To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

QS World University Rankings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

QS World University Rankings
QS World University Rankings Logo.svg
EditorBen Sowter (Head of Research)
Staff writersCraig O'Callaghan
CategoriesHigher education
PublisherQuacquarelli Symonds Limited
First issue2004 (in partnership with THE)
2010 (on its own)

QS World University Rankings is an annual publication of university rankings by Quacquarelli Symonds (QS). Previously known as Times Higher Education–QS World University Rankings, the publisher had collaborated with Times Higher Education (THE) magazine to publish its international league tables from 2004 to 2009 before both started to announce their own versions. QS then chose to continue using the pre-existing methodology while Times Higher Education adopted a new methodology to create their rankings.

The QS system now comprises the global overall and subject rankings (which name the world's top universities for the study of 48 different subjects and five composite faculty areas), alongside five independent regional tables (Asia, Latin America, Emerging Europe and Central Asia, the Arab Region, and BRICS).[1]

Being the only international ranking to have received International Ranking Expert Group (IREG) approval,[2] the QS ranking is viewed as one of the three most-widely read university rankings in the world, along with Academic Ranking of World Universities and Times Higher Education World University Rankings.[3][4][5][6] However, it has been criticized for its overreliance on subjective indicators and reputation surveys, which tend to fluctuate over the years.[7][8][9][10][11] Concern also exists regarding the global consistency and integrity of the data used to generate QS ranking results.[8][12][13][14]


A perceived need for an international ranking of universities for UK purposes was highlighted in December 2003 in Richard Lambert's review of university-industry collaboration in Britain[15] for HM Treasury, the finance ministry of the United Kingdom. Amongst its recommendations were world university rankings, which Lambert said would help the UK to gauge the global standing of its universities.

The idea for the rankings was credited in Ben Wildavsky's book, The Great Brain Race: How Global Universities are Reshaping the World,[16] to then-editor of Times Higher Education (THE), John O'Leary. THE chose to partner with educational and careers advice company Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) to supply the data, appointing Martin Ince,[17] formerly deputy editor and later a contractor to THE, to manage the project.

Between 2004 and 2009, QS produced the rankings in partnership with THE. In 2009, THE announced they would produce their own rankings, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings, in partnership with Thomson Reuters. THE cited an asserted weakness in the methodology of the original rankings,[18] as well as a perceived favoritism in the existing methodology for science over the humanities,[19] as two of the key reasons for the decision to split with QS.

QS retained intellectual property in the prior rankings and the methodology used to compile them[citation needed] and continues to produce rankings based on that methodology, which are now called the QS World University Rankings.[20]

THE created a new methodology with Thomson Reuters, and published the first Times Higher Education World University Rankings in September 2010.

Global rankings



Methodology of QS World University Rankings[21]
Indicator Weighting Elaboration
Academic peer review
  • 40%
Based on an internal global academic survey
Faculty/Student ratio
  • 20%
A measurement of teaching commitment
Citations per faculty
  • 20%
A measurement of research impact
Employer reputation
  • 10%
Based on a survey on graduate employers
International student ratio
  • 5%
A measurement of the diversity of the student community
International staff ratio
  • 5%
A measurement of the diversity of the academic staff

QS publishes the rankings results in the world's media and has entered into partnerships with a number of outlets, including The Guardian in the United Kingdom, and Chosun Ilbo in Korea. The first rankings produced by QS independently of THE, and using QS's consistent and original methodology, were released on September 8, 2010, with the second appearing on September 6, 2011.

QS designed its rankings in order to assess performance according to what it believes to be key aspects of a university's mission: teaching, research, nurturing employability, and internationalisation.[22]

Academic peer review

This is the most controversial part of the methodology[weasel words][citation needed]. Using a combination of purchased mailing lists and applications and suggestions, this survey asks active academicians across the world about the top universities in their specialist fields. QS has published the job titles and geographical distribution of the participants.[23]

The 2017/18 rankings made use of responses from 75,015 people from over 140 nations for its Academic Reputation indicator, including votes from the previous five years rolled forward provided there was no more recent information available from the same individual. Participants can nominate up to 30 universities but are not able to vote for their own. They tend to nominate a median of about 20, which means that this survey includes over 500,000 data points. The average respondent possesses 20.4 years of academic experience, while 81% of respondents have over a decade of experience in the academic world.[24][23]

In 2004, when the rankings first appeared, academic peer review accounted for half of a university's possible score. In 2005, its share was cut to 40 per cent because of the introduction of the Employer Reputation Survey.

Faculty student ratio

This indicator accounts for 20 per cent of a university's possible score in the rankings. It is a classic measure used in various ranking systems as a proxy for teaching commitment, but QS has admitted that it is less than satisfactory.[25]

Citations per faculty

Citations of published research are among the most widely used inputs to national and global university rankings. The QS World University Rankings used citations data from Thomson (now Thomson Reuters) from 2004 to 2007, and since then has used data from Scopus, part of Elsevier. The total number of citations for a five-year period is divided by the number of academics in a university to yield the score for this measure, which accounts for 20 per cent of a university's possible score in the Rankings.

QS has explained that it uses this approach, rather than the citations per paper preferred for other systems, because it reduces the effect of biomedical science on the overall picture – bio-medicine has a ferocious "publish or perish" culture. Instead QS attempts to measure the density of research-active staff at each institution. But issues still remain about the use of citations in ranking systems, especially the fact that the arts and humanities generate comparatively few citations.[26]

However, since 2015, QS have made methodological enhancements designed to remove the advantage institutions specializing in the Natural Sciences or Medicine previously received. This enhancement is termed faculty area normalization, and ensures that an institution's citations count in each of QS's five key Faculty Areas is weighted to account for 20% of the final citations score.[27]

QS has conceded the presence of some data collection errors regarding citations per faculty in previous years' rankings.[28]

One interesting issue is the difference between the Scopus and Thomson Reuters databases. For major world universities, the two systems capture more or less the same publications and citations. For less mainstream institutions, Scopus has more non-English language and smaller-circulation journals in its database. But as the papers there are less heavily cited, this can also mean fewer citations per paper for the universities that publish in them.[26] This area has been criticized for undermining universities which do not use English as their primary language.[29] Citations and publications in a language different from English are harder to come across. The English language is the most internationalized language and therefore is also the most popular when citing.

