After contacting several institutes and recruiters around the world, Youth Inc brings its annual rankings of the top 100 universities worldwide
Picking the right college in India itself seems like a daunting task, so imagine how much more strenuous, the task of finding the right college among thousands from around the world can be. Keeping this in mind, we took it upon us to give our readers an overview of the best colleges to pick from.
Welcome to the annual Youth Incorporated, Education Times and Rediff.com Global University Rankings 2017. In our annual rankings of the best universities from around the world, our research has been extensive and spanned several months while we sorted through volumes of raw data and brought out a complete 360o analysis that is both practical and useful in the selection process for students looking to study abroad.
The Global University ranking issue is a much-awaited special brought out by Youth Incorporated for the benefit of students to help them make informed decisions when picking a foreign university. We conducted expansive research, contacted over 1900 institutes and over 9000 recruiters from around the world to collect the much-needed information which helped us evaluate the quality of education imparted to students as well as the overall facilities offered.
To give our readers a wider perspective and true 360o analysis, we also took into consideration responses from students who are currently studying abroad at the universities mentioned in the rankings. We also got official responses from administrative bodies. To give our global universities ranking an edge over other rating platforms, we spoke to alumni to get their take on their experiences at their respective universities. In addition, we also spoke to close to 10,000 recruiters that have recruited students who have graduated from the universities mentioned in the lists.
Once all the data was in, we began breaking down the information with an emphasis placed on the most important factors which students consider when considering and enrolling in institutes. We took into account factors like value for money, student and recruiter satisfaction, infrastructure and facilities, teaching methodologies and much more were considered while ranking the institutes.
This meticulous method was employed by us to bring out the rankings of the top 100 universities worldwide. We were also able to provide rankings based on regional distribution and streams of study. To give the readers a holistic view of how a particular institute has fared over the years, the ranking for this year was placed against our previously conducted annual rankings. We hope our in-depth survey will guide students in making the right choice yet again!
Top 100 Universities
How the institutes have fared compared to previous years
Placing the 2017 top rankings, against those we conducted in the previous years, a comparison of the performance over the years is clearly visible. Harvard University has retained its pole position at the top of the rankings with a perfect score that it managed to attain in the previous years as well. Stanford University ranks second with a near perfect score. However this year, University of Pennsylvania has surprised us by jumping up one space from its 4th rank last year and moving up to the 3rd rank.
Princeton University and Yale University can be seen as new entrants in the top 10 this year which were otherwise ranked 11 and rank 12 respectively in the previous years. Columbia University has again shown progress by jumping one spot to the 4th rank this year. Massachusetts Institute of Technology has shown a drop in the performances compared to previous years by ranking 5th this year as compared to the 3rd rank it attained last year. Another disappointing aspect was to see the University of Oxford to not make it to the top 10 of the 2017 rankings list which in the past few years always made it to the spot!
The top 10 continues to be dominated by American institutes alone. Among the Asian universities, University of Tokyo made it to the top 20 with rank 18 but has shown a drop of three spaces compared to its last year rank 15 last year. IIT Bombay has jumped up three spaces with an impressive rank 17 this year. IIT Delhi which was rank 24 last year has shown 5 space drop to rank 29 this year.
The India Story
The 2017 Global University Rankings have reflected progress in the performance of 3 Indian institutes. The four institutes that have always appeared in our rankings are still the same, and we haven’t seen any new colleges rising up to the top 100. IIT Bombay has managed to crack into the top 20 of the world in 2017. It has fared very well, jumping up three spaces from its earlier 20th rank. IIT Delhi ranks 29th this year which is four spaces drop considering that it was 25th last year. IIT Kanpur has shown remarkable growth jumping from 76th rank to the 64th rank this year. This twelve spaces jump is a reflection of considerable progress and we know to see it rising with every year! University of Delhi has also managed to jump one space up from the 80th rank last year to the 79th one this year!
BEST REGIONAL UNIVERSITIES 2017
Ranking Analysis
The teaching faculty at my institution are very receptive to discussions, questions and new ideas
65 percent of students polled from our top 100 universities agreed that their teaching faculty was open to discussions, questions and new ideas. This is one of the best indicators of a good educational institute, so it is clear that the best institutes encourage interaction between the students and faculty.
The programmes taught in my institute and innovative and include company visits.
70 per cent of students at the top 100 institutes agreed that the programmes that they were taught were innovative. Education is constantly evolving, and the best institutes update their curricula regularly to keep in touch with the times.
My classmates enhance my learning experience by contributing to class discussions.
85 per cent of students polled felt that their learning experience was greatly enhanced by their peers’ contributions. The best institutes competitively select the best students, and learning at these top 100 is clearly enhanced by the quality of classroom discussions.
There is sufficient gender diversity in my class
40 per cent of students polled felt that the gender diversity in their classes was insufficient. These top institutes need to do more to encourage women to take up science and business related fields so encourage gender equality in society.
There is sufficient international diversity in my class.
80 per cent of students polled felt that the international diversity in their classes was sufficient. International diversity is a strong factor that attracts students from all over the world to study at these top institutes. In recent years, the numbers of scholarships offered to international students have been reduced and this trend needs to be checked to maintain a diverse classroom.
I feel that my institution provides value for the money I paid.
60 per cent of students polled felt that the institutes they were at did not provide value for money. The top 100 institutes in our rankings list are the most expensive to study at the world. With the economic crisis affecting most of the West and fluctuations in the Asian markets, it has become more difficult for graduates to find jobs. The institutes need to work harder to build up their career services and internship opportunities for students.
