Rank (Ph) Rank (Asia) Name of School
1 58 Ateneo de Manila University
2 78 University of the Philippines
3 101 University of Santo Tomas
4 106 De La Salle University
5 201 *Mindanao State University
5 201 Xavier University
5 201 Polytechnic University of the Philippines
5 201 Silliman University
5 201 Father Saturnino Urios College
5 201 Mapua Institute of Technology
5 201 *Ateneo de Davao University
5 201 Saint Louis University
5 201 Central Mindanao University
5 201 University of San Carlos
5 201 University of Southeastern Philippines
*Mindanao State University and Ateneo de Davao appeared twice on the rankings.
**The list was actually taken from the Top 200 Universities list of The QS World University Rankings which scored the school using the following methologies/criteria: ***Institution Inclusion, International reputation, Academic Reputation Index, Employer Reputation, Data Indicators, Standardization, Weightings and Aggregation,QS Classifications, and QS SAFE.
Meanwhile, here is another list from a website which did not say how it arrived with the rankings or where it was taken:
World Rank Name Country Rank
976 University of the
1686 De la Salle University Manila 2
2282 University of the
2339 Ateneo de Manila University 4
3552 Xavier University Ateneo de Cagayan 5
4056 University of the
4107 University of the
4112 University of the
4726 Mindanao State University Iligan Institute of Tech.. 10
4903 Mapua Institute of Technology 11
5744 Ateneo de Zamboanga University 12
5748 Colegio de
5953 Adventist International Institute of Advanced Stud.. 14
6569 Ateneo de Naga University 17
6673 Asian Institute of Management 19
6802 University of the
***The following methodologies were used in the rankings:
* Domestic Ranking Performance – the QS Intelligence Unit tracks a growing number of domestic rankings in an attempt to ensure prestigious universities are not excluded
* Survey Performance – respondents to the Academic and Employer Reputation Surveys are invited to suggest any institutions they feel may have been omitted
* Geographical Balancing – acknowledging that universities have different priorities and characteristics in different parts of the world, the balance of institutions from given countries and regions is periodically reviewed
* Direct Case Submission – from time to time institutions approach QS directly to request inclusion, QSIU evaluates each case on its merits drawing comparison against institutions already included in the ranking and, subject to certain pre-requisites and performance indicators being met is open to including additional institutions.
International reputation is an undeniable component of today's world class universities. How better to evaluate that than to assess the proportion of international students and faculty who are attracted to that institution. Representing 5% each in this evaluation, the international students score and international faculty score are calculated based on those proportions.
Academic Reputation Index
The Academic Reputation Index is the centrepiece of the QS World University Rankings® carrying a weighting of 40%. It is an approach to international university evaluation that QS pioneered in 2004 and is the component that attracts the greatest interest and scrutiny. In concert with the Employer Reputation Index it is the aspect which sets this ranking most clearly apart from any other.
The Employer Reputation component is unique amongst current international evaluations in taking into consideration the important component of employability. The majority of undergraduate students leave university in search of employment after their first degree, making the reputation of their university amongst employers a crucial consideration.
Standardization, Weightings and Aggregation
Designing a ranking on a single index - such as a rich list - is relatively straightforward. Compiling a multi-index ranking is a little more complex.
In combining the indices for the QS World University Rankings™ the following guiding principles have been followed.
* Fair and even application of weighting across the whole range for each indicator
* Intuitive and comparable scores for each of the six indicators
* Great strengths in particular broad subject fields should contribute to the overall position of an institution
Based very loosely on the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education in the US, but operated on a much simpler basis, these classifications take into account three key aspects of each university to assign their label.
* Size – based on the (full time equivalent) size of the degree-seeking student body. Where an FTE number is not provided or available, one will be estimated based on common characteristics of other institutions in the country or region in question
* Subject Range – four categories based on the institution’s provision of programs in the five broad faculty areas used in the university rankings. Due to radically different publication habits and patterns in medicine, an additional category is added based on whether the subject institution has a medical school
* Research Intensity – four levels of research activity evaluated based on the number of documents retrievable from Scopus in the five year period preceding the application of the classification. The thresholds required to reach the different levels are different dependent on the institutions pre-classification on aspects 1 and 2.
This represents an evaluation of the overall strength of the system based on the performance of all the institutions from that country meeting a certain qualifying standard. More precisely, the number of institutions ranked 500 or higher, in the given country, divided by the average position of those institutions.
Widening participation is one of the hottest issues on the higher education agenda today. The first component of delivering against that agenda, for any given country, is having sufficient places at universities of an internationally recognised standard. This indicator is calculated based on the number of places at top 500 universities from the subject country (specifically the total number of FTE students at the universities from that country featuring in the top 500 in the QS World University Rankings™) divided by an indicator of population size (specifically the square root of the population).
There is some international debate as to whether a country with limited funds ought to dilute their funds across many institutions in a system or concentrate funds with a view to building at least one "world class university". Whether by direct investment, or by riding the wave of domestic competition, the performance of a country's leading university is a credit to the system from whence it comes. This indicator takes the form of a normalized score based on the global performance of the leading university from the country in question.
Not all nations, or higher education institutions within nations have access to equal funds. The strength of the country's economy is a major factor but also cultural influences that may affect factors such as industrial funding or alumni donations play a role. This indicator recognizes two key factors, firstly the relative fiscal emphasis that the given government places on higher education and secondly, the impact or effectiveness of that investment - essentially recognising performance relative to investment. The indicator takes an indexed score (5 points for a university in the top 100, 4 points for 101-200, 3 points for 201-300, 2 for 301-400 and 1 for 401-500) and factors it against the GDP per capita for the country in question
Data courtesy of topuniversities.com