Employer review

This part of the ranking is obtained by a similar method to the Academic Peer Review, except that it samples recruiters who hire graduates on a global or significant national scale. The numbers are smaller – 40,455 responses from over 130 countries in the 2016 Rankings – and are used to produce 10 per cent of any university's possible score. This survey was introduced in 2005 in the belief that employers track graduate quality, making this a barometer of teaching quality, a famously problematic thing to measure. University standing here is of special interest to potential students, and acknowledging this was the impetus behind the inaugural QS Graduate Employability Rankings, published in November 2015.[30][31]

International orientation

The final ten per cent of a university's possible score is derived from measures intended to capture their internationalism: five percent from their percentage of international students, and another five percent from their percentage of international staff. This is of interest partly because it shows whether a university is putting effort into being global, but also because it tells us whether it is taken seriously enough by students and academics around the world for them to want to be there.[32]


In September 2015, both The Guardian and The Daily Mail referred to the QS World University Rankings as "the most authoritative of their kind".[33][34][35] In 2016, Ben Sowter, Head of Research at the QS Intelligence Unit, was ranked in 40th position in Wonkhe's 2016 'Higher Education Power List'. The list enumerated what the organisation believed to be the 50 most influential figures in UK higher education.[36]

Several universities in the UK and the Asia-Pacific region have commented on the rankings positively. Vice-Chancellor of New Zealand's Massey University, Professor Judith Kinnear, says that the Times Higher Education-QS ranking is a "wonderful external acknowledgement of several university attributes, including the quality of its research, research training, teaching and employability." She said the rankings are a true measure of a university's ability to fly high internationally: "The Times Higher Education ranking provides a rather more and more sophisticated, robust and well rounded measure of international and national ranking than either New Zealand's Performance Based Research Fund (PBRF) measure or the Shanghai rankings."[37] In September 2012 the British newspaper The Independent described the QS World University Rankings as being "widely recognised throughout higher education as the most trusted international tables".[38]

Angel Calderon, Principal Advisor for Planning and Research at RMIT University and member of the QS Advisory Board, spoke positively of the QS University Rankings for Latin America, saying that the "QS Latin American University Rankings has become the annual international benchmark universities use to ascertain their relative standing in the region". He further stated that the 2016/17 edition of this ranking demonstrated improved stability.[39]


Certain commentators have expressed concern about the use or misuse of survey data. However, QS's Intelligence Unit, responsible for compiling the rankings, state that the extent of the sample size used for their surveys mean that they are now "almost impossible to manipulate and very difficult for institutions to ‘game’". They also state that "over 62,000 academic respondents contributed to our 2013 academic results, four times more than in 2010. Independent academic reviews have confirmed these results to be more than 99% reliable". Furthermore, since 2013, the number of respondents to QS's Academic Reputation Survey has increased again. Their survey now makes use of nearly 75,000 academic peer reviews, making it "to date, the world’s largest aggregation of feeling in this [the global academic] community."[40][41][42]

The QS World University Rankings have been criticised by many for placing too much emphasis on peer review, which receives 40 percent of the overall score. Some people have expressed concern about the manner in which the peer review has been carried out.[43] In a report,[44] Peter Wills from the University of Auckland wrote of the Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings:

But we note also that this survey establishes its rankings by appealing to university staff, even offering financial enticements to participate (see Appendix II). Staff are likely to feel it is in their greatest interest to rank their own institution more highly than others. This means the results of the survey and any apparent change in ranking are highly questionable, and that a high ranking has no real intrinsic value in any case. We are vehemently opposed to the evaluation of the University according to the outcome of such PR competitions.

However, QS state that no survey participant, academic or employer, is offered a financial incentive to respond, while no academic is able to vote for their own institution.[citation needed] This renders this particular criticism invalid, as it is based on two incorrect premises: (1) that academics are currently financially incentivized to participate, and (2) that conflicts of interests are created by academics being able to vote for their own institution.

Academicians previously criticized of the use of the citation database, arguing that it undervalues institutions which excel in the social sciences. Ian Diamond, former chief executive of the Economic and Social Research Council and now vice-chancellor of the University of Aberdeen and a member of the THE editorial board, wrote to Times Higher Education in 2007, saying:[45]

The use of a citation database must have an impact because such databases do not have as wide a cover of the social sciences (or arts and humanities) as the natural sciences. Hence the low position of the London School of Economics, caused primarily by its citations score, is a result not of the output of an outstanding institution but the database and the fact that the LSE does not have the counterweight of a large natural science base.

However, in 2015, QS's introduction of faculty area normalization ensured that QS's rankings no longer conferred an undue advantage or disadvantage upon any institution based on their particular subject specialisms. Correspondingly, the London School of Economics rose from 71st in 2014 to 35th in 2015 and 37th in 2016.[46]

Since the split from Times Higher Education in 2009, further concerns about the methodology QS uses for its rankings have been brought up by several experts.

