Sólo una universidad latinoamericana –la Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) se cuenta entre las 200 top del ranking del Times Higher Education dado a conocer hoy. Durante el último año, sin embargo, cayó 40 lugares, quedando en el lugar 190 este año.
Brasil y Argentina, los otros países latinoamericanos que el año pasado anotaban una de sus universidades en la tabla de las 200 de calidad mundial, desaparecen.
Las dos universidades chilenas –la UCH y la PUC– no aparecen entre las 200 primeras sino bastante más abajo, y ambas pierden posiciones con respec to al año 2008.
Las universidades de Estados Unidos mantienen su pedominio pero en descenso, mientras ascienden las universidades de países asiáticos.
En Europa se mantiene el liderazgo de las universidades del Reino Unido seguidas de las universidades Holandesas (11 entre las 200 top del mundo) y Alemania (10).
Australia mantiene también su participación con 9 universidades, al igual que Nueva Zelanda con 3.
Ver listado de las 200 mejores universidades y sus puntajes aquí
Ver listado de las 50 mehjores en:
— Ciencias sociales aquí
— Artes y humanidades aquí
— Ciencias naturales aquí
— Ciencias de la vida y biomédicas aquí
— Ingenierías y tecnoklogías de información aquí
Principales aspectos y metodología
World University Rankings 2009
Rankings 09: Talking points
8 October 2009
By Phil Baty
The World University Rankings are compiled using a mixture of quantitative indicators and informed opinion
What makes a world-class university? When Times Higher Education asked the leaders of top-ranked institutions this question last year, one response stood out for its inspirational qualities.
Robert Zimmer, president of the University of Chicago, said that his institution was “driven by a singular focus on the value of open, rigorous and intense inquiry. Everything about the university that we recognise as distinctive flows from this.”
He said that Chicago believed that “argumentation rather than deference is the route to clarity”, that “arguments stand or fall on their merits” and that the university recognised that “our contributions to society rest on the power of our ideas and the openness of our environment to developing and testing ideas”.
His answer prompted much praise. One Times Higher Education reader said that Zimmer’s “glorious affirmation” was “marvellously refreshing” and had “brought joy to my heart, tears to my eyes and a renewed sense of commitment to the life of the mind”.
But glorious as Zimmer’s statement was, it also served to highlight the problem faced by the increasing number of people and organisations now in the business of ranking higher education institutions: how on earth do you measure such intangible things?
The short answer, of course, is that you cannot. What you can do, however, and what we have sought to do with these rankings, is to try to capture the more tangible and measurable elements that make a modern, world-class university.
When Times Higher Education first conceived its annual World University Rankings with QS in 2004, we identified “four pillars” that supported the foundations of a leading international institution. They are hardly controversial: high-quality research; high-quality teaching; high graduate employability; and an “international outlook”.
Much more controversial are the measurements we chose for our rankings, and the balance between quantitative and qualitative measures.
To judge research excellence, we examine citations – how many times an academic’s published work is cited.
We calculate this element – worth 20 per cent of the overall score – by taking the total number of citations for all papers published from the institution, and then dividing the figure by the number of full-time equivalent staff at the institution. This gives a sense of the density of research excellence on a campus.
Our proxy for teaching excellence is a simple measure of staff-to-student ratio. It is not perfect, but it is based on data that can be collected for all institutions, often via national bodies, and compared fairly. Our assumption is that it tells us something meaningful about the quality of the student experience. At the most basic level, it at least gives a sense as to whether an institution has enough teaching staff to give students the attention they require. This measure is worth 20 per cent of the overall score.
To get a sense of a university’s international outlook, we measure the proportion of overseas staff a university has on its books (making up 5 per cent of the total score) and the proportion of international students it has attracted (making up another 5 per cent). This gives an impression of how attractive an institution is around the world, and suggests how much the institution has embraced the globalisation agenda.
But 50 per cent of the final score is made up from qualitative data from surveys of informed people – university academics and graduate employers.
The fundamental tenet of this ranking, as we have said in previous years, is that academics know best when it comes to identifying the best institutions.
So the biggest part of the ranking score – worth 40 per cent – is based on the result of an academic peer review survey. We consult academics around the world, from lecturers to university presidents, and ask them to name up to 30 institutions they regard as being the best in the world in their field.
Responses over the past three years are aggregated, although only the most recent response from anyone who has responded more than once is used. For our 2009 tables, we have drawn on responses from 9,386 people. With each person nominating an average of 13 institutions, this means that we can draw on about 120,000 data points.
The ranking also includes the results of an employer survey of 3,281 major graduate employers, making up 10 per cent of the overall result.
Scorecard

————————————————————
Rankings 09: Asia advances
8 October 2009
By Phil Baty
America’s superpower status is slipping as other countries’ efforts to join the global elite begin to pay dividends. Phil Baty reports
The US domination of the top ranks of global higher education is not as strong as it has been in previous years. The Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings 2009 show that institutions in Asian countries such as Hong Kong and Japan are growing in stature.
