC MD 26 301+ 24 301+ 82 85= 3 301+ 3 301+ 10 301+ 30.9 376 357= Swansea University GB M FC HI 19 301+ 38 275 40 300= 20 301+ 69 132 62 162= 30.7 377 401-450 University of Kansas US L FC VH 24 301+ 22 301+ 40 300= 38 259 23 301+ 30 301+ 30.7 378 354 Philipps-Universität Marburg DE L FC HI 18 301+ 9 301+ 54 205= 38 260 34 249= 41 260= 30.7 379 401-450 Universität Regensburg DE L FO VH 17 301+ - 301+ 51 225= 51 183 36 235= 20 301+ 30.6 380 386= Aberystwyth University GB M CO VH 23 301+ 23 301+ 50 232= 13 301+ 56 178 61 168 30.6 381 383= Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro BR XL FC VH 40 256 25 301+ 34 301+ 18 301+ 13 301+ 3 301+ 30.5 382 371= Université Toulouse III, Paul Sabatier FR L FO VH 36 295 - 301+ 44 268= 17 301+ 27 288= 37 287= 30.3 383 337= University of St Gallen (hsg) CH M SP VH 17 301+ 71 102 24 301+ 7 301+ 97 35 98 25 30.3 384 401-450 Universidade Nova de Lisboa PT L FC MD 32 301+ 29 301+ 43 278= 14 301+ 20 301+ 32 301+ 30.2 385 380 University of Tennessee US XL FC VH 16 301+ 33 301+ 37 301+ 56 155 14 301+ 14 301+ 30.0 386 361= Goldsmiths, University of London GB M FO VH 32 301+ 23 301+ 26 301+ 7 301+ 79 105= 78 105= 29.9 387 339= Tecnológico de Monterrey (ITESM) MX L FC LO 24 301+ 80 65 45 263= 2 301+ 28 281= 16 301+ 29.7 388 401-450 Tongji University CN XL FC VH 35 300 17 301+ 60 167= 4 301+ 2 301+ 12 301+ 29.7 389 401-450 Linkoping University SE L CO VH 34 301+ 20 301+ 32 301+ 32 301+ - 301+ 17 301+ 29.6 390 401-450 Université Lyon 1, Claude Bernard FR L FC VH 29 301+ 3 301+ 34 301+ 37 263= 11 301+ 47 232= 29.5 391 346= Howard University US M FC HI 17 301+ 43 242 74 108= 10 301+ - 301+ 22 301+ 29.5 392 371= Pusan National University KR L FC HI 39 262= 12 301+ 41 292= 14 301+ 9 301+ 12 301+ 29.4 393 401-450 University at Buffalo SUNY US L FC VH 17 301+ - 301+ 21 301+ 70 98 14 301+ 67 142= 29.3 394 383= University of Bradford GB M CO VH 23 301+ 29 301+ 22 301+ 22 301+ 64 150 94 49 29.1 395 326= Dublin Institute of Technology IE M CO HI 20 301+ 46 222 63 152= 2 301+ 17 301+ 40 266= 29.0 396 366= University of Coimbra PT L FC HI 41 255 12 301+ 29 301+ 15 301+ 9 301+ 33 301+ 29.0 397 379 Sogang University KR M CO VH 27 301+ 41 250 47 243= 7 301+ 17 301+ 31 301+ 29.0 398 451-500 National Central University TW M CO VH 32 301+ 15 301+ 40 300= 25 301+ 12 301+ 5 301+ 29.0 399 401-450 Universität Jena DE L FC VH 25 301+ - 301+ 30 301+ 50 191 27 288= 19 301+ 28.9 400 401-450 Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel DE L FC VH 18 301+ - 301+ 36 301+ 54 168 33 253= 29 301+ 28.8

Legend SIZE FOCUS RESEARCH INTENSITY

XL – Very Large FC – Fully Comprehensive VH – Very High L – Large CO – Comprehensive HI – High M – Medium FO – Focused MD – Moderate S – Small SP – Specialist LO – Limited or None

10 QS World University Rankings 2010 www.qs.com

WUR Mag 2010.indd 10 03/09/2010 16:40 Ranking Web of World universities: Contact Us Page 1 of 3

home world countries world rank rank by country european rank latin american rank > home > about the ranking Rank Data About the Ranking

About Us Objectives of the Webometrics Ranking of World's Universities

About the Ranking The original aim of the Ranking was to promote Web publication. Supporting Open Access initiatives, electronic Top 12000 Universities access to scientific publications and to other academic material are our primary targets. However web indicators are very useful for ranking purposes too as they are not based on number of visits or page design but on the Premier League (Excel global performance and visibility of the universities. Files)

Top USA & Canada As other rankings focused only on a few relevant aspects, specially research results, web indicators based Top Latin America ranking reflects better the whole picture, as many other activities of professors and researchers are showed by their web presence. Top Europe

Top Cent. & East. Europe The Web covers not only only formal (e-journals, repositories) but also informal scholarly communication. Web publication is cheaper, maintaining the high standards of quality of peer review processes. It could also reach Top Asia much larger potential audiences, offering access to scientific knowledge to researchers and institutions located in developing countries and also to third parties (economic, industrial, political or cultural stakeholders) in their Top South East Asia own community. Top South Asia The Webometrics ranking has a larger coverage than other similar rankings (see table below). The ranking is not Top Arab World only focused on research results but also in other indicators which may reflect better the global quality of the Top Oceania scholar and research institutions worldwide.

Top Africa We intend to motivate both institutions and scholars to have a web presence that reflect accurately their Top Sub-Saharan Africa activities. If the web performance of an institution is below the expected position according to their academic excellence, university authorities should reconsider their web policy, promoting Country Scoreboard substantial increases of the volume and quality of their electronic publications.

Best Practices Candidate students should use additional criteria if they are trying to choose university. webometrics Ranking Notes (*/**) correlates well with quality of education provided and academic prestige, but other non-academic variables need to be taken into account.

Catalogue Comparison of the main World Universities' Rankings

Universities by country

Information

Methodology

Glossary

Blog

Links

Site Map

Search Webometrics for:

Submit Coverage of the Webometrics Ranking of World Universities Category: All This table summarize the actual coverage of the Ranking, in terms of number of countries and higher education institutions around the world.

Region/Countries Top 100 Top 200 Top 500 Top 1000 Total North America 7 79 122 212 398 3485 USA 71 106 186 360 3276 Canada 8 16 26 38 203 Europe 54 16 60 222 415 4975 United Kingdom 5 9 34 67 235 Switzerland 3 3 7 10 105 Germany 1 17 50 67 400 Netherlands 1 6 9 13 148 Italy 1 2 17 37 202 France 1 1 13 54 583

24 http://www.webometrics.info/about_rank.html 05/11/2010 Ranking Web of World universities: Contact Us Page 2 of 3

Spain 2 27 43 218 Asia 34 3 7 38 104 6142 Japan 2 2 12 34 715 China/Hong Kong 1 2 9 18 1186 Taiwan 1 7 17 155 South Korea 1 3 8 392 Singapore 1 2 2 17 Oceania 12 1 6 15 35 149 Australia 1 6 13 28 86 Latin America 34 1 3 9 39 3486 Mexico 1 1 2 5 907 Brazil 1 5 17 1494 Arab World 22 0 2 3 4 569 Africa 38 0 0 1 5 355 WORLD 201 19161

Design and Weighting of Indicators

The unit for analysis is the institutional domain, so only universities and research centres with an independent web domain are considered. If an institution has more than one main domain, two or more entries are used with the different addresses.

The first Web indicator, Web Impact Factor (WIF), was based on link analysis that combines the number of external inlinks and the number of pages of the website, a ratio of 1:1 between visibility and size. This ratio is used for the ranking, adding two new indicators to the size component: Number of documents, measured from the number of rich files in a web domain, and number of publications being collected by Google Scholar database.

Four indicators were obtained from the quantitative results provided by the main search engines as follows:

Size (S). Number of pages recovered from four engines: Google, Yahoo, Live Search and Exalead.

Visibility (V). The total number of unique external links received (inlinks) by a site can be only confidently obtained from Yahoo Search.

Rich Files (R). After evaluation of their relevance to academic and publication activities and considering the volume of the different file formats, the following were selected: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), Adobe PostScript (.ps), Microsoft Word (.doc) and Microsoft Powerpoint (.ppt). These data were extracted using Google, Yahoo Search, Live Search and Exalead.

Scholar (Sc). Google Scholar provides the number of papers and citations for each academic domain. These results from the Scholar database represent papers, reports and other academic items.

The four ranks were combined according to a formula where each one has a different weight but maintaining the ratio 1:1:

The inclusion of the total number of pages is based on the recognition of a new global market for academic information, so the web is the adequate platform for the internationalization of the institutions. A strong and detailed web presence providing exact descriptions of the structure and activities of the university can attract new students and scholars worldwide.

The number of external inlinks received by a domain is a measure that represents visibility and impact of the published material, and although there is a great diversity of motivations for linking, a significant fraction works in a similar way as bibliographic citation.

The success of self-archiving and other repositories related initiatives can be roughly represented from rich file and Scholar data. The huge numbers involved with the pdf and doc formats means that not only administrative reports and bureaucratic forms are involved. PostScript and Powerpoint files are clearly related to academic activities.

25 http://www.webometrics.info/about_rank.html 05/11/2010 Ranking Web of World universities: Contact Us Page 3 of 3

More info:

Aguillo, I.F.; Ortega, J. L. & Fernández, M. (2008). Webometric Ranking of World Universities: Introduction, Methodology, and Future Developments. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2/3): 234-244.

Ortega, J. L., Aguillo, I. F. (2009). Mapping World-class universities on the Web. Information Processing & Management, 45(2): 272-279

Aguillo, I. F.; Granadino, B.; Ortega, J. L.; Prieto, J. A. (2006). Scientific research activity and communication measured with cybermetric indicators. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 57(10): 1296-1302

Aguillo, I. F.; Granadino, B.; Ortega, J.L. & Prieto, J.A. (2005). What the Internet says about Science. The Scientist, 19(14):10

26 http://www.webometrics.info/about_rank.html 05/11/2010 Ranking Web of World universities: Top 12000 World Ranking Page 1 of 2

home world countries world rank rank by country european rank latin american rank > home > Top 12000 Rank Data Top 12000 Universities First | Previous | Next | Last | Universities 1 to 50 of 12003 About Us About the Ranking POSITION WORLD RICH UNIVERSITY COUNTRY SIZE VISIBILITY SCHOLAR Top 12000 Universities RANK FILES

Premier League (Excel 1 Harvard University * 3 3 15 1 Files)

Top USA & Canada 2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2 1 2 2 Top Latin America 3 Stanford University 5 2 1 7 Top Europe

Top Cent. & East. Europe 4 University of California Berkeley 6 4 4 28

Top Asia 5 Cornell University 4 5 9 22 Top South East Asia 6 University of Michigan 8 7 17 12 Top South Asia

Top Arab World 7 University of Minnesota 10 13 7 4

Top Oceania 8 University of Washington 9 8 6 54 Top Africa 9 University of Wisconsin Madison 7 10 8 48 Top Sub-Saharan Africa 10 University of Texas Austin 13 11 10 47 Country Scoreboard

Best Practices 11 University of Pennsylvania 19 9 27 23 Notes (*/**) 12 Pennsylvania State University ** 1 45 5 116

Catalogue 13 Columbia University New York 14 14 19 89

Universities by country 14 Carnegie Mellon University 11 27 3 74

15 University of Illinois Urbana Champaign * 42 12 20 75 Information 16 University of California Los Angeles 18 15 21 78 Methodology

Glossary 17 Texas A&M University 24 31 16 14

Blog 18 University of Maryland * 25 28 11 33 Links 19 Purdue University 33 32 14 39 Contact Us/Disclaimer 20 22 19 22 148 Site Map University of North Carolina Chapel Hill

21 Michigan State University 21 24 26 100 Search Webometrics for: 22 University of Cambridge 15 18 54 97

Submit 23 University of Florida 23 37 12 94

Category: 24 Rutgers University 17 38 13 127 All 25 Indiana University * 16 17 40 269

26 New York University 39 20 33 122

27 North Carolina State University 12 53 29 40

28 University of Virginia 20 21 34 324

29 Yale University 28 23 49 199

30 University of Arizona 31 33 18 129

31 University of Toronto 49 43 42 11

32 University of California San Diego 32 36 23 110

33 University of Pittsburgh 36 48 43 29

27 http://www.webometrics.info/top12000.asp 05/11/2010 Ranking Web of World universities: Top 12000 World Ranking Page 2 of 2

34 Princeton University 48 25 38 138

35 Duke University 34 34 28 135

36 California Institute of Technology Caltech 72 35 31 57

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 37 37 51 53 27 University

38 University of British Columbia 78 46 41 32

39 Georgia Institute of Technology 63 62 24 20

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ETH 40 38 57 73 15 Zürich

41 University of Oxford 55 30 68 115

42 Ohio State University 52 44 86 45

43 University of Chicago ** 53 26 59 271

44 University of Southern California 56 41 61 83

45 University of Georgia 50 39 44 209

46 University of California Davis 47 52 30 164

47 University of California Irvine 67 40 39 242

48 Iowa State University 46 55 25 223

49 University of Colorado Boulder 81 49 37 192

50 University of Connecticut 170 16 120 201

First | Previous | Next | Last | Universities 1 to 50 of 12003

28 http://www.webometrics.info/top12000.asp 05/11/2010 Ranking Web of World universities: Top 12000 World Ranking Page 1 of 2

home world countries world rank rank by country european rank latin american rank > home > Top 12000 Rank Data Top 12000 Universities First | Previous | Next | Last | Universities 51 to 100 of 12003 About Us About the Ranking POSITION WORLD RICH UNIVERSITY COUNTRY SIZE VISIBILITY SCHOLAR Top 12000 Universities RANK FILES

Premier League (Excel 51 University of Tokyo 98 56 85 24 Files)

Top USA & Canada 52 University of Edinburgh 96 50 63 86 Top Latin America 53 University of Oslo 58 98 35 46 Top Europe

Top Cent. & East. Europe 54 Oregon State University 27 75 76 67

Top Asia 55 Johns Hopkins University */** 75 42 56 319 Top South East Asia 56 Arizona State University 41 60 46 240 Top South Asia

Top Arab World 57 University of California Santa Barbara 61 66 32 226

Top Oceania 58 University of Utah 29 54 64 304 Top Africa 59 University of Helsinki ** 73 87 48 55 Top Sub-Saharan Africa 60 Université de Montreal 65 59 75 134 Country Scoreboard

Best Practices Norwegian University of Science & 61 40 117 71 26 Technology Notes (*/**) 62 University of Iowa 62 64 52 203 Catalogue 63 University College London 107 69 70 72 Universities by country 63 Washington University Saint Louis 60 70 51 230

Information 65 University of Nebraska Lincoln 80 83 126 16

Methodology 66 Simon Fraser University 123 74 98 35

Glossary 67 George Mason University 119 61 66 152 Blog 68 University of Alberta 71 97 72 63 Links

Site Map Universidad Nacional Autónoma de 70 171 88 129 3 México ** Search Webometrics for: 71 Boston University 88 71 47 295

72 30 128 83 64 Submit École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne Category: 72 Australian National University 116 68 134 68 All 74 University of Massachusetts Amherst 97 99 58 82

75 Université de Geneve 79 67 84 292

76 Florida State University 57 86 45 326

77 University of Tennessee Knoxville 64 58 82 471

78 University of Hong Kong 35 130 108 59 79 University of Missouri Columbia 54 73 122 250

80 Vanderbilt University 44 76 146 161

81 McGill University 83 89 99 117

82 University of Oregon 90 85 107 112

29 http://www.webometrics.info/top12000.asp?offset=50 05/11/2010 Ranking Web of World universities: Top 12000 World Ranking Page 2 of 2

83 Kyoto University 134 106 158 9

84 University of California Santa Cruz 114 72 62 388

85 University of Southampton 167 91 150 21

86 Università di Bologna 121 104 94 71

87 Brigham Young University 93 96 116 108

88 Louisiana State University 45 124 113 103

89 University of Kentucky 76 132 36 231

Université Paris 6 Pierre and Marie Curie 90 94 84 74 254 **

91 Drexel University 229 29 210 438

92 University of New Mexico 101 161 67 41

92 Washington State University Pullman 122 82 97 232

94 Utrecht University 133 146 78 31

95 Rice University 151 77 77 283

95 Northwestern University 112 105 100 162

97 Université du Quebec Montreal 69 110 142 121

97 University of Waterloo 109 123 57 196

99 University of Delaware 110 108 60 279

100 Freie Universität Berlin 144 93 208 49

First | Previous | Next | Last | Universities 51 to 100 of 12003

30 http://www.webometrics.info/top12000.asp?offset=50 05/11/2010 4 International Colleges & Universities - About Us http://www.4icu.org/menu/about.htm

> About us ABOUT US Your gateway to World Universities and Colleges

Being a non-paid directory, 4icu.org is free of charge to both visitors and organisations included. No registration is also required.

