Global University Rankings 2011

Rank	Institution	Country
1	Yale University	USA
2	Cornell University	USA
3	McGill University	Canada
4	London School of Economics	UK
5	National University of Singapore	Singapore
6	Indian Institute of Technology Mumbai	India
7	Johns Hopkins University	USA
8	Hong Kong University of Science & Technology	Hong Kong
9	Universitat Heidelberg	Germany
10	University of Helsinki	Finland

Recruiter Satisfaction

Rank	Institution	Country
1	Harvard University	USA
2	Standford University	USA
3	London School of Economics	UK
4	Carnegie Mellon University	USA
5	Brown University	USA
6	Indian Institute of Technology Mumbai	India
7	University of Oxford	UK
8	Hong Kong University of Science & Technology	Hong Kong
9	University of Virginia	USA
10	Dartmouth College	USA

Career Services

Rank	Institution	Country
1	Stanford University	USA
2	Harvard University	USA
3	Columbia University	USA
4	University of Pennsylvania	USA
5	Carnegie Mellon University	USA
6	Indian Institute of Technology Mumbai	India
7	Ecole Normale Superieure	France
8	Ludwig-Maximillians-Universitat Munchen	Germany
9	University of California LA	USA
10	National University of Singapore	Singapore

Student Satisfaction

Rank	Institution	Country
1	Harvard University	USA
2	Stanford University	USA
3	University of Pennsylvania	USA
4	Columbia University	USA
5	Imperial College London	UK
6	University of Oxford	UK
7	University of Cambridge	UK
8	Ecole Normale Superieure	France
9	London School of Economics	UK
10	University of California LA	USA

Campus Facilities

Rank	Institution	Country
1	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	USA
2	University of Oxford	UK
3	Cornell University	USA
4	Princeton University	USA
5	University of Cambridge	UK
6	University of Melbourne	Australia
7	Duke Unviersity	USA
8	Dartmouth College	USA
9	University of Texas at Austin	USA
10	University of Warwick	UK

Innovation in Teaching Methodologies

Rank	Institution	Country
1	Harvard University	USA
2	Brown University	USA
3	London School of Economics	UK
4	Stanford University	USA
5	Ecole Normale Superieure	France
6	Dartmouth College	USA
7	Johns Hopkins University	USA
8	Columbia University	USA
9	Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat Munchen	Germany
10	IE University	Spain

Ranking Methodology

How did we choose institutes?
Youth Inc’s Research Unit (YRU) chose 500 institutes across the world after having discussions with students, recruiters and faculty. We also studied domestic rankings in various countries to find the best institutes.
All institutes were sent identical surveys. We contacted current students as well as local and international recruiters and gathered specific information about the institutes.

Factors considered
1. Recruiter Perception – Identical surveys were sent to recruiters worldwide. The recruiters were asked Methodology Ranking to rate the institutes that they were most likely to recruit from.

2. Diversity of Students – The institutes were asked to report the total number of students on campus and what percentage of the students were international and speak two or more languages. Gender diversity of the students was also considered.

3. Diversity of Faculty – The institutes were asked to report the total number of faculty on campus and what percentage of the faculty was international, held doctorate degrees and were accredited with their own publishing material. Gender diversity of faculty was also considered.

4. Innovation of Programmes – We considered the different ways used to construct degree programmes.

5. Innovation in Teaching Methodologies – Institutes were asked to select different teaching methodologies that we considered innovative. Some of these included company visits, dual or multiple majors and course collaborations between different departments at the institute. Our list was selected after surveying students across different campuses worldwide.

6. Value for Money – We considered students opinions on whether a particular school was perceived as ‘value for money’. We also asked institutes for the percentage of students who received some sort of funding from the institutes.

7. Campus Support – We asked the institutes and the students to select the different types of assistance provided by the student office or a similar body on campus. Our list was selected after surveying students across different campuses worldwide.

8. Career Service – We asked the institutes and students about the availability and functioning of a career service cell and how active such a service was for the students. We also considered what percentage of students were actually placed through the institute’s career service cell.

9. Extracurricular Activities on Campus – We asked students if they were encouraged by the school to participate in different extracurricular activities on campus. We also asked the institutes to select specific extracurricular activities that they offer on campus.

10. Exchange Programmes – Institutes were asked to report the percentage of students that opted for exchange programmes. We also considered the exchange students present on the institute’s campus.

11. Student Satisfaction – Students were asked to rate their institutes on various factors including attitude of staff and professors, location, course content and so on. Institutes were also asked to report the graduation rate of students enrolled in the first year.

Actual methodology
We sent invitations to 500 institutes. Institutes were provided a password using which they could send us their completed survey online. They were asked to answer questions relating to full time faculty, career service, undergraduate student and programme information and all the factors listed above.
We contacted current students of the institutes and asked them to rate specific statements which were pertaining to the factors we considered in this ranking.
Over 5000 recruiters were sent emails with a survey. The recruiter list was prepared from the responses of the institutes and also included internationally well-known recruiters. The recruiters were asked to enlist institutes that they were likely to recruit from.
The table above is a summary of the factors and the weightage given to each factor when we ranked the institutes. Each factor was made up of a set of questions. The total percentage attributed to that factor was based on the average score of the responses multiplied by the assigned weightage. We then totalled the score from all factors and sorted the scores from highest to lowest. The institute with the highest score was ranked first.

Not just numbers!
After we received the total computed scores for the institutes, we subjectively analysed the data provided by the institutes, current students and recruiters. If we found discrepancies in the satisfaction scores and the subjective descriptions, we omitted the data.

Institutes that did not fill out the survey reports in time
Out of 500 institutes that were contacted, 49 institutes did not complete the survey on time or did not respond. We used publicly available information on these institutes to include them in our ranking. We also contacted current students and recruiters of these institutes and compared the data we compiled with the data provided by the institutes that participated in our survey.

Information reported by recruiters

Recall of institute where to recruit from 20%

Likelihood of recruiting from same institute again 20%

Satisfaction with institute career cell 10%

	Information reported by the school	Information reported by current students
Diversity of Students	3%	2%
Diversity of Faculty	3%	2%
Innovation of Programs	3%	2%
Innovation in Teaching	3%	2%
Methodologies	3%	2%
Value for Money	3%	2%
Campus Support	3%	2%
Career Service	3%	2%
Extracurricular Activities	3%	2%
on Campus	3%	2%
Exchange Programs	3%	2%
Student Satisfaction	3%	2%
Total	30%	20%

Volume 1 Issue 6