qs benchmarking sample report 2011

Benchmarking Service Year 1 Report

Atlantis University

SAMPLE REPORT

2 Copyright © 2011 QS Intelligence Unit

Copyright notice

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

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or other-wise without the prior permission of the publisher, with the following exceptions:

You may print extracts for your personal and non-com-mercial use only.

You may distribute copies of the report to individuals within your organisation for their personal use, but only if you ensure their understanding of these terms of use and acknowledge QS as the source of the material.

QS Intelligence Unit

Benchmarking Service—Year 1

Terms of Use

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

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

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

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

This report and its contents are subject to the more detailed terms described in the

Non-disclosure Agreement (Reference QSIU-Atlantis 2009-01) signed by Dolores

Epsilon, Director of Planning, dated 14 June 2010)

Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MODULE 3: Rankings Performance .........................................................................................27

MODULE 4: Research Performance .........................................................................................33

MODULE 5: Academic Reputation Performance .....................................................................38

Appendix I: Trends in Higher Education 2011-12 .......................... not included in sample report

Appendix II: Refinement Chronology ............................................. not included in sample report

Appendix III: Survey Results 2011 ................................................. not included in sample report

Appendix III: Data Definitions ....................................................... not included in sample report

CONTENTS

Content


Introduction

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

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

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

It is thus important to recognise that any conclusions based purely on this report may not be entirely informed as other factors which may not be self-evident may have an influence and additional research should be combined with this re-port to form a complete picture.

Further Assistance

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

Abby Chau

Analyst


[email protected]

+44 (0)20 7428 2704

Ben Sowter

Head of Division


[email protected]

+44 (0)20 7428 2783

Introduction


Institutions Considered

Siena Polytechnic

University of Cheng Keng Università Paphos

Kowloon Private University

St John University University of Hsing Tua

Universidad San Diez Mayo

Polytechnic of Helena

Atlantis University

Institutions Considered


In 2011, the QS World University Rankings® were pub-lished for the eighth consecutive year, with over 2,000 institutions considered and more than 700 institutions evaluated on a global level. The results of the Rankings were published in major media outlets worldwide includ-ing the BBC, the Guardian, Times of India, Korea Times, Gulf News, and Hong Kong Daily News.

The dialogue surrounding ranking systems continues to provoke worldwide discussion. U-Multirank, an initia-tive supported by the European Commission, has recently been launched to some interest. Next year, Shanghai Jiao Tong’s Academic University World Ranking will enjoy its 10th anniversary. As university rankings enter their first decade on the international stage, the clamour for robust and independent institutional evaluation is as relevant and important as ever.

Currently five Atlantis universities are included in the QS World University Rankings®. Atlantis institutions in particu-lar are fairly new to international league tables. This means that they may find themselves in a relatively weaker posi-tion at present. However, as those universities gain more exposure and join the international stage, perceptions and the recognition of academic excellence is bound to follow.

According to the most recent data released by UNESCO, Atlantis’s expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP is on a par with Persephone and Sample Report at approximately 3.45%. As economic realities set in for sam-ple report countries, it will be interesting to observe how the higher education landscape will change as the playing field continues to widen; not only in fiscal terms, but also as perceptions of global standings begin to shift.

The QS World University Rankings® will continue to im-prove and evolve. At present, four key criteria form the basis for institutional evaluation: Research Quality, Teach-ing Quality, Graduate Employability and International Out-look. Six indicators encompass these criteria and form the basis for the Rankings:

• Academic Reputation - 40%

• Employer Reputation - 10%

• Faculty Student Ratio - 20%

• Citations per Faculty - 20%

• International Faculty - 5%

• International Students - 5%

The Rankings have become increasingly sophisticated and a range of additional supporting data has been collected. An overview of what each research module contributes, together with some key observations, is covered in this Ex-ecutive Summary.

MODULE 1: INSTITUTION REPORTS

As with previous reports, Module 1 provides a two-page overview of each individual institution chosen to be in-cluded in the exercise. The completeness of each institu-tion report depends on a number of factors:

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

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

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

To acquire a quick feel for an institution, reviewing this module is the easiest way to obtain a visual read of its key strengths and performance over time. A more detailed schematic of how these reports are structured can be found at the start of the module.

Of key interest in this section will be a large amount of ranking data that is not available in the public domain, and that is protected under the terms of the Non-disclosure Agreement referenced on the inside front cover of this re-port. This includes rankings by indicator and faculty area outside the top 300 which are not generally published and overall rankings outside the top 400 where the results are generally published in ranges.

A reason for not making this information public is that the level of precision in the underlying data decays as the ranking descends. It is not necessarily meaningful there-fore to discern in minute detail between positions 484 and 485, for example. QSIU prefers to extend interpretative guidance in a comprehensive document such as this, when releasing this kind of data. As a result, this report may in-clude specific information on some institutions which even the university in question may not, itself, have.

Additionally, included in Module 1 is information on other rankings for each institution. The latest results, if applica-ble, from the following exercises are included:

EXECUTIVE REPORTSummary


• ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong)

• HEAACT

• Ranking Web of World Universities (Webometrics)

• Times Higher Education

• 4icu University Web Ranking

• Alexa Web Rankings

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

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

MODULE 2: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Module 2 provides a detailed summary of the current posi-tion of each selected institution in comparison with Atlan-tis University across all indicators used in the QS World University Rankings®. It is important to note that the charts in this module are not adjusted for the weightings used in the Rankings.

