The THES-QS rankings can be viewed as a collection of complex interweaving narratives. There is the rise of
The most interesting narrative is that of British universities -- Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial and University Colleges, London -- steadily coming closer to Harvard and pulling ahead of Princeton, Caltech and the rest.
This particular narrative requires rather more suspension of disbelief than most. By all accounts, including the
This year methodological changes mean that the differences between
Physical sciencesDocuments 11,514
Using the FTE faculty figure of 3,765 provided by QS on their website, we have 83 citations per faculty.
I noticed that a number of authors gave their affiliation as “
Now for Harvard. Searching the Scopus database reveals the following totals of papers and citations for “
HARVARD ("Harvard University") 2002-2006
I suspect that most observers would consider Cambridge's superiority to Harvard in number of publications and citations indicative more of the bias of the database than anything else.
If we use QS’s faculty headcount figure for Harvard of 3,389 and assume that 8 per cent of these are part-timers with a quarter-time teaching load then we have 3,167 FTE faculty. This would give us 84 citations per faculty, slightly better than
The problem is, though , that QS give Harvard a score of 96 for citations per faculty and
The may be some other explanation . If so , then I would be glad to hear it.If this is what happened then it would be interesting to know whether there was simply another run of the mill error with that ubiquitous junior staff member using two different faculty figures to calculate the two components or a cynical ploy to prevent Cambridge moving into the lead too early.