College and university rankings are rankings of institutions in higher education ordered by various combinations of various factors. Rankings have most often been conducted by magazines, newspapers, websites, governments, or academics. In addition to ranking entire institutions, organizations perform rankings of specific programs, departments, and schools. Various rankings consider combinations of measures of wealth, research excellence and/or influence, selectivity, student options, eventual success, demographics, and other criteria. There are no known college rankings of student academic quality. Some rankings evaluate institutions within a single country, while others assess institutions worldwide. The subject has produced much debate about rankings' usefulness and accuracy. The expanding diversity in rating methodologies and accompanying criticisms of each indicate the lack of consensus in the field.
- 1 Global rankings
- 1.1 Academic Ranking of World Universities
- 1.2 Times Higher Education World University Rankings
- 1.3 Center for World University Rankings
- 1.4 G-factor
- 1.5 Global University Ranking
- 1.6 HEEACT—Ranking of Scientific Papers
- 1.7 High Impact Universities: Research Performance Index
- 1.8 Human Resources & Labor Review
- 1.9 Leiden Ranking
- 1.10 Newsweek
- 1.11 Professional Ranking of World Universities
- 1.12 QS World University Rankings
- 1.13 SCImago Institutions Rankings
- 1.14 U-Multirank
- 1.15 University Ranking by Academic Performance
- 1.16 Webometrics
- 1.17 Wuhan University
- 2 Regional and national rankings
- 2.1 Asia
- 2.2 Europe
- 2.3 North America
- 2.3.1 Canada
- 2.3.2 Mexico
- 2.3.3 United States
- 22.214.171.124 Yield to Acceptance Ratio (YAR) Index
- 126.96.36.199 Council for Aid to Education
- 188.8.131.52 The Daily Beast's Guide to the Best Colleges
- 184.108.40.206 Forbes College rankings
- 220.127.116.11 The Princeton Review Dream Colleges
- 18.104.22.168 Revealed preference rankings
- 22.214.171.124 Selectivity
- 126.96.36.199 U.S. News & World Report college and university rankings
- 188.8.131.52 United States National Research Council Rankings
- 184.108.40.206 Faculty Scholarly Productivity rankings
- 220.127.116.11 The Top American Research Universities
- 18.104.22.168 Washington Monthly College rankings
- 22.214.171.124 TrendTopper MediaBuzz College Guide
- 126.96.36.199 American Council of Trustees and Alumni
- 188.8.131.52 Other
- 2.4 Oceania
- 2.5 South America
- 3 See also
- 4 References
- 5 External links
For rankings of United States universities in particular, see Rankings of universities in the United States. Several organizations produce worldwide university rankings, including:
Academic Ranking of World Universities
The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) compiled by the Shanghai Jiao Tong University and now maintained by the Shanghai Ranking Consultancy, has provided annual global rankings of universities since 2003, making it the earliest of its kind. The ranking is funded by the Chinese government and its initial purpose was to measure the gap between Chinese and "world class" universities. ARWU rankings have been cited by The Economist magazine. It has been lauded for being "consistent and transparent" based on an article. The education ministers of France, Norway and Denmark traveled to China to discuss and find ways to improve their rankings. ARWU does not rely on surveys and school submissions. Among other criteria, ARWU includes the number of articles published by Nature or Science and the number of Nobel Prize winners and Fields Medalists (mathematics). Harvard and Stanford have topped the ranking for years. One of the primary criticisms of ARWU's methodology is that it is biased towards the natural sciences and English language science journals over other subjects. Moreover, the ARWU is known for "relying solely on research indicators", and "the ranking is heavily weighted toward institutions whose faculty or alumni have won Nobel Prizes": it does not measure "the quality of teaching or the quality of humanities."
Times Higher Education World University Rankings
From 2004 to 2009 Times Higher Education (THE), a British publication, published the annual Times Higher Education–QS World University Rankings in association with Quacquarelli Symonds (QS). THE published a table of the top 200 universities and QS ranked approximately 500 online, in book form, and via media partners. On 30 October 2009, THE broke with QS and joined Thomson Reuters to provide a new set of world university rankings, called Times Higher Education World University Rankings. THE has stated that academic opinion will form part of its new offering.
On 3 June 2010, Times Higher Education revealed the methodology which they proposed to use when compiling the new world university rankings. The new methodology included 13 separate performance indicators, an increase from the six measures employed between 2004 and 2009. After further consultation the criteria were grouped under five broad overall indicators to produce the final ranking. THE published its first rankings using its new methodology on 16 September 2010, a month earlier than previous years.
The Times Higher Education World University Rankings, along with the QS World University Rankings and the Academic Ranking of World Universities are described as being the three most influential international university rankings. The Globe and Mail in 2010 described the Times Higher Education World University Rankings as "arguably the most influential." Research published by professors at the University of Michigan in 2011 demonstrated that the early THES rankings were disproportionately influential in establishing the status order of world research universities.
Times Higher Education World Reputation Rankings
Published for the first time in March 2011, the rankings are based on a survey of 13,388 academics over 131 countries - which is the largest evaluation of academic reputation to date. The survey was conducted in eight languages by Ipsos Media CT for Times Higher Education's ranking-data partner Thomson Reuters, and asked experienced academics to highlight what they believed to be the strongest universities for teaching and research in their own fields. The top six universities in the ranking for 2014—Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Cambridge, Oxford, UC Berkeley—were found to be "head and shoulders above the rest", and were touted as a group of globally recognised "super brands."
Center for World University Rankings
This Saudi Arabia-based consulting organization has published yearly rankings of world universities since 2012. Rankings are based on quality of education, alumni employment, quality of faculty, number of publications, number of publications in high-quality journals, citations, scientific impact and number of patents.
G-factor ranks university and college web presence by counting the number of links only from other university websites, using Google search engine data. G-factor is an indicator of the popularity or importance of each university's website from the combined perspectives of other institutions. It claims to be an objective peer review of a university through its website—in social network theory terminology, G-factor measures the centrality of each university's website in the network of university websites.
Global University Ranking
Global University Ranking measures over 400 universities using the RatER, an autonomous, non-commercial, Russian rating agency supported by Russia's academic society. The methodology pools universities from ARWU, HEEACT, Times-QS and Webometrics and a pool of experts formed by project officials and managers to determine the rating scales for indicators in seven areas. It considers academic performance, research performance, faculty expertise, resource availability, socially significant activities of graduates, international activities, and international opinion. Each expert independently evaluates these performance indicators for candidate universities. The rating is the average of the expert evaluations. This ranking raised questions when it placed Russian Moscow State University in fifth place, ahead of Harvard and Cambridge.