Key observations gleaned from this module include:

• Atlantis’ ‘shape’ reveals several weaknesses, particu-larly in the Employer Reputation and International Faculty indexes. Although Atlantis performs well in the International Faculty index, it is worth noting that it has sample report in recent years.

• It is advisable for Atlantis to sample report sample re-port. The Employer Reputation index is the most hard earned, as a variety of factors contribute to sample report sample employability.

• In order to improve across all indicators, Atlantis may want to improve sample report and sample report as recognition of sample report is linked to Academic Reputation.

• The final chart in this module breaks down perfor-mance for the last three years. Persephone has lost ground in the sample report and sample indexes which has contributed to its drop in overall position.

MODULE 3: RANKINGS PERFORMANCE If Module 2 provides an institution-by-institution snapshot, Module 3 provides a deeper analysis on an indicator-by-indicator basis. For each indicator, a chart reveals the performance of each institution over the last five years. In addition, this module drills down further into the Faculty Student index, providing in-depth ratio figures.

The following key points may be observed:

• The charts also show that Atlantis has seen a year-on-year decline in two indicators: sample report, which represents sample of the overall score.

• Most of the selected peer institutions struggle in the Faculty Student index, particularly sample report and sample report, and sample.

• The final charts in this section map out Atlantis’ per-formance with the maximum points available, as well as, overall deviation from the mean, which shows performance by taking account of changes in method-ology. This shows that Atlantis sample sample sample, however in 2011, performance has improved.

MODULE 4: RESEARCH PERFORMANCE This module gives an insight into the Citations per Faculty index, (worth 20% of the overall score) and breaks down research habits and patterns in order to reveal institutional research output and citation levels. It is important to note that the QS World University Rankings® treat citations in all fields as equal.

Important observations include:

• Paphos clearly dominates this landscape, achieving the sample report sample peers however its score has fallen year-on-year since sample.

• Atlantis may want to focus on its research output not sample sample sample, which is an internationally


recognised sample sample sample. Atlantis is not cur-rently producing sample sample sample. As academic reputation is linked to sample sample sample, it is important for institutions to produce sample sample sample.

• In 2011, self-citations were excluded from the overall total. Life Sciences & Medicine receive the highest rate of self-citations.

MODULE 5: ACADEMIC REPUTATION

Academic Reputation is the centrepiece of the QS World University Rankings®. It is worth 40% of the overall score and remains a solid indicator of measurable global recog-nition of academic excellence.

• Atlantis’s response rate is low compared to other countries. The highest domestic response rate from the country was in the Social Sciences & Management faculty.

• Atlantis sees its best performance in the Life Sciences & Medicine and Arts & Humanities faculties however sample sample sample.

• Of the selected peer institutions, Paphos and Helena achieve high scores both internationally and domesti-cally sample sample sample.

• Atlantis saw its best performance in this sample sam-ple sample. Because Academic Reputation is tied to sample sample sample, Atlantis may want to focus more on sample sample sample.

The Academic Reputation indicator feeds into the QS Subject Rankings as survey respondents are asked to list the top institutions in their specialist field. Atlantis per-forms well in the Life Sciences & Medicine faculty at 111. Atlantis also ranks at 36 globally in the Arts & Humanities discipline. These results can be a springboard for Atlantis to sample report sample report sample.

CONCLUSION

The QS World University Rankings® helps to compare in-stitutional performance but it is by no means the definitive voice sample report sample report sample A world class

university is built sample report sample report sample At-lantis should sample report sample report sample.

Atlantis is sample report sample report sample sample report sample report sample sample report sample report sample. Atlantis’ wide-ranging sample report sample re-port sample also very sample report sample report sample with top universities may help institutions to sample report sample report sample sample report sample report sample sample report sample report sample. It is advisable to make sure that university branding takes full advantage of these high sample report sample report sample.

Benchmarking Service: Year 3 Report – City University of Hong Kong


Personnel Data*

Full Time Equivalent data (or extrapolated alternative data) is used for the QS World University Rankings ®. Here, only data accurately verified is shown resulting in some blanks most commonly in the FTE column.

Exchanges*

Exchanges are a potential future addition as a rankings indicator but the data completion levels are not yet sufficiently high. There will be some blanks here.

Financial*

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

dollars.

Scopus Data

Scopus results for Papers, Citations, and Impact ap-pear in this section with overall results as well as in five faculty areas: Arts & Humanities, Engineering & Technology, Life Sciences & Medicine, Natural Sci-

ences, and Social Sciences & Management.

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

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

INSTITUTION REPORTSMODULE 1

Benchmarking Service: Year 1 Report - Sample Report 9

At a Glance

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

Indicator and Faculty Area Scores

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

Comparisons on Rank

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

position.

Additional Information*

Additional information, including patents, staff with PhDs, teaching and student satisfaction, student gradu-ation rate, students pursuing further study, and average entry requirements

have been added to our report.

Web Capture

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

ties.