Organizations Included

The 4icu.org directory includes worldwide higher education organisations which satisfy the following requirements: are officially recognized, licensed or accredited by national or regional bodies such as ministries of education and/or recognized higher education accrediting organizations. are officialy entitled to grant four-year undergraduate degrees and/or postgraduate degrees. provide traditional face-to-face learning facilities, programs and courses. have a working official website.

The 4icu.org directory currently does not include: two-year degree granting institutions such as Community Colleges, Vocational Colleges, Training Colleges etc. distance learning only organizations. other higher education organizations that do not satisfy the above requirements

To ensure the quality of the directory listing, 4icu.org does not participate in link exchanges or include affiliate resources within the directory.

All University and College profiles are included and updated free of charge.

Geographical Classification We adopt the United Nations geographical classification as shown in the webpage "Definition of major areas and regions" published by the Population Division of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

For this reason countries like Turkey and Cyprus are included in the Asian geographical area even if, politically speaking, they might better fit under the European one.

4icu.org University Web Ranking Methodology

Universities and Colleges are ranked by our exclusive 4icu.org University Web Ranking.

The ranking is based upon an algorithm including three unbiased and independent web metrics extracted from three different search engines: Google Page Rank Yahoo Inbound Links Alexa Traffic Rank

Web metrics data are collected on the same day to minimize temporal fluctuations and maximize comparibility. A pre-computational filter is adopted to detect outliers in the raw data. The total number of external inbound links (or backlinks) pointing to each university website is also cleaned from duplicate domains based on a statistical sample; unique inbound links (i.e. links coming from different domains) are 32

1 of 3 05/11/2010 09:39 4 International Colleges & Universities - About Us http://www.4icu.org/menu/about.htm

in fact a much more significant and powerful measure of website link popularity. Finally further investigation and a review of Alexa Traffic Rank data is carried out for universities adopting a subdomain (highly not recommended) as their official institutional home page.

Once filtered (outliers), cleaned (unique links) and reviewed (subdomains), web metrics data are normalised to a scale of 0 to 100 taking into consideration the logarithmic nature in which both the Google Page Rank and the Alexa Traffic Rank are expressed. The three normalised values are aggregated based on a weighted average algorithm which generates the final score and web ranking.

The exact formula adopted to aggregate the three web metrics is not disclosed for copyright reasons and to minimise attempts of manipulation from university webmasters in order to achieve better rankings. The same philosophy is adopted by Google with regards to their search engine ranking algorithm. Being the 4icu.org University Web Ranking a non-academic ranking the need for ranking methodology transparency and the ability of testing and reproducing the results, as suggested by the Berlin Principles on Ranking of Higher Education Institutions, is less stringent than for academic rankings.

The aim of this website is to provide an approximate popularity ranking of world Universities and Colleges based upon the popularity of their websites. This is intended to help international students and academic staff to understand how popular a specific University/College is in a foreign country.

We do not claim - by any means - to rank organisations or their programs, by the quality of education or level of services provided. The 4icu.org University Web Ranking is not an academic ranking and should not be adopted as the main criteria for selecting an higher education organization where to study.

Information Updates

Data and information are added or updated on a monthly basis. The 4icu.org University Web Ranking is updated every six months, in January and July.

A special thanks goes to all Universities and Colleges that are participating in this project and help us maintain our database up-to-date.

Support Us

Useful website? You can support 4icu.org by: adding a link to us reporting errors recommending it to your friends and colleagues

How To Add A University

Please find the appropriate country page in the directory to add a new University/College.

Please note that we include accredited/recognised higher education organisations only.

Advertise With Us

Click here to learn more. For quality reasons, organisations cannot be included in the directory listing through advertising.

Click here to contact us.

Privacy Statement

Click here to read our Privacy Statement.

33 2010 World University Ranking | Top 200 Universities in the world http://www.4icu.org/top200/

1 Stanford University United States

2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology United States

3 Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Mexico

4 University of California, Berkeley United States

5 Peking University China

6 Michigan State University United States

7 Yale University United States

8 Indiana University United States

9 Purdue University United States

10 Duke University United States

11 Shanghai Jiaotong University China

12 University of Cambridge United Kingdom

13 Tsinghua University China

14 Universidad Complutense de Madrid Spain

15 Xi'an Jiaotong University China

16 University of Oxford United Kingdom

17 Fudan University China

18 Keio University Japan

19 National University of Singapore Singapore

20 California Institute of Technology United States

21 Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich Switzerland

22 Universidad de Granada Spain

23 Nanjing University China

24 Zhejiang University China

25 Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro Brazil

26 Indian Institute of Technology Bombay India

27 Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais Brazil

28 Tampereen teknillinen yliopisto Finland

29 Indian Institute of Technology Madras India

30 Istanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Turkey

31 Institut Teknologi Bandung Indonesia

32 National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Greece

34 2010 World University Ranking | Top 200 Universities in the world http://www.4icu.org/top200/

33 Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem Hungary

34 Imperial College London United Kingdom

35 Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur India

36 Universidade de Coimbra Portugal

37 Bogaziçi Üniversitesi Turkey

38 The University of Texas at Austin United States

39 Bilkent Üniversitesi Turkey

40 Columbia University in the City of New York United States

41 Harvard University United States

42 University of Michigan United States

43 University of Washington United States

44 Cornell University United States

45 University of Georgia United States

46 New York University United States

47 Penn State University United States

48 University of Pennsylvania United States

49 University of Wisconsin-Madison United States

50 Princeton University United States

51 Oregon State University United States

52 University of Virginia United States

53 University of Minnesota United States

54 University of California, Los Angeles United States

55 University of Southern California United States

56 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill United States

57 The Ohio State University United States

58 Universidade de São Paulo Brazil

59 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign United States

60 University of Toronto Canada

61 Boston University United States

62 University of Phoenix United States

63 University of Florida United States

64 North Carolina State University United States

35 2010 World University Ranking | Top 200 Universities in the world http://www.4icu.org/top200/

65 Carnegie Mellon University United States

66 Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey United States

67 University of California, San Diego United States

68 Universidade de Brasília Brazil

69 University of Colorado at Boulder United States

70 Norges teknisk-naturvitenskaplige universitet Norway

71 University of Pittsburgh United States

72 Arizona State University United States

73 Texas A&M University United States

74 University of Arizona United States

75 University of Iowa United States

76 University of Maryland United States

77 Washington State University United States

78 Kungliga Tekniska högskolan Sweden

79 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University United States

80 University College London United Kingdom

81 Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University Saudi Arabia

82 Universität Wien Austria

83 Waseda University Japan

84 University of Notre Dame United States

85 University of Chicago United States

86 Johns Hopkins University United States

87 Freie Universität Berlin Germany

88 Dartmouth College United States

89 The University of British Columbia Canada

90 Monash University Australia

91 Simon Fraser University Canada

92 University of California, Davis United States

93 Universitat de València Spain

94 The University of Tokyo Japan

95 National Taiwan University Taiwan

96 Universität Leipzig Germany

36 2010 World University Ranking | Top 200 Universities in the world http://www.4icu.org/top200/

97 Northwestern University United States

98 University of California, Irvine United States

99 York University Canada

100 McGill University Canada

101 The University of Manchester United Kingdom

102 The University of Hong Kong Hong Kong

103 Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen Germany

104 Colorado State University United States

105 Georgia Institute of Technology United States

106 Brown University United States

107 The University of Edinburgh United Kingdom

108 Universitat de Barcelona Spain

109 University of Calgary Canada

110 University of Alberta Canada

111 Drexel University United States

112 University of Delaware United States

113 King Saud University Saudi Arabia

114 Boston College United States

115 Georgetown University United States

116 Rice University United States

117 University of Leeds United Kingdom

118 The University of Sydney Australia

119 Universidad de La Rioja Spain

120 Iowa State University of Science and Technology United States

121 Anadolu Üniversitesi Turkey

122 King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals Saudi Arabia

123 Università degli Studi di Bologna Italy

124 Universidad de Sevilla Spain

125 Universität zu Köln Germany

126 The University of Melbourne Australia

127 The Australian National University Australia

128 University of California, Santa Barbara United States

37 2010 World University Ranking | Top 200 Universities in the world http://www.4icu.org/top200/

129 Universität Trier Germany

130 University of New Mexico United States

131 University of Waterloo Canada

132 University of Nebraska-Lincoln United States

133 Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza Italy

134 Universidad de Chile Chile

135 Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Germany

136 Nanyang Technological University Singapore

137 The University of Oklahoma United States

138 Université de Genève Switzerland

139 Universidad de Buenos Aires Argentina

140 Technische Universität Wien Austria

141 The University of Tennessee United States

142 Universitetet i Oslo Norway

143 The University of New South Wales Australia

144 The Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong

145 Universidad Politécnica de Valencia Spain

146 Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster Germany

147 University of California, Riverside United States

148 Universität Hamburg Germany

149 Universidade Estadual de Campinas Brazil

150 Renmin University of China China

151 Moscow State University Russia

152 Tufts University United States

153 Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina Brazil

154 University of California, Santa Cruz United States

155 Universidad de Alicante Spain

156 The University of Nottingham United Kingdom

157 The London School of Economics and Political Science United Kingdom

158 University of Rochester United States

159 Technische Universität Berlin Germany

160 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute United States

38 2010 World University Ranking | Top 200 Universities in the world http://www.4icu.org/top200/

161 Université Laval Canada

162 Rochester Institute of Technology United States

163 Ruhr-Universität Bochum Germany

164 Universität München Germany

165 The University of Queensland Australia

166 CUNY System United States

167 Universitas Indonesia Indonesia

168 Kasetsart University Thailand

169 Universität Innsbruck Austria

170 University of Science and Technology of China China

171 Universidad del País Vasco Spain

172 The University of York United Kingdom

173 The University of Warwick United Kingdom

174 University of Miami United States

175 Université Libre de Bruxelles Belgium

176 Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology Japan

177 University of Southampton United Kingdom

178 Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Australia

179 University of Liverpool United Kingdom

180 University of Delhi India

181 Technische Universität Dresden Germany

182 Anna University India

183 University of California, San Francisco United States

184 Chulalongkorn University Thailand

185 University of Glasgow United Kingdom

186 Universidad de Zaragoza Spain

187 École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne Switzerland

188 Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Belgium

189 Universidad de Navarra Spain

190 Washington University in St. Louis United States

191 Wuhan University China

192 Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Spain

39 2010 World University Ranking | Top 200 Universities in the world http://www.4icu.org/top200/

193 Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Netherlands

194 Universität Regensburg Germany

195 University of Maryland, Baltimore County United States

196 Università degli Studi di Milano Italy

197 National Cheng Kung University Taiwan

198 Universidad de Salamanca Spain

199 Universidade do Porto Portugal

200 Universiteit van Amsterdam Netherlands

Last Site Update: 5/11/2010

share link send

4 International Colleges & Universities • About us • Link to us • Site map • www.4icu.org

40 2010 Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2010/Page/Methodology

Home Contact

2010 Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities

2010 2010 by Field 2010 by Subject 2009 2009 by Field 2008

2008 by Field 2007

Top 500 Top Universities Top Universities Background Methodology Link FAQ Universities by Continents by Countries

2010 Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities

Methodology

This ranking system employs bibliometric methods to analyze and rank the scientific paper performances of the top 500 universities in the world. The selection of the 500 universities for inclusion in this ranking system was based on information obtained from the Essential Science Indicators (ESI). Of the more than 4,000 research institutions listed in ESI, this ranking system first selected the top 700 institutions based on the numbers of published journal articles and numbers of citations.

42 2010 Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2010/Page/Methodology

Non-university institutions were then removed from the list, and the project staff compared the remaining universities to those included in other ranking programs such as ARWU, THE-QS, and U.S. News. It resulted in 820 universities for this ranking system. Data used to assess the performances of the universities was drawn from ISI’s ESI and Web of Science (WOS), which included SCI and SSCI, and Journal Citation Reports (JCR).

The concept of authority control was employed to retrieve data indexed under different forms of a university’s name in the aforementioned databases – i.e., the official name, the abbreviated and other possible forms of the names. This ranking system also considered the mergers and splitting of universities (or different campuses in a university system) and included publications by a university’s affiliated institutions such as research centers and university hospitals. This effort ensured the accuracy of each university’s number of published journal articles and the subsequent statistics of their citations.

Some university systems have several campuses. A few campuses within a particular university system may have been commonly perceived as individual institutions. However, they are indexed in ESI only by the university system name. For example, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, University of Illinois at Chicago, and University of Illinois at Springfield are not differentiated in ESI (they are all indexed under “University of Illinois”) even though they are often perceived as three individual universities. This ranking system corrects the flaw by manually searching SCI/SSCI in order to identify the actual number of articles and citations of these articles produced by each individual campus. Likewise, this ranking system employed the same manual searching procedures to ensure that the measurement of each university’s Highly Cited Papers had fairly represented the research performance of each individual university campus.

Indicators

The 2010 performance measures are composed of eight indicators. The indicators together represent three different criteria of scientific paper performance: research productivity, research impact, and research excellence. Table 1 lists the indicators and shows the respective weightings for each indicator.

43 2010 Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2010/Page/Methodology

Table 1: The Criteria, Indicators, and Their Respective Weightings Used for the Overall Performance Based Ranking

Criteria 2010 Overall Performance Indicators Weighting

Number of articles of the last 11 years (1999-2009) 10 Research productivity 20 Number of articles of the current year (2009) 10

Number of citations of the last 11 years (1999-2009) 10

Research impact Number of citations of the last 2 years (2008-2009) 10 30

Average number of citations of the last 11 years (1999-2009) 10

h-index of the last 2 years (2008-2009) 20

Research excellence Number of Highly Cited Papers (1999-2009) 15 50

Number of articles of the current year in high-impact journals (2009) 15

Research Productivity:

The number of articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals is frequently used to indicate the productivity of a research institution. To objectively represent a university’s on-going and current research productivity, this ranking system employs two indicators: the number of articles of the last 11 years (1999-2009), and the number of articles of the current year (2009).

“Number of articles of the last 11 years” draws data from ESI, which include 1999-2009 statistics of articles published in journals indexed by SCI and SSCI. “Number of articles of the current year” relies on the 2009 data obtained from SCI and SSCI, which 44 2010 Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2010/Page/Methodology

were searched between January 1 and January 31, 2010.

Research Impact:

The number of citations to a particular academic article within a specific time frame is a commonly accepted indicator for that article’s impact. This ranking system considers both the long-term and short-term impact of a particular research and seeks to provide a fairer representation of a university’s research impact regardless of its size and faculty number. Thus, this ranking system measures research impact by: the number of citations of the last 11 years, the number of citations of the last 2 years, and the average number of citations of the last 11 years.

“Number of citations of the last 11 years” draws 1999-2009 citation statistics from ESI. “Number of citations of the last 2 years” draws 2008-2009 citation statistics from SCI and SSCI in WOS, which include citation statistics updated to the dates of retrieval. “Average number of citations of the last 11 years” is the number of citations in the last 11 years divided by the number of articles in the last 11 years.

Research Excellence:

This ranking system assesses each university’s research excellence by the following indicators: the h-index of the last 2 years, the number of Highly Cited Papers from ESI, and the number of articles of the current year in high-impact journals (Hi-Impact journal articles). “the h-index of the last 2 years” measures both the quantity and quality of a university’s research via the use of the 2008-2009 data from SCI and SSCI. Employing Hirsch’s (2005) concept of h-index, a university has index h if h of its Np papers in the last two years have at least h citations each and the other (Np – h) papers have ≦h citations each.

“Number of Highly Cited Papers” utilizes data from ESI, which include statistics of “Highly Cited Papers” from 1999 to 2009. ESI defines Highly Cited Papers as SCI /SSCI-indexed papers that are cited most (in the top 1% of the total papers indexed in the same year) within the last 11 years.

45 2010 Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2010/Page/Methodology

“Number of articles of the current year in high-impact journals” employs data from JCR, which supplies the impact factor of each journal in its subject field. The impact factor of a journal is the number of citations to the papers published in that particular journal within the previous two years divided by the number of that journal’s papers within the previous two years. A journal with a higher impact factor means its articles are more frequently cited by other journals, thus suggesting its higher scholarly value. This ranking system defines high-impact journals as journals whose impact factors are ranked as the top 5% of the total journals within a specific subject category. With high-impact journal lists derived from JCR, this ranking system is able to count the numbers of each university’s articles published in high-impact journals by subject.

