WorldRankings2007 University

This fourth edition of TheTimes Higher-QS WorldUniversity Rankings

confirms the message of earliereditions: the top universities, on anumber of measures, are in theEnglish-speaking world. Althoughheavily dependent on statefunding, they are independent ofgovernments. And, in many cases,they are far from being ivorytowers. Instead, they are active ingenerating new technology andideas across a wide range ofsubject areas and are closelyintegrated into the economies andsocieties of which they form part.Their success at generating new

knowledge and producing highlyemployable graduates — in the USespecially — has made them richfrom alumni donations, researchgrants and spin-off companies.Harvard University, which thisyear is top for the fourth time,is the world’s richest by somedistance, outspending the researchbudgets of many countries.These rankings show the US and

the UK to be home to the topuniversities on a wide range ofmeasures, reflecting their successas well as the esteem in which theyare held worldwide by academicsand employers. Canada,Australia, Japan and Hong Kongare the only other countries toappear in the top 20, while thetop Continental Europeaninstitution, the Ecole NormaleSupérieure, is in 26th place.But the rankings also contain

a more subversive message. Thetop 200 universities are in 28countries. Four are in thedeveloping world: in Brazil (withtwo entrants), Mexico and SouthAfrica, where the University ofCape Town finally enters the top200 after three years of nearmisses. Many small but affluentcountries, for exampleSwitzerland and the Scandinaviannations, have at least one entry.The story is less favourable inMediterranean Europe. Italy andSpain muster only threeuniversities between them in thisanalysis. But the overall messageis that if a consistent approach tomeasuring academic excellence,combining academic andemployer opinion with numericaldata, is applied across the world,high quality can be found onevery continent.As in previous years, these

rankings, whose methodology isexplained more fully on page 7,rely on a comparatively smallnumber of simple measuresbecause of the need to gathercomparable data from institutionsfrom China to Ireland. The topfew are excellent on all the criteriawe use, including those thatreflect research excellence,teaching quality, graduateemployability and attractivenessto students.The tables that make up these

rankings differ in two importantrespects from the first threeeditions. One is that they use a

new and larger database togenerate citations information.The other is that the data has forthe first time been processed toeliminate single outliers having adisproportionate effect on theoverall result. In the past, we haveallotted a top score for eachmeasure to the highest rankeduniversity on that criterion, andexpressed all the other scores forthat measure as a percentage ofthe figure for the highest placedinstitution. This meant that oneexceptional university coulddepress the scores for 199 others.This change has had a particularlychastening effect on the LondonSchool of Economics, which hasfallen from 17th place in 2006 to59th this year.In addition, we have

strengthened our safeguardsagainst individuals voting for theirown university in the peer reviewpart of the analysis.These changes have had a

number of effects. Theadjustments in our statisticalmethods means substantial changein the results between 2006 and2007, but they will also bringmore stability in future years. Bycontrast, Harvard in pole positionwas the only university whoseplacement did not change betweenour 2005 and 2006 rankings.The larger database of citations

that we use this year for the firsttime has the effect of giving anadvantage to some East Asianuniversities, for example SeoulNational in South Korea, up to 51from 63 last year, and TokyoInstitute of Technology, up to 90from 118.But we suspect that some

Malaysian and Singaporeaninstitutions have lost out becauseof our increased rigour overvoting for one’s own university,and there are no Malaysianuniversities in this top 200. The

2 The Times Higher November 9 2007

Ideas withoutborders asexcellencegoes globalThe very top institutions may all be in theEnglish-speaking world, but the top 200 arespread across 28 nations. Martin Ince reports

two Singaporean universities welist, the National University ofSingapore and NanyangTechnological University, haveeach taken a fall this year. Theformer is down from 19th lastyear to 33rd, while Nanyang hasgone from 61st to 69th, but thereis no doubt that they are bothworld-class universities in acountry that is serious aboutbecoming a world centre forscience and technology.We know these tables are used

in many ways by a variety ofaudiences — from internationallymobile staff and students touniversity managers wanting alook at the international esteem inwhich their own and otheruniversities are held, especially inAsia where interest in therankings is at its highest.A wider debate is what success

in these rankings tells us aboutspecific countries and regions.While the UK has 32 universitiesin the top 200, starting withOxford, Cambridge and ImperialCollege London in second equaland fifth positions, Germany hasonly 11, starting with HeidelbergUniversity in 60th position. Thisresult will give more impetus tothe German Government’sdecision to put more researchmoney into universities.In a head-to-head contest

between Europe and NorthAmerica, Europe’s 86 listeduniversities easily defeat 57 inthe US or even 71 for the wholeof the Americas.But a more interesting

comparison may be with theAsia-Pacific region. This areamusters only 41 entries in thisyear’s rankings. Australia’simportant role in the English-speaking world and the energeticmarketing of its universitiesacross the Pacific give it 12 spots,with 11 for Japan, the world’s

November 9 2007 The Times Higher 3

The Times Higher-QSWorld University Rankingsare edited by Martin Ince,contributing editor ofThe Times Higher.

He welcomes response [email protected].

He wishes to thank NunzioQuacquarelli and especiallyBen Sowter, both of QSQuacquarelli Symonds,

for their role in compilingthe rankings, and inaddition to the staff ofScopus, the providersof the citations dataused in the rankings.

“”

In a head-to-head contestbetween Europe and NorthAmerica, Europe’s 86universities defeat 57 inthe US, or even 71 for thewhole of the Americas

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

second-biggest economy.But perhaps this is a rare case

where quality in universityrankings counts for more thanquantity. Many Asian universitieshave higher scores in 2007 thanpreviously. Their governmentsmay regard this as moreimportant than the number ofappearances for their owncountry. The Asia-Pacific regionnow has five of the world’s top 30universities, two fewer than theUK but four more than France.Some of the improvement may bedue to their enhanced citationsperformance. But it is also verypossible that these and other Asia-Pacific institutions will becomeyet more visible in the rankings infuture years. We know that inEast Asia especially, governmentslook at these rankings with acuteinterest as a measure of theirnational standing in the worldinformation economy.In the decade since the 1997

financial crisis rocked theemerging Asian economies thecountries of the region haveincreased their state and corporatespending on higher educationapace, and it will take some timefor the benefits to becomeapparent in rankings such asthese. In particular, theassumption that non-English-speaking Asia is somewhere thatstudents come from rather thango to will not hold up indefinitely.Mobile Chinese students whowould once have regarded the USor Europe as the destination ofchoice are now looking atuniversities in nearby countries.Despite the presence of South