In October 2010, criticism of the old system came from Fred L. Bookstein, Horst Seidler, Martin Fieder and Georg Winckler in the journal Scientomentrics for the unreliability of QS's methods:

Several individual indicators from the Times Higher Education Survey (THES) data base the overall score, the reported staff-to-student ratio, and the peer ratings—demonstrate unacceptably high fluctuation from year to year. The inappropriateness of the summary tabulations for assessing the majority of the "top 200" universities would be apparent purely for reason of this obvious statistical instability regardless of other grounds of criticism. There are far too many anomalies in the change scores of the various indices for them to be of use in the course of university management.[9]

In an article for the New Statesman entitled "The QS World University Rankings are a load of old baloney", David Blanchflower, a leading labour economist, said: "This ranking is complete rubbish and nobody should place any credence in it. The results are based on an entirely flawed methodology that underweights the quality of research and overweights fluff... The QS is a flawed index and should be ignored." [47]

However, Martin Ince,[17] chair of the Advisory Board for the Rankings, points out that their volatility has been reduced since 2007 by the introduction of the Z-score calculation method and that over time, the quality of QS's data gathering has improved to reduce anomalies. In addition, the academic and employer review are now so big that even modestly ranked universities receive a statistically valid number of votes. QS has published extensive data [48] on who the respondents are, where they are, and the subjects and industries to which the academicians and employers respectively belong.

The QS Subject Rankings have been dismissed as unreliable by Brian Leiter, who points out that programmes which are known to be high quality, and which rank highly in the Blackwell rankings (e.g., the University of Pittsburgh) fare poorly in the QS ranking for reasons that are not at all clear.[49] However, the University of Pittsburgh was ranked in the number one position for Philosophy in the 2016 QS World University Rankings by Subject, while Rutgers University - another university that Leiter argued was given a strangely low ranking - was ranked number three in the world in the same ranking. An institution's score for each of QS's metrics can be found on the relevant ranking page, allowing those wishing to examine why an institution has finished in its final position to gain access to the scores that contributed to the overall rank.[50]

In an article titled The Globalisation of College and University Rankings and appearing in the January/February 2012 issue of Change magazine, Philip Altbach, professor of higher education at Boston College and also a member of the THE editorial board, said: "The QS World University Rankings are the most problematical. From the beginning, the QS has relied on reputational indicators for half of its analysis … it probably accounts for the significant variability in the QS rankings over the years. In addition, QS queries employers, introducing even more variability and unreliability into the mix. Whether the QS rankings should be taken seriously by the higher education community is questionable."[51]

Simon Marginson, professor of higher education at University of Melbourne and a member of the THE editorial board, in the article "Improving Latin American universities' global ranking" for University World News on 10 June 2012, said: "I will not discuss the QS ranking because the methodology is not sufficiently robust to provide data valid as social science".[52] QS's Intelligence Unit counter these criticisms by stating that "Independent academic reviews have confirmed these results to be more than 99% reliable".[41]


The 2019 QS World University Rankings, published on June 6, 2018, was the fifteenth edition of the overall ranking. It confirmed Massachusetts Institute of Technology as the world's highest-ranked university for a seventh successive year. In doing so, MIT broke the record of consecutive number-one positions.

QS World University Rankings—Top 50[note 1]
Institution 2012/13[53] 2013/14[54] 2014/15[55] 2015/16[56] 2016/17[57] 2018[58] 2019[59] 2020[60]
United States Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
United States Stanford University 15 7 7 3 2 2 2 2
United States Harvard University 3 2 4 2 3 3 3 3
United Kingdom University of Oxford 5 6 5 6 6 6 5 4
United States California Institute of Technology 10 10 8 5 5 4 4 5
Switzerland Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich 13 12 12 9 8 10 7 6
United Kingdom University of Cambridge 2 3 2 3 4 5 6 7
United Kingdom University College London 4 4 5 7 7 7 10 8
United Kingdom Imperial College London 6 5 2 8 9 8 8 9
United States University of Chicago 8 9 11 10 10 9 9 10
Singapore Nanyang Technological University 47 41 39 13 13 11 12 11
Singapore National University of Singapore 25 24 22 12 12 15 11 11
United States Princeton University 9 10 9 11 11 13 13 13
United States Cornell University 14 15 19 17 16 14 14 14
United States University of Pennsylvania 12 13 13 18 18 19 19 15
China Tsinghua University 48 48 47 25 24 25 17 16
United States Yale University 7 8 10 15 15 16 15 17
United States Columbia University 11 14 14 22 20 18 16 18
Switzerland École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne 29 19 17 14 14 12 22 18
United Kingdom The University of Edinburgh 21 17 17 21 19 23 18 20
United States University of Michigan 17 22 23 30 23 21 20 21
China Peking University 44 46 57 41 39 38 30 22
Japan The University of Tokyo 30 32 31 39 34 28 23 22
United States Johns Hopkins University 16 16 14 16 17 17 21 24
United States Duke University 20 23 25 29 24 21 26 25
Hong Kong The University of Hong Kong 23 26 28 30 27 26 25 25
United Kingdom The University of Manchester 32 33 30 33 29 34 29 27
United States University of California, Berkeley 22 25 27 26 28 27 27 28
Australia Australian National University 24 27 25 19 22 20 24 29
Canada University of Toronto 19 17 20 34 32 31 28 29
United States Northwestern University 27 29 34 32 26 28 34 31
Hong Kong Hong Kong University of Science and Technology 33 34 40 28 36 30 37 32
United Kingdom King's College London 26 19 16 19 21 23 31 33
Japan Kyoto University 35 35 36 38 37 36 35 33
Canada McGill University 18 21 21 24 30 32 33 35
United States University of California, Los Angeles 31 40 37 27 31 33 32 35
South Korea Seoul National University 37 35 31 36 35 36 36 37
Australia University of Melbourne 36 31 33 42 42 41 39 38
United States New York University 43 44 41 53 46 52 43 39
China Fudan University 90 88 71 51 43 40 44 40
South Korea Korea Advanced Institute of Science & Technology 63 60 51 43 46 41 40 41
Australia University of Sydney 39 38 37 45 46 50 42 42
Australia University of New South Wales 52 52 48 46 49 45 45 43
United Kingdom London School of Economics 69 68 71 35 37 35 38 44
United States University of California, San Diego 70 63 59 44 40 38 41 45
Hong Kong Chinese University of Hong Kong 40 39 46 51 44 46 49 46
Australia The University of Queensland 46 43 43 46 51 47 48 47
United States Carnegie Mellon University 49 57 65 62 58 47 46 48
United Kingdom University of Bristol 28 30 29 37 41 44 51 49
Netherlands Delft University of Technology 103 95 86 64 62 54 52 50