HEEACT—Ranking of Scientific Papers
||This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. (January 2011)|
The Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities was produced until 2012 by the Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT). The indicators were designed to measure both long-term and short-term research performance of research universities.
This project employed bibliometrics to analyze and rank the performance of the 500 top universities and the top 300 universities in six fields. HEEACT further provides subject rankings in science and technology fields. It also ranked the top 300 universities across ten science and technology fields. The ranking included eight indicators. They were: articles published over prior 11 years; citations of those articles, "current" articles, current citations, average citations, "H-index", number of "highly–cited papers" and high impact journal articles. They representedx three criteria of scientific papers performance: research productivity, research impact, and research excellence.
The 2007 ranking methodology was alleged to have favored universities with medical schools, and in response, HEEACT added assessment criteria. The six field–based rankings are based on the subject categorization of WOS, including Agriculture & Environment Sciences (AGE), Clinical Medicine (MED), Engineering, Computing & Technology (ENG), Life Sciences (LIFE), Natural Sciences (SCI) and Social Sciences (SOC). The ten subjects include Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Geosciences, Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, Mechanical Engineering, Chemical Engineering (including Energy & Fuels), Materials Sciences, and Civil Engineering (including Environmental Engineering).
High Impact Universities: Research Performance Index
The High Impact Universities Research Performance Index (RPI) is a 2010 Australian initiative that studies university research performance. The pilot project involved a trial of over 1,000 universities or institutions and 5,000 constituent faculties (in various disciplines) worldwide. The top 500 results for universities and faculties were reported at the project website. The project promotes simplicity, transparency and fairness. The assessment analyzes research performance as measured by publications and citations. Publication and citation data is drawn from Scopus. The project uses standard bibliometric indicators, namely the 10-year g-index and h-index. RPI equally weighs contributions from the five faculties. The five faculty scores are normalized to place them onto a common scale. The normalized scores are then averaged to arrive at a final RPI.
Human Resources & Labor Review
The Human Resources & Labor Review (HRLR) publishes a human competitiveness index & analysis annually in Chasecareer Network (ChaseCareer.Net). This system is based on Human Resources & Labour Review Indexes (HRI and LRI), which measure the performance of top 300 universities' graduates.
In 2004, a couple of educational institutions voiced concerns at several events in regard to the accuracy and effectiveness of ranking bodies or lists. The HRLR ranking was pioneered in late 2005 within a working group in response to those concerns. The team was founded in January 2007 and started compiling and processing datas, resulting in the first lists in 2007-2008. The ranking concept is later being adopted for Alumni score on ARWU and many other rankings.
The new HRLR ranking innovative methods sparked intense interests from many institutions and inspired several other ranking lists and scoring which are based on professional, alumni, executives, competitiveness, human capital-oriented aspects. Nevertheless, HRLR remains to be the leader in university ranking with innovative and comprehensive approaches, and not relying merely on those aforementioned aspects.
The Centre for Science and Technology Studies at Leiden University maintains a European and world-wide ranking of the top 500 universities according including the number and impact of Web of Science-indexed publications per year. The rankings compare research institutions by taking into account differences in language, discipline and institutional size. Multiple ranking lists are released according to various bibliometric normalization and impact indicators, including the number of publications, citations-per-publication, and field-averaged impact per publication.
In August 2006, the American magazine Newsweek published a ranking of the Top 100 Global Universities, using selected criteria from ARWU and the Times Higher Education-QS rankings, with the additional criterion of the number of volumes in the library. It formed part of a special issue including an article from Tony Blair, then prime minister of the UK, but has not been repeated. It considered openness and diversity as well as distinction in research. The ranking has been continued since its merger with The Daily Beast, and currently uses data from the Times Higher Education World Rankings, Webometrics world college rankings from public-research outlet Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas in Spain, and the Shanghai Ranking Consultancy in order to compile its results.
Professional Ranking of World Universities
In contrast to academic rankings, the Professional Ranking of World Universities established in 2007 by the École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris measures the efficiency of each university at producing leading business professionals. Its main compilation criterion is the number of Chief Executive Officers (or equivalent) among the Fortune Global 500. This ranking has been criticized for placing five French universities into the top 20.
QS World University Rankings
The QS World University Rankings are a ranking of the world’s top universities produced by Quacquarelli Symonds and published annually since 2004. In 2011 they ranked 712 universities, with the University of Cambridge in the UK, Harvard University in the USA and MIT on top. The QS rankings should not be confused with the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. From 2004 to 2009 the QS rankings were published in collaboration with Times Higher Education and were known as the Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings. In 2010 QS assumed sole publication of rankings produced with this methodology when Times Higher Education split from QS in order to create a new rankings methodology in partnership with Thomson Reuters. The QS rankings are published in the United States by U.S. News & World Report as the "World's Best Universities."
The QS rankings use peer review data collected (in 2011) from 33,744 scholars and academics and 16,785 recruiters. These two are worth 40 per cent and 10 per cent of a university's possible score respectively. The QS rankings also incorporate citation per faculty member data from Scopus, faculty/student ratios, and international staff and student numbers. The citations and faculty/student measures are worth 20 per cent of an institution's total possible score and the international staff and student data five per cent each. QS has published online material about its methodology.
QS has added to its main World University Rankings, starting in 2009 with the Asian University Rankings. The QS Latin American University Rankings  and the QS World University Rankings by Subject  were published for the first time in 2011.
The subject rankings are intended to address the most frequent criticism of all world university ranking systems, that they contain too little material about specific subjects, something potential applicants are keen to see. These rankings have been drawn up on the basis of citations, academic peer review and recruiter review, with the weightings for each dependent upon the culture and practice of the subject concerned. They are published in five clusters; engineering; biomedicine; the natural sciences; the social sciences; and the arts and humanities, and cover 29 subjects in 2012.
QS Asian University Rankings
In 2009, Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) launched a department of the QS Asian University Rankings in partnership with The Chosun Ilbo newspaper in Korea. They rank the top 200 Asian universities and has now appeared three times. They release an independent list of rankings each time, different from that of the QS World University Rankings.