African, Brazilian and Mexicaninstitutions in this table, theoverall message of these rankingsis that the sort of universities welist here, mainly large, generalinstitutions, with a mingling oftechnology specialists, are a

dauntingly expensive prospect forany country, let alone one in thedeveloping world.There is no reason to suppose

that brainpower is not distributeduniformly around the world. Butit is only one of the inputs toacademic excellence. It is hard toimagine a world-class universityin a country that lacks asignificant tax base. Even in theUS and the UK, whose universitiesare freestanding bodies that areproud of their independent status,governments put billions ofdollars and pounds into highereducation and privilege it with taxbreaks.But in the modern era, even

taxpayers’ money will not buy aworld-class university system. TheUS state universities, fundedmainly by state taxes andcomparatively modest studentfees, are not well-represented inthis ranking or in national tablesof US universities. With theanomalous exception of theUniversity of California, mosthave fallen behind privateinstitutions in both teaching andresearch. They do a competent jobwithin the US, but have littlevisibility around the world.The US and UK domination of

these rankings suggests thatnational academic success has anumber of common ingredients.The English language is a helpfulstart. But equally vital is theability to connect to an economythat rewards new knowledge, forexample via patents. Across the

rich world, too, universities havebenefited from the growingexpectation that all young peoplewith appropriate talent will go tocollege. This has allowed them togrow even when, as in the UK,they are not free to charge homestudents fees on the scale thatmajor US universities take forgranted.The inability of Russian

institutions to figure in this year’srankings may have much to dowith Moscow’s inability to putadequate funds into its highereducation system. The IndianInstitutes of Technology have alsofallen out of the rankings this yearfor the first time, partly becausewe are now seeking opinion oneach individual IIT, not on the IITsystem as a whole. However,Indian institutions including theIITs, along with Russianuniversities, are present in ouranalysis of the world’s topinstitutions in academic areassuch as technology and thesciences (pages 8-9, 10-11).The methodology we use is

designed mainly to captureexcellence in multipurposeuniversities in the rich world. Weare seeking better ways tomeasure higher education indeveloping world countries, andfor ways of comparing theachievements of specialist andpostgraduate institutions withthose of full-spectrum universities.We welcome your input to ourthinking on the future of theserankings.

Alam

y

THE WORLD’S TOP 200 UNIVERSITIES


Country

Peerreview

score

Employer

review

score

Staff/student

score

Citations/staff

score

International

staffscore

International

studentsscore

Overallscore

12=2=2=567=7=91011121314151617181920=20=222324252627282930313233=33=33=363738=38=404142434445464748495051=51=53=53=55=55=57585960616263

1234=910711254=12211326231619=33=635=15833=46=29=182237424035=54=50=4519=1464=50=29=28312438412770=66694346=633258=788479=73441758=96105=86

Harvard UniversityUniversity of CambridgeUniversity of OxfordYale UniversityImperial College LondonPrinceton UniversityCalifornia Institute of TechnologyUniversity of ChicagoUniversity College LondonMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyColumbia UniversityMcGill UniversityDuke UniversityUniversity of PennsylvaniaJohns Hopkins UniversityAustralian National UniversityUniversity of TokyoUniversity of Hong KongStanford UniversityCarnegie Mellon UniversityCornell UniversityUniversity of California, BerkeleyUniversity of EdinburghKing's College LondonKyoto UniversityEcole Normale Supérieure, ParisUniversity of MelbourneEcole PolytechniqueNorthwestern UniversityUniversity of ManchesterUniversity of SydneyBrown UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of QueenslandNational University of SingaporePeking UniversityUniversity of BristolChinese University of Hong KongUniversity of MichiganTsinghua UniversityUniversity of California, Los AngelesETH ZurichMonash UniversityUniversity of New South WalesUniversity of TorontoOsaka UniversityBoston UniversityUniversity of AmsterdamNew York UniversityUniversity of AucklandSeoul National UniversityUniversity of Texas at AustinHong Kong University of Science & TechnologyTrinity College DublinUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonUniversity of WarwickUniversity of California, San DiegoLondon School of EconomicsHeidelberg UniversityKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenUniversity of AdelaideDelft University of Technology

USUKUKUSUKUSUSUSUKUSUSCanadaUSUSUSAustraliaJapanHong KongUSUSUSUSUKUKJapanFranceAustraliaFranceUSUKAustraliaUSCanadaAustraliaSingaporeChinaUKHong KongUSChinaUSSwitzerlandAustraliaAustraliaCanadaJapanUSNetherlandsUSNew ZealandSouth KoreaUSHong KongIrelandUSUSUKUSUKGermanyBelgiumAustraliaNetherlands

100100100100991001001009610010010098979910010095100961001009690999110076888899901009510010081839995100929897100839184959592958480849480988984887575

1001001009899945597979996979796779192909994989898958960999497999577919493989879969292759798967589819383549482925081983910063838680

10099100100100951001001008594991008898100968566767459829183836410077775174707034988580531005661533921864981483880222870733162516561396666

96838291819710086829891729292966688791008793927670909870789170718974688453778089599174577693918870776179929258929558952978846572

939897849883100719134347316833568251002567367371932961647035841007535791003288100412020100998986172976291001666100994450892310042517783

919196751007591909894899674656991448994966988808424819594688595586376100267285523636929991502988324999244796773344963010087559667

100.097.697.697.697.597.296.596.595.394.694.593.993.493.392.991.691.190.790.690.090.089.788.888.287.287.185.985.185.084.784.684.584.384.384.384.284.183.883.883.382.882.582.181.880.680.079.778.677.877.577.177.176.976.976.776.776.476.375.775.575.074.774.4



Country

Peerreview

score

Employer

review

score

Staff/student

score

Citations/staff

score

International

staffscore

International

studentsscore

Overallscore

6465=65=6768697071=71=7374=74=7677=77=7980=80=82838485=85=85=888990=90=9293=93=959697=97=99100101102=102=102=105106107108109110111112=112=114=114=114=117=117=119120121122123124125126=

111=90=9882=102=61=8561=111=7756124=109=88127111=121141=538190=60116=871769599=118102=54=181=48=170=133=145141=116=139102=108168=39122211=155132130=172=128=204=1267579=141=64=101219=105=150=76141=180105=

University of Western AustraliaUniversity of BirminghamLudwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenTechnische Universität MünchenUniversity of SheffieldNanyang Technological UniversityUniversity of NottinghamDartmouth CollegeUppsala UniversityUniversity of IllinoisEmory UniversityUniversity of YorkUniversity of St AndrewsUniversity of PittsburghPurdue UniversityUniversity of MarylandUniversity of LeedsUniversity of SouthamptonVanderbilt UniversityUniversity of GlasgowLeiden UniversityCase Western Reserve UniversityFudan UniversityUniversity of ViennaQueen's UniversityUtrecht UniversityPennsylvania State UniversityTokyo Institute of TechnologyRice UniversityUniversity of CopenhagenUniversity of MontrealUniversity of RochesterUniversity of California, DavisUniversity of AlbertaGeorgia Institute of TechnologyCardiff UniversityUniversity of HelsinkiUniversity of LiverpoolGeorgetown UniversityNational Taiwan UniversityTohoku UniversityUniversity of GenevaLund UniversityUniversity of ColoradoMcMaster UniversityDurham UniversityUniversity of VirginiaMaastricht UniversityNagoya UniversityUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of AarhusUniversity of BaselUniversity of OtagoUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraEcole Polytechnique Fédérale De LausanneUniversity of Southern CaliforniaOhio State UniversityUniversity of SussexTexas A&M UniversityUniversité Catholique de LouvainUniversity of GhentNanjing UniversityHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin

AustraliaUKGermanyGermanyUKSingaporeUKUSSwedenUSUSUKUKUSUSUSUKUKUSUKNetherlandsUSChinaAustriaCanadaNetherlandsUSJapanUSDenmarkCanadaUSUSCanadaUSUKFinlandUKUSTaiwanJapanSwitzerlandSwedenUSCanadaUKUSNetherlandsJapanCanadaDenmarkSwitzerlandNew ZealandUSSwitzerlandUSUSUKUSBelgiumBelgiumChinaGermany

727180686981696085946162576287717460557181598786748084676582885883887962795557865362766084596343538265526988586269587678637471

889360719682988934647591954579629790818463509680885582864555503834307784458594685954411549989472748219206131587777517560297238

56627088713764918129997778942471567199713599451249656359805131100602325702870693996394310031495280831789993925975239582728884571

787572696972658372868569698582856976877593856890798064918870808482879365937680798491818589748681857569676689298079778173696957

9684585981100842651341376917876487688284278183163873818343966892431881872568328184010077332892226825635989100431002567904150475944

78707183679988532651398399386445597441544080318934242442586241632662747578647324321005231376136993049378192211007838833974301468

74.374.174.173.973.773.673.273.073.072.672.472.472.372.272.272.172.072.071.971.871.771.671.671.671.270.970.570.570.370.170.169.369.168.868.868.668.268.168.068.068.067.266.966.866.666.566.466.266.166.165.665.665.665.565.565.465.365.264.964.864.564.464.3



Country

Peerreview

score

Employer

review

score

Staff/student

score

Citations/staff

score

International

staffscore

International

studentsscore

Overallscore

126=128129130=130=132=132=134135136137=137=139140=140=142=142=144145146147148149=149=151=151=151=154155=155=157158159=159=161=161=163=163=165166=166=168=168=170171=171=173=173=175=175=177=177=177=180=180=182183184185=185=187188=188=

215=119133=19467198=93=224=226=128=195232=282=198=109=187=170=219=153149228=9715499=133=123147=165=165=15272140163130=12048=92179201=266=138156=82=291238222=207=232=124=284=448219=215=190=158=172=197161=239=115252=333=177

University of Western OntarioHebrew University of JerusalemNewcastle UniversityTechnical University of DenmarkEindhoven University of TechnologyKorea Advanced Institute of Science & TechnolUniversité Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris VIUniversity of ArizonaUniversity of FloridaKyushu UniversityUniversity of AberdeenIndiana University BloomingtonSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of California, IrvineUniversity of ZurichUniversity of MinnesotaUniversität TübingenUniversität FreiburgUniversity of BathFreie Universität BerlinUniversity of LancasterWageningen UniversityCity University of Hong KongQueen Mary, University of LondonHokkaido UniversityUniversity of North CarolinaTel Aviv UniversityUniversité Libre de BruxellesUniversity of Science and Technology of ChinaUniversity of Notre DameEcole Normale Supérieure de LyonCranfield UniversityMichigan State UniversityTufts UniversityKeio UniversityWashington University in St LouisErasmus University RotterdamShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityUniversität StuttgartUniversity of CalgaryVienna University of TechnologyUniversität GöttingenMacquarie UniversityHelsinki University of TechnologyUniversity of DundeeUniversität KarlsruheUniversity of BolognaUniversity of GroningenUniversity of Massachusetts, AmherstUniversity of São PauloUniversity of CampinasUniversity College DublinRutgers, The State University of New JerseyUniversity of ReadingWaseda UniversityRheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule AachenUniversità Degli Studi Di Roma, La SapienzaUniversité Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg IUniversity of LeicesterUniversity of TwenteUniversity of AntwerpUniversity of CanterburyUniversity of Oslo

CanadaIsraelUKDenmarkNetherlandsSouth KoreaFranceUSUSJapanUKUSCanadaUSSwitzerlandUSGermanyGermanyUKGermanyUKNetherlandsHong KongUKJapanUSIsraelBelgiumChinaUSFranceUKUSUSJapanUSNetherlandsChinaGermanyCanadaAustriaGermanyAustraliaFinlandUKGermanyItalyNetherlandsUSBrazilBrazilIrelandUSUKJapanGermanyItalyFranceUKNetherlandsBelgiumNew ZealandNorway

688645474865606962504567727971766057467949396255497281567556423163425272517247675366615244457848626552567245684079583746416261

902087234827557416864797230324352239616802851656986365277884574717888629792816144-89175160665145593085336792806364604277725

301874869964903777807828223813284693493165883781762826572843100100336191100283871286873239465732469345178293052648011196061993054

80916784698573887482678567829589796171705787763082748969768167577690451885550815259525771596274906373637369254871827676675562

7283809160532028271791459727992676249170884610094192213431625417465462527643552247541855684562162242443896078265315457775575551

3014805948289245323173376230583565769181819751922120139611505810045441648451190378854994466852629311416582478238121778651596655

64.364.063.963.863.863.763.763.163.062.862.762.762.662.562.562.362.362.262.061.961.761.561.261.261.161.161.161.060.960.960.860.760.660.659.959.959.759.759.458.958.958.858.858.758.358.358.258.257.957.957.857.857.857.757.757.557.357.157.057.056.956.656.6



Country

Peerreview

score

Employer

review

score

Staff/student

score

Citations/staff

score

International

staffscore

International

studentsscore

Overallscore

190191192=192=194195=195=197=197=199200=200=

258=255=172=74190=137192=147=181=196257146

University of SurreyRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteKTH, Royal Institute of TechnologyUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoUniversity of BarcelonaRadboud Universiteit NijmegenQueensland University of TechnologyChalmers University of TechnologyKobe UniversityUniversity of WollongongUniversity of Cape TownRMIT University

UKUSSwedenMexicoSpainNetherlandsAustraliaSwedenJapanAustraliaSouth AfricaAustralia

334449746940665151455463

794417784619872367896988

614451642282284260312822

649070137875398365586832

957090281783647422992774

925899133631635927999199

56.456.256.156.155.955.855.855.555.555.354.854.8

The extensive discussion ofThe Times Higher-QS WorldUniversity Rankings that has

taken place worldwide since theirfirst appearance in 2004 hasstrengthened our belief in thegeneral approach we have taken,and we have not made anyfundamental changes to ourmethodology in that time.Like the first three editions, thisranking is a composite indicatorintegrating peer review andopinion with quantitative data.The data-gathering for therankings has grown in quality andquantity during their lifetime.The core of our methodology isthe belief that expert opinion is avalid way to assess the standing oftop universities. Our rankingscontain two strands of peerreview. The more important isacademic opinion, worth 40 percent of the total score available inthe rankings. The opinions aregathered, like the rest of therankings data, by our partnersQS Quacquarelli Symonds(www.topuniversities.com), whichhas built up a database of e-mailaddresses of active academicsacross the world. They are invitedto tell QS what area of academiclife they come from, choosingfrom science, biomedicine,