Score Calculation and Sorting

The procedures for data processing are as follows: First, the project staff conducted authority control on the various forms of a university name and inspected all the SCI/SSCI bibliographic records in which the address field contained one of the forms of the university name. An accurate number of the total articles from a university was obtained after removing duplicate records containing different forms of that university’s name. Second, using SCI/SSCI, this ranking system obtained the total number of citations by adding the number of citations of each article from that university, starting from the article’s inclusion in SCI/SSCI to the date of our retrieval.

Based on the measurement procedures, this ranking system calculated a university’s score for each of the eight indicators. For each indicator, the university with the highest number received the maximum points (100); the other universities’ numbers were subdivided by the highest number and were converted decimally into their respective scores. For example, if University A had the highest number M for Indicator Y, it received 100 for that indicator, while University B with a number of N received (N/M×100) for that particular indicator. Finally, the ranking system calculated the final score of each university by the indicator weightings presented in Table 1 and sorted the universities by their final scores. Universities with the same scores were sorted alphabetically. It should be noted that many universities obtained similar scores, and the slight differences of the final scores must be interpreted carefully. A university’s slightly higher score than another university’s may not necessarily suggest its superiority in scientific research because the two universities might be in very close proximity in the ranking.

46 2010 Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2010/Page/Methodology

Reference Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572.

IE Ver.6.0 or later,or Firefox 2.0 or later,is suggested to browse the website / optimal resolution: 1024*768,96 dpi

47 2010 Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2010/TOP/100

Home Contact

2010 Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities

2010 2010 by Field 2010 by Subject 2009 2009 by Field 2008

2008 by Field 2007

Top 500 Top Universities Top Universities Background Methodology Link FAQ Universities by Continents by Countries

Top100

Please click on the column header to enable sorting Ref. Hi-Impact World 11 years Current 11 years Current Ave. HiCi Total World University H-Index journal Rank▲ articles articles citations citations citations papers score Rank articles (FTE) 1 Harvard University 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 62.78 100.00 100.00 100.00 96.28 1

48 2010 Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2010/TOP/100

2 Stanford University 50.92 48.37 43.79 43.12 53.98 67.86 44.13 40.51 50.29 3 Johns Hopkins 3 56.61 51.84 47.22 45.49 52.37 64.29 37.36 40.82 49.94 10 University University of 4 56.53 50.26 45.69 41.43 50.74 65.48 39.13 37.22 49.01 8 Washington - Seattle University of 5 California - Los 57.74 55.04 41.57 42.05 45.20 65.48 36.78 37.38 48.38 7 Angeles University of 6 48.83 48.33 36.50 38.99 46.93 65.48 39.69 35.63 46.35 5 California - Berkeley Massachusetts 7 Institute of 36.51 37.54 32.20 38.20 55.36 75.00 38.61 35.35 46.07 4 Technology University of 8 Michigan - Ann 58.19 59.60 39.01 39.83 42.09 57.14 31.86 39.08 45.94 11 Arbor University of 9 57.96 60.38 33.44 37.69 36.23 60.71 24.77 34.78 43.65 18 Toronto 10 University of Oxford 48.78 45.71 34.78 39.04 44.76 63.10 29.29 30.09 42.83 22 University of 11 48.38 45.00 35.87 35.18 46.54 59.52 28.79 34.82 42.54 12 Pennsylvania University of 12 California - San 42.59 42.12 34.55 34.94 50.93 58.33 29.79 32.43 41.51 2 Diego 13 Columbia University 45.42 45.43 33.32 35.77 46.06 53.57 30.32 36.27 41.30 14 The University of 14 71.09 62.59 34.86 35.21 30.79 48.81 23.11 26.90 40.72 39 Tokyo University of 15 California - San 37.85 36.63 36.00 31.43 59.72 54.76 26.76 33.83 40.20 9 Francisco

49 2010 Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2010/TOP/100

University of 16 44.69 43.66 31.33 35.46 44.02 59.52 27.08 28.67 40.18 26 Cambridge University of 17 London - University 48.77 46.09 33.19 33.88 42.72 55.95 21.04 29.62 39.25 28 College London 18 Yale University 38.48 36.81 31.97 30.45 52.15 57.14 26.66 30.20 38.94 17

19 Duke University 37.82 38.52 28.66 30.14 47.57 57.14 26.58 29.49 38.11 16 University of 20 45.92 42.06 28.97 29.21 39.60 51.19 22.02 25.34 35.92 24 Wisconsin - Madison Imperial College 21 38.77 41.96 23.35 31.53 37.81 54.76 20.10 27.67 35.46 34 London 22 Cornell University 42.74 40.34 28.28 27.19 41.55 47.62 25.74 26.46 35.36 21 University of 23 Pittsburgh - 39.45 40.22 27.39 27.88 43.58 52.38 19.21 25.73 35.07 33 Pittsburgh University of 24 Minnesota - Twin 45.86 41.46 28.19 25.85 38.59 46.43 23.39 25.87 34.67 20 Cities Washington 25 University in St. 31.26 29.87 26.81 23.99 53.85 55.95 18.83 23.70 34.15 19 Louis University of North 26 Carolina - Chapel 34.44 32.85 24.31 24.42 44.31 55.95 20.56 23.42 33.82 36 Hill Northwestern 27 32.05 34.38 21.31 26.62 41.74 53.57 20.64 25.65 33.27 15 University 28 Kyoto University 52.18 46.46 24.54 24.74 29.52 46.43 14.29 17.51 31.80 41 University of 29 39.50 39.73 20.82 23.57 33.09 47.62 17.47 23.70 31.37 25 California - Davis

50 2010 Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2010/TOP/100

The University of 30 26.66 26.26 20.72 24.54 48.79 54.76 19.49 17.75 31.23 30 Chicago California Institute 31 21.20 23.33 19.68 24.97 58.27 52.38 21.32 16.52 30.90 6 of Technology The University of 32 36.53 40.91 19.16 25.49 32.94 45.24 14.68 20.74 29.86 61 British Columbia The Ohio State 33 University - 36.98 36.00 20.08 22.32 34.09 47.62 16.08 17.66 29.53 55 Columbus 34 Karolinska Institutet 32.11 30.04 21.20 20.95 41.46 50.00 11.54 17.91 28.99 40

35 McGill University 34.16 34.51 20.37 21.45 37.43 44.05 13.65 19.30 28.55 85 University of Illinois 36 35.02 31.41 18.40 18.65 32.99 42.86 14.62 19.85 27.39 52 - Urbana-Champaign 37 Emory University 24.11 24.93 17.64 18.85 45.93 47.62 13.25 17.91 27.34 42

38 Osaka University 44.24 36.82 21.04 18.69 29.86 41.67 11.62 14.54 27.32 70

39 Princeton University 19.92 19.52 16.55 17.58 52.14 47.62 20.80 13.25 27.20 13

40 University of Florida 40.88 40.41 17.41 19.67 26.73 40.48 12.41 18.16 27.19 65 The University of Texas - M. D. 41 19.52 20.51 15.95 18.07 51.28 53.57 12.35 13.18 27.08 23 Anderson Cancer Center Pennsylvania State 42 University - 31.75 28.38 18.28 17.29 36.15 44.05 17.13 16.45 27.03 51 University Park University of 43 28.67 40.61 12.75 23.72 27.91 45.24 8.79 21.80 27.00 73 Melbourne Ludwig- 44 Maximilians- 31.56 32.55 16.96 22.33 33.74 45.24 12.61 15.10 26.92 88

51 2010 Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2010/TOP/100

Universität München 45 New York University 26.46 27.23 17.84 17.74 42.32 44.05 15.22 17.76 26.91 83 Mayo Clinic College 46 18.96 27.72 11.46 22.10 37.94 51.19 11.14 19.35 26.63 60 of Medicine University of 47 29.92 27.47 17.53 18.28 36.78 48.81 11.04 14.50 26.59 57 Helsinki 48 Vanderbilt University 24.63 24.45 17.83 16.18 45.45 45.24 12.39 17.37 26.36 67

49 Utrecht University 31.04 30.99 17.09 19.45 34.57 41.67 11.78 18.83 26.24 58 University of 49 29.39 27.21 17.71 17.53 37.84 44.05 14.94 14.82 26.24 31 Arizona University of Paris 51 VI: Pierre et Marie 29.70 37.02 12.41 23.86 26.24 44.05 9.22 18.37 25.87 95 Curie The University of Texas - 52 Southwestern 16.93 15.88 16.82 15.04 62.40 45.24 12.51 13.18 25.61 46 Medical Center at Dallas 53 Boston University 24.36 23.54 17.16 16.89 44.24 41.67 13.95 16.60 25.54 63 University of 54 29.19 32.87 14.44 20.55 31.05 44.05 9.52 16.30 25.49 134 Copenhagen University of 55 London - King's 24.28 24.22 14.35 16.32 37.12 48.81 9.56 17.06 25.38 72 College London University of 56 23.28 25.23 14.18 19.08 38.25 46.43 11.24 15.18 25.25 76 Edinburgh Swiss Federal 57 Institute of 26.90 29.10 14.96 18.85 34.91 38.10 13.91 19.60 25.12 44 Technology - Zurich

52 2010 Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2010/TOP/100

The University of 58 32.17 32.19 14.31 18.72 27.94 41.67 9.92 16.26 24.79 119 Manchester University of 59 27.07 26.56 16.21 16.02 37.59 39.29 12.99 17.13 24.72 71 Southern California University of 60 Maryland - College 26.51 26.27 14.37 16.27 34.04 44.05 12.41 14.15 24.54 102 Park Baylor College of 61 19.95 17.17 17.33 13.73 54.54 45.24 9.72 11.37 24.48 49 Medicine 62 University of Zurich 24.30 26.16 14.50 17.49 37.46 42.86 10.04 14.53 24.25 43 Ruprecht Karl 63 University of 25.80 27.24 13.74 20.00 33.43 44.05 9.01 13.68 24.24 101 Heidelberg University of 64 25.27 26.87 14.20 16.24 35.29 41.67 10.08 14.71 23.84 103 Amsterdam 65 Tohoku University 42.07 37.17 15.84 15.94 23.64 35.71 8.85 12.36 23.79 115 The University of 66 26.96 26.57 13.95 15.98 32.48 40.48 12.51 13.88 23.65 89 Texas - Austin Seoul National 67 36.34 42.39 11.21 15.61 19.37 38.10 7.63 15.78 23.62 141 University University of 68 21.65 23.25 13.54 16.73 39.26 40.48 12.41 14.70 23.60 29 California - Irvine The University of 69 29.89 35.20 12.31 17.03 25.87 39.29 7.53 16.30 23.46 153 Sydney Erasmus University 70 18.93 22.27 11.52 14.69 38.21 45.24 8.45 14.78 23.09 80 Rotterdam 71 Leiden University 21.97 22.90 12.92 16.22 36.92 42.86 8.53 13.92 23.03 35

72 University of Alberta 29.57 31.38 12.78 13.86 27.15 39.29 8.65 14.77 22.84 148

73 Lund University 28.17 24.60 14.85 15.93 33.10 39.29 9.24 12.85 22.83 77

53 2010 Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2010/TOP/100

University of São 74 43.06 57.03 10.52 14.88 15.34 32.14 5.14 9.69 22.74 218 Paulo The Rockefeller 75 6.57 4.90 10.46 6.85 100.00 38.10 8.85 5.87 22.70 45 University McMaster 76 20.10 22.26 10.85 14.72 33.87 46.43 9.54 10.49 22.47 36 University Katholieke 77 24.70 31.63 10.92 16.96 27.75 38.10 7.63 15.41 22.27 75 Universiteit Leuven University of 78 22.82 20.97 14.74 13.51 40.56 38.10 9.48 12.05 22.11 74 Virginia Mount Sinai School 79 16.02 14.69 12.33 12.37 48.34 44.05 8.29 10.88 22.06 53 of Medicine University of Paris 80 22.37 25.97 9.71 18.47 27.24 42.86 8.55 11.64 21.98 114 XI: Sud University of 81 Alabama - 20.21 18.34 13.92 12.29 43.22 40.48 8.67 11.18 21.87 69 Birmingham 82 University of Bristol 21.98 21.88 11.64 14.15 33.26 40.48 9.62 13.19 21.81 98

83 University of Utah 22.50 21.47 13.79 13.35 38.46 36.90 9.05 13.67 21.75 107 National University 84 30.46 34.53 9.96 15.28 20.52 33.33 8.11 17.44 21.57 130 of Singapore 84 Uppsala University 25.20 23.84 13.00 13.16 32.38 40.48 7.37 10.72 21.57 77 University of 86 19.86 27.77 9.70 14.93 30.67 40.48 7.15 13.29 21.45 79 Montreal University of 86 20.84 18.88 13.32 14.57 40.14 35.71 11.87 11.66 21.45 103 Colorado - Boulder Case Western 88 20.16 18.35 13.93 12.48 43.38 38.10 8.61 11.02 21.39 47 Reserve University University of 89 California - Santa 17.26 17.02 11.94 12.56 43.43 36.90 14.66 10.02 21.30 32 Barbara

54 2010 Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2010/TOP/100

Michigan State 90 24.04 24.36 11.37 13.07 29.69 38.10 10.48 11.84 21.22 129 University Technical University 91 22.70 22.68 11.61 13.37 32.12 39.29 9.22 11.32 21.18 146 of Munich 92 University of Iowa 24.26 19.31 14.65 11.58 37.92 36.90 9.19 10.90 21.17 89 University of Colorado - Denver 93 17.53 17.97 12.53 11.86 44.86 38.10 8.31 11.87 21.12 144 and Health Sciences Center University of 94 18.73 18.20 12.67 12.72 42.48 36.90 9.90 11.77 21.11 117 Rochester University of 95 25.82 30.24 10.74 14.87 26.11 34.52 7.53 14.46 20.98 151 Queensland University of 96 21.64 23.36 11.43 13.59 33.17 38.10 7.27 12.32 20.88 126 Groningen Texas A&M 97 University - College 29.30 28.61 12.47 11.77 26.71 33.33 9.86 12.25 20.87 93 Station 98 Tufts University 15.35 14.19 11.46 12.39 46.87 39.29 9.24 9.44 20.68 50 Humboldt University 99 17.39 22.32 9.69 15.36 34.97 41.67 4.44 11.30 20.67 86 of Berlin 99 University of Milan 27.04 25.52 12.99 13.76 30.15 35.71 7.09 10.09 20.67 142

IE Ver.6.0 or later,or Firefox 2.0 or later,is suggested to browse the website / optimal resolution: 1024*768,96 dpi

55 57 58 59 60 61 62 Leiden Ranking 2010 - Products & Services - Faculty of Social and Behavioural Scien... Page 1 of 3

Leiden University Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences CWTS Products & Services

Centre for Science and Technology Studies

Leiden Ranking 2010

The Leiden Ranking aims at comparison of research institutions with impact measures that take the differences in disciplines into account.

Introduction

The Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, has developed a ranking system based on its own bibliometric indicators. This Leiden ranking focuses on all universities worldwide with more than 400 Web of Science indexed publications per year. This means that the 500 largest universities (in terms of publication numbers) in the world are covered. Thus, our bibliometric analysis is based on the scientific output of many hundreds to thousands of researchers in each of these universities.

Experience and know-how

The Leiden ranking benefits from all experiences and know-how available at CWTS:

• very accurate and regularly updated definition and 'unification' of universities worldwide; • corrections for practically all errors and inconsistencies in the raw publication and citation data; • thorough methodology based on 20 years of experience in research performance analysis; • multiple-indicator approach.

The latter point is important: on the basis of the same data and the same technical and methodological framework, different types of impact-indicators can be constructed. For instance indicators focusing entirely on impact, and others in which also scale (size of the institution) is taken into account.

European and world rankings

Rankings based on these different indicators are not the same, although they originate from exactly the same data and exactly the same methodological framework. Moreover, rankings are strongly influenced by the size-threshold used to define the set of universities for which the ranking is calculated: smaller universities that are not present in the top-100 (in size) may take a high position in impact ranking if the size threshold is lowered.

Therefore, we present European (EUR) rankings based on the largest 100 and on the largest 250 European universities, and World rankings based on the largest 100, the largest 250, and the largest 500 universities worldwide.