Other Rankings

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



Personnel Data Headcount FTE

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

Exchange Data Headcount FTE

Undergraduates Inbound 2,117 2,517 Undergraduates Outbound 3,181 4,181 Postgraduates Inbound 36 55 Postgraduates Outbound 24 44

Financial Data US$

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

Scopus Data Papers Citations Impact

Overall 15,613 86,964 5.6 Arts & Humanities 234 202 0.9 Engineering & Technology 604 911 1.5 Life Sciences & Medicine 1,899 17,024 9 Natural Sciences 1,778 13,750 7.7 Social Sciences & Mgmt 899 2,068 3.22.3

Additional Information

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

QS Indicator Scores Atlantis Global

Overall 51.4 -Academic Reputation 58.9 38.9 Employer Reputation 52.6 23.6 Faculty Student 61.3 44.2 Citations per Faculty 34.5 33.8 International Faculty 30.4 37.8 International Students 18.8 40.1

QS Faculty Area Scores Atlantis Global

Arts & Humanities 19.7 15.9 Engineering & Technology 12.2 12.4 Life Sciences & Medicine 22.0 12.1 Natural Sciences 16.5 14.8 Social Sciences & Mgmt 24.7 14.5

Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) 111 (151)HEEACT 233 (223)Webometrics Ranking 284 (226)THE 1114icu Web Popularity Ranking 248Alexa Web Ranking 38333

Website Capture

Web Address: www.atlantis.tuDate Taken: 2011-07-28

662 Institution Name: Atlantis University Abbreviation: Atlantis Location: Evian, NetherlandsFoundation Year: 1882Classification: Size: XL; Focus: FC; Research: MD; Age: 3

Atlantis University


Faculty Level Rankings

Faculty Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Arts & Humanities 210 500 167 301 46 Engineering & Technology 240 218 188 123 130 Life Sciences & Medicine 197 145 122 100 153 Natural Sciences 555 235 555 66 71 Social Sciences & Management 104 124 133 114 28

2011 QS World University Rank®

122Overall Ranking

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

304 155 165 122 50

Academic Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

421 152 151 51 57

Employer Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

323 258 145 32 4

Faculty Student

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

500 65 141 56 185 Citations per Faculty

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

996 322 201 345 337 International Faculty

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

3352 22 55 35 86 International Students

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

222 52 56 56 24




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


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

Financial Data US$

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


Overall 23,249 109,484 4.7 Arts & Humanities 334 303 0.9 Engineering & Technology 1,662 2,874 1.7 Life Sciences & Medicine 5,812 29,118 5 Natural Sciences 3,993 16,357 4.1 Social Sciences & Mgmt 349 843 3.22.4


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

QS Indicator Scores Persephone Global


QS Faculty Area Scores Persephone Global


Other Rankings


Website Capture

Web Address: www.persephone.avDate Taken: 2011-07-28

Institution Name: University of Persephone Abbreviation: Persephone Location: Langhamire, NorwayFoundation Year: 1001Classification: Size: XL; Focus: FC; Research: VH; Age: 3

University of Persephone




73

University of Hsing Tua


22Overall Ranking

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

221 192 45 22 50

Academic Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

658 86 86 81 57

Employer Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

350 153 55 172 4

Faculty Student

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

365 390 406 402 24




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


Undergraduates Inbound 7,726 7,726 Undergraduates Outbound 4,226 4,226 Postgraduates Inbound 11,786 11,786 Postgraduates Outbound 5,270 5,270

Financial Data US$

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


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


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

QS Indicator Scores Hsing Tua Global


QS Faculty Area Scores Hsing Tua Global


Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) 265 (404)HEEACT 256Webometrics Ranking 123THE 1134icu Web Popularity Ranking 762Alexa Web Ranking 47913

Website Capture

Web Address: www.sample.chDate Taken: 2011-07-28

Institution Name: University of Hsing Tua Abbreviation: Hsing Tua Location: Hsing Tua , ChinaFoundation Year: 1333Classification: Size: L; Focus: FO; Research: MD; Age: 3

University of Hsing Tua





361Overall Ranking

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

305 296 318 361 50

Academic Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

413 384 422 523 57

Employer Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

212 124 222 122 4

Faculty Student

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

2275 89 88 76 24




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


Undergraduates Inbound 3,799 24,995 Undergraduates Outbound 267 507 Postgraduates Inbound 17,579 17,579 Postgraduates Outbound 15,118 15,118

Financial Data US$

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


Overall 28,187 210,560 7.5 Arts & Humanities 490 1,600 3.3 Engineering & Technology 1,336 2,361 1.8 Life Sciences & Medicine 4,545 49,045 10.8 Natural Sciences 3,044 29,347 9.6 Social Sciences & Mgmt 670 2,596 3.23.9


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

QS Indicator Scores Siena Global


QS Faculty Area Scores Siena Global


Other Rankings


Website Capture


Institution Name: Siena Polytechnic Abbreviation: Siena Location: Siena, ItalyFoundation Year: 1531Classification: Size: M; Focus: CO; Research: VH; Age: 3

Siena Polytechnic





70Overall Ranking

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

211 56 86 70 50

Academic Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

244 208 111 100 57

Employer Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

361 46 222 213 4

Faculty Student

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

398 516 497 400 24




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


Undergraduates Inbound 7,726 7,726 Undergraduates Outbound 37 37 Postgraduates Inbound 1,292 1,292 Postgraduates Outbound 14 14

Financial Data US$

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


Overall 7,982 32,708 4.1 Arts & Humanities 750 17,100 22.8 Engineering & Technology 3,039 7,522 2.5 Life Sciences & Medicine 1,454 8,384 5.8 Natural Sciences 527 2,455 4.7 Social Sciences & Mgmt 374 1,266 3.23.4


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

QS Indicator Scores San Diez Global


QS Faculty Area Scores San Diez Global


Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) 123 (360)HEEACT 437 (377)Webometrics Ranking - (321)THE 4564icu Web Popularity Ranking 306Alexa Web Ranking 61198

Website Capture


Institution Name: Universidad San Diez Mayo Abbreviation: San Diez Location: San Diez, MexicoFoundation Year: 1456Classification: Size: L; Focus: FO; Research: HI; Age: 3