These rankings use some of the same criteria as the World University Rankings but they use other measures, such as incoming and outgoing exchange students as well. As the criteria and their weightings are different, the QS World university rankings and the QS Asian University rankings released in the same academic year are different.
QS Latin American University Rankings
The QS Latin American University Rankings  were launched in 2011. They use academic opinion (30 per cent), employer opinion (20 per cent), publications per faculty member, citations per paper, academic staff with a PhD, faculty/student ratio and web visibility (10 per cent each) as measures. These criteria were developed in consultation with experts in Latin America, and the web visibility data come from Webometrics . This ranking showed that the University of São Paulo in Brazil is the region's top institution, top in the first and second editions in 2011 and 2012 respectively.
SCImago Institutions Rankings
The SCImago Institutions Rankings (SIR) since 2009 has published its international ranking of worldwide research institutions, the SIR World Report. The SIR World Report is the work of the SCImago Research Group, a Spain-based research organization consist of members from the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), University of Granada, Charles III University of Madrid, University of Alcalá, University of Extremadura and other education institutions in Spain.
The ranking measures areas such as: research output, international collaboration, normalized impact and publication rate.
U-Multirank, a European Commission supported feasibility study, was undertaken to contribute to the European Commission objective of enhancing transparency about the different missions and the performance of higher education institutions and research institutes. At a press conference in Brussels on 13 May 2011, the U-Multirank was officially launched by Androulla Vassiliou, Commissioner for Higher Education and Culture saying: U-Multirank “will be useful to each participating higher education institution, as a planning and self-mapping exercise. By providing students with clearer information to guide their study choices, this is a fresh tool for more quality, relevance and transparency in European higher education. “  U-Multirank breaks new ground by producing multi-dimensional listings rating universities on a much wider range of factors than existing international rankings. The idea is to avoid simplistic league tables which can result in misleading comparisons between institutions of very different types or mask significant differences in quality between courses at the same university.
U-Multirank assesses the overall performance of universities but also ranks them in selected academic fields: in 2014 the fields are business studies, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering and physics; in 2015, psychology, computer science and medicine will be added. The universities are tested against up to 30 separate indicators and rated in five performance groups, from 'A' (very good) through to 'E' (weak). The results show that while over 95% of institutions achieve an 'A' score on at least one measure, only 12% have more than 10 top scores. Of the 850 universities in the ranking, 62% are from Europe, 17% from North America, 14% from Asia and 7% from Oceania, Latin America and Africa. U-Multirank received €2 million in EU funding from the former Lifelong Learning Programme (now Erasmus) for the years 2013-2015, with the possibility of a further two years of funding in 2015-2017. The goal is for an independent organisation to manage the ranking on a sustainable business model thereafter.
University Ranking by Academic Performance
First published in 2010, the University Ranking by Academic Performance (URAP) was developed in the Informatics Institute of Middle East Technical University in Turkey and ranked 2,000 universities according to an aggregation of six academic research performance indicators: current productivity (number of published articles), long-term productivity (total documents from Institute for Scientific Information), research impact (citations from Institute for Scientific Information), impact (cumulative journal impact), quality (Journal Citation Impact Total), and international collaboration.
The Webometrics Ranking of World Universities is produced by Cybermetrics Lab (CCHS), a unit of the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), the main public research body in Spain. It offers information about more than 12,000 universities according to their web presence (an assessment of the scholarly contents, visibility and impact of universities on the web). The ranking is updated every January and July.
The Webometrics Ranking or Ranking Web is built from a database of over 20,000 higher education institutions. The top 12,000 universities are shown in the main ranking and more are covered in regional lists.
The ranking started in 2004 and is based on a composite indicator that includes both the volume of the Web contents and the visibility and impact of web publications according to the number of external links they received. A wide range of scientific activities appears exclusively on academic websites and is typically overlooked by bibliometric indicators.
Webometric indicators measure institutional commitment to Web publication. Webometric results show a high correlation with other rankings. However, North American universities are relatively common in the top 200, while small– and medium–size biomedical institutions and German, French, Italian and Japanese universities were less common in the top ranks. Possible reasons include publishing via independent research councils (CNRS, Max Planck, CNR) or the large amount of non-English web contents, which are less likely to be linked.
The Research Center for Chinese Science Evaluation at Wuhan University ranking is based on Essential Science Indicators (ESI), which provides data on journal article publication counts and citation frequencies in over 11,000 journals around the world in 22 research fields.
Regional and national rankings
Regional and national rankings are carried out in Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America and Oceania.
QS' Asian University Rankings use some of the same data as the QS World University Rankings alongside other material, such as the number of exchange students attending or traveling from each university. The rankings list the top 200 universities in Asia.
Many academic organizations in China rank universities, such as HRLR Asia, Chinese University Alumni Association (CUAA) and China Education Center Ltd. the Chinese university rankings, and many others. There are also many rankings based on university billionaire alumni, such as Chinese university ranking of billionaire alumni.
Magazines such as Youth Incorporated, India Today, Outlook, Mint, Dataquest and EFY conduct annual rankings for the major disciplines. See India university rankings for a list of rankings; also see List of Indian engineering college rankings.
Most of the ranking systems in Japan rank universities by the difficulty of their entrance exams, called "Hensachi". One example of such a ranking is Going broke universities - Disappearing universities by Kiyoshi Shimano. Organizations who use other methods of ranking universities in Japan include Nikkei Business Publications, which annually releases the Brand rankings of Japanese universities every November. Toyo Keizai, who regularly releases the university rankings "Truly Strong Universities" once a year, is another example. Japanese leading prep school Kawaijuku also released the Japan's Top 30 University Rankings in Natural Sciences and Technology for MEXT's GLOBAL 30 Project in 2001.
Korean Council for University Education, established in 2009, evaluates universities in South Korea.
The European Commission compiled a list of the 22 universities in the EU with the highest scientific impact. This ranking was compiled as part of the Third European Report on Science & Technology Indicators, prepared by the Directorate General for Science and Research of the European Commission in 2003 (updated 2004). It only explicitly considers the European Union's top institutions, but comparisons with the rest of the world are provided in the full report. The report says, "University College London comes out on top in both publications (the number of scientific publications produced by the university) and citations (the number of times those scientific publications are cited by other researchers)" however the table lists the top scoring university as "Univ London" implying that the authors counted the scientific output of the entire University of London, rather than its constituent colleges.