Two indicators

64 http://www.socialsciences.leiden.edu/cwts/products-services/leiden-ranking-2010-cwts 05/11/2010 Leiden Ranking 2010 - Products & Services - Faculty of Social and Behavioural Scien... Page 2 of 3

Given the recent discussions on the normalization procedure of the field-normalized impact indicator, we present in all our rankings both the CWTS crown indicator CPP/FCSm as well as the alternative indicator (http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/avr- 2010joirivals.pdf) .

Europe

• Yellow ranking by size, i.e., number of publications (P): Top 100 (http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/leidenr-2010-eu100-lichtgeel.pdf) , Top 250 (http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/leidenr- 2010-eu250-lichtgeel.pdf) • Blue ranking by the 'simple' citations-per-publication indicator (CPP), but notice that this indicator is not a field- normalized one, therefore, particularly, universities of technology will almost always suffer because in engineering and applied fields of science the number of citations per publication is mostly considerably lower than in, for instance, the medical fields: Top 100 (http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/leidenr-2010-eu100-lichtblauw.pdf) , Top 250 (http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/leidenr- 2010-eu250-lichtblauw.pdf) • Lighter Green ranking by the size-independent, field-normalized average impact, the CWTS crown indicator CPP/FCSm : Top 100 (http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/leidenr-2010-eu100-lichtgroen.pdf) , Top 250 (http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/leidenr- 2010-eu250-lichtgroen.pdf) • Darker Green ranking by the size-independent, field-normalized average impact, the alternative crown indicator MNCS2 Top 100 (http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/leidenr-2010-eu100-groen.pdf) , Top 250 (http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/leidenr-2010- eu250-groen.pdf) • Orange ranking by the size-dependent 'brute force' impact indicator, the multiplication of P with the university's field-normalized average impact: P * CPP/FCSm : Top 100 (http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/leidenr-2010-eu100-oranje.pdf) , Top-250 (http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/leidenr-2010- eu250-oranje.pdf) .

To illustrate the effect of the size threshold, we indicate in the Top-250 the universities of size ranking 101-250 with smaller lettering.

World

• Yellow ranking by size, i.e., number of publications (P) : Top 100 (http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/leidenr-2010-w100-lichtgeel.pdf) , Top 250 (http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/leidenr- 2010-w250-lichtgeel.pdf) , Top 500 (http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/leidenr-2010-w500-lichtgeel.pdf) . • Blue ranking by the 'simple' citations-per-publication indicator (CPP): Top 100 (http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/leidenr-2010-w100-lichtblauw.pdf) , Top 250 (http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/leidenr- 2010-w250-lichtblauw.pdf) , Top 500 (http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/leidenr-2010-w500-lichtblauw.pdf) . • Lighter Green ranking by the size-independent, field-normalized average impact, the CWTS crown indicator CPP/FCSm : Top 100 (http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/leidenr-2010-w100-lichtgroen.pdf) , Top 250 (http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/leidenr- 2010-w250-lichtgroen.pdf) , Top 500 (http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/leidenr-2010-w500-lichtgroen.pdf) • Darker Green ranking by the size-independent, field-normalized average impact, the alternative crown indicator MNCS2 : Top 100 (http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/leidenr-2010-w100-groen.pdf) , Top 250 (http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/leidenr-2010- w250-groen.pdf) , Top 500 (http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/leidenr-2010-w500-groen.pdf) • Orange ranking by the size-dependent 'brute force' impact indicator, the multiplication of P with the university's field-normalized average impact: P * CPP/FCSm : Top 100 (http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/leidenr-2010-w100-oranje.pdf) , Top 250 (http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/leidenr-2010- w250-oranje.pdf) , Top 500 (http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/leidenr-2010-w500-oranje2.pdf) .

65 http://www.socialsciences.leiden.edu/cwts/products-services/leiden-ranking-2010-cwts 05/11/2010 P=2004 2008, C=2004 2009 CPP/ Largest World 100, by P CPP MNCS2 C P FCSm 1 HARVARD UNIV US 16.34 2.02 992835 60768 2.00 2 UNIV TOKYO JP 7.52 1.13 269627 35850 1.17 3 UNIV TORONTO CA 9.72 1.45 330503 33985 1.46 4 UNIV CALIF LOS ANGELES US 12.11 1.75 371224 30653 1.71 5 JOHNS HOPKINS UNIV US 13.72 1.73 418250 30479 1.74 6 UNIV MICHIGAN - ANN ARBOR US 10.84 1.69 327064 30176 1.67 7 UNIV WASHINGTON - SEATTLE US 12.75 1.82 373136 29258 1.80 8 UNIV OXFORD UK 11.25 1.67 298531 26539 1.63 9 STANFORD UNIV US 13.64 2.11 360066 26404 1.96 10 UNIV COLL LONDON UK 10.85 1.48 285136 26286 1.46 11 KYOTO UNIV JP 7.07 1.07 185587 26264 1.11 12 UNIV PENN US 12.49 1.75 326222 26129 1.68 13 UNIV CAMBRIDGE UK 11.15 1.70 286150 25662 1.63 14 COLUMBIA UNIV US 12.26 1.82 311467 25399 1.78 15 UNIV SAO PAULO BR 4.08 0.78 102708 25167 0.76 16 UNIV MINNESOTA - MINNEAPOLIS-ST LOUIS US 9.80 1.61 229551 23419 1.56 17 UNIV WISCONSIN - MADISON US 9.96 1.61 230984 23186 1.58 18 UNIV CALIF SAN DIEGO US 12.61 1.75 288937 22915 1.77 19 CORNELL UNIV US 11.18 1.69 254989 22809 1.65 20 OSAKA UNIV JP 7.18 1.00 159552 22234 1.12 21 UNIV CALIF BERKELEY US 12.32 2.02 272640 22129 1.97 22 IMPERIAL COLL LONDON UK 10.47 1.55 229935 21967 1.49 23 UNIV FLORIDA US 7.04 1.27 152226 21622 1.23 24 UNIV PITTSBURGH US 11.34 1.59 244103 21528 1.60 25 TOHOKU UNIV JP 5.83 1.02 124877 21408 1.04 26 SEOUL NATL UNIV KR 5.55 1.03 117675 21189 1.03 27 UNIV CALIF DAVIS US 8.86 1.53 185560 20940 1.44 28 DUKE UNIV US 12.68 1.77 261812 20643 1.73 29 YALE UNIV US 13.02 1.74 267390 20535 1.72 30 UNIV BRITISH COLUMBIA CA 9.06 1.46 185953 20514 1.47 31 UNIV CALIF SAN FRANCISCO US 15.46 1.81 313252 20259 1.82 32 PENN STATE UNIV US 8.97 1.54 179400 20009 1.59 33 OHIO STATE UNIV US 8.76 1.50 174375 19898 1.49 34 KATHOLIEKE UNIV LEUVEN BE 8.23 1.35 161302 19603 1.38 35 MIT US 15.39 2.38 294324 19119 2.46 36 UNIV PARIS VI P&M CURIE FR 7.82 1.30 148537 18998 1.25 37 MCGILL UNIV CA 9.76 1.42 182558 18711 1.43 38 KOBENHAVNS UNIV DK 9.00 1.39 164379 18274 1.34 39 UNIV N CAROLINA - CHAPEL HILL US 11.78 1.68 215227 18271 1.68 40 ZHEJIANG UNIV CN 3.48 0.87 62283 17899 0.77 41 UNIV MANCHESTER UK 7.83 1.33 139861 17860 1.32 42 UNIV UTRECHT NL 9.00 1.42 160107 17782 1.35 43 NATL UNIV SINGAPORE SG 6.21 1.28 109923 17687 1.22 44 UNIV MILANO IT 8.46 1.20 148242 17522 1.22 45 NATL TAIWAN UNIV TW 4.93 1.00 86267 17504 0.95 46 NORTHWESTERN UNIV US 11.41 1.77 198390 17386 1.69 47 TSING HUA UNIV CN 3.67 0.95 63590 17347 0.86 48 UNIV SYDNEY AU 6.84 1.20 117186 17122 1.18 49 LMU UNIV MUNCHEN DE 9.23 1.38 156887 16995 1.30

66 P=2004 2008, C=2004 2009 CPP/ Largest World 100, by CPP CPP MNCS2 C P FCSm 1 HARVARD UNIV US 16.34 2.02 992835 60768 2.00 2 UNIV CALIF SAN FRANCISCO US 15.46 1.81 313252 20259 1.82 3 MIT US 15.39 2.38 294324 19119 2.46 4 UNIV TEXAS - HOUSTON US 14.41 1.53 195892 13591 1.53 5 CALTECH US 13.97 2.09 185695 13288 1.96 6 JOHNS HOPKINS UNIV US 13.72 1.73 418250 30479 1.74 7 STANFORD UNIV US 13.64 2.11 360066 26404 1.96 8 YALE UNIV US 13.02 1.74 267390 20535 1.72 9 WASHINGTON UNIV - ST LOUIS US 12.91 1.65 210158 16284 1.64 10 UNIV CHICAGO US 12.83 1.95 181648 14157 1.80 11 UNIV WASHINGTON - SEATTLE US 12.75 1.82 373136 29258 1.80 12 DUKE UNIV US 12.68 1.77 261812 20643 1.73 13 UNIV CALIF SAN DIEGO US 12.61 1.75 288937 22915 1.77 14 UNIV PENN US 12.49 1.75 326222 26129 1.68 15 UNIV CALIF BERKELEY US 12.32 2.02 272640 22129 1.97 16 COLUMBIA UNIV US 12.26 1.82 311467 25399 1.78 17 UNIV CALIF LOS ANGELES US 12.11 1.75 371224 30653 1.71 18 UNIV N CAROLINA - CHAPEL HILL US 11.78 1.68 215227 18271 1.68 19 EMORY UNIV - ATLANTA US 11.73 1.61 153786 13110 1.55 20 VANDERBILT UNIV US 11.59 1.57 154569 13341 1.55 21 BOSTON UNIV US 11.44 1.69 151513 13243 1.66 22 NORTHWESTERN UNIV US 11.41 1.77 198390 17386 1.69 23 UNIV PITTSBURGH US 11.34 1.59 244103 21528 1.60 24 UNIV OXFORD UK 11.25 1.67 298531 26539 1.63 25 CORNELL UNIV US 11.18 1.69 254989 22809 1.65 26 UNIV CAMBRIDGE UK 11.15 1.70 286150 25662 1.63 27 KAROLINSKA INST STOCKHOLM SE 11.09 1.36 187063 16873 1.34 28 NYU US 11.08 1.67 162687 14688 1.64 29 UNIV CALIF IRVINE US 11.02 1.71 136127 12358 1.68 30 ERASMUS UNIV ROTTERDAM NL 11.01 1.49 136560 12408 1.49 31 UNIV COLL LONDON UK 10.85 1.48 285136 26286 1.46 32 UNIV MICHIGAN - ANN ARBOR US 10.84 1.69 327064 30176 1.67 33 IMPERIAL COLL LONDON UK 10.47 1.55 229935 21967 1.49 34 UNIV EDINBURGH UK 10.25 1.54 135112 13188 1.54 35 UNIV ZURICH CH 10.16 1.46 140420 13824 1.44 36 LEIDEN UNIV NL 10.02 1.43 125385 12513 1.37 37 UNIV WISCONSIN - MADISON US 9.96 1.61 230984 23186 1.58 38 UNIV MINNESOTA - MINNEAPOLIS-ST LOUIS US 9.80 1.61 229551 23419 1.56 39 UNIV ARIZONA US 9.77 1.47 147292 15076 1.51 40 MCGILL UNIV CA 9.76 1.42 182558 18711 1.43 41 UNIV TORONTO CA 9.72 1.45 330503 33985 1.46 42 UNIV HEIDELBERG DE 9.71 1.35 150031 15445 1.32 43 UNIV SO CALIF US 9.71 1.54 141060 14522 1.51 44 ETH ZURICH CH 9.41 1.63 142126 15099 1.64 45 KINGS COLL UNIV LONDON UK 9.33 1.38 127597 13680 1.33 46 LMU UNIV MUNCHEN DE 9.23 1.38 156887 16995 1.30 47 UNIV AMSTERDAM NL 9.18 1.41 142162 15492 1.36 48 UNIV HELSINKI FI 9.12 1.35 143853 15768 1.36 49 UNIV IOWA US 9.12 1.36 113353 12426 1.38

67 P=2004 2008, C=2004 2009 CPP/ Largest World 100, by CPP/FCSm CPP MNCS2 C P FCSm 1 MIT US 15.39 2.38 294324 19119 2.46 2 HARVARD UNIV US 16.34 2.02 992835 60768 2.00 3 UNIV CALIF BERKELEY US 12.32 2.02 272640 22129 1.97 4 CALTECH US 13.97 2.09 185695 13288 1.96 5 STANFORD UNIV US 13.64 2.11 360066 26404 1.96 6 UNIV CALIF SAN FRANCISCO US 15.46 1.81 313252 20259 1.82 7 UNIV WASHINGTON - SEATTLE US 12.75 1.82 373136 29258 1.80 8 UNIV CHICAGO US 12.83 1.95 181648 14157 1.80 9 COLUMBIA UNIV US 12.26 1.82 311467 25399 1.78 10 UNIV CALIF SAN DIEGO US 12.61 1.75 288937 22915 1.77 11 JOHNS HOPKINS UNIV US 13.72 1.73 418250 30479 1.74 12 DUKE UNIV US 12.68 1.77 261812 20643 1.73 13 YALE UNIV US 13.02 1.74 267390 20535 1.72 14 UNIV CALIF LOS ANGELES US 12.11 1.75 371224 30653 1.71 15 NORTHWESTERN UNIV US 11.41 1.77 198390 17386 1.69 16 UNIV PENN US 12.49 1.75 326222 26129 1.68 17 UNIV N CAROLINA - CHAPEL HILL US 11.78 1.68 215227 18271 1.68 18 UNIV CALIF IRVINE US 11.02 1.71 136127 12358 1.68 19 UNIV MICHIGAN - ANN ARBOR US 10.84 1.69 327064 30176 1.67 20 BOSTON UNIV US 11.44 1.69 151513 13243 1.66 21 CORNELL UNIV US 11.18 1.69 254989 22809 1.65 22 NYU US 11.08 1.67 162687 14688 1.64 23 WASHINGTON UNIV - ST LOUIS US 12.91 1.65 210158 16284 1.64 24 ETH ZURICH CH 9.41 1.63 142126 15099 1.64 25 UNIV CAMBRIDGE UK 11.15 1.70 286150 25662 1.63 26 UNIV OXFORD UK 11.25 1.67 298531 26539 1.63 27 UNIV MARYLAND - COLLEGE PARK US 8.15 1.62 109568 13452 1.61 28 UNIV TEXAS - AUSTIN US 8.40 1.64 118166 14066 1.60 29 UNIV PITTSBURGH US 11.34 1.59 244103 21528 1.60 30 PENN STATE UNIV US 8.97 1.54 179400 20009 1.59 31 UNIV WISCONSIN - MADISON US 9.96 1.61 230984 23186 1.58 32 UNIV MINNESOTA - MINNEAPOLIS-ST LOUIS US 9.80 1.61 229551 23419 1.56 33 VANDERBILT UNIV US 11.59 1.57 154569 13341 1.55 34 EMORY UNIV - ATLANTA US 11.73 1.61 153786 13110 1.55 35 UNIV EDINBURGH UK 10.25 1.54 135112 13188 1.54 36 UNIV TEXAS - HOUSTON US 14.41 1.53 195892 13591 1.53 37 UNIV ARIZONA US 9.77 1.47 147292 15076 1.51 38 UNIV SO CALIF US 9.71 1.54 141060 14522 1.51 39 UNIV ILLINOIS - URBANA US 7.71 1.56 127811 16579 1.49 40 OHIO STATE UNIV US 8.76 1.50 174375 19898 1.49 41 ERASMUS UNIV ROTTERDAM NL 11.01 1.49 136560 12408 1.49 42 IMPERIAL COLL LONDON UK 10.47 1.55 229935 21967 1.49 43 UNIV BRITISH COLUMBIA CA 9.06 1.46 185953 20514 1.47 44 UNIV COLL LONDON UK 10.85 1.48 285136 26286 1.46 45 UNIV TORONTO CA 9.72 1.45 330503 33985 1.46 46 UNIV CALIF DAVIS US 8.86 1.53 185560 20940 1.44 47 UNIV ZURICH CH 10.16 1.46 140420 13824 1.44 48 MCGILL UNIV CA 9.76 1.42 182558 18711 1.43 49 MICHIGAN STATE UNIV US 7.38 1.47 93661 12685 1.42