technology, social science or thearts and humanities. They arethen asked to list up to 30universities that they regard as theleaders in the academic field theyknow about, and in 2007 we havestrengthened our measures toprevent anyone voting for his orher own institution.This year we have the opinionsof 5,101 experts, of whom 41 percent are in Europe, the MiddleEast and Africa, 30 per cent in theAmericas, and 29 per cent in theAsia-Pacific region. This includesrespondents from 2005 and 2006whose data have been aggregatedwith new responses from this year.No data more than three years oldis used, and only the most recentdata is taken from anyone whohas responded more than once.A further 10 per cent of thepossible score in these rankings isderived from active recruiters ofgraduates. QS asks major globaland national employers across thepublic and private sectors whichuniversities they like to hire from.This year’s sample includes 1,471people, with 43 per cent in theAmericas, 32 per cent in Europeand 25 per cent in Asia-Pacific.The first major change to thisyear’s rankings is in the way thatthese responses, and the

quantitative data that makes upthe rest of the table, areprocessed. In the past, thetopmost institution on anymeasure has received maximumscore. The others are then given afraction of this percentageproportional to their score.This approach has thedrawback that an exceptionalinstitution distorts the results. In2006, our measure of citations perstaff member gave the top score of100 to the California Institute ofTechnology, while HarvardUniversity, in second place, scoredonly 55. So almost half thevariation on this measure wasbetween the first and second-placeuniversities.We have solved this problem byswitching from this arithmeticalmeasure to a Z-score, whichdetermines how far away anyinstitution’s score is from theaverage. Some universities sufferas a result, such as CalTech oncitations and the London Schoolof Economics on overseasstudents. But this approach givesfairer results and is used by otherrankings organisations.Our quantitative measures aredesigned to capture keycomponents of academic success.QS gathers the underlying datafrom national bodies wherepossible, but much of it iscollected directly from universitiesthemselves. of these measures,staff-to-student ratio is a classicgauge of an institution’scommitment to teaching. This

year we have improved its rigourby obtaining full and part-timenumbers for staff and students,and using full-time equivalentsthroughout as far as possible. Thismeasure is worth 20 per cent ofthe total possible score.A further 20 per cent of thepossible score is designed toreward research excellence.Citations of an institution’spublished papers by others are theaccepted measure of researchquality. We have used five years ofcitations between 2002 and 2006as indexed by Scopus, a leadingsupplier of such data. Scopus(www.scopus.com) has replacedThomson Scientific as supplier ofcitations data. We are confidentthat Scopus’s coverage is at leastas thorough as Thomson’s,especially in non-English languagejournals. We divide the number ofcitations by the number of full-time equivalent staff to give anindication of the density ofresearch firepower on eachuniversity campus.The final part of our score isdesigned to measure universities’attractiveness to staff andstudents. It allots five percentagepoints for the number of theirstaff who come from othercountries, and a further five fortheir percentage of overseasstudents. It shows us whichinstitutions are serious aboutglobalisation, and points to theplaces where ambitious andmobile academics and studentswant to be. Martin Ince

Fine tuning reveals distinctionsPeer review is key to identifying topquality but a fairer overall pictureemerges due to changes in analysis

Source: QS Quacquarelli Symonds


Where are the world’s topscientists? Over the fouryears of The Times

Higher-QS World UniversityRankings, the verdict of theexperts we poll has beenunanimous: the world’s topscientists are in the UK and theUS. Last year, they madeCambridge and Oxford the toptwo science universities. Thisyear, they have chosen theUniversity of California, Berkeley,and the Massachusetts Instituteof Technology, with Cambridgeand Oxford in third and eighthplaces respectively.In this table and the following

faculty-specific rankings, we placeuniversities in order of theopinions of our peer reviewers,who are active academics in thesubjects on which they are givingtheir views. This year they haveput US and UK universities in thetop 11 places. Tokyo, in 12thposition, is the top institutionfrom any other country.

But there is no room for Britishtriumphalism. The large amountof research funding that goes intoa small number of UK universitiesappears, on the evidence of thistable, to buy top performance fora few universities, but is less goodat building strength in depth. TheUS has 24 universities in this top50, but the UK manages onlythree, putting it level with Franceand Canada, behind Australia.France and Germany’s relatively

modest showing in this table isoften attributed to the fact thatmany of their scientists work instate labs, not universities. Thisargument is strengthened by thisyear’s Nobel prize awards. Theprize for physics was shared byAlbert Fert, who works partly forthe company Thales and partly atUniversité Paris-Sud, and PeterGrünberg, who works in theJülich research centre in Germany.The prize for chemistry went toGerhard Erlt, who is based at theMax-Planck Society, the biggestGerman research institution.However, we are rankinguniversities, not countries.This table also shows citations

per paper over a five-year periodfor science publications, asmeasured by Scopus. Because thesubject area being analysed issimilar for each institution, thisshows which universities areproducing research with the mostimpact. We have not aggregatedthe two columns to produce anoverall score. Experts oncomposite tables such as thisagree that combining just twomeasures such as these would not

The deep pocketsofmany USinstitutions, anda select few inthe UK, attest tothe high cost ofattaining success

produce a meaningful result.Some US institutions such as

New York University are rated farmore modestly by otherresearchers than their citationsmight suggest. At the otherextreme, 11 of the top 20universities as measured by ourpeer reviewers manage fewer thanseven citations per paper.

Drew Faust, installed lastmonth as president ofHarvard University, can

draw comfort from the fact thather university is number one inthe world overall, as well as in lifesciences and biomedicine, with itsbiggest component, HarvardMedical School, regarded as thebest. And so it should be. It hasmore than 11,000 staff, an annualbudget of $470 million (£230million) and an endowment givenas $3,256,509,589.Not everyone agrees that

Harvard is top of the medical tree.It has won only two Nobel prizesfor medicine since 1981. But theesteem in which it is held bybiomedical academics around theworld suggests it is producing keydiscoveries at an impressive rate.There may be arguments about

where the best economists orhistorians ply their trade. But thistable shows that the sheer amountof cash available for medicalresearch in the US enables it todominate this high-pressure, big-money field, with 22 of the top50 institutions. The funds opento US institutions include about$23 billion a year for universitiesfrom the National Institutes ofHealth, plus funding from largemedical charities and a range ofgovernment bodies such as theVeterans Health Administration.The Bill and Melinda GatesFoundation adds further to USresources for biomedical research.However, this table suggests

that recent increases in UK health

research are paying off. The fieldis led by the Medical ResearchCouncil, whose budgets havegrown rapidly in recent years andare set to expand further as itsactivities are co-ordinated moreclosely with National HealthService research. And as well asstate funding via the MRC, theUK is home to the WellcomeTrust, the biggest medical charityoutside the US. Cambridge andOxford appear second and third,with Imperial College Londonseventh. A total of seven UKuniversities are in this top 50.We separate this analysis from

our look at the rest of the sciencesbecause the sheer amount ofbiomedical research, and itsferocious publishing culture,would swamp the less prosperousand cut-throat natural sciences ifwe merged the two. But as wellas being important and well-funded, biomedical research iscontroversial: think of stem cellsor xenotransplantation.But there is little here to suggest

that the Bush Administration’sunease about some of thesedevelopments is hobbling medicalscientists in the US. Apart fromsome high-profile defections toAsia and Europe, the US is wherethe top researchers in this fieldwant to be.Asian nations with ambitions

on the world stage have realisedthat biomedicine offers a uniquechance to carve out new industriesand markets. Universities inSingapore, Korea, Hong Kongand China appear in this tablealong with more establishedinstitutions in Japan, Australiaand New Zealand. Our citationsdata suggest they are producingsome well-regarded papers.By contrast, Chinese and