In this ranking, the EU's top two universities are Cambridge and Oxford, as in the Jiao Tong and Times rankings. This ranking stresses the scientific quality of the institution, as opposed to its size or perceived prestige. Thus smaller, technical universities, such as Eindhoven (Netherlands) and the Technical University Munich (Germany) are ranked third and fourth, behind Cambridge, and followed by the University of Edinburgh. The report does not provide a direct comparison between EU and universities in the rest of the world, although it does compute a scientific impact score, which is measured against the world average.
In December 2008, the European Commission published a call for tenders, inviting bidders to design and test a new multi-dimensional university ranking system with global outreach. The first results of the envisaged pilot project were promised for the first half of 2011.
Another approach to classify the European research area is offered by 'European Research Ranking'. This ranking is based on publicly available data from the European Commissions project and funding database CORDIS to estimate the funding and networking performance of European research institutions.
Some Austrian universities, including all Austrian Universities of Applied Sciences, take part in the CHE UniversityRanking.
The Bulgarian University Ranking System, maintained by the Bulgarian Ministry of Education, compares academic programs in accredited domestic higher education institutions. The system ranks programs based on more than 50 indicators, such as teaching and learning conditions, scientific research, career development opportunities, prestige, and material resources.
In Denmark, the think-tank CEPOS conduct an annual survey and ranking of higher education at study program level and institution level, based on entry salary, career development, drop-out rates, and program completion rates.
Since 2007, the CHE "ExcellenceRanking" has been published by the Center for Higher Education Development in Germany. The ranking includes the sciences of biology, chemistry, mathematics and physics as well as psychology, political science and economics. The ranking is designed to support the search for masters or doctoral programmes. The CHE also wants to highlight the research strengths of European universities and provide them with ideas for improvement. The ranking is published by the German weekly newspaper Die Zeit in English and German. The CHE Center for Higher Education Development gathers the data for this ranking. An English version is provided by the DAAD.
The CHE also publishes a "ResearchRanking" showing the research strengths of German universities. The CHE ResearchRanking is based on the research–related data of the UniversityRanking.
The Sunday Times ranks Irish universities based on a mix of criteria, including secondary school examination scores, graduation rates, staff-student ratio, research efficiency, accommodation, nontraditional students, athletics and sports facilities.
The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) compiled Macedonian HEIs Ranking, a ranking of Macedonian Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) commissioned by Ministry of Education and Science of Republic of Macedonia in February, 2011 and released on February 16, 2012. Nineteen qualified HEIs were included in the ranking. The ranking used 19 indicators of academic performance and competitiveness, covering major mission aspects of HEIs such as teaching, research and social service. It is the first university ranking in Macedonia.
Most Dutch universities take part in the CHE UniversityRanking.
The Ad Astra association of Romanian scientists ranked Romanian universities in 2006 and 2007.
RIA Novosty / Forbes rankings are conducted under the supervision of Public Chamber of Russia in cooperation with State University – Higher School of Economics) This ranking is considered the most objective system. It covers 476 higher education institutions and is based on the average score of the Unified State Examination that is required to enter a university. The ranking has separate subrankings for different subjects and clusters of universities.
RIA Novosty rankings do not align with other local and international rankings such as Academic Ranking of World Universities and QS World University Rankings which take into account inherited reputation from the Soviet Union.
Independent Rating Agency RatER publishes annual rankings based on representation of university graduates in governmental, education and business elite.
Interfax annually ranks "classical" (or multi-faculty) universities and higher education institutions specialising in law. Interfax' methodology quantifies several qualitative factors such as research, teaching standards, public opinion and social and international activity.
The Russian Journal "Finance" produces an integrated ranking of higher education institutions specialising in economics and finance. The Journal uses the average score of the Unified State Examination, the number of CFO graduates and the consolidated turnover of companies where graduate CFOs are employed.
In Sweden, the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise (Svenskt Näringsliv) conduct an annual survey and ranking of higher education at study program level, based on entry salary, career development, internationalization, and degree of academic-business collaboration.
The swissUp Ranking ranked Swiss university and polytechnic students until 2004. The swissUp Ranking is no longer conducted. Some universities from the German-speaking part of Switzerland, such as ISFOA Lugano take part in the CHE UniversityRanking.
Ukraine's Ministry of Education and Science performs official yearly university evaluations. Zerkalo Nedeli newspaper published the top 200–ranked Ukrainian universities in 2007. Kyiv Student Council ranks universities on criteria of student satisfaction.
The Research Assessment Exercises (RAE) are the UK government's evaluation of research quality in British Universities. Each subject, called a unit of assessment, is ranked by a peer review panel. The rankings are used in the allocation of government funding. The latest assessment was made in 2008. The RAE provides quality ratings for research across all disciplines. Panels use a standard scale for each submission. Ratings range from 1 to 5, according to the quantity of work that is judged to reach national or international levels of excellence. Participating institutions receive grants from one of the four higher education funding bodies in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The top three universities in the latest RAE exercise were London School of Economics, Cambridge University and Oxford University.
The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) assesses undergraduate teaching. QAA is an independent body established by the UK's higher education institutions in 1997. QAA was under contract to the Higher Education Funding Council for England to assess quality for English universities. This replaced Teaching Quality Assessments (TQAs) which aimed to assess the administrative, policy and procedural framework within which teaching took place and did not directly assess teaching quality. This inspection–based system was replaced by a system of information provision, including a national student survey. QAA publishes scores which have been used by the league table industry.
Other rankings include Times Good University Guide, The Complete University Guide, Independent, The Sunday Times University Guide, The Guardian—University Guide (mainly for undergraduate studies.)
Maclean's, a Canadian news magazine, publishes an annual ranking of Canadian Universities, called the Maclean’s University Rankings. Ranking criteria include student body characteristics, classes, faculty, finances, library, and reputation. The rankings are split into three categories: schools that focus on undergraduate studies with few to no graduate programs, schools that have both extensive undergraduate studies and an extensive selection of graduate programs and schools that have a professional medical program and a selection of graduate programs.
The University of Calgary produced a formal study examining the ranking methodology, illuminating the factors that determined its rank and criticizing certain aspects of the methodology. The University of Alberta, the University of Toronto and University of Manitoba have expressed displeasure over the ranking system.
A notable difference between rankings in the United States and Maclean's rankings, however, is that Maclean's excludes privately–funded universities. However, the majority of Canada's institutions, including the best–known are publicly–funded.