Young Universities

QS also releases the QS Top 50 under 50 Ranking annually to rank universities which have been established for under 50 years. These institutions are judged based on their positions on the overall table of the previous year.[61] From 2015, QS's "'Top 50 Under 50" ranking was expanded to include the world's top 100 institutions under 50 years of age, while in 2017 it was again expanded to include the world's top 150 universities in this cohort. In 2017, the table was topped by Nanyang Technological University of Singapore for the fourth consecutive year. The table is dominated by universities from the Asia-Pacific region, with the top six places taken by Asian institutions.[62]

Faculties and subjects

QS also ranks universities by academic discipline organized into 5 faculties, namely Arts & Humanities, Engineering & Technology, Life Sciences & Medicine, Natural Sciences and Social Sciences & Management. The methodology is based on surveying expert academics and global employers, and measuring research performance using data sourced from Elsevier's Scopus database. In the 2018 QS World University Rankings by Subject the world's best universities for the study of 48 different subjects are named. The two new subject tables added in the most recent edition are: Classics & Ancient History and Library & Information Management.

The world's leading institution in 2018's tables in terms of most world-leading positions is Harvard University, which is number one for 14 subjects. Its longtime rankings rival, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is number one for twelve subjects.[63]

Categories of QS World University Rankings by Faculty and Subject[63]
Art & Humanities Engineering & Technology Life Sciences & Medicine Natural Sciences [note 2] Social Sciences
Archaeology Chemical Engineering Agriculture & Forestry Chemistry Accounting & Finance
Architecture & Built Environment Civil & Structural Engineering Biological Sciences Earth & Marine Sciences Anthropology
Art & Design Computer Science & Information Systems Dentistry Environmental Sciences Business & Management Studies
Classics & Ancient History Electrical & Electronic Engineering Medicine Geography Communication & Media Studies
English Language & Literature Mechanical, Aeronautical & Manufacturing Engineering Nursing Materials Science Development Studies
History Mineral & Mining Engineering Pharmacy & Pharmacology Mathematics Economics & Econometrics
Linguistics Geomatic Engineering Psychology Physics & Astronomy Education & Training
Modern Languages Anatomy & Physiology Hospitality & Leisure Management
Performing Arts Veterinary Science Law
Philosophy Library & Information Management
Theology, Divinity, and Religious Studies Politics & International Studies
Social Policy & Administration
Sports-related Subjects
Statistics & Operational Research

Regional rankings and other tables

QS Graduate Employability Rankings

In 2015, in an attempt to meet student demand for comparative data about the employment prospects offered by prospective or current universities, QS launched the QS Graduate Employability Rankings. The most recent installment, released for the 2017/18 academic year, ranks 500 universities worldwide. It is led by Stanford University, and features five universities from the United States in the top 10.[64] The unique methodology consists of five indicators, with three that do not feature in any other ranking.[65]

QS Graduate Employability Rankings 2018—Top 10[note 1]
Institution 2016[66] 2017[67] 2018[68]
United States Stanford University 1 1 1
United States University of California, Los Angeles 1 15 2
United States Harvard University 3 n/a 3
Australia The University of Sydney 14 4 4
United States Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2 2 5
United Kingdom University of Cambridge 4 5 6
Australia University of Melbourne n/a 11 7
United Kingdom University of Oxford 6 8 8
United States University of California, Berkeley 8 9 9
United States Princeton University 9 3 10


In 2009, QS launched the QS Asian University Rankings or QS University Rankings: Asia in partnership with The Chosun Ilbo newspaper in Korea to rank universities in Asia independently. The Ninth instalment, released for the 2017/18 academic year, ranks the 350 best universities in Asia, and is led by Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.[69]

These rankings use some of the same criteria as the world rankings, but there are changed weightings and new criteria. One addition is the criterion of incoming and outgoing exchange students. Accordingly, the performance of Asian institutions in the QS World University Rankings and the QS Asian University Rankings released in the same academic year are different from each other.[1]

QS University Rankings: Asia—Top 10[note 1]
Institution 2009[70] 2010[71] 2011[72] 2012[73] 2013[74] 2014[75] 2015[76] 2016[77] 2018[78] 2019[79]
Singapore National University of Singapore 10 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 1
Hong Kong University of Hong Kong 1 1 2 3 2 3 2 2 5 2
Singapore Nanyang Technological University 14 18 17 17 10 7 4 3 1 3
China Tsinghua University 15 16 16 15 14 14 11 5 6 3
China Peking University 10 12 13 6 5 8 7 9 9 5
China Fudan University 26 24 21 19 23 22 16 11 7 6
Hong Kong Hong Kong University of Science and Technology 4 2 1 1 1 5 5 4 3 7
South Korea KAIST 7 13 11 7 6 2 3 6 4 8
Hong Kong Chinese University of Hong Kong 2 4 5 5 7 6 6 8 10 9
South Korea Seoul National University 8 6 6 4 4 4 8 10 11 10

Latin America

The QS Latin American University Rankings or QS University Rankings: Latin America were launched in 2011. They use academic opinion (30%), employer opinion (20%), publications per faculty member, citations per paper, academic staff with a PhD, faculty/student ratio and web visibility (10 per cent each) as measures.[80]