Universidad San Diez Mayo





56Overall Ranking

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

386 226 111 56 50

Academic Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

304 55 45 21 57

Employer Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

361 111 99 256 4

Faculty Student

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

153 198 111 123 24




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


Undergraduates Inbound 461 359 Undergraduates Outbound 209 195 Postgraduates Inbound 90 56 Postgraduates Outbound - 75

Financial Data US$

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


Overall 12,466 78,668 6.3 Arts & Humanities 95 1,678 17.7 Engineering & Technology 661 832 1.3 Life Sciences & Medicine 2,488 22,528 9.1 Natural Sciences 677 4,766 7 Social Sciences & Mgmt 380 1,288 3.23.4


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

QS Indicator Scores Kowloon Global


QS Faculty Area Scores Kowloon Global


Other Rankings

ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) 231 (126)HEEACT 554 (526)Webometrics Ranking -THE 2224icu Web Popularity Ranking 259Alexa Web Ranking 55611

Website Capture


Institution Name: Kowloon Private University Abbreviation: Kowloon Location: Kowloon, Hong KongFoundation Year: 1236Classification: Size: L; Focus: FO; Research: VH; Age: 3

Kowloon Private University





111Overall Ranking

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

133 162 158 111 50

Academic Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

178 312 555 25 57

Employer Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

148 133 122 188 4

Faculty Student

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

57 111 83 222 24




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


Undergraduates Inbound 3,009 13,300 Undergraduates Outbound 3,094 12,003 Postgraduates Inbound 230 230 Postgraduates Outbound 230 230

Financial Data US$

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


Overall 34,284 66,667 1.9 Arts & Humanities 182 950 5.2 Engineering & Technology 6,114 6,164 1 Life Sciences & Medicine 3,153 7,372 2.3 Natural Sciences 2,724 9,267 3.4 Social Sciences & Mgmt 1,432 1,098 3.20.8


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

QS Indicator Scores Helena Global


QS Faculty Area Scores Helena Global


Other Rankings


Website Capture

Web Address: www.helena.ppDate Taken: 2011-07-28

Institution Name: Polytechnic of Helena Abbreviation: Helena Location: Underbridge, GreeceFoundation Year: 1553Classification: Size: L; Focus: CO; Research: LO; Age: 3

Polytechnic of Helena





51Overall Ranking

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

84 144 153 51 50

Academic Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

105 111 65 15 57

Employer Reputation

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

705 104 33 42 4

Faculty Student

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

421 480 489 566 24


COMPARATIVE REPORT

KEY

AR= Academic ReputationER= Employer ReputationFS= Faculty StudentCF= Citations per FacultyIF= International FacultyIS= International Student

The charts in this module display the performance of each of the in-stitutions featured in the report across all the indicators utilised for the rankings in 2011, each presented in contrast to Atlantis’s results.

The charts in this module represents a snapshot of performance across all the indicators utilised for the most current Rankings re-sults. In each case, the area inside the line represents the all round strength of the institution across the six principal ranking indicators and would correlate perfectly with the overall ranking performance were it not for the influence of weightings; essentially this display approach implies that each indicator carries the same weight. Thus the more hexagonal the ‘shape’, exemplified in this report by Paphos, the better the performance.

Some insights can be drawn from comparing results from previous reports:

• Atlantis has continued to sample report sample sample sample report, which is worth 20% of the overall score. Between 2009 and 2011, the institution saw its score drop over a 150 posi-tions in this indicator.

• In 2011, Atlantis saw its biggest decline in the Employer Repu-tation index of over 180 positions.

• The institution’s clearest strength remains in the sample report sample sample sample report. However, if one considers the fact that Atlantis has seen a drop in this indicator year on year, sample report sample sample sample report sample report sam-ple sample sample report.

• Among the selected peers, Paphos’s shape has remained the most consistent. although in 2011, it saw its overall perfor-mance drop for the first time in three years sample report sam-ple sample sample report sample report sample sample sample report.

• Helena’s ‘shape’ clearly delineates several areas which could be classified as weaknesses such sample report sample sample sample report and Citations per Faculty indexes. However it continues to perform well overall at 10. Clearly its stellar per-formance iample report sample sample sample report indexes has bolstered its overall performance.

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

MODULE 2


2.6

2.5

2.7 KEY ANALYSIS

Atlantis’s shape has increased year-on-year, signalling its decline in most of the indicators. In 2010, it tied with its domestic peer Helena in one index sample report sample sample sample report. However in 2011, Helena has sur-passed sample report sample sample sample report in all of the indicators.

On an international level, Atlantis’s peers have maintained relatively sample report sample sample sample report not shifting by more than eight positions in either direction.

• Atlantis’ domestic peer, Siena, saw its largest drop in sample report sample sample sample report 140 positions. However in terms of its development in this indicator in the last three years, Siena has improved from its position at 410 in 2009 to 325 in 2011.

• Ranked third in the world, Kowloon continues to perform exceptionally well except in one indicator - sample report sample sample sample report. This may be a result of insuf-ficient IPEDS data regarding international student numbers, but overall, top American institutions, with only four exceptions in 2011, are not represented in the top 50 in this index.

• In 2011, QSIU has had access to the necessary data to be able to remove self-citations from the Rankings thanks to additional data supplied by Elsevier from SciVerse Scopus. The elimina-tion of self-citations has sample report sample sample sample report, as indicated by their relatively stable shapes. Atlantis has seen the largest drop amongst the peers, of over 120 posi-tions in the last year.