Russian universities are well likedby their academic peers butproduce few high-impact researchpapers. Martin Ince

Rewards for thewell-resourced

Alam

y


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627=27=293031323334353637383940=40=42434445=45=47=47=4950

USUSUKUSUSUSUSUKUSUSUSJapanUKUSChinaCanadaJapanSwitzerlandAustraliaFranceUSUSUSUSSingaporeCanadaUSRussiaUSCanadaFranceFranceAustraliaChinaUSIsraelUSS KoreaUSChinaItalyUSAustraliaUSGermanyUSNetherlandsCanadaUSUS

10097.692.992.690.287.486.986.777.472.472.070.670.267.667.566.565.863.062.762.662.358.256.256.055.853.653.353.352.051.751.349.749.548.047.247.146.945.845.444.644.643.442.942.442.242.242.142.141.741.5

9.07.86.211.112.29.16.36.37.28.813.85.65.37.83.26.15.04.05.56.99.08.96.36.14.14.46.22.56.15.85.24.95.22.510.35.710.14.35.92.54.011.34.46.66.02.05.83.85.68.0

University of California, BerkeleyMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyUniversity of CambridgeHarvard UniversityPrinceton UniversityCalifornia Institute of TechnologyStanford UniversityUniversity of OxfordCornell UniversityYale UniversityUniversity of ChicagoUniversity of TokyoImperial College LondonUniversity of California, Los AngelesPeking UniversityUniversity of TorontoKyoto UniversityETH ZurichAustralian National UniversityEcole Normale Supérieure, ParisColumbia UniversityUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraUniversity of Texas at AustinUniversity of MichiganNational University of SingaporeMcGill UniversityUniversity of California, San DiegoLomonosov Moscow State UniversityUniversity of IllinoisUniversity of British ColumbiaEcole PolytechniqueUniversité Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris VIUniversity of MelbourneTsinghua UniversityUniversity of PennsylvaniaTechnion — Israel Institute of TechnologyJohns Hopkins UniversitySeoul National UniversityUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonUniversity of Science & Technology of ChinaUniversità Degli Studi Di Roma, La SapienzaNew York UniversityUniversity of SydneyPennsylvania State UniversityHeidelberg UniversityStony Brook UniversityUtrecht UniversityUniversity of WaterlooGeorgia Institute of TechnologyCarnegie Mellon University

Country

Score

Citations

perp

aper

TOP 50 UNIVERSITIES FOR LIFE SCIENCES AND BIOMEDICINE

TOP 50 UNIVERSITIES FOR NATURAL SCIENCES

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637=37=394041424344454647484950

USUKUKUSUSUSUKUSUSCanadaUSSingaporeJapanCanadaUSUSAustraliaChinaUSCanadaUSAustraliaAustraliaSwedenUSUKJapanAustraliaUSUKAustraliaUKUSUSUSHong KongUSUSJapanSwedenNZUSGermanyUSUSS KoreaUSUKFranceAustralia

10093.387.186.785.482.075.673.873.570.866.966.365.263.963.462.861.161.060.059.557.957.857.755.755.154.854.554.453.753.253.152.051.651.551.150.449.749.748.848.645.943.743.142.942.842.742.541.640.940.3

9.17.57.87.17.77.76.27.511.35.57.24.44.86.35.65.94.52.47.05.010.44.24.35.56.86.24.64.97.56.04.45.06.40.66.65.46.64.25.35.04.56.64.76.65.73.35.64.94.94.4

Harvard UniversityUniversity of CambridgeUniversity of OxfordJohns Hopkins UniversityUniversity of California, BerkeleyStanford UniversityImperial College LondonYale UniversityMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyMcGill UniversityUniversity of California, San DiegoNational University of SingaporeUniversity of TokyoUniversity of TorontoUniversity of California, Los AngelesCornell UniversityUniversity of MelbournePeking UniversityDuke UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaCalifornia Institute of TechnologyMonash UniversityUniversity of SydneyKarolinska InstituteColumbia UniversityUniversity College LondonKyoto UniversityAustralian National UniversityPrinceton UniversityUniversity of EdinburghUniversity of QueenslandKing’s College LondonUniversity of MichiganWashington University, St LouisUniversity of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Hong KongUniversity of ChicagoUniversity of California, DavisOsaka UniversityUppsala UniversityUniversity of AucklandUniversity of WashingtonHeidelberg UniversityBoston UniversityUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonSeoul National UniversityNew York UniversityUniversity of BristolUniversité Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg IUniversity of New South Wales

Country

Score

Citations

Source: QS Quacquarelli Symonds.


.


Our listing of the world’s top-rated universities fortechnology is the only place

in the The Times Higher-QSWorld University Rankings whereHarvard University is not at ornear the top. It is in its lowliestplace in our tables as rivalMassachusetts Institute ofTechnology takes the top slot.The US has 19 universities in

our top 50 table, which is headedby MIT – probably the world’sbiggest single technologyinnovator of the postwar period –followed by the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, StanfordUniversity and the CaliforniaInstitute of Technology, theintellectual motors of SiliconValley. CalTech, with 1,200academic staff, 1,200postgraduate students and fewerthan 900 undergraduates, isprobably better geared up toproduce top research than anyother university in the world.Located just a few miles fromHollywood, it may also be theonly institution to list prices forusing its campus as a backdrop.This table shows that European

countries that seek to base theireconomic futures on qualitymanufacturing, rather thanquantity, take engineeringseriously. The UK has fouruniversities here, with Cambridgeand Imperial College London inthe top ten. A further nine are incontinental Europe, including twoin Switzerland, which balancesbanking with mainstreamengineering in its economic mix.Our decision this year to list the

separate elements of the IndianInstitutes of Technology rather

than seek opinion of the IIToverall has led to its leaving ourmain rankings. But their peersaround the world have voted twoIITs — Mumbai and Delhi — intothis table.Technology has emerged as a

key battleground in Asianeconomic competition and theranking reveals the institutions inthe struggle. Tsinghua University,which likes to be known as theMIT of China, appears here in16th place as the best placed ofChina’s three entries.But Japan’s longer established

technological dominance isreflected in the University ofTokyo’s place as Asia’s toptechnology university. It is inninth spot, one above theNational University of Singapore.Singapore’s Nanyang University, aspecialist technology institution, isat 25. South Korea’s emergence asa technology power is supportedby the appearance here of theKorea Advanced Institute ofScience and Technology, foundedin 1971 in a deliberate attempt tocreate a Korean MIT.Our listing of citations per

paper shows that engineers and ITacademics cite fewer papers thantheir scientific and medicalcolleagues. An average MITbiomedical paper has 11.3citations; one in technology getsonly four. The most cited paperscome from Ecole PolytechniqueFédérale de Lausanne, the French-speaking half of the Swiss federaluniversity system, despite itsmodest 47th place in the peerreview.