68 P=2004 2008, C=2004 2009 CPP/ Largest World 100, by MNCS2 CPP MNCS2 C P FCSm 1 MIT US 15.39 2.38 294324 19119 2.46 2 STANFORD UNIV US 13.64 2.11 360066 26404 1.96 3 CALTECH US 13.97 2.09 185695 13288 1.96 4 HARVARD UNIV US 16.34 2.02 992835 60768 2.00 5 UNIV CALIF BERKELEY US 12.32 2.02 272640 22129 1.97 6 UNIV CHICAGO US 12.83 1.95 181648 14157 1.80 7 UNIV WASHINGTON - SEATTLE US 12.75 1.82 373136 29258 1.80 8 COLUMBIA UNIV US 12.26 1.82 311467 25399 1.78 9 UNIV CALIF SAN FRANCISCO US 15.46 1.81 313252 20259 1.82 10 NORTHWESTERN UNIV US 11.41 1.77 198390 17386 1.69 11 DUKE UNIV US 12.68 1.77 261812 20643 1.73 12 UNIV CALIF LOS ANGELES US 12.11 1.75 371224 30653 1.71 13 UNIV CALIF SAN DIEGO US 12.61 1.75 288937 22915 1.77 14 UNIV PENN US 12.49 1.75 326222 26129 1.68 15 YALE UNIV US 13.02 1.74 267390 20535 1.72 16 JOHNS HOPKINS UNIV US 13.72 1.73 418250 30479 1.74 17 UNIV CALIF IRVINE US 11.02 1.71 136127 12358 1.68 18 UNIV CAMBRIDGE UK 11.15 1.70 286150 25662 1.63 19 BOSTON UNIV US 11.44 1.69 151513 13243 1.66 20 CORNELL UNIV US 11.18 1.69 254989 22809 1.65 21 UNIV MICHIGAN - ANN ARBOR US 10.84 1.69 327064 30176 1.67 22 UNIV N CAROLINA - CHAPEL HILL US 11.78 1.68 215227 18271 1.68 23 NYU US 11.08 1.67 162687 14688 1.64 24 UNIV OXFORD UK 11.25 1.67 298531 26539 1.63 25 WASHINGTON UNIV - ST LOUIS US 12.91 1.65 210158 16284 1.64 26 UNIV TEXAS - AUSTIN US 8.40 1.64 118166 14066 1.60 27 ETH ZURICH CH 9.41 1.63 142126 15099 1.64 28 UNIV MARYLAND - COLLEGE PARK US 8.15 1.62 109568 13452 1.61 29 EMORY UNIV - ATLANTA US 11.73 1.61 153786 13110 1.55 30 UNIV WISCONSIN - MADISON US 9.96 1.61 230984 23186 1.58 31 UNIV MINNESOTA - MINNEAPOLIS-ST LOUIS US 9.80 1.61 229551 23419 1.56 32 UNIV PITTSBURGH US 11.34 1.59 244103 21528 1.60 33 VANDERBILT UNIV US 11.59 1.57 154569 13341 1.55 34 UNIV ILLINOIS - URBANA US 7.71 1.56 127811 16579 1.49 35 IMPERIAL COLL LONDON UK 10.47 1.55 229935 21967 1.49 36 UNIV EDINBURGH UK 10.25 1.54 135112 13188 1.54 37 PENN STATE UNIV US 8.97 1.54 179400 20009 1.59 38 UNIV SO CALIF US 9.71 1.54 141060 14522 1.51 39 UNIV CALIF DAVIS US 8.86 1.53 185560 20940 1.44 40 UNIV TEXAS - HOUSTON US 14.41 1.53 195892 13591 1.53 41 OHIO STATE UNIV US 8.76 1.50 174375 19898 1.49 42 ERASMUS UNIV ROTTERDAM NL 11.01 1.49 136560 12408 1.49 43 UNIV COLL LONDON UK 10.85 1.48 285136 26286 1.46 44 MICHIGAN STATE UNIV US 7.38 1.47 93661 12685 1.42 45 UNIV ARIZONA US 9.77 1.47 147292 15076 1.51 46 UNIV ZURICH CH 10.16 1.46 140420 13824 1.44 47 UNIV BRITISH COLUMBIA CA 9.06 1.46 185953 20514 1.47 48 UNIV TORONTO CA 9.72 1.45 330503 33985 1.46 49 LEIDEN UNIV NL 10.02 1.43 125385 12513 1.37

69 P=2004 2008, C=2004 2009 CPP/ P*(CPP/ Largest World 100, by P*(CPP/FCSm) CPP MNCS2 C P FCSm FCSm) 1 HARVARD UNIV US 16.34 2.02 992835 60768 2.00 121774.5 2 JOHNS HOPKINS UNIV US 13.72 1.73 418250 30479 1.74 53167.8 3 UNIV WASHINGTON - SEATTLE US 12.75 1.82 373136 29258 1.80 52766.2 4 UNIV CALIF LOS ANGELES US 12.11 1.75 371224 30653 1.71 52418.3 5 STANFORD UNIV US 13.64 2.11 360066 26404 1.96 51747.9 6 UNIV MICHIGAN - ANN ARBOR US 10.84 1.69 327064 30176 1.67 50523.0 7 UNIV TORONTO CA 9.72 1.45 330503 33985 1.46 49553.9 8 MIT US 15.39 2.38 294324 19119 2.46 46955.6 9 COLUMBIA UNIV US 12.26 1.82 311467 25399 1.78 45133.8 10 UNIV PENN US 12.49 1.75 326222 26129 1.68 43946.5 11 UNIV CALIF BERKELEY US 12.32 2.02 272640 22129 1.97 43495.6 12 UNIV OXFORD UK 11.25 1.67 298531 26539 1.63 43151.1 13 UNIV TOKYO JP 7.52 1.13 269627 35850 1.17 42001.4 14 UNIV CAMBRIDGE UK 11.15 1.70 286150 25662 1.63 41888.6 15 UNIV CALIF SAN DIEGO US 12.61 1.75 288937 22915 1.77 40591.5 16 UNIV COLL LONDON UK 10.85 1.48 285136 26286 1.46 38343.0 17 CORNELL UNIV US 11.18 1.69 254989 22809 1.65 37717.1 18 UNIV CALIF SAN FRANCISCO US 15.46 1.81 313252 20259 1.82 36881.3 19 UNIV WISCONSIN - MADISON US 9.96 1.61 230984 23186 1.58 36626.2 20 UNIV MINNESOTA - MINNEAPOLIS-ST LOUIS US 9.80 1.61 229551 23419 1.56 36457.6 21 DUKE UNIV US 12.68 1.77 261812 20643 1.73 35704.3 22 YALE UNIV US 13.02 1.74 267390 20535 1.72 35237.1 23 UNIV PITTSBURGH US 11.34 1.59 244103 21528 1.60 34375.9 24 IMPERIAL COLL LONDON UK 10.47 1.55 229935 21967 1.49 32627.0 25 PENN STATE UNIV US 8.97 1.54 179400 20009 1.59 31813.5 26 UNIV N CAROLINA - CHAPEL HILL US 11.78 1.68 215227 18271 1.68 30682.3 27 UNIV CALIF DAVIS US 8.86 1.53 185560 20940 1.44 30150.3 28 UNIV BRITISH COLUMBIA CA 9.06 1.46 185953 20514 1.47 30062.0 29 OHIO STATE UNIV US 8.76 1.50 174375 19898 1.49 29692.3 30 NORTHWESTERN UNIV US 11.41 1.77 198390 17386 1.69 29316.3 31 KYOTO UNIV JP 7.07 1.07 185587 26264 1.11 29274.1 32 KATHOLIEKE UNIV LEUVEN BE 8.23 1.35 161302 19603 1.38 27062.8 33 MCGILL UNIV CA 9.76 1.42 182558 18711 1.43 26836.2 34 WASHINGTON UNIV - ST LOUIS US 12.91 1.65 210158 16284 1.64 26726.6 35 UNIV FLORIDA US 7.04 1.27 152226 21622 1.23 26578.6 36 CALTECH US 13.97 2.09 185695 13288 1.96 26105.2 37 UNIV CHICAGO US 12.83 1.95 181648 14157 1.80 25448.6 38 OSAKA UNIV JP 7.18 1.00 159552 22234 1.12 24843.3 39 UNIV ILLINOIS - URBANA US 7.71 1.56 127811 16579 1.49 24784.0 40 ETH ZURICH CH 9.41 1.63 142126 15099 1.64 24719.2 41 KOBENHAVNS UNIV DK 9.00 1.39 164379 18274 1.34 24525.4 42 NYU US 11.08 1.67 162687 14688 1.64 24124.3 43 UNIV UTRECHT NL 9.00 1.42 160107 17782 1.35 24068.6 44 UNIV PARIS VI P&M CURIE FR 7.82 1.30 148537 18998 1.25 23827.5 45 UNIV MANCHESTER UK 7.83 1.33 139861 17860 1.32 23500.7 46 UNIV ARIZONA US 9.77 1.47 147292 15076 1.51 22702.3 47 KAROLINSKA INST STOCKHOLM SE 11.09 1.36 187063 16873 1.34 22658.2 48 UNIV TEXAS - AUSTIN US 8.40 1.64 118166 14066 1.60 22537.6 49 TOHOKU UNIV JP 5.83 1.02 124877 21408 1.04 22313.9

70 Log in Forgot y our password? Forgot y our username? C reate an account

Home World ranking Regional ranking Country ranking search...

Home The GU-Rankings Methodology

Ranking Info Methodology The GU-Rankings Ranking is based on evaluation and weighing of information provided by each university participating in Ranking. Estimations are About us weighed, aggregated, rated by the maximum value and adjusted to 100-point scale.

About project Establishing of Ranking is carried out under the following scenario:

Methodology Procedure 1. Selection of circle of participants of Ranking.

Glossary Expert pool formed by the Independent Ranking Agency RatER (RatER) has determined that all the world universities participating in the four main global rankings (Shanghai Jiao Tong University (ARWU-500), The Times (QS-THES-200), Questionnaire Webometrics and National Taiwan University) shall necessarily become the request respondents. Besides, the top higher schools of the Russian Federation as well as of the former USSR countries are included in the list of request respondents Information (the fact that a higher school is a winner of innovation educational program competitions is the criterion for listing).

The officials and managers of the Ranking project do not consider the circle of participants formed on the basis of the above criteria to be final. Any university expressing the willingness to participate in the Project can fill in the Questionnaire and send the electronic and hard copies of that to the e-mail and postal addresses of RatER.

Procedure 2. Communication of requests to universities.

Requests in writing are sent to the addresses of the universities identified as the compulsory participants of Ranking. Moreover, electronic version of the Questionnaire is available for all the universities indicating their willingness to participate in Ranking.

Procedure 3. Data acquisition.

All the universities participating in Ranking shall send their responses to the e-mail address of RatER till the 15th of October, 2008; hard copies of the responses supporting the electronic responses shall be sent to the address of RatER till the 25th of October, 2008 at the latest.

With regard to the fact that some responses may be delayed, Project officials and managers gather the information on every university listed as the compulsory participants of Ranking from every source available and, in the first place, from the Web-sites of the universities.

Procedure 4. Data processing.

The information obtained is recorded in electronic worksheets. Every university participating in Ranking is classified by regions, countries and categories.

Procedure 5. Evaluation of information.

Expert pool formed by the Project officials and managers determines the rating scales for every indicator of performance of the universities, for weight of every indicator of a Block and for weight of the score of each Block.

Each expert performs his own evaluation of performance indicators of all the universities. The final evaluation of each indicator is determined as the average of all the expert evaluations. In case when some expert evaluations of an indicator show a spread of more than 15 % a joint expert discussion of this evaluation is held so that its final value is determined based on consensus.

The procedure for evaluation is founded on the principles of the utmost transparency and every inspector or observer can keep track of its execution on the Web site of the Project.

The dates of the beginning and the execution of the Estimation procedure as well as the membership of the Expert pool will be announced.

Procedure 6. Aggregation, rating and adjustment of evaluations; formation of Ranking.

Weighed Block-by-Block evaluations are summed, rated by the maximum value and adjusted to 100-point scale. Ranking of universities by each Block of indicators is possible.

Block-by-Block evaluations are weighed, summed, rated by the maximum value and adjusted to 100-point scale.

Summary ranking of world universities is formed.

Procedure 7. Presentation of Ranking, holding of virtual discussion of Ranking, analysis of the results; updating of indicators (determination of new indicators), updating of Ranking procedures with a view to repeat it during further activities of the universities.

------

The data obtained from the universities describe the levels of academic and research performances, of availability of resources, of socially significant activities of the graduates and of international activities as well as reflect the opinion of the academic community on the top foreign universities.

The level of academic performance of the university is characterized by the following indicators: 72 1. Number of educational programs implemented in the university during the completed academic year by each three levels of training and study.

The indicator characterizes the level of diversification of the university and the scope of the academic activities, that is, the arrangement of transfer of, in particular, the general knowledge to students.

2. Total number of the full-time faculty of the university in the completed academic year.

The indicator characterizes the scope of the university and its potential capacity for academic activities, enables to determine the number of the faculty adjusted for the number of students and is used for determination of other relative indicators.

3. Number of students studied in the university during 2007/2008 academic year by levels of training and study.

The indicator characterizes the scope of the university activities and is used for determination of other relative indicators.

4. Winning of the international academic competitions by students of the university starting from 2001.

Participation and winning of the international academic competitions by students of the university is a direct characterization of the quality of the training and of the quality of the student body and an indirect characterization of the expertise of the faculty.

The principle of calculation of results of the academic competitions (6 points for the 1 place, … 1 point for the 6 place) enables to make a sufficient evaluation of the level of the academic activities.

The level of research performance of the university is characterized by the following indicators:

1. Number of certificates on discoveries and patents for inventions obtained by the university and its research officers and scholars starting from 2001.

The indicator is quantitative directly characterizing the research potential capacity of the university and the effectiveness of the existing scientific schools. The year 2001 is chosen as the beginning of the new epoch particularly as the new epoch of development of the world universities.

2. Number of honorary professors (doctors) of the university who are the Nobel Prize winners, the Fields Medal winners and have other world awards starting from 2001.

The indicator is quantitative characterizing the scientific communications with other research universities and centers.

3. Number of world awards (Nobel Prize, Fields Medal, etc.) received by the research officers and scholars of the university starting from 2001.

The indicator is quantitative characterizing the level of recognition of the research performance of the university by international academic and intellectual communities.

The level of the expertise of the faculty is characterized by the following indicators:

1. Total number of publications by the faculty (articles, textbooks and manuals, monographs, etc.) in 2007/2008 academic year.

The indicator characterizes the scope of the intellectual performance of the faculty of the university.

2. Percentage of the faculty of the university having the academic degree as of the last academic year.

The indicator characterizes the level of growth of scientific knowledge of the faculty of the university.

3. Total number of the professors of the university who are the members of the international and national Academies of sciences as of the last academic year.

The indicator characterizes the recognition of the faculty of the university by international academic and intellectual communities.

4. Average indicator of citing and referring to the publications of one lecturer of the university by foreign authors in the last academic year (without regard to the references made by the domestic authors).

The indicator characterizes the level of recognition of the research performance of the faculty of the university by international academic and intellectual communities.

The level of availability of resources of the university is characterized by the following indicators:

1. Total budget of the university as of the last fiscal year including the governmental and regional assignments, donations and contributions, grants, funds earned by rendering of educational services and R&D (mln. of UDS).

The indicator characterizes the aggregate financial strength of the university used to accomplish its tasks and objectives.

2. Total cost of the training and laboratory facilities of the university as of the last fiscal year (mln. of UDS).

The indicator characterizes the research potential capacity of the university.

3. Performance of the computer center of the university (Tflops).

The indicator characterizes the potential capacity of the university to arrange the research work.

The level of the socially significant activities of the graduates of the university is characterized by the following indicator:

1. Total number of the live graduates of the university who achieved the public recognition: prominent men of science, culture and business, politicians, government officials, administrators of territories and cities (with population exceeding 100 thousand), managers and executives of major international organizations (UN, UNESCO, etc.). 73 The indicator reflects the public evaluation of the performance of the university on national and global scales.

The level of the international activities of the university is characterized by the following indicators:

1. International academic communities in which the university was involved in the last academic year.

The indicator characterizes the scope of the arrangement and the intensity of international scientific and educational communications of the university.

2. Total number of foreign universities who were the partners of bilateral agreements with the university in the last academic year.

The indicator characterizes the level of development of interuniversity cooperation resulting in introduction of innovations into the management of the university.

3. Total number of the officers and scholars of the university who are the honorary professors (doctors) of foreign universities.

The indicator characterizes the level of recognition of the scientific and educational achievements of the university by foreign higher schools.