2.8


Table 2.1: Ranking by indicator for 2009 to 2011

2009 2010 2011

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

Atlantis 135 135 135 48 13 184 15 135 135 72 13 135 135 100 135 135 154 52

Cheng Keng 115 115 115 46 19 45 125 115 115 70 149 115 115 15 115 115 119 521

Paphos 210 210 210 93 15 33 19 210 210 300 10 210 210 4 210 210 120 462

St John 26 26 26 59 31 44 16 26 26 121 25 26 26 4 26 26 212 322

Hsing Tua 310 310 310 20 43 38 140 310 310 242 174 310 310 15 310 310 186 327

Siena 215 215 215 49 36 370 33 215 215 518 28 215 215 100 215 215 239 94

San Diez 218 218 218 19 40 18 123 218 218 124 45 218 218 34 218 218 48 117

Kowloon 677 677 677 15 85 15 50 677 677 195 80 677 677 4 677 677 86 24

Helena 22 22 22 11 14 311 317 22 22 593 135 22 22 345 22 22 176 341

Table 2.1 shows the development of the peer group over the last three years and reveals a clearer picture of perfor-mance. Some key findings include:

• Kowloon has not improved year-on-year in any indi-cator. In fact, it has declined sample sample sample sample International Faculty index, where it saw a slight improvement in 2010.

• Kowloon has seen a more varied performance how-ever it, too, has declined year on year sample sample sample sample. It has maintained a relatively impres-sive performance in the sample sample indicators, which has helped stabilise its overall performance.

• Siena’s stellar performance in the reputational and sample indexes has helped it buffer it against a sharp decline in the sample sample ndex, which has fallen by almost one hundred positions since 2010.

• Interestingly, the other Atlantian peer, Siena, has seen a similar drop in the International Student index, declining over 190 positions since 2010. It has been well reported that Atlantis has been sample sample

sample sample, however in 2011, the government has signalled sample sample sample sample sample the country further its internationalisation strategies.

• Paphos has improved in both sample sample indica-tors, particularly in the International Faculty index which has increased by over 200 positions since 2009.


RANKINGS PERFORMANCEMODULE 3

Chart 3.1 Overall performance of selected universities 2007-2011

Chart 3.2 Academic Reputation performance of selected universities 2007-2011

ACADEMIC REPUTATION PERFORMANCE (CHART 3.2)

The Academic Reputation index is worth 40% of the overall score. In 2011, 33,744 responses from academics, more than twice the number of responses of the previous year. 80% of respondents have more than 10 years of ex-perience in academia. Furthermore, over 70% of respond-ents indicated their job title as Professor/Associate Profes-sor, Head of Department, or more senior positions such as President and Vice-Chancellor.

Chart 3.2 reveals some interesting findings:

• Atlantis has sample sample in performance since 2009, when it scored sample. In 2011, it performed at 33.

• Among the selected peers, Cheng Keng saw the larg-est improvement from the previous sample year, mov-ing up sixteen positions to 116. However if you con-sider the fact that it performed at 108 in 2009, then this sample sample.

• In terms of decline in performance, San Diez saw the largest margin since the previous year with a drop of seventeen positions. However its overall performance improved, in part due to its stellar performance in the sample.

OVERALL RANKINGS PERFORMANCE (CHART 3.1) This module delves deeper into the peer institutions’ per-formance for each indicator (and the overall performance) used for the QS World University Rankings®. Chart 3.1 displays the overall rank position for the selected peers for the past five years. Main observations include:

• Atlantis has seen a year-on-year decline in its overall performance. It witnessed its largest drop sample years sample years years to 516 in 2011. In 2007, it was placed at 363.

• With exception of a minor setback in 2008, Kowloon has progressed since 2008. In 2011, it was placed at sample sample report.

• In terms of improvement, Siena saw the largest pro-gression in the past year, moving up 80 positions to 150.

• Atlantis is the only selected peer to see a decline in 2011. It dropped three positions to sample sample, which is the first time it has moved out of the tenth position since 2006.


EMPLOYER REPUTATION (CHART 3.3)

Over the last three years the total number of responses to the Employer Reputation survey has increased dramati-cally from 1,482 in 2007, 2,339 in 2008, 3,286 in 2009, 5,007 in 2010, to 16,785 in 2011.

Response levels to the Employer Reputation survey have significantly increased particularly in Latin America. The top five countries in terms of responses come from all around the world: India, the United States, United King-dom, China, Sample Report sample.

Responses are closely scrutinised and weighted to elimi-nate biases that may result from disproportionate response levels. However, as response rates grow, so does the op-portunity for some institutions to perform better, and for some to decline in this index.

Points to note in Chart 3.3 include:

• Atlantis delivered a strong initial performance in this index in 2009 at 17. However, in 2011, it saw its larg-est decline in performance in the last five years, drop-ping 185 positions to 225.

• Cape Town’s performance has seen year on year im-provement. It achieved a top 100 position in 2011.

• MIT and UCL have the most stable performances, maintaining their positions at 4 and 34 respectively.

There are a number of strategies that may assist an institu-tion, such as:

• Ensure career services are readily available for stu-dents including adequate counsellor to student ratio

• Keeping abreast of postgraduate and postdoctoral em-ployment opportunities

• Making sure alumni ties are strong by reaching out to graduates and keeping track of their progress

• Ensuring the career service keeps up-to-date lists of employers who will vouch for the employability and calibre of Atlantis’ alumni.

Chart 3.2 Employer Reputation performance of selected universities 2007-2011

• With the exception of 2006, Papho’s score has been very sample, stabilising in tenth position year-on-year.