The 2016/17 edition of the QS World University Rankings: Latin America ranks the top 300 universities in the region. The Universidade de São Paulo retained its status as the region's best university.[81]

QS University Rankings: Latin America—Top 10[note 1]
Institution 2013[82] 2014[83] 2015[84] 2016[85] 2018[86] 2019[87]
Chile Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile 2 1 3 3 1 1
Brazil Universidade de São Paulo 1 2 1 1 3 2
Brazil Universidade Estadual de Campinas 3 3 2 2 3 3
Mexico Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México 6 8 6 4 4 4
Colombia Universidad de los Andes 4 5 7 8 8 5
Mexico Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey 7 7 9 7 5 6
Chile Universidad de Chile 5 6 4 6 6 7
Argentina Universidad de Buenos Aires 12 19 15 11 9 8
Brazil Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro 8 4 5 5 7 9
Colombia Universidad Nacional de Colombia 9 14 13 10 11 10


The number of universities in Africa increased by 115 percent from 2000 to 2010, and enrollment more than doubled from 2.3 million to 5.2 million students, according to UNESCO. However, only one African university was among the worlds 100 best, to judge the world universities ranking of 2016.[88]


This set of rankings adopts eight indicators to select the top 100 higher learning institutions in BRICS countries. Institutions in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan are not ranked here.

QS University Rankings: BRICS—Top 10[note 1]
Institution 2013[89] 2014[90] 2015[91] 2016[92] 2018[93] 2019[94]
China Tsinghua University 1 1 1 1 1 1
China Peking University 2 2 2 2 2 2
China Fudan University 4 5 3 3 3 3
China University of Science and Technology of China 6 4 6 4 4 4
China Zhejiang University 9 11 11 9 6 5
Russia Lomonosov Moscow State University 3 3 4 7 5 6
China Shanghai Jiao Tong University 6 8 6 5 7 7
India Indian Institute of Technology Bombay 15 15 16 13 9 8
China Nanjing University 5 6 8 8 8 9
India Indian Institute of Science Bangalore  15 15 5 6 10 10

QS Best Student Cities Ranking

In 2012, QS launched the QS Best Student Cities ranking - a table designed to evaluate which cities were most likely to provide students with a high-quality student experience. Five editions of the ranking have been published thus far, with Paris taking the number-one position in four of them.[95][96][97] The 2017 edition was also the first one to see the introduction of student opinion as a contributory indicator.

QS Best Student Cities—Top 10[note 1]
City 2014[98] 2015[99] 2016[100] 2017[101] 2018[102] 2019[103]
United Kingdom London 2 3 5 3 1 1
Japan Tokyo 17 7 3 7 2 2
Australia Melbourne 5 2 2 5 3 3
Germany Munich 10 14 11 9 6 4
Germany Berlin 11 16 9 6 7 5
Canada Montreal 9 8 7 1 4 6
France Paris 1 1 1 2 5 7
Switzerland Zurich 5 11 12 15 8 8
Australia Sydney 4 4 4 13 9 9
South Korea Seoul 14 10 10 4 10 10


QS Quacquarelli Symonds organises a range of international student recruitment events throughout the year. These are generally oriented towards introducing prospective students to university admissions staff, while also facilitating access to admissions advice and scholarships. In 2018, over 300 events were hosted, attended by 220,000 candidates, in 100 cities across 50 countries. Separated into ‘tours’, QS’ event offerings typically comprise a series of university and business school fairs.

World MBA Tour

The QS World MBA Tour is the world's largest series of international business school fairs, attended by more than 60,000 candidates in 100 cities across 50 countries.

World MBA Tour Premium

QS World MBA Premium also focuses on MBA student recruitment, but invites only business schools ranked in the top 200 internationally, according to the QS World University Rankings. The event aims to provide a more holistic overview of an MBA degree, with enhanced focus on pre- and post-study processes and insights.

World Grad School Tour

The QS World Grad School Tour focuses on international postgraduate programs, particularly specialised master's degrees and PhDs in FAME (Finance, Accounting, Management and Economics) and STEM disciplines.

World University Tour

The QS World University Tour has an emphasis on undergraduate student recruitment, inviting undergraduate programs only.

Connect Events

QS Connect MBA and QS Connect Masters differ from other event series’ in that an open fair format is not followed. Instead, candidates take part in pre-arranged 1-to-1 interviews with admissions staff, based on pre-submitted CVs and academic profiles.

QS Stars

QS also offers universities an auditing service that provides in-depth information about institutional strengths and weaknesses. Called QS Stars, this service is separate from the QS World University Rankings. It involves a detailed look at a range of functions which mark out a modern, global university. The minimum result that a university can receive is zero Stars, while truly exceptional, world-leading universities can receive '5*+', or 'Five Star Plus', status. The QS Stars audit process evaluates universities according to about 50 different indicators. By 2018, about 20 different universities worldwide had been awarded the maximum possible Five Star Plus rating.[104]

QS Stars ratings are derived from scores on in eight out of 12 categories. Four categories are mandatory, while institutions must choose the remaining four optional categories.[105] They are:

  • Teaching
  • Employability
  • Research
  • Internationalization
  • Facilities
  • Online/Distance Learning
  • Arts & Culture
  • Innovation
  • Inclusiveness
  • Social Responsibility
  • Subject Ranking
  • Program Strength[106]

Stars is an evaluation system, not a ranking. About 400 institutions had opted for the Stars evaluation as of early 2018. In 2012, fees to participate in this program were $9850 for the initial audit and an annual license fee of $6850.[107]


  1. ^ a b c d e f Order shown in accordance with the latest result.
  2. ^ The term "Natural Sciences" here actually refers to physical sciences since life sciences are also a branch of natural sciences.