4. Total number of foreign students who studied in the university in the last academic year.

The indicator characterizes the level of presence of the university at the global market of educational services.

5. Total number of the students of the university who went/ arrived for inclusive education in universities of other countries; total number of the professors of the university who went to foreign universities to conduct lecturing and research work.

The indicator characterizes the level of academic mobility in the university.

The opinion of the experts of the university on the top foreign universities:

Based on the expert survey, ranking of universities is made. The rank of each university is determined by the number of affirmative votes of the experts (consolidated opinion of all the experts of the university is made) for each foreign university (provided that the expert considers all the 10 distinguished universities to be equal ranking). Request for the experts’ opinion only on foreign universities enables to exclude the «patriotic» component of the evaluation as well as it is possible to enlarge the university geography.

74 The 1st hundred – Global universities ranking

Rank Name school Country Estimation Block1 Block2 Block3 Block4 Block5 Block6 1 Massachusetts Institute of USA 100,0 19 1 1 4 20 1 Technology 2 California Institute of USA 82,1 27 3 14 1 18-19 8 Technology 3 University of Tokyo Japan 70,7 9 2 4 38 143-144 10 4 Columbia University USA 66,5 8 6 3 50-52 30-31 62-67 5 Lomonosov's Moscow State Russia 66,4 1 36 7 95-104 163 91-131 University 6 Harvard University USA 60,5 12-13 7 13 7 71-73 49-53 7 Stanford University USA 59,6 51 9 9 5 39 78-90 8 University of Cambridge UK 58,1 14 16 11 15 34 78-90 9 Johns Hopkins University USA 56,3 2 27 20 31-33 62-63 132-430 10 University of Chicago USA 53,2 10-11 20 19 12 113 37-38 11 Kyoto University Japan 52,5 54 5 12 45-49 233-235 20-21 12 Princeton University USA 51,1 99-100 24 5 8 70 78-90 13 University College London UK 49,6 16 19 41 23-24 12 40 14 University of Oxford UK 47,7 6 33 45 31-33 16 132-430 15 University of California, USA 47,1 130-132 28 8 14 176-178 62-67 Los Angeles 16 University of Illinois USA 46,8 162-164 26 2 162-179 268-269 91-131 17 University of Edinburgh UK 46,6 61 11 26 53-55 52-53 49-53 18-19 University of California, USA 45,5 283 18 6 39-40 237-238 91-131 Berkeley 18-19 University of Pennsylvania USA 45,5 39 14 48 6 65 132-430 20 University of California, USA 45,0 246-251 21 10 16 220-222 91-131 San Diego 21 Carnegie Mellon University USA 42,7 40-41 56 30 20-22 13 132-430 22 New York University USA 42,5 36 49 22 45-49 114-115 91-131 23 University of Washington USA 42,3 84 12 37 17 179-182 54-57 24 Duke University USA 42,2 4 58 143-145 2 91-92 91-131 25 University of Michigan USA 42,1 35 42 23 43-44 119 91-131 26 University of Minnesota USA 41,8 182-184 23 15 253-264 196-198 91-131 27 Cornell University USA 40,3 56 37 47 9 85 12-13 Copyright © Non-profit organization IRA “RatER”, 2009

75 The 1st hundred – Global universities ranking

28 University of Maryland USA 39,8 152-156 30-31 16 23-24 303 78-90 29 University of Southern USA 39,7 94-95 8 75 69-75 37 132-430 California 30 McGill University Canada 39,4 17 47 69 109-119 27-28 132-430 31 Tokyo Institute of Japan 39,3 57 4 83 109-119 147 132-430 Technology 32 Vanderbilt University USA 38,4 12-13- 60 122 3 146 132-430 33 University of Utah USA 37,2 103-107 22 28-29 76-83 316 91-131 34 University of Rochester USA 36,4 15 45-46 91-92 53-55 183-185 32 35 Technical University of Germany 35,9 120-121 76 27 84-90 66 132-430 Munich 36-39 Michigan State University USA 35,6 258-261 43 24 69-75 139-141 68-77 36-39 University of Paris XI: Sud France 35,6 122-123 106-107 18 109-119 149 132-430 36-39 Emory University USA 35,6 22-23 155-156 40 20-22 148 132-430 36-39 King’s College London UK 35,6 48 110-111 39 56-58 50 132-430 40 University of Sheffield UK 35,5 102 86 21 109-119 210-213 132-430 41 University of Tsukuba Japan 35,4 58 10 124-125 192-199 183-185 39 42 University of Pittsburgh USA 35,1 33 32 72 31-33 313 20-21 43 University of York UK 34,9 160 17 62 230-237 134-135 132-430 44 Case Western Reserve USA 34,6 42 57 85-86 13 75-77 28-30 University 45 Ecole Polytechnique France 33,9 7 147-149 270-272 76-83 22 132-430 46 Osaka University Japan 33,8 52 48 52 66-68 225-227 132-430 47 University of California, USA 33,5 361-363 54-55 17 25-26 349-351 132-430 Santa Barbara 48 University of Copenhagen Denmark 33,4 5 165 149 157-161 81-82 132-430 49 Tohoku University Japan 33,1 18 87-89 66 157-161 204-208 91-131 50 Australian National Australia 33,0 44-45 79 91-92 41 27-28 28-30 University 51 Humboldt University Berlin Germany 32,9 79-80 147-149 31-32 120-129 112 33 52-54 Ludwig-Maximilians Germany 32,8 103-107 73 64 120-129 78-79 7 Universitat Munchen 52-54 University of Manchester UK 32,8 59 75 67-68 50-52 36 132-430 52-54 University of Texas at USA 32,8 300-302 15 63 130-141 159-162 132-430 Austin Copyright © Non-profit organization IRA “RatER”, 2009

76 The 1st hundred – Global universities ranking

55 Moscow State Technical Russia 32,7 3 349 58 284-288 341-342 132-430 University n.a. N.E. Bauman 56 Georgia Institute of USA 32,5 345-347 112-113 107-109 162-179 83-84 2 Technology 57-58 Arizona State University USA 32,1 354-355 38 34 109-119 196-198 68-77 57-58 Ohio State University USA 32,1 219-221 41 53-54 180-191 301 5 59 University of Groningen Netherlands 31,8 103-107 34-35 130-131 238-246 192-193 4 60 University of Nottingham UK 31,6 117-119 134 31-32 130-141 106-109 132-430 61 Kyushu University Japan 31,4 73-74 67 73 105-108 210-213 9 62 University of North USA 31,2 122-123 69 28-29 142-150 355 132-430 Carolina 63 Ruprecht Karl University of Germany 31,0 62-63 74 78-79 76-83 55-57 78-90 Heidelberg 64 University of Toronto Canada 30,7 336-338 65 60 105-108 129 6 65 University of California, USA 30,4 296-299 68 25 69-75 322 45-48 Irvine 66 Boston University USA 30,1 64-65 52-53 120 34 99-100 68-77 67 Curtin University of Australia 29,6 268-271 301 49 265-273 1 25 Technology 68 University of Freiburg Germany 29,5 24 119-120 123 180-191 87 132-430 69 University of Florida USA 29,2 191-193 30-31 61 162-179 328-330 78-90 70-71 University of Wisconsin- USA 29,1 135 50 50 358-371 310 91-131 Madison 70-71 Durham University UK 29,1 198-199 40 78-79 151-156 101 132-430 72-73 ETH Zurich Switzerland 29,0 208-209 77-78 80 29 18-19 132-430 72-73 University of Montreal Canada 29,0 191-193 45-46 93-95 192-199 64 132-430 74-77 Rensselaer Polytechnic USA 28,8 319-322 13 214-217 162-179 131 132-430 Institute 74-77 Monash University Australia 28,8 128-129 171 132-133 91-94 7 16 74-77 Pennsylvania State USA 28,8 241-242 59 55 45-49 183-185 132-430 University 74-77 State University of New USA 28,8 203 63-64 85-86 20-22 55-57 132-430 York - Stony Brook 78 Uppsala University Sweden 28,5 262-267 131-133 33 217-229 159-162 132-430

77 The 1st hundred – Global universities ranking

79 Purdue University USA 28,4 336-338 39 71 69-75 105 91-131 80 University of Arizona USA 28,0 187-188 52-53 70 69-75 214-215 132-430 81-83 University of Melbourne Australia 27,9 152-156 91 82 289-305 33 41-42 81-83 University of Geneva Switzerland 27,9 177-178 90 165-166 120-129 5 132-430 81-83 Seoul National University South Korea 27,9 28 356-357 111 238-246 176-178 132-430 84 Saint-Petersburg State Russia 27,7 34 320-322 46 238-246 228 132-430 University 85-87 University of Alberta Canada 27,4 157 77-78 74 84-90 106-109 91-131 85-87 University of Birmingham UK 27,4 137-138 98 99-101 109-119 32 91-131 85-87 University of Queensland Australia 27,4 177-178 81-82 99-101 84-90 49 34 88 National University of Singapore 27,3 227-228 122-123 97 265-273 6 132-430 Singapore 89 RWTH Aachen University Germany 27,2 76-78 80 142 120-129 68-69 132-430 90-91 Indiana University USA 27,0 312-313 34-35 103-105 35-36 143-144 132-430 Bloomington 90-91 Swiss Federal Institute of Switzerland 27,0 85 176-177 336-337 25-26 2 132-430 Technology - Lausanne 92 Nagoya University Japan 26,9 81 92 81 95-104 200-201 43 93 National Taiwan University Taiwan 26,8 230-232 150-151 36 274-283 288-289 132-430 94 University of California, USA 26,6 219-221 70 59 19 333 78-90 Davis 95 University of Ghent Belgium 26,5 29 172-174 147-148 230-237 150-151 132-430 96-98 Drexel University USA 26,4 182-184 71 93-95 37 123-124 91-131 96-98 University of Basel Switzerland 26,4 37 172-174 257-258 95-104 60-61 132-430 96-98 North Carolina State USA 26,4 287-288 25 98 91-94 302 132-430 University 99 University of Glasgow UK 26,2 117-119 87-89 89-90 76-83 127-128 132-430 100 Maastricht University Netherlands 25,9 152-156 184-185 233-237 200-216 4 31

Block1 - Educational activity Block2 - Research activity Block3 - Professional competence of the faculty Block4 - Financial maintenance Block5 - International activity Block6 - Internet audience

78 SIR - Methodology Page 1 of 1

H o m e Methodology P r e s s L o g i n

Overview O v e r v i e w Scimago Institutions Rankings is a science evaluation resource to assess Data Source worldwide universities and research-focused institutions. The ranking tools and reports measure research activity of worldwide institutions having noteworthy C r o s s- sectorial analyses scientific output, including universities, government agencies, research labs, I n d i c a t o r s hospitals and more. Data processing Outstanding characteristics defining SIR are:

 Worldwide & inclusive emphasis: The report embraces universities and other research-focused organizations from different sizes, having different missions and belonging to countries from the five continents.

 Customizable: It allows users to design its own rankings by filtering and combining the ones provided. It also allows to decide which dimensions of research activity to measure or compare and which institutions to include according to the needs of users' evaluation processes.

 Comprehensive data: To achieve reliable and transparent results the data have been extracted form the world largest authoritative scientific database, Scopus and undergo intense efforts on data processing and institution attribution.

80 http://scimagoir.com/methodology.php 05/11/2010 SIR - Methodology Page 1 of 1

H o m e Methodology P r e s s L o g i n

Data Source O v e r v i e w Building global research rankings whose results are reliable needs a Data Source comprehensive data source. We chose Scopus as the largest publication and citation database of research literature, mainly (but not exclusively) composed of C r o s s- sectorial analyses scholarly journals and conference proceedings. Titles included must conform to I n d i c a t o r s academic quality norms, specifically peer-review. Scopus covers titles from all geographical regions containing the largest collection of non-English titles. Data processing

Scopus coverage data (status Dec 2009):

 Nearly 18,000 peer-reviewed journals from more than 5,000 publishers, including coverage of

 16,500 peer-reviewed journals (inc > 1200 Open Access journals)

 600 trade publications

 350 book series

 Extensive conference coverage (3,6 million conference papers)

 41 million records, of which

 20 million records include references going back to 1996 (78% include references)

 20 million pre-1996 records go back as far as 1823

More info about Scopus at: http://www.info.sciverse.com/scopus/scopus-in- detail/content-coverage-guide

81 http://scimagoir.com/methodology.php?page=data_source 05/11/2010 SIR - Methodology Page 1 of 2

H o m e Methodology P r e s s L o g i n

Cross-sectorial analyses O v e r v i e w

Data Source

C r o s s- sectorial analyses

I n d i c a t o r s

Data processing

Figure: Percentage by sectors of institutions included in SIR.

Not every research paper published in a scholarly journal has been elaborated within universities. Significantly, a part of research activity is conducted in organizations not belonging to higher education systems but Government Agencies and Labs, Hospitals, Research Centres, or Private Companies, among others. SIR identifies and groups research-focused institutions into 5 research sectors to allow more in depth analyses:

Higher Education Public or private institutions awarding graduate and postgraduate certificates of education, including Bachelor, Graduate, Postgraduate, Master and PhD. This group forms the larger part of the institutions analyzed, and it is primarily made up of universities. Health This sector gathers institutions conducting research in Life and Earth Sciences that do not belong to higher education systems. It is formed by Hospitals, Research Centres, Research Labs, etc. Government Government owned institutions that conduct research. It includes a wide range of government agencies whether they do research as a primary activity as Research Labs or not as Government Department. Private This sector is formed by Private Companies and Corporates where scientific research forms an important parts of its business model, at the extent that they decide to publish his findings in scholarly journals. Others Institutions which although can not be included in neither of the former sectors, they carry out scientific research. International Private Foundations or International Organizations fall into this sector.

82 http://scimagoir.com/methodology.php?page=cross_sectorial 05/11/2010 SIR - Methodology Page 1 of 2

H o m e Methodology P r e s s L o g i n

Indicators O v e r v i e w SIR World Report 2010 shows 4 indicators to evaluate institutions' research Data Source performance. These are based on the scientific outputs of institutions and the citations they receive. Understanding how they are calculated and what they C r o s s- sectorial analyses measure will give you more insight about the results. I n d i c a t o r s

Output Data processing

The output or number of scientific papers published in scholarly journals reveals the ability of an institution to produce scientific knowledge. Output values are affected by institution sizes and research profiles, among others factors. The Output indicator forms the basis for more complex metrics.

At co-authored publications a score is assigned to each contributing institution through the author's institutional address

International Collaboration :: IC(%)

This indicator shows the ability of institutions to create international research links through the output ratio that has been produced in collaboration with foreign institutions.

The values are computed by analyzing the institution's output whose affiliations include more than one country address.

Normalizad Impact :: IN

Normalized Impact scores indicate the scientific impact that institutions have over the scientific community. In order to obtain a fair measurement of such impact, its calculation removes the influence due to institutions' size and research profile making it ideal for comparing research performance. Normalized Impact values show the ratio between the average scientific impact of an institution and the world average impact of publications of the same time frame, document type and subject area.

The values are expressed in percentages and show the relationship of the institution's average impact to the world average, which is 1, --i.e. a score of 0.8 means the institution is cited 20% below world average and 1.3 means the institution is cited 30% above world average.

Note: Normalized Impact is computed using the methodology established by the Karolinska Intitutet in Sweden where it is named "Item oriented field normalized citation score average". The long name used is because the normalization of the citation values is done on an individual article level. Further information on the methodology at Bibliometric Handbook for Karolinska Institutet .

High Quality Publications :: Q1(%)

Ratio of publications an institution publishes in the world most influential scholarly journals. Journals considered for this indicator are those ranked in the first quartile (25%) in their categories as ordered by SCImago Journal Rank SJR indicator.

More on SJR indicator at: http://www.scimagojr.com

83 http://scimagoir.com/methodology.php?page=indicators 05/11/2010 SIR - Methodology Page 1 of 1

H o m e Methodology P r e s s L o g i n

Data Processing O v e r v i e w The construction of academic rankings involves large efforts on data processing Data Source in order to show reliable and complete scores for institutions, otherwise it would lead to wrong results and distort any decision making process built on top of it. C r o s s- sectorial analyses We face two primary technical issues when building SIR Reports and Rankings: I n d i c a t o r s

 Definition and identification of institutions.The drawing up of a list of Data processing research institutions where any institution is correctly identified and defined. Typical issues on this task include institution's merge or segregation and denomination changes.

 Attribution of citations and publications to its corresponding institutions. This is done through the institutional address stated by the authors in the affiliation field of the database. Common issues include different spellings, different languages, and spelling mistakes.