General strategies for improved performance in this indi-cator might include:

• Sample report sample report sample report sample report sample report sample sample sample.






CITATIONS PER FACULTY PERFORMANCE (CHART 3.5)

It is important to review the switch from ESI to ScopusTM in 2007 (please refer to Appendix I) in order to fully com-prehend this indicator. The Citations per Faculty indicator is an important component of measuring institutional re-search strength, as well as the effectiveness in which ideas are disseminated domestically as well as internationally.

Commencing with the 2011 results, QSIU has eliminated self-citations whilst considering the results. This change in methodology has not yielded significant changes in results, however some institutions further down the tables, may have felt it more keenly.

Chart 3.4 Faculty Student performance of selected universities 2007-2011

Chart 3.5 Citations per Faculty of selected universities 2007-2011

FACULTY STUDENT RATIO PERFORMANCE (CHART 3.4) This index has seen some volatility due to the adjust-ment of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) numbers for both faculty and students in 2007. This indicator is essen-tially a proxy for teaching quality. To put Chart 3.4 in context, it helps to look at some of the underlying data:

Ratio Score RankAtlantis 11.8:1 44.2 18Cheng Keng 13.9:1 29.9 17Helena 16.4:1 89.9 69Hsing Tua 22.9:1 88.1 73Kowloon 3.4:1 42.6 33Paphos 6:1 93 55San Diez 14.7:1 9 31Siena 19.6:1 9.4 15St John 8.9:1 5.6 65

Here, ratios are calculated simply by taking the number of FTE faculty as a percentage of the total FTE students. Half of the top ten performers in this indicator specialise in the fields of sample report sample sample sample ratio is

paramount to learning. On average, a ratio of sample sam-ple in this index. Key observations include:

• This is perhaps the most volatile index, particular for Paphos, Siena, St John, and Helena which saw their best five year performance in 2009.

• Kowloon saw its performance improve and somewhat stabilise in 2010 and 2011, when it outperformed sample sample. However Atlantis’s score has declined year on year since sample sample.

• In terms of improvement in 2011, Cheng Keng has moved up more than 45 positions in the last four years.

As many countries struggle with new financial realities, while sample sample sample sample sample, it will be in-teresting to watch this indicator in particular.


Chart 3.6 International Faculty performance of selected universities 2007-2011

The results in Chart 3.5 reveal some interesting trends:

• Atlantis has made the most improvement in this index, moving up in the charts by almost 150 posi-tions in sample sample and more than 100 positions sample.

• Paphos’s performance dropped in the latest results, and marks the first time it has fallen sample sample.

• Helena has the highest number of self-citations, (more than two thousand), however it also sample sample. Sample is also the most stable performer amongst the peers.

• Kowloon has lost over 100 positions since 2007.

• Atlantis should focus on sample sample sample sam-ple sample sample sample sample sample tied to academic reputation. An efficient way of going about achieving this can be sample sample sample sam-ple sample sample sample sample work with fellow global peers. This can be an effective starting point

from which Helena can disseminate its academic achievements.

• It is also important to note that sample sample sam-ple sample sample sample sample quantity, a lesson learnt by some Sample universities in recent years. The Sample government has recently taken steps to audit journal publishers sample.

The results in Chart 3.5 reveal that this is an area ripe for significant improvement for Atlantis as recognition of research quality also translates into institutional branding and thus prestige.

INTERNATIONAL FACULTY PERFORMANCE (CHART 3.6)

The International Faculty index is the most geographically diverse of all the indicators. The top ten performers in this index hail from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Sample Sample Sample.

This indicator, one of the two internationalisation meas-ures, speaks to the ability of attracting international faculty. International strategies at universities are much more than simply the numbers of international faculty and students, but these serve as strong measures of institutions with ad-vanced strategies in this area.

Key findings for this index include:

• Because this indicator is based on the proportion of faculty members that sample, performances are highly sample. For example, between 2007 and 2009, Siena saw its performance drop by almost 500 positions.

• Kowloon has improved over 300 positions over the last five years. This indicator is quite competitive on a global level as it has sample sample sample sample, have been actively recruiting foreign faculty.

• This is Atlantis’s top performing index, although it saw its best five year performance in 2008. It has lost over 200 positions since and should sample sample sample.

.


INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS PERFORMANCE (CHART 3.7)

This international indicator speaks to the importance of a diverse campus environment. The Index is based on the proportion of students that are international. For more de-tailed definitions of both international indicators, please refer to Appendix III.

According to Chart 3.7, the following key findings may be observed:

• This is perhaps Sample’s most sample indicator; its performance has not shifted by more than 10 positions since sample.

• Both Kowloon and Atlantis have seen significant decline in this index. The former has sample sample positions since 2009 and the latter has seen its score drop by half in the same time period.

• Siena has seen its score climb by 100 positions since sample sample.

• The top ten performers in this index are dominated by institutions in sample sample sample. Both coun-tries remain as sample destinations for international students.

In order to increase international student numbers further, institutions typically consider the following actions:

• Sample sample sample more sample report sample sample sample sample sample. Sample sample sample more sample report sample sample sample sample sample

• Sample sample sample more sample report sample sample sample sample sample

• Sample sample sample more sample report sample sample sample sample sample. Sample sample sample more sample report sample sample sample sample sample.

CONCLUSION (CHART 3.8 & 3.9)

Chart 3.8 shows the current status of Atlantis with respect to the maximum available score in each indi-cator. It shows the areas Atlantis should focus on to improve its performances. However this chart does not adjust for the methodological changes sample sample.

