QS World University Rankings cover 800 universities around the world, and by definition deal only with top-performing institutions. The overall number of ranking BRICS universities this year (83) is roughly 10% of the total institutions featured, compared with 2009, when 44 institutions represented almost 7% of the total.
Among the BRICS countries, China remains dominant in the university rankings. This reflects points made by Martin Carnoy, a professor of education at Stanford University, about an increasing trend for differentiation amongst BRICS institutions. According to Carnoy, the gap between the elite universities, which are often public, and the mass institutions, which are often private, is growing. BRICS governments are putting more money into elite institutions, and this is particularly true in China, where top institutions receive twice as much funding per pupil.
Universities in India get their best scores this year in the area of employer reputation – again, assessed by a major global survey, in which graduate employers identify the universities they believe produce the best graduates.
India’s strongest score here goes to the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IITB), which ranks 65th in the world for employer reputation. All except one of the Indian universities included in the ranks is within the world’s top 400 on this indicator. However, seven of the 11 ranking institutions have deteriorated in this measure, a continuation of the previous year when eight of the 11 ranking institutions saw lower employer reputation compared to 2011.
In a paper published in June, Stanford’s Carnoy said there was no evidence that the gap between elite and mass institutions was increasing in India, and the QS rankings appear to correlate with this. India’s highest ranking institution (Indian Institute of Technology Delhi) does not appear in the top 10 BRICS universities, and the number of ranking Indian institutions has decreased by one since 2009 – while all the other BRICS countries have increased their representation.
A recent analysis of the rankings by The Economic Times into why the Indian Institutes of Technology failed to make it into the top 200 this year suggests the IITs’ own failure to supply sufficient information may be partly to blame. Chairman of Manipal Global Education, T.V. Mohandas Pai, said: “IITs are much better than what the rankings suggest, but they are too arrogant to participate and give data."
Universities in India have shown improvement in terms of citations per faculty. But like Brazil and Russia, their scores for international faculty and students have been getting steadily worse since 2011.
First copy of “QS BRICS 2014 University Rankings” presented to PM, Shri Narendra Modi by Smt.Smriti Irani pic.twitter.com/G8b1sOPr0h
— PIB India (@PIB_India) June 17, 2014
Among the BRICS countries, China remains dominant in the university rankings. This reflects points made by Martin Carnoy, a professor of education at Stanford University, about an increasing trend for differentiation amongst BRICS institutions. According to Carnoy, the gap between the elite universities, which are often public, and the mass institutions, which are often private, is growing. BRICS governments are putting more money into elite institutions, and this is particularly true in China, where top institutions receive twice as much funding per pupil.
Universities in India get their best scores this year in the area of employer reputation – again, assessed by a major global survey, in which graduate employers identify the universities they believe produce the best graduates.
India’s strongest score here goes to the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IITB), which ranks 65th in the world for employer reputation. All except one of the Indian universities included in the ranks is within the world’s top 400 on this indicator. However, seven of the 11 ranking institutions have deteriorated in this measure, a continuation of the previous year when eight of the 11 ranking institutions saw lower employer reputation compared to 2011.
In a paper published in June, Stanford’s Carnoy said there was no evidence that the gap between elite and mass institutions was increasing in India, and the QS rankings appear to correlate with this. India’s highest ranking institution (Indian Institute of Technology Delhi) does not appear in the top 10 BRICS universities, and the number of ranking Indian institutions has decreased by one since 2009 – while all the other BRICS countries have increased their representation.
A recent analysis of the rankings by The Economic Times into why the Indian Institutes of Technology failed to make it into the top 200 this year suggests the IITs’ own failure to supply sufficient information may be partly to blame. Chairman of Manipal Global Education, T.V. Mohandas Pai, said: “IITs are much better than what the rankings suggest, but they are too arrogant to participate and give data."
Universities in India have shown improvement in terms of citations per faculty. But like Brazil and Russia, their scores for international faculty and students have been getting steadily worse since 2011.
Top 10 BRICS
Universities in the QS World University Rankings
|
|||
2013 Rankings
|
2009 Rankings
|
||
Peking University
|
46
|
Tsinghua University
|
49=
|
Tsinghua University
|
48
|
Peking University
|
52=
|
Fudan University
|
88
|
Lomonosov Moscow
State University
|
101=
|
Lomonosov Moscow
State University
|
120
|
Fudan University
|
103=
|
Shanghai Jiao Tong
University
|
123
|
University of Cape
Town
|
146=
|
Universidade de São
Paulo (USP)
|
127
|
Shanghai Jiao Tong
University
|
153
|
University of Cape
Town
|
145=
|
University of
Science and Technology of China
|
154
|
Zhejiang University
|
165
|
Indian Institute of
Technology Bombay (IITB)
|
163
|
University of
Science and Technology of China
|
174
|
Saint-Petersburg
State University
|
168=
|
Nanjing University
|
175=
|
Nanjing University
|
168=
|