Process Stages

The overall process is carried out over a number of steps that we describe bellow:

1. Creation of a pattern list of institutions. We locate official lists of institutions through worldwide official sources such the International Association of Universities (UNESCO), National Research Agencies, etc and create a pattern institutions list. An authority control process is carried out to disambiguate items with similar or identical name and to gather the several variant names of the same institutions. 2. Institution Matching. We use computerized means to match the institutional affiliations present in Scopus to the pattern list built formerly. We have matched more than 11,000 institutions up to date. 3. Attribution of papers and citations to its corresponding institutions. We manually identify and assign the institutional affiliations stated by the authors in the scientific articles to pattern institutions. We have assigned more than 4,500,000 addresses so far, which represents the 2,000 institutions with largest scientific production.

The normalization process is carried out by a mixture of computerized and human means. The normalization team made up of 30 information specialists from several countries.

84 http://scimagoir.com/methodology.php?page=technical_issues 05/11/2010

86 Robust, transparent and yours: The most exact & relevant world rankings yet devised Page 1 of 5

THE World University Rankings 2010-2011, powered by Thomson Reuters (/world-university- rankings/)

THE (/) RANKINGS HOME (/WORLD-UNIVERSITY-RANKINGS/) TOP 200 (/WORLD-UNIVERSITY-RANKINGS/2010-2011/TOP-200.HTML)

ANALYSIS (/WORLD-UNIVERSITY-RANKINGS/2010-2011/ANALYSIS.HTML) BY REGION (#BYREGIONNAV) BY SUBJECT (#BYSUBJECTNAV)

SUBSCRIBE TO THE (/WORLD-UNIVERSITY-RANKINGS/SUBSCRIBE.HTML) iPhone APP (/WORLD-UNIVERSITY-RANKINGS/2010-2011/IPHONE.HTML)

Robust, transparent and sophisticated

16th September 2010

Phil Baty explains how in-depth consultation with the global academic community has (http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/click;h=v8/3a48/0/0/% produced the most exact and relevant world rankings yet devised 2a/t;228666915;0-0;1;51632317;26411- 336/84;38245630/38263387/1;;~sscs=% It is, of course, rather crude to reduce universities to a single number. 3fhttp://www.hku.hk/international)

We are aware that higher education institutions are extraordinarily complex organisations. They do many wonderful, life-changing and paradigm-shifting things that simply cannot be measured. Data on some of their most valuable endeavours simply do not exist or cannot be meaningfully compared on a global scale; many of the proxies commonly used are less than satisfactory.

The 2010-11 Times Higher Education World University Rankings have been compiled with these limitations very much in mind.

The tables' methodology was determined only after 10 months of detailed consultation with leading experts in global higher education: more than 50 senior figures across every continent provided (http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/click;h=v8/3a48/0/0/% extensive feedback on our plans, amounting to more than 250 pages of commentary. The wider 2a/s;228798662;0-0;1;51632317;26411- university community also had its say via more than 300 postings on our website. 336/84;38302284/38320041/1;;~sscs=% 3fhttp://www.postech.ac.kr/) So, despite the inherent limitations, these tables represent the most comprehensive and sophisticated exercise ever undertaken to provide transparent, rigorous and genuinely meaningful global-performance comparisons for use by university faculty, strategic leaders, policymakers and prospective students.

The aim over the past 10 months has been to create a genuinely useful tool for the global higher education community and beyond, not just an annual headline-driven curiosity.

So what is the result of perhaps the largest consultation exercise ever undertaken to produce world university rankings?

The tables use 13 separate indicators (up from just six under our old system) designed to capture a broad range of activities, from teaching and research to knowledge transfer.

These elements are brought together into five categories:

• Teaching — the learning environment (worth 30 per cent of the final ranking score) (#teaching) • Research — volume, income and reputation (worth 30 per cent) (#research) • Citations — research influence (worth 32.5 per cent) (#citations) • Industry income — innovation (worth just 2.5 per cent) (#industry) • International mix — staff and students (worth 5 per cent) (#international)

The weightings for the five categories, and the 13 indicators within them, vary considerably. High weightings are given where consultation has shown unmistakable enthusiasm for the indicator as a valuable proxy and clear confidence in the data we have. Lower weightings are employed where confidence in the data or the usefulness of the indicator is less pronounced.

The future

This is the first year of a highly ambitious new rankings system. In all such systems, compromises must be made, proxies must be applied and data-collection issues will arise.

However, we are confident that by creating our methodology in open and detailed consultation over the past 10 months, we have produced a robust and evidence-based ranking that paints a realistic picture of the global landscape.

88 http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/analysi... 04/11/2010 Robust, transparent and yours: The most exact & relevant world rankings yet devised Page 2 of 5

Rankings: the methodology

To calculate the overall ranking score, "Z-scores" were created for all datasets.

This standardises the different data types on a common scale and allows fair comparisons between the different types of data — which is essential when combining diverse information into a single ranking.

Each data point is given a score based on its distance from the average (mean) of the entire dataset, where the scale is the standard deviation of the dataset. The Z-score is then turned into a "cumulative probability score" to give the final totals.

Simon Pratt, project manager for institutional research at Thomson Reuters, who analysed the data for the World University Rankings, says: "A cumulative probability score indicates for any real value what the probability is that a normally distributed random value will fall below that point."

For example, if University X has a score of 98, then a random institution from the same distribution of data will fall below this university 98 per cent of the time.

Exclusions Universities were excluded from the World University Rankings tables if they do not teach undergraduates; if their research output amounts to less than 50 articles per year; or if they teach only a single narrow subject.

Data sign-off Each institution listed in these rankings opted in to the exercise and verified its institutional data. Where institutions did not provide data in a particular area (which occurred in only some very low- weighted areas), the column has been left blank.

A very important principle of the new Times Higher Education World University Rankings in the first year of a brand new system is that all universities that we list have actively cooperated with the system and signed off their data. The rankings are designed to be a useful and rigorous tool for the global higher education community, and we are delighted that the vast majority of universities around the world have embraced this exercise and have actively participated. Unfortunately after repeated invitations to participate in the Global Institutional Profiles Project and World University Ranking by e- mail and telephone by Thomson Reuters, some institutions did not respond, and therefore could not be included. Some also declined to participate.

Reputational surveys A worldwide Academic Reputation Survey was carried out during spring 2010. Some 13,388 responses were gathered across all regions and subject areas. The results make up a total of 34.5 per cent of the overall ranking score (15 per cent for teaching and 19.5 per cent for research).

89 http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/analysi... 04/11/2010 Robust, transparent and yours: The most exact & relevant world rankings yet devised Page 3 of 5

Weighting scheme for ranking scores

Industry income — innovation This category is designed to cover an institution's knowledge-transfer activity. It is determined by just a single indicator: a simple figure giving an institution's research income from industry scaled against the number of academic staff.

We plan to supplement this category with additional indicators in the coming years, but at the moment we feel that this is the best available proxy for high-quality knowledge transfer. It suggests the extent to which users are prepared to pay for research and a university's ability to attract funding in the commercial marketplace — which are significant indicators of quality.

However, because the figures provided by institutions for this indicator were patchy, we have given the category a relatively low weighting for the 2010-11 tables: it is worth just 2.5 per cent of the overall ranking score.

Teaching — the learning environment This broad category employs five separate indicators designed to provide a clear sense of the teaching and learning environment of each institution, from both the student and academic perspective.

The flagship indicator for this category uses the results of a reputational survey on teaching.

Thomson Reuters carried out its Academic Reputation Survey — a worldwide poll of experienced scholars — in spring 2010. It examined the perceived prestige of institutions in both research and teaching. There were 13,388 responses, statistically representative of global higher education's geographical and subject mix.

The results of the survey with regard to teaching make up 50 per cent of the score in the broad teaching environment category, and 15 per cent of the overall rankings score.

This broad category also measures the number of undergraduates admitted by an institution scaled against the number of academic staff. Essentially a form of staff-to-student ratio, this measure is employed as a proxy for teaching quality — suggesting that where there is a low ratio of students to staff, the former will get the personal attention they require from the institution's faculty.

As this measure serves as only a crude proxy, and our consultation exposed some concerns about its use, it receives a relatively low weighting: it is worth 15 per cent of the teaching category and just 4.5 per cent of the overall ranking scores.

This contrasts with the 20 per cent weighting the measure was given in our previous rankings.

The teaching category also examines the ratio of PhD to bachelor's degrees awarded by each institution. We believe that institutions with a high density of research students are more knowledge- intensive, and that the presence of an active postgraduate community is a marker of a research-led teaching environment valued by undergraduates and postgraduates alike.

The PhD-bachelor's ratio receives a 7.5 per cent weighting in its category and is worth 2.25 per cent of the overall ranking scores.

The teaching category also uses data on the number of PhDs awarded by an institution, scaled against its size as measured by the number of academic staff.

As well as giving a sense of how committed an institution is to nurturing the next generation of academics, a high proportion of postgraduate research students also suggests teaching at the highest level that is attractive to graduates and good at developing them.

Undergraduate students also tend to value working in a rich environment that includes postgraduates. Worth 20 per cent of the teaching environment category, this indicator makes up 6 per cent of the overall score.

The final indicator in this category is a simple measure of institutional income scaled against academic staff numbers.

This figure, adjusted for purchasing-price parity so that all nations compete on a level playing field, indicates the general status of an institution and gives a broad sense of the general infrastructure and facilities available to students and staff.

This measure is worth 7.5 per cent of the category and 2.25 per cent overall.

Citations — research influence A university's research influence — as measured by the number of times its published work is cited by academics — is the largest of the broad rankings categories, worth just under a third of the overall score.

90 http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/analysi... 04/11/2010 Robust, transparent and yours: The most exact & relevant world rankings yet devised Page 4 of 5

This weighting reflects the relatively high level of confidence the global academic community has in the indicator as a proxy for research quality.

The use of citations to indicate quality is controversial — their use in distributing more than £1.5 billion a year in UK research funding under the forthcoming research excellence framework, for example, has been dramatically scaled back after lengthy consultation.

Nevertheless, there is clear evidence of a strong correlation between citation counts and research performance.

The data are drawn from the 12,000 academic journals indexed by Thomson Reuters' Web of Science database. The figures are collected for every university, with data aggregated over a five- year period from 2004 to 2008 (there has been insufficient time for the accumulation of such data for articles published in 2009 and 2010).

Unlike the approach employed by the old rankings system, all the citations impact data are normalised to reflect variations in citation volume between different subject areas. This means that institutions with high levels of research activity in subjects with traditionally very high citation counts will no longer gain an unfair advantage.

Research — volume, income and reputation As with the teaching category, the most prominent indicator in research volume, income and reputation is based on the results of our reputational survey.

Consultation with our expert advisers suggested that confidence in this indicator was higher than in the teaching reputational survey, as academics are likely to be more knowledgeable about the reputation of research departments in their specialist fields. For this reason, it is given a higher weighting: it is worth 65 per cent here and 19.5 per cent of the overall score.

Some 17.5 per cent of this category — 5.25 per cent of the overall ranking — is determined by a university's research income, scaled against staff numbers and normalised for purchasing-power parity. This is a controversial measure, as it can be influenced by national policy and economic circumstances. But research income is crucial to the development of world-class research, and because much of it is subject to competition and judged by peer review, our experts suggested it was a valid measure.

The research environment category also includes a simple measure of research volume scaled against staff numbers. We count the number of papers published in the academic journals indexed by Thomson Reuters per staff member, giving an idea of an institution's ability to get papers published in quality peer-reviewed journals. This indicator is worth 15 per cent of the category and 4.5 per cent overall.

Some 2.5 per cent of the category — worth just 0.75 per cent overall — is a measure of public research income against an institution's total research income. This has a low weighting to reflect concerns about the comparability of self-reported data between countries.

International mix — staff and students Our final category looks at diversity on campus — a sign of how global an institution is in its outlook.

The ability of a university to attract the very best staff from across the world is key to global success. So in this category we give a 60 per cent weighting to the ratio of international to domestic staff, making up 3 per cent of the overall score.

The market for academic and administrative jobs is international in scope, and this indicator suggests global competitiveness. However, as it is a relatively crude proxy, and as geographical considerations can influence performance, the weighting has been reduced from the 5 per cent used under our old rankings system.

The other indicator in this category is based on the ratio of international to domestic students. Again, this is a sign of an institution's global competitiveness and its commitment to globalisation. As with the staff indicator, our consultation revealed concerns about the inability to gauge the quality of students and the problems caused by geography and tuition-fee regimes. So the measure receives a 40 per cent weighting and is worth 2 per cent of the final score.

Citation impact: it's all relative

Citations are widely recognised as a strong indicator of the significance and relevance — that is, the impact — of a piece of research.

However, citation data must be used with care as citation rates can vary between subjects and time periods.

For example, papers in the life sciences tend to be cited more frequently than those published in the social sciences.

91 http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/analysi... 04/11/2010 Robust, transparent and yours: The most exact & relevant world rankings yet devised Page 5 of 5

The rankings this year use normalised citation impact, where the citations to each paper are compared with the average number of citations received by all papers published in the same field and year. So a paper with a relative citation impact of 2.0 is cited twice as frequently as the average for similar papers.

The data were extracted from the Thomson Reuters resource known as Web of Science, the largest and most comprehensive database of research citations available.

Its authoritative and multidisciplinary content covers more than 11,600 of the highest-impact journals worldwide. The benchmarking exercise is carried out on an exact level across 251 subject areas for each year in the period 2004 to 2008.

For institutions that produce few papers, the relative citation impact may be significantly influenced by one or two highly cited papers and therefore it does not accurately reflect their typical performance. However, institutions publishing fewer than 50 papers a year have been excluded from the rankings.

There are occasions where a groundbreaking academic paper is so influential as to drive the citation counts to extreme levels — receiving thousands of citations. An institution that contributes to one of these papers will receive a significant and noticeable boost to its citation impact, and this reflects such institutions' contribution to globally significant research projects.

Simon Pratt is project manager, institutional research, Thomson Reuters.

Contact us: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) Keep informed: join Times Higher Education's mailing list (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/register.asp) Subscribe to Times Higher Education (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university- rankings/subscribe.html) Times Higher Education World University Rankings on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/THEworldunirank) Times Higher Education World University Rankings on Twitter (http://twitter.com/timeshighered)

Top (#content) © 2010 TSL Education Ltd. Contact us (/contacts.asp?navcode=8) Feedback (/feedback.asp?navcode=9) Terms & conditions (/hybrid.asp? typeCode=31&pubCode=1&navcode=10) Privacy policy (/hybrid.asp?typeCode=122&pubCode=1&navcode=11) Site map (/site_map.asp?navcode=12) Issue index (/publicationindex.asp?navcode=79) How to advertise (/hybrid.asp?typeCode=123&pubCode=1&navcode=127)

iPhone is a trademark of Apple Inc. App Store is a service mark of Apple Inc.

92 http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/analysi... 04/11/2010

96 High Impact Universities | World University Rankings | 2010 http://www.highimpactuniversities.com/methods.html

2010 High Impact Universities It's all about research impact

Summary Methodology Overall Results Faculty Results Q&A Links Contact

Methodology The condensed version

Read the overview below for a summary of the rationale and methodology or download the full research article.

Go straight to the 2010 world university rankings here. Check out the worldwide faculty rankings here. Read the Q&A list here.

Research Article Primary Affiliation Please feel free to download and distribute University of Western Australia Download a full research article and results supplements for 2010 in ready to print format.

B.-T. Vo, V. Sreeram, B.-N. Vo, "On the PubCit Database Assessment of University Research Impact: Towards Simplicity, Scopus by Elsevier Transparency and Fairness," Technical Report, The University of Western Australia, August 2010.

Article Worldwide Supplement Australian Supplement

Overview A Brief Description

In academic circles, research and

98 High Impact Universities | World University Rankings | 2010 http://www.highimpactuniversities.com/methods.html

development is usually disseminated via publications. The "quality" of a publication is usually indicated by the number of citations or references it receives. The "consistency" of R&D is then usually indicated by the number of highly cited or referenced publications produced.

The methodology proposed here is based on the g-index proposed by Egghe which is an extension of the h-index proposed by Hirsch.

These indices are essentially quantitative measures (where higher is better) of the quality and consistency of publication as measured by citations or references. They are also cited for being objective, verifiable, and difficult to manipulate. Their definition can practically be given in one sentence each.

• (h) One has an index of h, if one has at least h publications, each of which has at least h citations. J. Hirsch, “An Index to Quantify an Individual’s Scientific Research Output,” PNAS, Vol. 102, No. 46, pp. 16569-16572, Nov. 2005.