  1. ^ a b "Asian University Rankings - QS Asian University Rankings vs. QS World University Rankings™". Archived from the original on 2013-06-06. Retrieved 2013-06-10. The methodology differs somewhat from that used for the QS World University Rankings...
  2. ^ "IREG Ranking Audit". IREG Observatory on Academic Ranking and Excellence. International Ranking Expert Group (IREG). Archived from the original on 2016-10-29. Retrieved 14 September 2016.
  3. ^ "University rankings: which world university rankings should we trust?". The Telegraph. 2015. Archived from the original on 2015-01-26. Retrieved 27 January 2015. It is a remarkably stable list, relying on long-term factors such as the number of Nobel Prize-winners a university has produced, and number of articles published in Nature and Science journals. But with this narrow focus comes drawbacks. China's priority was for its universities to "catch up" on hard scientific research. So if you're looking for raw research power, it's the list for you. If you're a humanities student, or more interested in teaching quality? Not so much.
  4. ^ Ariel Zirulnick. "New world university ranking puts Harvard back on top". The Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on 2013-11-04. Retrieved 2012-09-16. Those two, as well as Shanghai Jiao Tong University, produce the most influential international university rankings out there
  5. ^ Indira Samarasekera & Carl Amrhein. "Top schools don't always get top marks". The Edmonton Journal. Archived from the original on October 3, 2010. There are currently three major international rankings that receive widespread commentary: The Academic World Ranking of Universities, the QS World University Rankings and the Times Higher Education Rankings.
  6. ^ Philip G. Altbach (11 November 2010). "The State of the Rankings". Inside Higher Ed. Archived from the original on 2014-12-19. Retrieved 27 January 2015. The major international rankings have appeared in recent months—the Academic Ranking of World Universities, the QS World University Rankings, and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE).
  7. ^ "Strength and weakness of varsity rankings". NST Online. 2016-09-14. Archived from the original on 2018-03-30. Retrieved 2018-03-29.
  8. ^ a b "The State of the Rankings | Inside Higher Ed". Archived from the original on 2018-07-11. Retrieved 2018-03-29.
  9. ^ a b Bookstein, F. L.; Seidler, H.; Fieder, M.; Winckler, G. (2010). "Scientometrics, Volume 85, Number 1". Scientometrics. SpringerLink. 85 (1): 295–299. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0189-5. PMC 2927316. PMID 20802837.
  10. ^ "Methodology of QS rankings comes under scrutiny". Archived from the original on 2016-07-01. Retrieved 2016-04-29.
  11. ^ "Competition and controversy in global rankings - University World News". Archived from the original on 2016-05-05. Retrieved 2016-04-29.
  12. ^ Bekhradnia, Bahram. "International university rankings: For good or ill?" (PDF). Higher Education Policy Institute. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2017-02-15.
  13. ^ "Academic Ethics: To Rank or Not to Rank?". The Chronicle of Higher Education. 2017-07-12. Archived from the original on 2018-03-30. Retrieved 2018-03-29.
  14. ^ "QS ranking downright shady and unethical". The Online Citizen. 2017-06-09. Archived from the original on 2018-03-30. Retrieved 2018-03-29.
  15. ^ Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration Archived October 19, 2011, at the Wayback Machine (since archived)
  16. ^ Princeton University Press, 2010
  17. ^ a b "Martin Ince Communications". Archived from the original on 2014-12-20. Retrieved 31 May 2015.
  18. ^ Mroz, Ann. "Leader: Only the best for the best". Times Higher Education. Archived from the original on 2010-08-07. Retrieved 2010-09-16.
  19. ^ Baty, Phil (2010-09-10). "Views: Ranking Confession". Inside Higher Ed. Archived from the original on 2010-07-15. Retrieved 2010-09-16.
  20. ^ Labi, Aisha (2010-09-15). "Times Higher Education Releases New Rankings, but Will They Appease Skeptics?". The Chronicle of Higher Education. London, UK. Retrieved 2010-09-16.
  21. ^ "QS World University Rankings: Methodology". QS (Quacquarelli Symonds). 2014. Archived from the original on 2015-04-29. Retrieved 29 April 2015.
  22. ^ "MS and MBA in USA". MS MBA in USA. 2015-01-17. Archived from the original on 2015-04-18. Retrieved 31 May 2015.
  23. ^ a b "2011 Academic Survey Responses". Archived from the original on February 6, 2012. Retrieved 12 September 2013.
  24. ^ "QS Intelligence Unit - 2018 Academic Survey Responses". Archived from the original on 2017-07-15. Retrieved 29 June 2017.
  25. ^ QS Intelligence Unit | Faculty Student Ratio Archived October 12, 2011, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved on 2013-08-12.
  26. ^ a b QS Intelligence Unit | Citations per Faculty Archived October 28, 2011, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved on 2013-08-12.
  27. ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original on 2015-09-11. Retrieved 2016-09-09.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown (link)
  28. ^ Richard Holmes. "University Ranking Watch". Archived from the original on 2015-03-16. Retrieved 31 May 2015.
  29. ^ "Global university rankings and their impact Archived 2012-08-26 at the Wayback Machine,". "European University Association". Retrieved 3, September, 2012
  30. ^ QS Intelligence Unit | Employer Reputation Archived August 24, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved on 2018-05-03.