Beginning in September 2006, over 20 Canadian universities, including several of the most prestigious and largest universities such as the University of Toronto, University of British Columbia, University of Alberta, Concordia University, McMaster University and Dalhousie University, jointly refused to participate. University of Alberta president Indira Samarasekera wrote that Maclean's initially filed a "Freedom of Information" request but that it was "too late" for the universities to respond. Samarasekera further stated, "Most of [the universities] had already posted the data online, and we directed Maclean’s staff to our Web sites. In instances where the magazine staff couldn’t find data on our Web site, they chose to use the previous year’s data."
Estudio Comparativo de Universidades Mexicanas (ECUM)
Mexican institutions have been compared in the Estudio Comparativo de Universidades Mexicanas (ECUM) produced within the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM). ECUM provides data on institutional participation in articles on ISI Web of Knowledge–indexed journals; faculty participation in each of Mexico's three–level National Researchers System (SNI); graduate degrees within (National Council of Science and Technology's (CONACYT) register of quality graduate programs; and number of academic research bodies (cuerpos academicos) according to the Secretariat of Public Education (SEP) program PROMEP.
ECUM provides online access to data for 2007 and 2008 through ExECUM. Institutional data can be visualized through three options:
- A selection of the most prominent 58 universities (43 publics and 13 privates). This selection accounts for more than 60 percent of undergraduate and graduate enrollments. It includes public federal universities (UNAM, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, Universidad del Ejército y la Fuerza Aérea, Colegio de México, Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo, Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro); 35 public state universities (UPES), and a group of private institutions that feature within ECUM's selected classification data.
- Result tables for the top 20 institutions in each of the data labels in this study. These include some of the selected universities in addition to the rest of Mexico's higher education institutions, as well as institutes, centers and other research producing organizations.
- A personalized selection from more than 600 institutions. These are classified by institutional type, institutional gatherings, by activity sector alphabetically.
ExECUM allows users to establish comparison types and levels which they consider relevant. Data is presented in raw form with virtually no derived indicators. Users can relate variables and build indicators according to their own analytical perspectives.
For a more comprehensive and detailed look at U.S. university rankings, see Rankings of universities in the United States
Yield to Acceptance Ratio (YAR) Index
The Yield to Acceptance Ratio (YAR) Index reflects a combination of desirability and selectivity, based solely upon objective college admissions data. Yield is calculated by dividing the number of students deciding to enroll in a school by the number of students accepted by that school. This indicates the desirability of a school. Acceptance rate (or selectivity—the lower the acceptance rate, the more selective the school) is calculated by dividing the number of students accepted by a school by the number of students applying to that school. These values reflect both desirability (increasing the number of applicants), and competitiveness (how difficult it is to be accepted).
By combining these two admissions data points into a single ratio of yield to acceptance rate, the YAR provides an objective measure of the overall reputation of a school reflecting a school's desirability by students compared to the difficulty of being admitted. The majority of colleges have YAR scores below 1.0. In 2014, schools with YAR scores above 6 were led by Stanford (15.6), Harvard (13.9), and Yale (11.4):
|University||2014 Yield||2014 Acceptance Rate||2014 Yield to Acceptance Ratio (YAR) Index|
|Massachusetts Institute of Technology||72.7%*||7.7%||9.4*|
|University of Pennsylvania||66%||10.0%||6.6|
|* using 2013 yield|
Council for Aid to Education
The Council for Aid to Education publishes a list of the top universities in terms of annual fundraising. Fundraising ability reflects, among other things, alumni and outside donor's views of the quality of a university, as well as the ability of that university to expend funds on top faculty and facilities. Most recent rankings put Stanford at the top, ahead of Harvard and Columbia.
The Daily Beast's Guide to the Best Colleges
The Daily Beast's college rankings take into account nine factors, with future earnings, affordability, and graduation rate weighted most heavily. The other criteria include academics, diversity, athletics, nightlife, activities, and campus quality. The Daily Beast's college rankings report the top 200 scoring schools.
Forbes College rankings
In 2008, Forbes.com began publishing an annual list, prepared by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity of "America's Best Colleges". The Forbes rankings use the list of alumni published in Who's Who in America, student evaluations from RateMyProfessors.com, self-reported salaries of alumni from PayScale, four-year graduation rates, numbers of students and faculty receiving "nationally competitive awards," and four-year accumulated student debt to calculate the rankings. It disregards subjective measures such as public reputation, which causes some Ivy League and other highly reputable colleges to score lower than in other lists. Most recent ranking puts Stanford at the top, followed by Pomona, Princeton, Yale, and Columbia.
The Princeton Review Dream Colleges
The Princeton Review annually asks students and parents what their dream college is, if cost and ability to get in were not factors. Stanford is the students' top "dream school." Stanford is also the parents' top "dream school." Stanford edges out Harvard and Columbia among students, and Harvard and Princeton among parents.
Revealed preference rankings
Avery et al. pioneered the use of choice modelling to rank colleges. Their methodology used a statistical analysis of the decisions of 3,240 students who applied to college in 1999. MyChances.net, now called Parchment, adopted a similar approach starting in 2009, stating that its method is based on this approach. The study analysed students admitted to multiple colleges. The college they attended became the winner, and the others became the losers. An Elo rating system was used to assign points based on each win or loss, and the colleges were ranked based on their Elo points. A useful consequence of the use of Elo points is that they can be used to estimate the frequency with which students, upon being admitted to two schools, will choose one over the other. Most recent preference ranking placed Stanford at the top, followed by MIT, Harvard, and Princeton.
Selectivity—the percentage of applicants admitted (the lower the percentage, the more selective the university) -- reflects both desirability (increasing the number of applicants), and competitiveness (how difficult it is to be accepted). For the second year in a row, Stanford has topped Harvard in 2014 as the most selective top level university in the nation, admitting the lowest percentage of its applicants (5.07%).
U.S. News & World Report college and university rankings
The magazine U.S. News & World Report's college and university rankings have been compiled since 1983. The college rankings were published in all years thereafter, except 1984. The ranking order of universities has been shown to have great effect; a one-rank improvement leads to a 0.9% increase in number of applicants.
The US News rankings are based upon data which it collects from each educational institution either from an annual survey or from the school's website. There has been some significant controversy surrounding this annual survey, including a letter from the Annapolis Group requesting that school presidents do not participate in the US News annual survey, which led to "a majority of the approximately 80 presidents at the meeting said that they did not intend to participate in the U.S. News reputational rankings in the future." There have been reports of universities misreporting data on surveys just to gain an upper hand in rankings. 