• (g) One has an index of g, if one has at least g publications, which, when taken together, have an average of at least g citations per publication. L. Egghe, “Theory and Practise of the g-index,” Scientometrics, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 131-152, Jan. 2006.

Notice the difference in citation counts: one is absolute while the other involves an average.

We apply these ideas indices to benchmark research performance at both the individual faculty and overall university levels.

The methodology can be summarized in three simple steps:

1. calculating the g-index for each faculty of each university 2. dividing or normalizing the index for each faculty by that of the highest 99 High Impact Universities | World University Rankings | 2010 http://www.highimpactuniversities.com/methods.html

performing faculty 3. averaging or summing the normalized faculty indices to arrive at a final RPI value for a particular university or institution

In this study, each university or institution is considered to be comprised of five broad faculties:

• Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacology, and Health Sciences • Pure, Natural, and Mathematical Sciences • Engineering, Computing, and Technology • Life, Biological, and Agricultural Sciences • Arts, Humanities, Business, and Social Sciences

The result is a set of g-scores for each faculty of each university, along with a corresponding n-score or normalized g-score, and a final index value for each particular university or institution. The scores can roughly be interpreted as follows:

• the g-index for a faculty of a university or institution is the highest number g of its best publications which average at least g citations per publication, indicating a sustained publication and citation rate, or quality and consistency of publication (higher is better) • the n-index or normalized g-index for a faculty of a university is then a number between 0 and 1, indicating its performance relative to that of the best performing faculty in the same category in the world, thus allowing the performance of each of the five faculties or disciplines to be compared on a common scale. • the final RPI for a university or institution is a percentage, indicating its overall quality and consistency of research output, with equal contributions from all faculties, as measured relative to a world 'dream team' comprising all the best faculties in

100 High Impact Universities | World University Rankings | 2010 http://www.highimpactuniversities.com/methods.html

the world (0 for no performance, 1 for dream team)

So, in short,

What is the g-index? A numerical measure of the quality and consistency of publication or research output. Why normalize? So that scores across the five faculties or disciplines can be compared on the same scale. Why take an inter faculty average? To indicate comprehensiveness or all round relative performance.

Publication and citation data is supplied by the internationally accepted Elsevier Scopus database. Information presented on this website is correct as at July 2010.

Browse the results online:

2010 World University Rankings 2010 World Faculty Rankings

2010 Australian University Rankings 2010 Australian Faculty Rankings

Download the research article and results supplements below:

B.-T. Vo, V. Sreeram, B.-N. Vo, "On the Assessment of University Research Impact: Towards Simplicity, Transparency and Fairness," Technical Report, The University of Western Australia, August 2010.

Article Worldwide Supplement Australian Supplement

Disclaimer The standard stuff

Note that the opinions or views expressed in this website are those of the project team only, they are presented for informational purposes, and do not necessarily reflect those of the University of Western Australia.

Please also note that while all care has 101 High Impact Universities | World University Rankings | 2010 http://www.highimpactuniversities.com/methods.html

been taken to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the data collected, due to the size and scale of the study, errors and omissions would be rare but may be encountered.

102 HIGH IMPACT UNIVERSITIES

2 /1 /5 3 4 5 6 n-idx 7 8 9 10 g-idx 11 2010 Institution name RPI Total Country Region MDPHS PNMS ECT LBAS AHBSS MDPHS PNMS ECT LBAS AHBSS Rank Score 0 Global Dreamteam 1 5 *** World 1 1 1 1 1 489 284 241 433 158 1 Harvard University 0.9257 4.6284 US Americas 1 0.9894 0.639 1 1 489 281 154 433 158 2 Stanford University 0.7841 3.9205 US Americas 0.5992 0.8451 0.8838 0.7506 0.8418 293 240 213 325 133 3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 0.7711 3.8558 US Americas 0.4254 0.9472 0.9502 0.7229 0.8101 208 269 229 313 128 4 University of California, Los Angeles 0.7618 3.8092 US Americas 0.6933 0.9085 0.7759 0.6467 0.7848 339 258 187 280 124 5 University of California, Berkeley 0.7466 3.7332 US Americas 0.3538 1 1 0.5566 0.8228 173 284 241 241 130 6 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 0.706 3.5302 US Americas 0.638 0.7958 0.5851 0.6189 0.8924 312 226 141 268 141 7 University of Washington 0.7013 3.5063 US Americas 0.6646 0.8556 0.5643 0.6813 0.7405 325 243 136 295 117 8 University of Pennsylvania 0.6608 3.3042 US Americas 0.6115 0.7007 0.4772 0.6351 0.8797 299 199 115 275 139 9 Johns Hopkins University 0.6593 3.2965 US Americas 0.7342 0.7923 0.4896 0.7298 0.5506 359 225 118 316 87 10 University of California, San Diego 0.6337 3.1686 US Americas 0.5869 0.7042 0.6432 0.709 0.5253 287 200 155 307 83 11 Columbia University 0.6261 3.1304 US Americas 0.6278 0.7007 0.4315 0.6236 0.7468 307 199 104 270 118 12 University of Minnesota, Twin Cities 0.6236 3.1182 US Americas 0.5562 0.7606 0.6058 0.4804 0.7152 272 216 146 208 113 13 University of Cambridge 0.6174 3.0874 UK Europe 0.4806 0.8768 0.5851 0.6259 0.519 235 249 141 271 82 14 University of Toronto 0.6145 3.0724 Canada Americas 0.6442 0.6866 0.5145 0.6005 0.6266 315 195 124 260 99 15 University of Chicago 0.6086 3.0429 US Americas 0.4867 0.8627 0.4357 0.5173 0.7405 238 245 105 224 117 16 Cornell University 0.6085 3.0424 US Americas 0.5603 0.7606 0.5768 0.5751 0.5696 274 216 139 249 90 17 University of Oxford 0.599 2.9949 UK Europe 0.5583 0.7007 0.5104 0.6559 0.5696 273 199 123 284 90 18 University of Wisconsin, Madison 0.5859 2.9297 US Americas 0.4744 0.6514 0.5353 0.4711 0.7975 232 185 129 204 126 19 Yale University 0.5707 2.8536 US Americas 0.5419 0.6162 0.4149 0.6097 0.6709 265 175 100 264 106 20 Pennsylvania State University 0.5655 2.8274 US Americas 0.3313 0.7606 0.5809 0.4711 0.6835 162 216 140 204 108 21 Duke University 0.5605 2.8023 US Americas 0.6217 0.5775 0.3485 0.5774 0.6772 304 164 84 250 107 22 University of California, San Francisco 0.5604 2.802 US Americas 0.6973 0.5035 0.39 0.6859 0.5253 341 143 94 297 83 23 New York University 0.5541 2.7706 US Americas 0.4724 0.5845 0.4108 0.5497 0.7532 231 166 99 238 119 24 Northwestern University 0.5523 2.7613 US Americas 0.4663 0.6901 0.4813 0.4527 0.6709 228 196 116 196 106 25 University of Southern California 0.5507 2.7538 US Americas 0.4806 0.5845 0.6473 0.4781 0.5633 235 166 156 207 89 26 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 0.5497 2.7485 US Americas 0.5521 0.5915 0.3402 0.5242 0.7405 270 168 82 227 117 27 Imperial College of London 0.546 2.7299 UK Europe 0.6074 0.7394 0.444 0.5404 0.3987 297 210 107 234 63 28 University of Rochester 0.539 2.6949 US Americas 0.456 0.5282 0.5187 0.4642 0.7278 223 150 125 201 115

103

2010 Total Rank Institution name RPI Score Country Region MDPHS PNMS ECT LBAS AHBSS MDPHS PNMS ECT LBAS AHBSS 29 University of Paris 0.5389 2.6945 France Europe 0.681 0.7077 0.3983 0.5404 0.3671 333 201 96 234 58 30 University of British Columbia 0.5377 2.6883 Canada Americas 0.4335 0.6901 0.5228 0.4596 0.5823 212 196 126 199 92 31 University of Pittsburgh 0.531 2.6552 US Americas 0.5828 0.5739 0.3361 0.5358 0.6266 285 163 81 232 99 32 Ohio State University 0.5304 2.6519 US Americas 0.4254 0.6585 0.4232 0.4296 0.7152 208 187 102 186 113 33 Princeton University 0.5249 2.6246 US Americas 0.1718 0.9754 0.4813 0.3695 0.6266 84 277 116 160 99 34 University of Maryland, College Park 0.5211 2.6054 US Americas 0.1861 0.6761 0.6058 0.2956 0.8418 91 192 146 128 133 35 University of Texas, Austin 0.5187 2.5935 US Americas 0.1861 0.6725 0.5975 0.2956 0.8418 91 191 144 128 133 36 University College London 0.5134 2.5668 UK Europe 0.5808 0.4789 0.3693 0.5935 0.5443 284 136 89 257 86 37 California Institute of Technology 0.5113 2.5567 US Americas 0.1902 1 0.6349 0.4088 0.3228 93 284 153 177 51 38 University of California, Davis 0.5052 2.526 US Americas 0.3845 0.6092 0.5394 0.4296 0.5633 188 173 130 186 89 39 University of Arizona 0.5045 2.5224 US Americas 0.3885 0.7394 0.3527 0.4342 0.6076 190 210 85 188 96 40 Washington University, St Louis 0.4953 2.4764 US Americas 0.5092 0.4613 0.4232 0.6143 0.4684 249 131 102 266 74 41 Michigan State University 0.4926 2.4628 US Americas 0.3845 0.5669 0.5062 0.3533 0.6519 188 161 122 153 103 42 University of Tokyo 0.4921 2.4606 Japan Asia/Pacific 0.3967 0.8521 0.4025 0.5751 0.2342 194 242 97 249 37 43 University of Virginia 0.4882 2.441 US Americas 0.3558 0.5 0.4398 0.4619 0.6835 174 142 106 200 108 44 Carnegie Mellon University 0.4833 2.4164 US Americas 0.1431 0.6408 0.6846 0.2517 0.6962 70 182 165 109 110 45 Boston University 0.4775 2.3873 US Americas 0.5051 0.5493 0.3278 0.4988 0.5063 247 156 79 216 80 46 University of Manchester 0.4723 2.3614 UK Europe 0.4192 0.507 0.4896 0.4203 0.5253 205 144 118 182 83 47 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich 0.4707 2.3533 Switzerland Europe 0.3926 0.6655 0.5394 0.4457 0.3101 192 189 130 193 49 48 University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign 0.4706 2.3528 US Americas 0.1636 0.5246 0.6929 0.2818 0.6899 80 149 167 122 109 49 Utrecht University 0.4691 2.3457 Netherlands Europe 0.4151 0.581 0.361 0.5266 0.462 203 165 87 228 73 50 University of Florida 0.4675 2.3373 US Americas 0.3926 0.5563 0.3859 0.3949 0.6076 192 158 93 171 96 51 University of California, Irvine 0.463 2.3148 US Americas 0.3313 0.5528 0.4481 0.4573 0.5253 162 157 108 198 83 52 State University of New Jersey, Rutgers 0.4606 2.3028 US Americas 0.2372 0.6585 0.4979 0.3649 0.5443 116 187 120 158 86 53 Emory University 0.4587 2.2935 US Americas 0.5706 0.3275 0.2946 0.5312 0.5696 279 93 71 230 90 54 Vanderbilt University 0.4559 2.2794 US Americas 0.5583 0.4613 0.2905 0.4503 0.519 273 131 70 195 82 55 Brown University 0.4528 2.264 US Americas 0.4519 0.6056 0.3485 0.358 0.5 221 172 84 155 79 56 Georgia Institute of Technology 0.4508 2.2538 US Americas 0.1513 0.6866 0.6763 0.2333 0.5063 74 195 163 101 80 57 University of Edinburgh 0.4503 2.2516 UK Europe 0.4049 0.6162 0.3071 0.455 0.4684 198 175 74 197 74 58 Arizona State University 0.4453 2.2264 US Americas 0.2229 0.5493 0.4813 0.321 0.6519 109 156 116 139 103

104

2010 Total Rank Institution name RPI Score Country Region MDPHS PNMS ECT LBAS AHBSS MDPHS PNMS ECT LBAS AHBSS 59 University of California, Santa Barbara 0.4415 2.2076 US Americas 0.1595 0.7254 0.5311 0.2979 0.4937 78 206 128 129 78 60 University of Amsterdam 0.4411 2.2056 Netherlands Europe 0.4683 0.4577 0.361 0.4249 0.4937 229 130 87 184 78 61 McGill University 0.4356 2.1781 Canada Americas 0.5092 0.4859 0.2739 0.5104 0.3987 249 138 66 221 63 62 McMaster University 0.4348 2.1741 Canada Americas 0.5521 0.3838 0.3693 0.3626 0.5063 270 109 89 157 80 63 University of Utah 0.4336 2.1679 US Americas 0.4356 0.5106 0.3278 0.4319 0.462 213 145 79 187 73 64 University of Iowa 0.4317 2.1588 US Americas 0.4315 0.4014 0.3237 0.4642 0.538 211 114 78 201 85 65 Catholic University of Leuven 0.4312 2.1558 Belgium Europe 0.546 0.3944 0.39 0.4203 0.4051 267 112 94 182 64 66 University of Colorado, Boulder 0.43 2.1498 US Americas 0.2331 0.6303 0.39 0.3141 0.5823 114 179 94 136 92 67 Uppsala University 0.4264 2.132 Sweden Europe 0.4131 0.4507 0.4647 0.4111 0.3924 202 128 112 178 62 68 Kyoto University 0.4246 2.123 Japan Asia/Pacific 0.3313 0.6303 0.3568 0.5704 0.2342 162 179 86 247 37 69 Indiana University Bloomington 0.4217 2.1085 US Americas 0.362 0.5141 0.2697 0.3741 0.5886 177 146 65 162 93 70 Osaka University 0.4212 2.1059 Japan Asia/Pacific 0.4192 0.6162 0.3361 0.5635 0.1709 205 175 81 244 27 71 University of Alberta 0.4204 2.1023 Canada Americas 0.4029 0.4613 0.361 0.3834 0.4937 197 131 87 166 78 72 University of Southampton 0.4185 2.0923 UK Europe 0.3763 0.5246 0.4066 0.3418 0.443 184 149 98 148 70 73 Lund University 0.4166 2.083 Sweden Europe 0.3845 0.5458 0.39 0.4273 0.3354 188 155 94 185 53 74 Purdue University 0.4143 2.0715 US Americas 0.1943 0.5493 0.5477 0.3372 0.443 95 156 132 146 70 75 The University of Melbourne 0.414 2.07 Australia Asia/Pacific 0.4233 0.4437 0.3817 0.4226 0.3987 207 126 92 183 63 76 Case Western Reserve University 0.4096 2.0482 US Americas 0.4274 0.419 0.2988 0.4157 0.4873 209 119 72 180 77 77 University of Sheffield 0.4075 2.0377 UK Europe 0.3722 0.4859 0.3112 0.3557 0.5127 182 138 75 154 81 78 University of Bristol 0.4066 2.0332 UK Europe 0.3579 0.4718 0.3237 0.3418 0.538 175 134 78 148 85 79 Tufts University 0.4038 2.0192 US Americas 0.5215 0.331 0.2905 0.4711 0.4051 255 94 70 204 64 80 University of Munich 0.4033 2.0166 Germany Europe 0.4438 0.5458 0.2573 0.4596 0.3101 217 155 62 199 49 81 Helsinki University 0.4032 2.016 Finland Europe 0.5542 0.5 0.1909 0.4734 0.2975 271 142 46 205 47 82 National University of Singapore 0.4025 2.0126 Singapore Asia/Pacific 0.2536 0.4577 0.5228 0.3418 0.4367 124 130 126 148 69 83 The University of New South Wales 0.3987 1.9936 Australia Asia/Pacific 0.4131 0.4824 0.3444 0.3233 0.4304 202 137 83 140 68 84 University of Zurich 0.3984 1.9919 Switzerland Europe 0.4029 0.4683 0.2407 0.418 0.462 197 133 58 181 73 85 Texas A and M University 0.398 1.9901 US Americas 0.2311 0.5423 0.4315 0.2979 0.4873 113 154 104 129 77 86 Leiden University 0.3934 1.967 Netherlands Europe 0.4397 0.4683 0.2739 0.418 0.3671 215 133 66 181 58 87 Karolinska Institute 0.3901 1.9503 Sweden Europe 0.5481 0.2782 0.2033 0.5473 0.3734 268 79 49 237 59 88 University of Birmingham 0.3899 1.9496 UK Europe 0.4663 0.507 0.2656 0.3626 0.3481 228 144 64 157 55

105 www.qs.com