The social sciences affect morepeople every day thanperhaps any other area of

academic life. The economistswho decide government policiesare one species of social scientist,while the teachers our childrenencounter at school are another.Management is a social science,and people who run businessesaround the world are increasinglylikely to have a formal academic

qualification such as an MBA.Recent years have been marked

by a growing convergencebetween the social and naturalsciences. The former appear intheir own right in the EuropeanCommission’s current SeventhFramework Programme forresearch. Like the arts andhumanities, they are alsobecoming more international.Globalisation creates a new

need for international knowledgeabout societies as well aseconomies, while the post 9/11world has a raised awareness thatcultures that once seemed obscuremight suddenly become importantto know about. At the same time,rapid technological and socialchange in advanced societies

means that the insights of socialscience are increasingly essential.This table shows that world

opinion regards the biggest USand UK universities as leaders inthe social sciences. Harvard,Berkeley, Stanford and Yaledominate from the US, andOxford and Cambridge from theUK. But the top UK institution isthe London School of Economics,which takes much the same role inthe UK social sciences as ImperialCollege London does in scienceand engineering.Because we list only institutions

that teach undergraduates, thistable does not includepostgraduate universities such asthe Institute of Education inLondon or the London BusinessSchool. But it is apparent thathaving a business school is a routeto garnering esteem in the socialsciences. Harvard’s is possibly theworld’s best known, and joins theJohn F. Kennedy School ofGovernment among the centresthat put Harvard top of this table.Other big US business schools,such as Sloan and Wharton,probably account for the presenceof Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology and University ofPennsylvania at 11 and 22.Of the five faculty-specific

analyses on these pages, this is theone in which Asian institutionsoutside Australia and NewZealand show up least well.China, Japan, Singapore andHong Kong appear only six times,while the US has 21 institutions.Our analysis of citations in the

social sciences shows that, incontrast to medicine, Europe hasthe most cited researchers.University College London is theclear winner, despite being 32ndin our peer review for the socialsciences. In future years, US andEuropean social scientists maydraw further ahead of the rest ofthe world as the field becomesmore expensive and moredependent on advancedmethodology and data-gathering.Martin Ince

Technology powerhouses and social science leaders boast a global reach,reflecting governments’ awareness of these fields’ economic impact

The innovators and educators

“”

European states seeking tobase their economic futureson quality manufacturing,rather than quantity, takeengineering seriously

Alam

y




12345678910111213141516171819202122232425=25=27282930=30=32333435363738394041=41=4344454647484950

USUSUSUSUKUKUSUSJapanSingaporeCanadaUKSwitzerlandUSUSChinaNetherlandsUSUSUSAustraliaJapanHong KongUSIsraelSingaporeCanadaAustraliaJapanCanadaUSUSIndiaFranceCanadaChinaIndiaUSAustraliaGermanyAustraliaUSUKAustraliaUSUSSwitzerlandS KoreaChinaUS

10094.584.780.075.672.171.068.065.163.860.460.259.659.258.358.257.757.457.356.754.153.853.653.353.153.152.852.550.750.550.550.449.448.548.448.247.347.046.444.744.544.543.942.842.741.741.641.340.840.6

4.04.24.33.73.42.73.62.92.12.93.53.72.54.75.11.22.64.13.54.42.91.83.12.71.82.12.42.52.02.62.93.61.62.32.01.81.73.82.42.52.32.42.62.02.24.55.31.91.03.3

Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyUniversity of California, BerkeleyStanford UniversityCalifornia Institute of TechnologyUniversity of CambridgeImperial College LondonCarnegie Mellon UniversityGeorgia Institute of TechnologyUniversity of TokyoNational University of SingaporeUniversity of TorontoUniversity of OxfordETH ZurichPrinceton UniversityHarvard UniversityTsinghua UniversityDelft University of TechnologyUniversity of California, Los AngelesUniversity of IllinoisCornell UniversityUniversity of MelbourneTokyo Institute of TechnologyHong Kong University of Science &TechnologyPurdue UniversityTechnion — Israel Institute of TechnologyNanyang Technological UniversityMcGill UniversityUniversity of New South WalesKyoto UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Texas at AustinUniversity of MichiganIndian Institute of Technology BombayEcole PolytechniqueUniversity of WaterlooPeking UniversityIndian Institute of Technology DelhiUniversity of California, San DiegoAustralian National UniversityTechnische Universität MünchenUniversity of SydneyTexas A&M UniversityUniversity of ManchesterMonash UniversityVirginia Polytechnic InstituteYale UniversityEcole Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneKorea Advanced Inst of Science & TechnologyUniversity of Science & Technology of ChinaRensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Coun

try

Score

Citatio

ns

TOP 50 UNIVERSITIES FOR SOCIAL SCIENCES

TOP 50 UNIVERSITIES FOR TECHNOLOGY

1234567891011121314151617=17=192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748=48=50

USUSUKUSUSUKUKUSUSUSUSCanadaCanadaCanadaUSAustraliaUSAustraliaUSSingaporeUSUSChinaJapanUSAustraliaAustraliaUSUSAustraliaHong KongUKUSAustraliaNZUSUSUSCanadaUKCanadaBelgiumCanadaChinaDenmarkAustriaUKHong KongNetherlandsUS

10093.983.482.882.281.681.179.678.976.575.872.171.870.867.866.261.861.860.459.558.357.756.354.253.951.850.748.948.647.747.246.445.745.245.044.844.544.143.142.341.941.541.441.140.239.839.639.439.438.9

5.65.22.24.35.04.24.14.44.54.34.93.83.63.44.92.43.93.74.12.14.04.22.12.25.22.12.74.53.83.72.17.64.53.12.94.54.34.13.22.92.62.93.21.33.13.23.62.53.43.1

Harvard UniversityUniversity of California, BerkeleyLondon School of EconomicsYale UniversityStanford UniversityUniversity of OxfordUniversity of CambridgeUniversity of ChicagoPrinceton UniversityColumbia UniversityMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyMcGill UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of California, Los AngelesAustralian National UniversityCornell UniversityUniversity of MelbourneUniversity of MichiganNational University of SingaporeNew York UniversityUniversity of PennsylvaniaPeking UniversityUniversity of TokyoDuke UniversityMonash UniversityUniversity of SydneyCarnegie Mellon UniversityNorthwestern UniversityUniversity of New South WalesUniversity of Hong KongUniversity College LondonUniversity of California, San DiegoUniversity of QueenslandUniversity of AucklandBoston UniversityUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonJohns Hopkins UniversityUniversité de MontréalUniversity of WarwickYork UniversityUniversité Catholique de LouvainQueen’s UniversityTsinghua UniversityUniversity of CopenhagenUniversity of ViennaUniversity of EdinburghChinese University of Hong KongUniversity of AmsterdamPennsylvania State University