Also considered in the rankings formula are opinion surveys of university faculty and administrators outside the school.
According to the magazine U.S. News and World Report, the top thirty undergraduate programs of universities that offer PhD degrees (US News's National Universities category) are:
United States National Research Council Rankings
Faculty Scholarly Productivity rankings
The Top American Research Universities
The Center for Measuring University Performance has ranked American research universities in the Top American Research Universities since 2000. The methodology is based on data such as research publications, citations, recognitions and funding, as well as undergraduate quality such as SAT scores. The information used can be found in public–accessible materials, reducing possibilities for manipulation. The methodology is generally consistent from year to year and changes are explained in the publication along with references from other studies.
Washington Monthly College rankings
The Washington Monthly's "College Rankings", last published in 2011, began as a research report in 2005. Related rankings appeared in the September 2006 issue. It offers American university and college rankings based upon how well each enhances social mobility, fosters scientific and humanistic research and promotes an ethic of service.
TrendTopper MediaBuzz College Guide
TrendTopper MediaBuzz College Guide is an American-college guide based on what it calls "Internet brand equity" based on data collected from the Internet and global media sources. It ranks the Top 300 United States colleges and universities. The guide includes specialty and for profit schools including Art, Business, Design, Music, and Online Education. The TrendTopper MediaBuzz College Rankings are produced twice a year by the Global Language Monitor of Austin, Texas.
Time Magazine described internet brand equity as "a measure of who's talking about you online, based on Internet data, social media, blogs and the top 75,000 print and electronic media outlets.
GLM ranks the schools "according to their online presence -- or internet brand equity ... By focusing on online presence, the Monitor hopes to avoid the biases that characterize other rankings, which commonly rely on the opinions of university officials and college counselors rather than that of the greater public. " GLM believes the rankings provide an up-to-date perspective on which schools have the most popular brand. The resulting rankings gauge the relative value of the various institutions and how they change over time.
American Council of Trustees and Alumni
In 2009, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) began grading colleges and universities based on the strength of their general education requirements. In ACTA's annual What Will They Learn? report, colleges and universities are assigned a letter grade from "A" to "F" based on how many of seven subjects are required of students. The seven subjects are composition, mathematics, foreign language, science, economics, literature and American government or history. The 2011-2012 edition of What Will They Learn? graded 1,007 institutions. In the 2011-2012 edition, 19 schools received an "A" grade for requiring at least six of the subjects the study evaluated. In the 2012-2013 edition, the study evaluated 1,070 colleges and universities, with 21 schools earning an "A" grade. ACTA's rating system has been endorsed by Mel Elfin, founding editor of U.S. News & World Report’s rankings. New York Times higher education blogger Stanley Fish, while agreeing that universities ought to have a strong core curriculum, disagreed with some of the subjects ACTA includes in the core.
Other organizations that rank US institutions include the Fiske Guide to Colleges and College Prowler. Many specialized rankings are available in guidebooks, considering individual student interests, fields of study, geographical location, financial aid and affordability.
Among the rankings dealing with individual fields of study is the Philosophical Gourmet Report or "Leiter Report", a ranking of philosophy departments. This report has attracted criticism from different viewpoints. Notably, practitioners of continental philosophy, who perceive the Leiter report as unfair to their field, have compiled alternative rankings.
The Gourman Report, last published in 1996, ranked the quality of undergraduate majors and graduate programs.
Guide to Online Schools publishes online college rankings each year, using the criteria of recommendation rate, cost of tuition, retention rate, repayment rate, and accreditation. All schools on their 2013 online college rankings are regionally accredited.
The Princeton Review, annually publishes a book of Best Colleges. In 2011, this was titled The Best 373 Colleges. Phi Beta Kappa has also sought to establish chapters at the best schools, lately numbering 280.
In terms of collegiate sports programs, the annual NACDA Directors' Cup provides a measure of all-around collegiate athletic team achievement. Stanford has won the Division I Directors' cup for nineteen years in a row, and is poised to clinch its twentieth cup when the 2014 season ends.
In Argentina the National Commission for University Evaluation and Accreditation ranks higher education programs by evaluation and accreditation.
The latest ranking, the Ranking Universitário Folha (RUF) website (in Portuguese), was created by the newspaper Folha de São Paulo. This ranking is based on the combination of four indicators: education quality, research quality, market assessment and an innovation indicator.
In Chile the "Comisión Nacional de Acreditación" (National Commission of Accreditation of the Universities) manages evaluation and accreditation. It also ranks universities according to accreditation levels. Other commercial rankings are made by research magazines, including Qué Pasa and América Economía. Qué Pasa's ranking evaluates perception and quality following surveys of approximately 1,000 employers across the country. América Economía's ranking considers quality of students, quality of teachers, rating of professors by student, research productivity, internationalization, integration with the community, student life quality and inclusion of students from lower social strata.
- "A survey of higher education: The brains business". The Economist. 2005-09-08. Retrieved 8 June 2010.
- "The State of the Rankings". Inside Higher Ed. 2010-09-29. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- "AFP: Shanghai rankings rattle European universities". Google.com. 2010-08-11. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- "ARWU Ranking 2011 Methodology". ShanghaiRanking.com. Retrieved 12 August 2012.
- "ARWU Ranking". Retrieved 13 May 2012.
- J. Scott Armstrong and Tad Sperry (1994). "Business School Prestige: Research versus Teaching". Energy & Environment 18 (2): 13–43.
- "QS World University Rankings". Top Universities. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- Baty, Phil. "THE unveils broad, rigorous new rankings methodology". Times Higher Education. Retrieved 16 September 2010.
- Baty, Phil. "THE World Rankings set for release on 16 September". Times Higher Education. Retrieved 16 September 2010.
- Ariel Zirulnick. "New world university ranking puts Harvard back on top". The Christian Science Monitor.
- Indira Samarasekera and Carl Amrhein. "Top schools don't always get top marks". The Edmonton Journal. Archived from the original on 2010-10-03.
- Simon Beck and Adrian Morrow (16 September 2010). "Canada's universities make the grade globally". Toronto: The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2011-02-13.
- "Anchoring Effects on World University Rankings: Exploring Biases in Reputation Scores".
- "World University Rankings 2012-2013". Times Higher Education. Retrieved 30 November 2013.
