campusreview.com.au
‘In rude health’
Despite positive QS rankings, Australian unis
warned about falling ratio of staff to students.
T
he latest QS World University Rankings has brought with it
some good results for Australian universities but also some
cause for concern, according to the body behind the lists.
The rankings measure the globe’s top 1000 universities by
academic reputation, graduate employability, student/staff ratio,
research performance and internationalisation.
More than two-thirds of Australia’s ranked universities improved
their performance this year.
Overall, the Australian National University was Australia’s top
performer, though it fell from 24th to 29th.
Australia’s standing was bolstered by the number of citations
compared to number of staff, along with academic reputation and
international student ratio.
For the latter, which measures the extent to which universities
across the world are internationalising, 26 of Australia’s 35 ranked
Young
and fit
More Aussies in top 50 list of best young
universities than any other country.
T
he University of Technology Sydney can once again pat
itself on the back after another set of rankings gave it the
top Australian spot on a list of young universities, albeit
news
universities improved their performance, while nine declined.
For comparison, 126 of the US’s 157 ranked universities declined
in that indicator.
QS said the data suggests Australia’s universities are proving
the beneficiaries of the global international student community’s
uncertainty about the higher education systems in the United
States and United Kingdom.
The director of research at QS, Ben Sowter, called Australia’s
standing “unsurprising”, noting that it contains two of the world’s 10
best student cities, a quality of life ranked as the second-best in the
world in 2015 by the UN, and “highly reputable institutions”.
Sowter added: “The rate at which international student
recruitment has occurred has been striking, even in the context
of the current global political climate, with recent Department
of Home Affairs data indicating that well over 600,000 foreign
students chose to forge their futures in Australia last year.”
Overall, he said while this year’s results showed a sector in “rude
health”, Australia should not become complacent, as the influx
of international students was paired with significant drops in the
faculty/student ratio indicator. Thirty-one Australian universities
recorded a worse year-on-year performance there.
“It is imperative that Australia endeavours to continue expanding
its teaching capacity to meet demand that is likely to continue
increasing. Results from our Academic Survey – the world’s largest
of its kind – suggest that the global academic community currently
rates the Australian system very highly.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology was named world
number one for the eighth consecutive year in the QS ranking. ■
under different metrics to the recent QS Top 50 Under 50 list.
Late last month, the Times Higher Education Young University
Rankings put UTS at number 13, making it Australia’s highest ranked
young institution.
And recently, higher education consultancy QS Quacquarelli
Symonds put it at number 11 on its ranking, down one spot from
last year’s list.
QS evaluates universities according to their research impact,
capacity to nurture employable graduates, academic reputation,
faculty/student ratio, and levels of internationalisation.
The University of Wollongong and the Queensland University of
Technology also made the top 20, coming in at the same position
as last year – 16 and 19, respectively.
With nine universities overall, Australia is the most-represented
location in the top 50.
The next-most-represented locations are France, which had
six top young universities, and Hong Kong and Spain, with
four apiece.
Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University was ranked
first. It was followed by the Hong Kong University of Science and
Technology.
Ben Sowter, director of research at QS, said: “The geographic
breakdown of this ranking – with universities in Hong Kong, the
UAE, South Korea and Malaysia well-represented – helps us discern
between those locations that are doing the most to improve the
demand for improved provision, and those who have as yet been
unable to foster institutions able to challenge established higher
education hierarchies.” ■
3