Coun

try

Score

Citatio

ns

Researchers in the arts andhumanities often do notpublish their most important

work in refereed journals. Theymight write a book, compose asymphony or curate an exhibitionwith a scholarly catalogue. Thismeans that academic success isharder to define here than inother areas of scholarship. Italso explains why this table doesnot attempt to measure academicachievement in these subjects bylooking at publications.But the story it tells about

excellence in these areas isrevealing. The subjects rangewidely from philosophy, whichis almost by definition the leastapplied discipline in the academy,to modern languages, an essentialarea in the globalised economy.They include long-establishedfields such as music and history,and others, such as museumstudies and tourism, which aregrowing as economies transform.Politicians rarely mention the

arts and humanities in speecheson the importance of research tonational economic success. TheUK has established a researchcouncil to fund them only inthe past two years. But theirimportance means they are centralto the success of any largeuniversity aiming to be goodat the full range of academicdisciplines. Harvard University is

once again top of this table, and isjoined by other global universitiessuch as Oxford, Cambridge andYale universities and theUniversity of California, Berkeley.Strength in the arts and

humanities is also a must foruniversities that aim to be


123456789101112131415161718192021=21=2324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748=48=50

USUSUKUKUSUSUSCanadaUSAustraliaUSCanadaUSCanadaAustraliaUSAustraliaChinaUSUSSingaporeUSUSJapanUSUKUKUKFranceAustraliaUSNew ZealandFranceJapanAustraliaUKIrelandGermanyIsraelNetherlandsNetherlandsUSBelgiumHong KongAustraliaChinaItalyUKUSUS

Harvard UniversityUniversity of California, BerkeleyUniversity of OxfordUniversity of CambridgeYale UniversityColumbia UniversityPrinceton UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of ChicagoAustralian National UniversityStanford UniversityMcGill UniversityUniversity of California, Los AngelesUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of SydneyCornell UniversityUniversity of MelbournePeking UniversityUniversity of MichiganDuke UniversityNational University of SingaporeJohns Hopkins UniversityNew York UniversityUniversity of TokyoMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyLondon School of EconomicsUniversity College LondonUniversity of EdinburghUniversité Paris-Sorbonne, Paris IVMonash UniversityBrown UniversityUniversity of AucklandEcole Normale Supérieure, ParisKyoto UniversityUniversity of New South WalesKing’s College LondonTrinity College DublinFreie Universität BerlinHebrew University of JerusalemLeiden UniversityUniversity of AmsterdamUniversity of Texas at AustinKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenUniversity of Hong KongUniversity of QueenslandFudan UniversityUniversity of BolognaSchool of Oriental and African StudiesIndiana University BloomingtonUniversity of Pennsylvania

Rank

Name

Country

Score

TOP 50 UNIVERSITIES FOR ARTS & HUMANITIESWorks of artin the makingDespite their essential role in leadingpolitical and cultural debate, artsand humanities are often relegatedto the back seat by the sciences

“”

Every country has its ownliterature, history, music andpolitics, but the table showsthat the quality of nationalresearch in these fields isrecognised worldwide

by delivering more arts andhumanities teaching in English.It may seem strange to teachyour own history in a foreignlanguage, but doing so makesit more available to foreignstudents, while publishing inEnglish makes research morevisible. These reforms are likelyto affect Asian and continentalEuropean universities’ futurestanding in this table.Martin Ince


“”

Arts and humanities arecentral to the success ofany large university aimingto be good at the full rangeof academic disciplines

national leaders in political andcultural debate. Hence theappearance of the universities ofToronto, McGill, Tokyo, Peking,the London School of Economicsand the Australian NationalUniversity in prominent positions.The fact that 16 nations

appear in this top 50 is evidenceof the inclusive approach of ourpeer reviewers. The arts andhumanities are perhaps the leastglobalised subjects of all. Everycountry has its own literature,history, music and politics. Butthe table shows that the qualityof national research in these fieldsis recognised worldwide. Andsome areas of the humanitiessuch as religion have emergedfrom genteel obscurity to newpolitical and cultural importancein a globalised world with a newawareness of security andinternational tension.This table also confirms the

world cultural value of English.The top 20 institutions include19 in the English-speaking world.Peking, in 18th position, is thehighest placed institution not towork entirely in English. SomeAsian universities are responding

100.096.594.492.384.383.380.179.577.675.974.771.368.467.266.664.463.961.260.358.657.657.656.754.754.454.053.953.552.552.151.751.050.950.549.649.348.648.448.047.347.246.345.744.944.043.242.941.941.941.7

November 9 2007 Times Higher Education Supplement 13

We look at the topperformers oneach measure andsuggest what theirsuccess meansfor the sector’sdevelopment

What the pick of the cropmeans for the rest of the field

The Times Higher-QS WorldUniversity Rankings are acomposite measure in which

six criteria are added together toproduce an overall table. Onemeasure, peer review, accounts for40 per cent of the possible score,while two others account for 20percentage points each, with oneworth 10 per cent and the othertwo worth 5 per cent each.This division of possible

points means it is not possible toachieve a high score in theserankings by being excellent inonly one category. But it alsomeans that two universities canobtain similar scores despite

to the top in the opinion of fellowacademics around the world.The second of our measures,

the employer review, accounts foronly 10 per cent of the possiblescore but is of burning interestto students and their parents, aswell as to universities themselves.This year, 1,471 recruiters ofgraduates from around the worldtold us where they like to gettheir employees. Their responsesuggests that graduate recruitmentgenuinely has become a globalenterprise.Although only 32 per cent of

this sample is in Europe, theserecruiters are overwhelminglyin agreement that the UK is theplace to shop for graduates.They put Cambridge and

Oxford universities at the topof the list, with the LondonSchool of Economics third andthe University of Manchester infifth place. Manchester’s bid to bethe north of England’s answer toOxbridge and London alreadyseems to be convincing employers.Despite this British success,

Harvard, MIT and Stanford arealso well placed on this measure.Their appearance alongside

coasts, both have a perfectscore on this measure. Alsoprominent on this measure areStanford, Yale, Princeton, theMassachusetts Institute ofTechnology and the Universityof California, Los Angeles.However, it is also apparent

that academics place Oxford andCambridge universities on roughlythe same rung as their main USrivals. In addition, the effort putinto staying level with its UScompetitors by McGill, Canada’stop institution, is seen to bepaying off in terms of worldesteem. (We regret that the printedTimes Higher rankings supple-ment refers to Toronto instead ofMcGill in this description.)MIT is the only specialist

institution to appear in this topten. This measure groups resultsin all five areas of academic lifethat we survey and it is hard to dowell here without being visible inall or most of them. Despite itsname, MIT operates in mostarenas of scholarship.This part of the rankings is

the one where the rise of Asianuniversities is least apparent, butfuture years may yet see them get

having widely differing strengthsand weaknesses.This year’s changes in the

rankings methodology, explainedon page 7, mean that exceptionaloutlying scores on any measureno longer have a distorting effecton the whole picture. While thisis to the good overall, it meansthat the top performers on anyspecific measure now tend tobunch at a score of 100 or justbelow. In the main tables, weshow the scores for each measureto the nearest 1 per cent, but herewe display one decimal place.The most significant of our

measures is academic peer review.It accounts for 40 per cent ofthe available score and is themost distinctive feature of ourWorld University Rankings.This analysis combines the

opinions of 5,101 individuals,up from 1,300 in 2004, the firstyear of our rankings. AlthoughAmericans make up only 30 percent of our sample (see page 7),there is general agreement aroundthe world that the US has the bestuniversities. Berkeley andHarvard, the big two of the USsystem on the East and West