- Sedghi, Ami (2011-03-09). "World's top 100 universities 2011: their reputations ranked by Times Higher Education". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 26 March 2011.
- "World University Reputation Rankings 2013-2014". Retrieved 13 May 2014.
- "What is the G-Factor?". Universitymetrics.com. Archived from the original on 2009-02-18. Retrieved 23 August 2009.
- "Global Universities Rankings". Retrieved 24 August 2009.[dead link]
- "globaluniversitiesranking.org". globaluniversitiesranking.org. Retrieved 6 June 2012.[dead link]
- "globaluniversitiesranking.org". globaluniversitiesranking.org. Retrieved 6 June 2012.[dead link]
- Baty, Phil (2010-02-04). "THE World University Rankings". Times Higher Education. Archived from the original on 2012-04-27. Retrieved 26 March 2011.
- "Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities".
- "by Subject Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities".
- "by Field Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities".
- "www.highimpactuniversities.com". www.highimpactuniversities.com. Retrieved 30 November 2013.
- "World Top 300 Universities Alumni Ranking". Chasecareer.net. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- "World Top 300 Universities Alumni Ranking". Chasecareer.net. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- van Raan, Ton; van Leeuwen, Thed; Visser, Martijn (2011-01-06). "Non-English papers decrease rankings". Nature 469 (34). doi:10.1038/469034a. Retrieved 6 November 2011.
- "Leiden Ranking". Universiteit Leiden Centre for Science and Technology Studies. Retrieved 19 March 2014.
- The Top 100 Global Universities – 2006 at the Wayback Machine (archived August 20, 2006).
- "Best International Schools". Newsweek. The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC. 14 September 2011. Retrieved 20 August 2012.
- "International Professional Rankings of Higher Education Institutions". MINES ParisTech. Retrieved 24 August 2009.
- "World's Best Universities". usnews.com.
- "Scopus.com". Scopus.com. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- "QS World University Rankings | QS Intelligence Unit". Iu.qs.com. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- "QS Asian University Rankings 2011". Topuniversities. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- "QS World University Rankings". Topuniversities. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- "University Rankings". Top Universities. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- "Asian University Rankings - QS Asian University Rankings vs. QS World University Rankings™". "The methodology differs somewhat from that used for the QS World University Rankings..."
- "QS Latin American University Rankings - 2011". Top Universities. 2012-12-19. Retrieved 30 November 2013.
- "SCImago Institutions Rankings". Scimagoir.com. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- "SIR World Report 2010" (PDF). Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- SCImago Research Group, SIR World Report 2010. Research Institution Ranking (Press).
- "Members. SCImago Research Group". Scimago.es. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- "U-Multirank". Retrieved 26 March 2011.
- "URAP – University Ranking by Academic Performance: General Information". Retrieved 2 June 2013.
- "世界大学科研竞争力排行榜2007". Wuhan University. Retrieved 24 August 2009.
- "QS Asian University Rankings". Top Universities. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- www.chinaeducenter.com. "Chinese University Alumni Association (CUAA) and China Education Center Ltd rankings". Chinaeducenter.com. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- Several prep schools release Hensachi rankings every year, such as Yoyogi Seminar and KawaiJuku.
- "危ない大学・消える大学 2012年版" (in Japanese). YELL books. 2011.
- "本当に強い大学【2010年版】総合ランキング･トップ100――東大5連覇、京大が阪大を逆転、関学躍進(1) | | 投資・経済・ビジネスの東洋経済オンライン". Toyokeizai.net. 2010-12-20. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- "30 Top Japanese Universities". Nigelward.com. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- "Ranking of Universities". Hec.gov.pk. Retrieved 8 June 2010.
- "LUMS, NUST and Aga Khan dominate HEC University Rankings 2013". The Express Tribune. 5 July 2013. Retrieved 26 August 2014.
- "HEC releases Pakistan's top universities lists". The Express Tribune. 23 February 2012. Retrieved 26 August 2014.
- Vanzi, Sol Jose. "Xavier University Cagayan beats UP in State Tests Average". Philippine Headline News Online.March 29, 2000.
- "UP is no. 1 based on PRC exams[dead link]". UP Newsletter, Vol. XXVIII, No. 09. September 1, 2007.
- "Korean Council for University Education". Eval.kcue.or.kr. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- "CORDIS: Science and Technology Indicators: Publications: Third European Report on Science and Technology Indicators 2003". Cordis.europa.eu. 2007-01-16. Retrieved 8 June 2010.
- The full report, containing almost 500 pages of statistics is available for download free from the EU website.
- "European Commission – Education & Training – News – Commission launches university ranking project". Ec.europa.eu. 2008-12-11. Retrieved 8 June 2010.
- ZEIT ONLINE GmbH, Hamburg, Germany. "University Ranking 2012/2013 for Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Austria" (in German). Ranking.zeit.de. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- "Bulgarian University Ranking System". Rsvu.mon.bg. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- Universitetslisten - study by CEPOS (Copenhagen).
- "CHE ExcellencRanking". Retrieved 6 September 2010.
- "Classifica Migliori Facoltà Universitarie – Censis 2010". Universando.com. 2010-09-19. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- "Macedonian HEIs Ranking by Academic Ranking of World Universities". Shanghairanking.com. 2012-02-16. Retrieved 30 November 2013.
- Ministry of Education and Science of Republic of Macedonia & Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) List [dead link]
- "Ad Astra ranking of Romanian universities". Retrieved 30 July 2009.
- "Рейтинг качества приема в российские государственные вузы–2010 | Все рейтинги | Лента новостей "РИА Новости"". Rian.ru. 2011-02-28. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- [dead link]
- [dead link]
- "Univer-rating.ru". Univer-rating.ru. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- ""Финанс." Лучшие финансовые вузы России". Finansmag.ru. 2010-10-31. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- Högskolekvalitet - study by Confederation of Swedish Enterprise.
- (Ukrainian) "Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine". Retrieved 28 September 2007.
- (Ukrainian) "200 Best Ukrainian Universities". Retrieved 10 August 2007.
- (Ukrainian) "University Ranking by Kyiv Student Council". Retrieved 8 February 2009.
- Shepherd, Jessica; Rogers, Simon (2011-05-17). "University guide 2012: download the Guardian tables". The Guardian (London).
- Macleans (2008). 2009 Student Surveys. Macleans.ca, on campus. Rogers Publishing Limited. Retrieved 9 May 2009.