By contrast, Chart 3.9 accounts for all the major methodological advances since 2007. Taking this into account, Sample’s most stable performance is in both the sample indicators. The Sample indexes need the most improvement, although there was a slight improvement in Sample.

Chart 3.7 International Student performance of selected universities 2007-2011


Table 3.8 Atlantis’s results against the maximum available score

Table 3.9 Atlantis’s performance against the mean for each indicator


Module 4 sets out to provide an overview of not only the Citations per Faculty indicator, but also institutional research and citation levels, by drilling down to different subject disciplines. The measures utilised for the Rankings do not take into account different citation patterns for dif-ferent disciplines, but it is useful to review research pat-terns to fully understand institutional performance.

The QS World University Rankings® has utilised ScopusTM (www.scopus.com), a database compiled and maintained by Elsevier, since 2007. The QSIU research team works continuously to enhance the accuracy of this indicator by instituting mapping exercises each year which look for in-stitutional name variants, double counting, and validation of affiliate institutes.

The Citations per Faculty indicator looks at the total num-ber of papers in the last complete five year period, which in this case is 2006-2010 for the 2011 results. The total number of citations is then also counted for those papers within the same period. The result forms the basis for this indicator.

In 2011, the QSIU analysis team was able to eliminate self-citations from the total citations count. The Citations per Faculty score and the graphs on the following pages thus reflect, for the first time, this alteration in methodology.

CITATIONS PER PAPER BY FACULTY (CHART 4.1)

Chart 4.1 breaks down citations per paper into five broad subject areas (those used for the Rankings).

• Overall, the Life Sciences & Medicine and Natural Sciences faculties continue to sample sample sam-ple sample sample produced is also in these same faculties.

• The trend line appears quite stable for most peer in-stitutions with a few exceptions: Sample continues to dominate in the Life Sciences & Medicine faculty, however its citations per paper has decreased in the Natural Sciences.

• Siena has also seen a decline in the Engineering & Technology from previous years, however it has in-creased its citations per paper in the Natural Sciences.

• Atlantis has seen its citation levels per paper decline sample sample sample and should focus on increasing citation sample sample sample sample sample sample sample.

Chart 4.1 Citations per paper by faculty area in Scopus 2006-20010

RESEARCH PERFORMANCEMODULE 4


Chart 4.3 Total citations by faculty area for selected institutions in Scopus 2006-2010

TOTAL CITATIONS BY FACULTY AREA

Chart 4.3 shows the distribution of total citations by dis-cipline. Again it reinforces the dominance of the Life Sci-ences & Medicine and Sample sample faculties.

• Siena has increased its citation levels for Engineering & Technology but needs to improve sample sample sample sample sample sample level.

• Atlantis’s citation levels in the Natural Sciences con-tinue to be robust however its Sample citations have decreased, compared with last year’s results.

• Paphos has increased its citations in the Engineering & Technology and Social Sciences & Management facul-ties. Sample sample sample sample

• Sample Sample sample Sample sample report sample sample


Chart 4.2 Papers and citations Scopus 2006-2010

PAPERS AND CITATIONS (SCOPUS 2006-20010)

Chart 4.2 shows the overall productivity, in research terms, of the selected peer group. The red line depicts citations against the total number of papers published, illustrated by the pink columns.

• In terms of papers produced in the last five years, Atlantis still dominates however it has seen a slight decrease since the sample year.

• Sample’s production of papers has remained relatively stable, however its citations per paper have decreased sample.

• Helena’s citations have decreased from the previous year by almost 1250. This correlates with its slight decline in the Citations per Paper indicator sample sample.

• Atlantis’s performance has remained quite stable how-ever it should focus on sample sample.

• As previously mentioned, for the first time in 2011, the QSIU team eliminated self citations (when authors cite their own work) from the analysis. The chart be-low indicates the number of citations eliminated from the total for each institution. McGill, Melbourne, and UCL have the highest number of self-citations and they also produce a large number of papers.

Number of Self-Citations

Total Papers % Self- Citations

Atlantis 38,150 8899 20%Cheng Keng 223,742 27857 18%Helena 167,786 26370 17%Hsing Tua 140,460 29581 30%Kowloon 78,794 19176 21%Paphos 114,003 32632 21%San Diez 269,194 42561 22%Siena 36,074 9913 20%St John 15,665 6479 13%


TOTAL CITATIONS VERSUS CITATIONS EXCLUD-ING SELF-CITATIONS

The following graphs chart the distinction between the total and citations excluding self-citations for each fac-ulty area.

• For the majority of peers, there exists a 4% difference between the impact measured by total citations and citations excluding self-cittaions.

• Sample sample sample receives the highest num-ber of self-citations. For example, in 2008, Helena received 76,438 citations in the Life Sciences & Medicine. Of those citations, a total of 16,000 were self-citations.

• This is also true for Atlantis, which receives a yearly average of 15-25% self citations in the Arts & Humanities.

• Sample sample sample receives the highest num-ber of self-citations. For example, in 2008, Atlan-tis received 7448 citations in the Life Sciences & Medicine. Of those citations, a total of 2,000 were self-citations.

• This is also sample sample sample, which receives a yearly average of 25% self citations in the Life Sci-ences & Medicine.

• Sample sample sample sample more sample report sample


Chart 4.4 Total papers published by year for selected peer institutions, 2006-2010

Chart 4.4 shows the development in productivity (total number of papers published) over time.

• Sample sample sample have increased their produc-tion of papers, particularly in 2010.