Alam

y


Oxbridge and the LSE suggeststhat employers are a conservativebreed.The University of Melbourne

emerges by some distance asAsia’s favourite institution withrecruiters. It remains to be seenwhat recruiters will make of thenovel degree system Melbourneis now introducing.This table confirms that

recruiters like big technologyuniversities such as MIT andImperial College London.Two of the measures we use,

peer review and citations, arequalitative and quantitative meansrespectively of seeing who is goodat research. The two measurescorrelate closely. The CaliforniaInstitute of Technology’s highlyproductive research culture putsit top on citations. But this tableincludes some surprises, such asthe appearance of the Universityof Alabama, although its score onother measures means that it doesnot appear in our main table ofthe world’s top 200 universities.This table is unique in these

pages for having no UK entries.While our peer review shows

that the US is the world centrefor scholarly esteem, our table ofinternational staff demonstratesbeyond doubt that Europe andthe Asia-Pacific region are thecapitals of academic diversity. NoUS university appears in our topten for overseas staff or students.Our look at international staff

contains two universities inLondon, the LSE and the Schoolof Oriental and African Studies,alma maters of choice for futureforeign ministers, central bankersand heads of state across thedeveloping world. Universitiesin Australia, New Zealand andSwitzerland also do well on thismeasure. But the winner in termsof overseas academics per hectaremust be Hong Kong, with threeuniversities here, including the top

institution, Hong Kong Universityof Science and Technology.Perhaps even more than top

staff, students have become aprized quarry for institutionsaround the world. For one thing,universities are free to chargethem whatever the market willbear. This table shows thatstudents agree that London is aplace to spend at least part oftheir career, with the city claimingthree of the four UK entries. TheLSE is the winner among studentsfor the second successive year,with second and third slots alsogoing to UK institutions. Itsappeal is not hard to discern.Few future economic and socialscientists could resist being at aresearch-based elite universityin the heart of one of the world’smost diverse and successful cities,close to many of the world’s topfinancial markets.Second on this measure is

Cranfield University, based on arural campus north of London.Its areas of expertise includetechnology and business, bothmagnets for mobile students.Western Australia, in the

shape of Curtin University ofTechnology, also appears inboth lists, as does the EcolePolytechnique Fédérale inLausanne, Switzerland, and otheruniversities in Switzerland andFrance. Swiss institutions have alarge nearby catchment area inFrance, Germany and Austria,which must make it simpler tobring in overseas students. Thismay allow them to resist thetemptation to switch to theEnglish-language teaching that isnow sweeping Asian universities.US universities might argue that

Europe has an inbuilt advantage inthis measure. Having many smallcountries within a short drive ofeach other is bound to facilitatemobility. The presence of Swissand French universities here might

support this argument, and thisis one of the categories in whichcontinental institutions excel. ButSoas in London inherently drawsits students from around thedeveloping world, and Curtin andRMIT universities appear heredespite Australia’s distance fromother major academic centres.Students come to university

to learn, and the last of ourindicators is designed to showwhether the institution they arriveat will have anybody for them tolearn from. It ranks universitiesby staff-to-student ratio.The California Institute of

Technology tops this tablebecause it has a tiny student bodycoexisting with a large and activeresearch-oriented faculty.But the rest of the data we show

suggests that anyone seeking auniversity where they are goingto be well supplied with academicinput ought to look beyond thebiggest names. Yale and ImperialCollege London are here fromamong our overall top table. Butso is Ulm University in Germany,despite the poor overall showingof German institutions in thesepages.This is also the only one of

six top ten analyses to name amainland Chinese university,Tsinghua in Beijing. Frenchinstitutions in Lyon and Paris,which are known more for theirteaching than for their research,are also in the top ten here.Four of this table’s top ten —

CalTech, Tsinghua, Cranfieldand Imperial — are technology-heavy institutions. Suchuniversities may well win outon this measure because classsizes are smaller than in areassuch as the humanities.Despite the success of Yale

in this table, this measure is lesskind than others to large, generaluniversities such as Harvard andBerkeley. Martin Ince

“”While students and theirteachers have been interna-tionally mobile since theMiddle Ages, the expectationthat academics will spendpart of their careers abroadis growing


12345678910

USUSUKUSUKUSUSUSCanadaUS

10010010010010010010010010099.9

43152613101619

University of California, BerkeleyHarvard UniversityUniversity of CambridgeStanford UniversityUniversity of OxfordMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyPrinceton UniversityYale UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of California, Los Angeles

2007

rank

Name

Country

Score

2006

rank

TOP 10 PEER REVIEW TOP 10 EMPLOYER REVIEW

12345678910

UKUKUKUSUKUSUSUKItalyAustralia

10099.999.899.599.098.998.998.998.698.5

68413123381742

University of CambridgeUniversity of OxfordLondon School of EconomicsHarvard UniversityUniversity of ManchesterMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyStanford UniversityImperial College LondonUniversità Commerciale Luigi BocconiUniversity of Melbourne

2007

rank

Name

Country

Score

2006

rank

12345678910

Hong KongAustraliaNZSwitzerlandNZHong KongUKSwitzerlandHong KongSingapore

10010010010010099.999.999.999.999.8

111321448534–6

Hong Kong University of Science & TechnolCurtin University of TechnologyUniversity of OtagoEcole Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneUniversity of AucklandUniversity of Hong KongLondon School of EconomicsETH ZurichHong Kong Polytechnic UniversityNational University of Singapore

2007

rank

Name

Country

Score

2006

rank

TOP 10 INTERNATIONAL STAFF TOP 10 INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

12345678910

UKUKUKFranceFranceAustraliaAustraliaSwitzerlandUKSwitzerland

10010010010010010099.999.999.799.5

182134365109

London School of EconomicsCranfield UniversitySchool of Oriental And African StudiesSciences Po ParisESCP-EAP ParisCurtin University of TechnologyRMIT UniversityEcole Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneImperial College LondonUniversity of Geneva

2007

rank

Name

Country

Score

2006

rank

12345678910

USFranceUSChinaFranceUKGermanyUSUKUS

10010010010010010010099.999.999.9

26612730552145124

California Institute of TechnologyEcole Normale Supérieure de LyonYale UniversityTsinghua UniversityEcole PolytechniqueCranfield UniversityUniversität UlmUniversity of RochesterImperial College LondonUniversity of Colorado

2007

rank

Name

Country

Score

2006

rank

TOP 10 STAFF-TO-STUDENT RATIO TOP 10 CITATIONS PER STAFF MEMBER

12345678910

USUSUSFranceUSUSUSUSSwitzerlandUS

10099.998.498.398.296.595.995.895.495.3

134912102131126

California Institute of TechnologyStanford UniversityMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyEcole Normale Supérieure, ParisUniversity of AlabamaPrinceton UniversityHarvard UniversityJohns Hopkins UniversityUniversity of ZurichUniversity of California, San Diego

2007

rank

Name

Country

Score

2006

rank

Source: QS Quacquarelli SymondsSource: QS Quacquarelli Symonds

Source: QS Quacquarelli Symonds Source: QS Quacquarelli Symonds

Source: QS Quacquarelli Symonds Source: QS Quacquarelli Symonds

WorldRankings2007 University

Documents

Transcript of WorldRankings2007 University