  31. ^ "QS Intelligence Unit - QS Graduate Employability Rankings". Archived from the original on 2017-07-12. Retrieved 29 June 2017.
  32. ^ QS Intelligence Unit | International Indicators Archived October 24, 2011, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved on 2013-08-12.
  33. ^ Weale, Sally (2015-09-14). "British universities slip down in global rankings". The Guardian. The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2016-09-10. Retrieved 15 September 2016.
  34. ^ Robinson, Julian (2015-09-16). "American universities take the top THREE places in the world rankings: MIT crowned the best just ahead of Harvard and Stanford". The Daily Mail. The Daily Mail. Archived from the original on 2016-10-11. Retrieved 15 September 2016.
  35. ^ Kich, Martin (2015-09-17). "U.S. Higher Education News for September 15, 2015". Academe Blog. Martin Kich. Archived from the original on 2016-02-22. Retrieved 15 September 2016.
  36. ^ Leach, Mark. "Higher Education Power List - 2016". WonkHe. WonkHe. Archived from the original on 2016-09-24. Retrieved 19 September 2016.
  37. ^ Flying high internationally Archived December 11, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
  38. ^ "Cambridge loses top spot to Massachusetts Institute of Technology". The Independent. 11 September 2012. Archived from the original on 2012-09-15. Retrieved 11 September 2012.
  39. ^ Calderon, Angel. "How to boost your university's ranking position". University World News. University World News. Archived from the original on 2016-09-15. Retrieved 14 September 2016.
  40. ^ "2016 Academic Survey Responses". QS Intelligence Unit. QS Quacquarelli Symonds. Archived from the original on 2016-08-24. Retrieved 14 September 2016.
  41. ^ a b "Academic Reputation". QS Intelligence Unit. QS Quacquarelli Symonds. Archived from the original on 2016-09-20. Retrieved 14 September 2016.
  42. ^ Moran, Jack (2016-09-05). "Top 200 universities in the world 2016: the global trends". The Guardian. The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2016-09-24. Retrieved 14 September 2016.
  43. ^ Holmes, Richard (2006-09-05). "So That's how They Did It". Archived from the original on 2010-08-08. Retrieved 2010-09-16.
  44. ^ "Response to Review of Strategic Plan by Peter Wills" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 April 2008. Retrieved 29 June 2017.
  45. ^ "Social sciences lose 1". 2007-11-16. Archived from the original on 2011-11-23. Retrieved 2010-09-16.
  46. ^ "Faculty Area Normalization – Technical Explanation" (PDF). QS Quacquarelli Symonds. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2015-09-11. Retrieved 14 September 2016.
  47. ^ "The QS World University Rankings are a load of old baloney". Archived from the original on 2013-10-16. Retrieved 31 May 2015.
  48. ^ "QS Intelligence Unit - QS World University Rankings". Archived from the original on 2016-01-06. Retrieved 31 May 2015.
  49. ^ Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog: Guardian and "QS Rankings" Definitively Prove the Existence of the "Halo Effect" Archived 2012-08-01 at the Wayback Machine. (2011-06-05). Retrieved on 2013-08-12.
  50. ^ "QS World University Rankings by Subject 2016 - Philosophy". Top Universities. QS Quacquarelli Symonds. 2016-03-17. Archived from the original on 2016-09-12. Retrieved 15 September 2016.
  51. ^ Change Magazine - Taylor & Francis (13 January 2012). "Change Magazine - January-February 2012". Archived from the original on 2015-05-12. Retrieved 31 May 2015.
  52. ^ "Improving Latin American universities' global ranking - University World News". Archived from the original on 2013-06-15. Retrieved 31 May 2015.
  53. ^ "QS World University Rankings (2012/13)". Archived from the original on 2012-09-21. Retrieved 2012-09-20.
  54. ^ "QS World University Rankings (2013/14)". 2013-08-27. Archived from the original on 2016-10-21. Retrieved 2013-09-13.
  55. ^ "QS World University Rankings (2014/15)". 2014-09-11. Archived from the original on 2016-02-05. Retrieved 2014-09-17.
  56. ^ "QS World University Rankings (2015/16)". 2015-09-11. Archived from the original on 2016-12-19. Retrieved 2015-09-15.
  57. ^ "QS World University Rankings (2016/17)". 2016-08-25. Archived from the original on 2017-11-30. Retrieved 2016-09-09.
  58. ^ "QS World University Rankings (2018)". February 2017. Archived from the original on 2017-06-09. Retrieved 2017-06-09.
  59. ^ "QS World University Rankings (2019)". February 2017. Archived from the original on 2017-06-09. Retrieved 2018-06-07.
  60. ^ "QS World University Rankings 2020". Top Universities. 2019-06-05. Retrieved 2019-07-12.
  61. ^ "QS Top 50 under 50". Quacquarelli Symonds. Archived from the original on 2013-06-15. Retrieved 2013-07-07.
  62. ^ Symonds, Quacquarelli. "QS Top 50 Under 50". Top Universities. Quacquarelli Symonds. Archived from the original on 2017-07-25. Retrieved 19 July 2017.
  63. ^ a b "QS World University Rankings by Subject 2016". Top Universities. QS Quacquarelli Symonds. Archived from the original on 2016-10-19. Retrieved 14 September 2016.
  64. ^ "Graduate Employability Rankings 2018". Top Universities. QS Quacquarelli Symonds. February 2017. Archived from the original on 2017-10-30. Retrieved 21 September 2017.
  65. ^ "QS Graduate Employability Rankings 2018 Methodology". QS Top Universities. QS Quacquarelli Symonds. 2017-09-06. Archived from the original on 2017-09-21. Retrieved 21 September 2017.