• Atlantis should sample sample sample sample sample. It currently lags behind in productivity by comparison with sample sample sample is encouraging although there was a slight dip in 2010.

• Research is the central foundation upon which world-class universities are built and this is currently an area in which Sample sample sample sample sample

• Sample score in this indicator has seen a decline in 2011. The Citations per Faculty index also affects sample sample sample, because institutions which are

recognised as top universities are also deemed to be sample sample.

It is worth reiterating the importance of consistent attribu-tion of research output not only within the university but also sample sample sample. The name of the university should feature sample sample sample sample. Providing the QSIU research team with an sample sample sample sample sample sample sample track research levels and citations.


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

To boost the size and stability of the sample, QS combines responses from the last three years; where any respondent has responded more than once in the three year period, previous responses are discarded in favour of the latest numbers. (Please refer to Appendix II: Survey Results 2011 for further information.) It should be noted, however, that sample sample sample sample.

Since 2006, institutions have been invited to submit lists of employers for QSIU to invite to participate in the Employer Survey. In 2010, that invitation was also extended to lists of academics. Since they are not allowed to submit in favour of their own institution, the risk of bias is minimal, none-theless submissions are screened and sampling applied where any institution submits more than 400 records.

In 2011, over 160 institutions supplied lists contributing more than 40,000 additional academic contacts. Wherever sampling is required, respondents are selected randomly with a focus on delivering a balanced sample by discipline and geography. Naturally, all databases carry a certain amount of ‘noise’ and email invitations do get passed on. Responses are screened to remove any inappropriate ones prior to analysis.

In 2011, the following responses were received from each faculty areas. Respondents can identify multiple faculty areas as an area of specification. Respondents from the Social Sciences & Management discipline outnumbered other faculties. The QSIU research continues to expand and diversify its response levels not only across disciplines but also for countries that have, hitherto, been largely

underrepresented. As response levels grow so will the play-ing field for competition.

DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL PERFORMANCE

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

The vertical bar chart highlights performance in the do-mestic sphere and indicates what percentage of the overall possible domestic response rate, represented by the num-ber, is achieved in each country.

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

MODULE 5

ACADEMIC REPUTATION


ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY (CHART 5.2)

• This is the second highest field in terms of response rates received.

• Atlantis received the total points possible in this index, clearly dominating the selected peer group.

• Sample sample sample sample sample received high marks in international perception.

• Paphos outperforms Siena in terms of the number of domestic responses received from the total. Helena,

however, received a much higher percentage of do-mestic nominations.

• The majority of the selected peers enjoy a high rate of domestic sample sample sample, with Atlantis and Helena leading the group.

• Sample’s response rate is lower compared to other countries. A total of 119 responses were received, compared with 316 from the UK and 568 from the United States.

ARTS & HUMANITIES (CHART 5.1)

• Paphos leads the chart in this faculty area overall, however it trails behind Sample sample sample in terms of international responses.

• Sample has benefited in this faculty from its global brand as a leading university in the sciences. However it received the lowest sample sample from the total responses from that given country.

• Atlantis’s domestic score is lower than sample sample, however it performs better than most of the selected peers in terms of the sample sample of domestic re-sponses received against the total.

• Of the Sample universities, Sample received the high-est marks in domestic perception of excellence in this field.


LIFE SCIENCES & MEDICINE (CHART 5.3)

• Helena dominates the group in terms of international responses, however Atlantis has achieved a higher score in the domestic sample sample.

• Atlantis’s has achieved 85% of the total domestic re-sponses available which is a good result. It achieves its highest standing in the QS Subject Rankings in this faculty at 21.

• Kowloon has managed to obtain over 95% of the total possible domestic nomination.

• Persephone continues to underperform in the do-mestic sphere, signalling that its international brand is stronger than its domestic.

• Sample sample sample report more sample sample sample sample

• Sample sample continues to underperform in the do-mestic sphere, sample sample report

NATURAL SCIENCES (CHART 5.4)

• Atlantis struggles with the number of responses re-ceived in this faculty. It received 30% of the overall domestic responses available.

• Along with the Arts & Humanities faculty, this is also where Sample receives over 80% of the available do-mestic responses. It clearly outperforms the selected peers in the sample sample sample.

• Sample sample sample sample sample received a high proportion of international responses.

• Sample sample report and international and domestic rates sample sample sample sample report more sam-ple sample


OCIAL SCIENCES & MANAGEMENT (CHART 5.5)

In 2011, the strongest field of response was in the Social Sciences & Management, meaning that this area is the least prone to anomaly and should be the most reflective of reputation on the ground.

• Sample and Persephone score a high percentage of in-ternational responses however the latter scores a much higher percentage of domestic responses received against the total available.

• Paphos’s strongest performing faculty in terms of over-all score achieved, however the institution should work on developing its international profile in order to sample sample sample.

• Sample outperforms its domestic peer, Siena, in terms of the percentage of domestic responses received out of the total available.

CONCLUSION

Atlantis can work on improving in each individual faculty with a view to producing stellar research in sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample and internationally.

Atlantis could also find that sample sample sample sample sample sample may help improve rec-ognition of academic rigour as well as brand recognition. Brand recognition is also achieved by sample sample name and affiliations.

It sample the case that the Academic Reputation index is the sample sense that results are sample to come, but if consistent work is applied, then sample sample sample report.

qs benchmarking sample report 2011

Documents

following terms of use

terms of usethe use

personal use

detailed terms

benchmarking service

general information

following exceptions

private university