Although Harvard University is still ranked number one in the table of the world’s top 200 universities – for the sixth consecutive year – American supremacy seems to be slipping.
While the US still has by far the most institutions in the top 200, with a total of 54, it has lost five institutions from the top 100 and four have dropped out of the top 200 altogether.
The country’s decline comes amid improved showings by institutions in Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea and Malaysia.
Philip Altbach, director of the Centre for Higher Education at Boston College in the US, says several factors are behind the surges by Asian institutions.
“These countries have invested heavily in higher education in recent years, and this is reflected in the improved quality in their top institutions,” he says. “They have also attempted to internationalise their universities by hiring more faculty from overseas … this helps to improve their visibility globally.
“These universities have also stressed the importance of their professors publishing in international journals, which has no doubt increased the visibility of their research.”
But he adds that this drive for internationalisation and success in global rankings may be “debatable in terms of good policy” for Asian institutions. For example, he says, stressing the importance of publishing in international journals may “tilt research away from topics relevant for national development”, and fostering the use of the English language “may have a negative impact on intellectual work in the local language”.
Japan counts 11 institutions in the top 200, among them two new entrants: the University of Tsukuba sharing 174th place and Keio University making an impressive debut at 142nd. Japan’s representatives in the top 100 rose in number from four to six, led by the University of Tokyo at 22nd place (down from 19th).
Despite having a total of only eight government-funded tertiary institutions, Hong Kong has five institutions in the top 200, up from four last year.
Its tally includes three in the top 50: the University of Hong Kong (up two places to 24th); Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (up four to 35th); and the Chinese University of Hong Kong (down four to 46th). City University of Hong Kong rocketed up the table to 124th, from joint 147th, in its 25th anniversary year. Hong Kong Polytechnic University made the top 200, reaching 195th place.
South Korea now has four universities in the top 200, with new entrant Yonsei University in at joint 151st. Seoul National University is the country’s highest-placed institution, sharing 47th place.
Malaysia returned to the top 200 with its Universiti Malaya entering at 180th place.
China replicated its standing from last year, with two institutions in the top 100 and a total of six in the top 200. The country’s top-rated institution, Tsinghua University, climbed from 56th place to joint 49th, while Peking University slipped from 50th to joint 52nd. Fudan University moved up to joint 103rd from 113th.
The rise of Asia is in direct contrast to the US’ fortunes. The most dramatic illustration of its slide is apparent in the top ten. Although America still claims six of the top ten spots, Yale University has slipped from second to third place in the past year – overtaken by the University of Cambridge – and the California Institute of Technology has fallen from number five to number ten.
This slide lends credence to the predictions of several international higher education experts that the US will soon lose its international ascendancy.
Don Olcott, head of the Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, spoke in August about the rise of the “new global regionalism” threatening Anglo-American dominance.
“Are we really naive enough to think that China, India, Malaysia, South Korea, the Gulf states and others do not want to build long-term, high-quality, sustainable university systems?” he told Times Higher Education.
At an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development conference earlier this year, it was suggested that the US and the UK would be hit far harder than most countries by the need for future public spending cuts because both will need to reduce massive budget deficits. A number of countries in Asia, including Japan and Korea, will face an easier ride. Delegates spoke of a resulting major “redistribution of brains”.
According to Ben Sowter, head of research at QS, which compiles the tables for Times Higher Education, the fallout caused by America’s economic problems may ultimately result in its institutions sliding even lower in subsequent rankings. As 40 per cent of the overall ranking score is based on a survey of academics’ opinions (see “Talking points”, page x), the US’ slip in 2009 may have more to do with the improvement in the reputation of Asian institutions brought about by better marketing and communication, he says.
“In the six years of conducting this study, we have seen a drastically increased emphasis on international reputation from institutions in many countries, particularly those in Asia,” he notes.
Like its southern neighbour, Canada’s overall position in the rankings also dropped. It registered 11 institutions in the top 200, compared with 12 in 2008. Its two best performers both rose – McGill University climbed from 20th place to 18th, while the University of Toronto shot up from 41st to 29th – but others slipped.
Australia has nine institutions in the top 200, the same number as last year, but it increased its representation in the top 100 from seven to eight.
The Australian National University, the highest-placed institution outside the US and the UK, slipped from 16th to 17th, but Melbourne, Sydney, Queensland and Monash all improved their positions.
Russia has two institutions in the top 200, with new entrant Saint-Petersburg State University in at joint number 168.
Sweden also has one new entrant; the University of Gothenburg moved up to 185th place to lift Sweden’s tally to five in the top 200. Brazil and Argentina, which had one university each in the 2008 rankings, both fell out of the top 200 altogether.

Comentario desde los Estadops Unidos
U.S. Decline or a Flawed Measure?
Inside Higher Education, October 8, 2009
Most higher education leaders say that institutional rankings are highly questionable, given the many intangibles in what make a college or university “best” for a given person or course of study. But what about national trends? Can international rankings of universities provide a picture of the relative rise and fall of nation’s universities?