Ranking Methodology
We chose institutes across the world after having discussions with thousands of students, recruiters and faculty. Youth Inc’s Research Unit (YRU) also studied domestic rankings in various countries to find the best institutes.
We sent survey links to 1950 institutes and provided them with unique codes so that they could submit their responses online. Institutes were also provided links to online surveys where their current students were asked to rate specific statements that pertained to the factors considered in this ranking. Institutes also sent separate survey links to their recruiters who in turn rated the institute’s career management cell as well as student employability.
Over 9000 additional recruiters were sent emails with a survey link. The recruiter list was prepared from the responses of the institutes and also included internationally well-known recruiters.
Below are the factors we considered and the overall weightage assigned to them:
Careers, Recruitment and Industry viability of students – 55%
Diversity and International Outlook – 10%
Innovation – 10%
Campus, Extracurricular activities, Exchange programmes – 15%
Money, Student Satisfaction – 10%
Careers, Recruitment and Industry viability of students – 55%
This category significantly impacts the overall score of an institute since it is the most weighted factor. One of the most important criterions to select institutes is the student’s industry viability after graduation.
Recruiters were asked to list and rate the institutes that they were most likely to recruit from. They were asked the likelihood of recruiting again from the same institute and their satisfaction with the institute’s career cell. Recruiters rated students on various factors including analytical and problem solving skills, leadership potential, communication and interpersonal skills and so on.
Institutes, students and alumni were also asked about the availability and functioning of a career service cell on campus and how active such a service was. We also considered what percentage of students were actually placed, both domestically and internationally, through the institute’s career service cell. Students reported the availability and ease of obtaining internships.
Diversity and International Outlook – 10%
This category looks not only at diversity of faculty but also at diversity of students in class. The international outlook includes international students that are attracted and retained by the institute.
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 considered.
Institutes also reported the percentage of the faculty that were international, hold a doctorate degree and accredited with their own publishing material along with the gender diversity of the faculty.
Students and alumni were asked to rate the student and faculty diversity in their class.
Innovation – 10%
This category looks at the innovation used to construct and teach programmes and how faculty engage the students; an important factor in the overall perception of an institute.
We considered the different ways in which an institute constructs programmes. Institutes were asked to select from a list 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 made after surveying students across different campuses worldwide.
Students were asked to report how satisfied they are with faculty who use innovative ways to teach subjects.
Campus, Extracurricular activities, Exchange programmes – 15%
This category considers the support students receive on campus and the availability of extracurricular activities. The exchange programmes offered by the institute and how actively students are encouraged to opt for such programmes was also considered.
We asked the institutes to select the different types of assistance provided by the student office or a similar body on campus. Our initial list was selected after surveying students across different campuses worldwide.
Students and alumni reported if they were encouraged by the institute to participate in different extracurricular activities on campus.
Institutes were asked to report the percentage of students that opted for exchange programs. We also considered the exchange students present on the institute’s campus.
Money, Student Satisfaction – 10%
This category takes into account a critical part of college education today – finances. And more importantly, how satisfied a student is with the institute.
We considered students’ opinions on whether a particular institute was perceived as ‘value for money’. We also asked institutes to state the percentage of students who received some sort of funding from the institutes.
Students and alumni were asked to rate their institutes on various factors including attitude of staff and professors, location, course content and so on and institutes were asked to report the graduation rate of students enrolled and what percentage of students transfer out of the institution.
Scores
We calculated the standard deviation and standard scores (Z scores) so that we could combine and analyse the data with more accuracy and reliability. Below 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. The total scores were then sorted from highest to lowest. The institute with the highest score was ranked first.
| . | Institute | Cureent students | Alumni |
| Career Service | 3% | 1% | 1% |
| Diversity of Faculty | 3% | 1% | 1% |
| Diversity of Students | 3% | 1% | 1% |
| Innovation of Programs | 3% | 1% | 1% |
| Innovation in Teaching Methodologies | 3% | 1% | 1% |
| Campus Support | 3% | 1% | 1% |
| Extracurricular Activities | 3% | 1% | 1% |
| Exchange Programs | 3% | 1% | 1% |
| Value for Money | 3% | 1% | 1% |
| Student Satisfaction | 3% | 1% | 1% |
| 30% | 10% | 10% |
| Recruiters | |
| Recall of institute where to recruit from | 20% |
| Likelihood of recruiting from same institute again | 20% |
| Satisfaction with institute career cell | 10% |
| 50% |
Not just numbers
After we calculated the total computed scores for the institutes, we subjectively analyzed 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. This happened in the case of 7 institutes.
Missing Data
In a few rare occasions, some institutes did not supply data for all the questions in the survey. When data was missing which affected factors which were low-weighted such as value for money or campus support, we entered an estimate between the average and the lowest value reported by the institute.
By following such a practice we did not excessively penalise an institution with a ‘zero’ for data that it could not provide. At the same time, the institute was not rewarded.
Exclusion of Institutes
We required that at least 20% of the class size (of any specific institute) answer the student survey. Hence, some institutes were disqualified from our ranking because of rack of responses to the student and/or alumni survey.
Institutes that did not fill out the survey reports in time
Out of 1950 institutes that were contacted, 15% of the institutes did not complete the survey on time or did not respond. We used publicly available information on some of these institutes to include them in our ranking. We also contacted current students and recruiters of these institutes and compared the data we received with the data from institutes that participated in our survey.