- Dwyer, M. (November, 2006). "Our 16th Annual Rankings: We evaluated 47 Canadian universities, by the numbers and under the microscope." Macleans.ca. Retrieved 9 May 2009.
- "Maclean's releases its 20th university rankings". Vancouversun.com. 2010-11-10. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- Schmidt, S. (September 02, 2006). "Universities continue to shun Maclean's ranks." National Post. CanWest News Service. Retrieved 9 May 2009.
- Samarasekera, Indira (2 April 2007). "Rising Up Against Rankings". Inside Higher Ed.
- Estudio Comparativo de Universidades Mexicanas (ECUM) ECUM has been produced by the Dirección General de Evaluación Institucional (DGEI) at UNAM.
- "SNI". Conacyt.gob.mx. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- Error[dead link]
- "Cuerpos Académicos". Promep.sep.gob.mx. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- "Explorador de datos del ECUM (ExECUM)". Ecum.unam.mx. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- "Dirección General de Evaluación Institucional". Dgei.unam.mx. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- "''Desempeño de Universidades Mexicanas en la Función de Investigación: Estudio Comparativo''" (PDF). Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- "''Estudio comparativo de universidades mexicanas. Segundo reporte: desempeño en investigación y docencia''" (PDF). Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- "Class of 2017".
- "Record Yield of 73 percent".
- "Colleges Report 2013 Admission Yields".
- "The College App Jungle".
- "The New Gold Standard".
- "Top Fundraisers". Retrieved 13 May 2014.
- The Daily Beast (October 16, 2013). "The Daily Beast's Guide to the Best Colleges 2013". The Daily Beast. Retrieved February 15, 2014.
- "Center for College Affordability and Productivity". Centerforcollegeaffordability.org. 2012-05-10. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- "America's Top Colleges". Forbes. Retrieved 29 October 2011.
- Noer, Michael (3 August 2011). "America's Top Colleges (Methodology)". Forbes. Retrieved 29 October 2011.
- "America's Top Colleges". Forbes. Retrieved 13 May 2014.
- "Dream Colleges". Retrieved 13 May 2014.
- A Revealed Preference Ranking of U.S. Colleges and Universities. SSRN 601105.
- "2009–2010 College Rankings: National Universities". Retrieved 17 July 2010.
- "New College Rankings". Retrieved 17 July 2010.
- "Parchment Rankings". Retrieved 13 May 2014.
- "Stanford edges out Harvard on admissions". Retrieved 13 May 2014.
- Luca, Michael; Smith, Jonathan (27 September 2011). "Salience in Quality Disclosure: Evidence from the U.S. News College Rankings". Leadership and Management. Retrieved 29 September 2011.
- Jaschik, Scott. "More Momentum Against 'U.S. News'". Inside Higher Ed.
- "Misreporting SAT scores". Ed week. 2000.
- "America's Best Colleges". U.S. News and World Report. 2007.
- "report". Nap.edu. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- "Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs". Sites.nationalacademies.org. Retrieved 8 June 2010.
- "FSP Index Top Performing Schools". Academic Analytics, LLC. 2008-08-22. Archived from the original on 2008-08-22. Retrieved 28 September 2009.
- "The Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index, a means of assessing doctoral programs". Office of the President of the University of Arizona.[dead link]
- "The Top American Research Universities". The Center for Measuring University Performance. Retrieved 23 August 2009.
- Washington Monthly Online. "The Washington Monthly College Rankings". Washingtonmonthly.com. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- Washington Monthly Online. "The Washington Monthly's Annual College Guide". Washingtonmonthly.com. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- "The Most Buzzed-About University?". Newsfeed.time.com. 2011-01-05. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- Serjeant, Jill (30 December 2010). "Harvard, Yale Beaten". Reuters.com. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- Wienerbronner, Danielle (10 January 2011). "The Most Buzz Worthy Schools". Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- ACTA. "What Will They Learn?". Retrieved 14 September 2010.
- "ACTA Gives College Highest Possible Academic Ranking". Thomas Aquinas College. September 1, 2011. Retrieved May 23, 2012.
- McGurn, William (November 1, 2011). "What's Your Kid Getting From College?". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 9 April 2012.
- Czupor, Z.J. (2012-10-11). "National study ranks Colorado Christian in top 2% of colleges". Denver Post. Retrieved 8 January 2014.
- Kuczynskibrown, Alex (2012-10-10). "History Literacy Failing Among American Students, Study Faults Colleges Lack Of Core Subject Requirements". Huffington Post. Retrieved 11 January 2013.
- Daniel L. Bennett (19 August 2009). "What Will They Learn?". Center for College Affordability and Productivity. Retrieved 9 February 2010.
- Stanley Fish (24 August 2009). "What Should Colleges Teach?". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 February 2010.
- Founded by Brian Leiter then of the University of Texas at Austin, now[update] University of Chicago
- "Harvard Number One University in Eyes of Public". Gallup.com. 2003-08-26. Retrieved 8 June 2010.
- "2013 Online College Rankings". Guide To Online Schools. Retrieved 22 January 2013.
- "Kirkland publisher ranks WGU as top online school". The Seattle Times. Retrieved 22 January 2013.
- "Phi Beta Kappa Society :: Phi Beta Kappa Society". Pbk.org. 2012-05-16. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- "2013 Directors' Cup". Retrieved 13 May 2014.
- "Ratings". Hobsons Course Finder.
- "Australian University Rankings". Australian Education Network.
- National Commission for University Evaluation and Accreditation[dead link]
- "Cnachile.cl". Cnachile.cl. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- [dead link]
- "Las Mejores Universidades de Chile - Ránking 2010 - AméricaEconomía". Rankings.americaeconomia.com. Retrieved 6 June 2012.
- EUA Report on University Rankings 2013
- The 2012 Ranking of Italian Universities
- Institute for Higher Education Policy Ranking Systems Clearinghouse
- University of Illinois Library – College and University Rankings
- The Ranking Forum of Swiss Universities
- College Rankings Reformed: The Case for a New Order in Higher Education
- Interactive maps comparing the ARWU, Times Higher Education and QS World University Rankings
- Jambor, Paul Z. 'The Changing Dynamics of PhDs and the Future of Higher Educational Development in Asia and the Rest of the World' Department of Education – The United States of America: Educational Resources Information Center, September 26, 2009
This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia. A portion of the proceeds from advertising on Digplanet goes to supporting Wikipedia.