The Times Higher Education/QS rankings, out today, suggest that there are national patterns that can be discerned – and the picture is one of decline for American institutions. Since narratives about American decline always attract attention, these rankings are likely to cause a stir
Some of the patterns are striking, and there is abundant evidence that the rise of universities in other countries will inevitably broaden the global leadership. But some experts on rankings say that this study shouldn’t be taken too seriously because of its reliance (even more than the rankings of U.S. News & World Report) on reputational surveys. And even a top editor at the Times Higher acknowledged in an interview that some of the measures used favor institutions in Europe and Asia over those of the United States.
Here’s what this year’s Times Higher rankings found:
•The United States and Britain continue to dominate the very top ranks with one university in Cambridge, Mass., leading the rankings and one in the original Cambridge in second place.
•The number of North American universities in the top 100 fell to 36 from 42 in just a year.
•The list saw increases in universities from Europe (39, up from 36) and Asia (16, up from 14 last year).
In ranking universities, Times Higher uses this formula:
•20 percent is based on a per capita analysis of citations of research conducted by faculty members at each university. This provides an indication of “the density of research excellence on a campus,” Times Higher says.
•20 percent is based on faculty-student ratio, to provide “a sense as to whether an institution has enough teaching staff to give students the attention they require.”
•5 percent is based on the percentage of international faculty members.
•5 percent is based on the percentage of international students.
•40 percent is based on a worldwide survey of academics, who are asked to name the 30 institutions they consider the best in the world.
•10 percent is based on another international survey – this one of employers of graduates.
The 50 percent of the formula based on reputation exceeds even the much-criticized percentage used by U.S. News (25 percent).
And that’s part of why rankings experts question the methodology. The Institute for Higher Education Policy has conducted extensive research both on rankings and on the evolution of a global higher ed infrastructure in which the U.S. is not as dominant as it once was. Alisa F. Cunningham, vice president of research for the institute, said that the Times Higher’s rankings are of “limited value” and that all the much discussed flaws of reputation surveys (voting based on old information, voting to favor your own institution, voting on criteria that aren’t those being used, etc.) are only accentuated in international surveys.
“You’ve got entirely different contexts in different parts of the world, and you don’t know what those contexts are,” she said.
Reputational surveys are “the least reliable way to do these comparisons,” she added.
Another reason to be wary of these rankings, Cunningham said, is their volatility (which is of course what gets them more attention). Cunningham said that the great universities of the world – whether in the United States or elsewhere – change gradually, not radically, from year to year. So any methodology that suggests that universities that are centuries old are notably better or worse from year to year is questionable, she said. “They don’t change that way,” she said.
Phil Baty, Deputy Editor of the Times Higher, said in an e-mail interview that some of the measures do favor certain regions. For example, he noted that the citations index favors institutions where most faculty members are in medicine or hard sciences, while putting at a disadvantage institutions where much of the faculty scholarship is in the humanities or social sciences (a characteristic that applies to most American universities). Likewise, he noted that European and Asian universities are more likely than others to have large percentages of foreign faculty members.
But as to the criticism about relying on surveys, Baty said that was a strength of the Times Higher rankings.
“When the rankings were conceived six years ago, a guiding principal was that academics know best when it comes to identifying the world’s best universities. So we were happy to include a heavy element of opinion in the rankings formula,” Baty said. “In some ways, giving a strong weighting to the academic opinion survey helps meet some of the biggest criticisms of the university rankings in general – that you can’t reduce all the wonderful and less tangible things that a university does into a simple scientific formula. Universities are always about more than the sum of their parts.”
Robert M. Berdahl, president of the Association of American Universities, said that at his association (which includes research universities in the United States and Canada), “we don’t generally place a great deal of stock in the public rankings of universities, but we don’t ignore them either. They are important to the extent that shape public perceptions of the qualitative hierarchy of institutions, but they all have flaws and biases.”
Berdahl said that a “heavy reliance on reputational surveys, for example, is not terribly reliable, in part because it depends so heavily on who is surveyed.”
The best way to do international comparisons, he said, is “program by program, using the most objective criteria possible.”
The issue raised by the Times Higher about an erosion of U.S. dominance is an important one, Berdahl said, even if he doesn’t agree with the findings about specific universities or the methodology.
“The United States has to be concerned about this. We know that other nations are investing substantial amounts in building research universities, while the U.S. has been disinvesting,” he said. “If we cease to be the nation of choice for the best and brightest international students, or even the best American students, we will quickly cease to have the universities that are the choice for the best faculty and we will be caught in a downward spiral.”
But Berdahl, a former chancellor at the University of California at Berkeley, said he just can’t buy the numbers in the Times Higher’s survey. “While I think that there has been some relative slippage as a result of a decline in funding in the U.S. and the investment elsewhere, the rankings indicated by the Times seem to me to be wildly off the mark,” he said. “No one I know would rank Berkeley anywhere near as low as 39th in the world. I admit I’m biased; but this is too far from the mark to be taken terribly seriously.”
— Scott Jaschik