  66. ^ "QS Graduate Employability Rankings 2016". 2015-11-25. Archived from the original on 2017-09-21. Retrieved 2017-09-21.
  67. ^ "QS Graduate Employability Rankings 2017". 2015-11-05. Archived from the original on 2017-10-02. Retrieved 21 September 2017.
  68. ^ "QS Graduate Employability Rankings 2018". February 2017. Archived from the original on 2017-10-30. Retrieved 21 September 2017.
  69. ^ "QS University Rankings: Asia 2018". Top Universities. 2017-10-12. Archived from the original on 2016-06-16. Retrieved 2018-04-05.
  70. ^ "QS Asian University Rankings (2009)". Archived from the original on 16 January 2011. Retrieved 9 September 2016.
  71. ^ "QS Asian University Rankings (2010)". Archived from the original on 20 May 2011. Retrieved 9 September 2016.
  72. ^ "QS Asian University Rankings (2011)". Archived from the original on 12 June 2012. Retrieved 9 September 2016.
  73. ^ "QS Asian University Rankings (2012)". Archived from the original on 2 June 2012. Retrieved 9 September 2016.
  74. ^ "QS Asian University Rankings (2013)". 2013-06-05. Archived from the original on 2013-06-13. Retrieved 2013-06-12.
  75. ^ "QS Asian University Rankings (2014)". 2014-05-07. Archived from the original on 2014-05-18. Retrieved 2014-05-24.
  76. ^ "QS Asian University Rankings (2015)". 2015-05-28. Archived from the original on 2015-06-12. Retrieved 2015-06-12.
  77. ^ "QS Asian University Rankings (2016)". 2015-11-05. Archived from the original on 2016-06-16. Retrieved 2016-06-14.
  78. ^ "QS University Rankings: Asia 2018". Top Universities. 2017-10-12. Archived from the original on 2016-06-16. Retrieved 2018-04-05.
  79. ^ "QS University Rankings: Asia 2019". Top Universities. Retrieved 2019-01-07.
  80. ^ "Methodology (QS University Rankings – Latin America)". Quacquarelli Symonds. Archived from the original on 2014-07-29. Retrieved 12 August 2014.
  81. ^ "QS World University Rankings: Latin America". Top Universities. QS Quacquarelli Symonds. 2015-11-05. Archived from the original on 2016-09-13. Retrieved 14 September 2016.
  82. ^ "QS Latin American University Rankings (2013)". 2013-05-21. Archived from the original on 2017-02-14. Retrieved 2017-03-10.
  83. ^ "QS Latin American University Rankings (2014)". 2014-05-22. Archived from the original on 2017-03-12. Retrieved 2017-03-10.
  84. ^ "QS Latin American University Rankings (2015)". 2015-05-28. Archived from the original on 2017-03-12. Retrieved 2017-03-10.
  85. ^ "QS Latin American University Rankings (2016)". 2015-11-05. Archived from the original on 2016-09-14. Retrieved 2016-09-14.
  86. ^ "QS Latin American University Rankings (2018)". February 2017. Archived from the original on 2017-10-17. Retrieved 2017-10-18.
  87. ^ "QS Latin American University Rankings (2019)". Archived from the original on 2019-01-25. Retrieved 2018-10-18.
  88. ^ "This matter cannot wait". D+C. Archived from the original on 2018-06-14. Retrieved 16 March 2018.
  89. ^ "QS University Rankings: BRICS 2013". Quacquarelli Symonds Limited. 2013. Archived from the original on 2013-12-17. Retrieved August 23, 2015.
  90. ^ "QS University Rankings: BRICS 2014". Quacquarelli Symonds Limited. 2014. Archived from the original on 2015-08-22. Retrieved August 23, 2015.
  91. ^ "QS University Rankings: BRICS 2015". Quacquarelli Symonds Limited. 2015. Archived from the original on 2015-08-20. Retrieved August 23, 2015.
  92. ^ "QS University Rankings: BRICS 2016". Quacquarelli Symonds Limited. 2015-11-05. Archived from the original on 2016-07-23. Retrieved 9 September 2016.
  93. ^ "QS University Rankings: BRICS 2018". Quacquarelli Symonds Limited. February 2017. Archived from the original on 2018-06-12. Retrieved 7 June 2018.
  94. ^ "QS University Rankings: BRICS 2019". Top Universities. 2018-10-02. Retrieved 2019-01-06.
  95. ^ "QS Best Student Cities 2016". 30 November 2015. Archived from the original on 2017-07-05. Retrieved 29 June 2017.
  96. ^ "QS Best Student Cities 2015". 21 November 2014. Archived from the original on 2017-07-03. Retrieved 29 June 2017.
  97. ^ "QS Best Student Cities 2014". 14 November 2013. Archived from the original on 2017-08-28. Retrieved 29 June 2017.
  98. ^ "QS Best Student Cities 2014". Quacquarelli Symonds Limited. 2014. Archived from the original on 2017-02-02. Retrieved August 23, 2015.
  99. ^ "QS Best Student Cities 2015". Quacquarelli Symonds Limited. 2015. Archived from the original on 2015-08-25. Retrieved August 23, 2015.
  100. ^ "QS Best Student Cities 2016". Quacquarelli Symonds Limited. 2016. Archived from the original on 2015-12-02. Retrieved August 23, 2015.
  101. ^ "QS Best Student Cities 2017". Quacquarelli Symonds Limited. February 2017. Retrieved 16 February 2017.
  102. ^ "QS Best Student Cities 2018". Quacquarelli Symonds Limited. 2018-04-30. Retrieved 7 June 2018.
  103. ^ "QS Best Student Cities 2019". Quacquarelli Symonds Limited. 2019-07-03. Retrieved 2 August 2019.
  104. ^ "QS Stars University Ratings". Top Universities. QS Quacquarelli Symonds. 2014-05-08. Archived from the original on 2016-09-14. Retrieved 2016-09-14.
  105. ^ "What is QS Stars?". 2016-10-12. Archived from the original on 2017-07-04.
  106. ^ "QS Stars Methodology". 2012-11-04. Archived from the original on 2017-07-04.
  107. ^ "Ratings at a Price for Smaller Universities". The New York Times. 30 December 2012. Archived from the original on 2013-04-15. Retrieved 10 September 2013.

External links

This page was last edited on 15 November 2019, at 17:56
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.