Introduction: Two Giants and Two Different Definitions of Success
In the realm of world university rankings, Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) and Times Higher Education (THE) are considered the gold standards. However, the criteria these two giants use to define a university as “successful” and their methodological DNAs are fundamentally different. For a university, rising in both lists means more than just collecting data; it involves managing two different management philosophies simultaneously.
Methodological DNA: Perception or Reality?
The most fundamental difference between these two ranking bodies lies in how they collect and weight data.
- QS: Focused on Reputation and Global Visibility
QS allocates a massive 45% of its methodology to reputation data collected through “surveys”. This is a measure of how your university is “perceived” by other academics and employers worldwide. If your university has a very strong research infrastructure but is not active in global networks, it is quite difficult to find its deserved place in the QS lists.
- THE: A Discipline of Data and Research Quality
THE adopts a much more technical and data-driven approach. It bases the majority of its weighting on tangible indicators such as citation quality, research environment and industry income. For THE, a university is defined by how much knowledge it produces, how much that knowledge resonates in the world and how transparently those processes are reported.
Strategic Crossroads: How to Prepare?
The preparation processes to be followed for both rankings require exercising different institutional muscles:
“Reputation Engineering” for QS
A university wishing to rise in QS must follow an outward-looking strategy. Developing joint projects with global academic partners, strengthening employer networks and increasing the university’s digital visibility are the keys to this process. Success here is directly proportional to “how much the world knows how good you are”.
“Data and Governance Discipline” for THE
Success on the THE side begins with inward-looking discipline. This requires increasing the quality of publications, monitoring citation performance and most importantly; reporting thousands of data points in accordance with international standards, without error and with evidence. THE processes mandate the establishment of a professional data governance mechanism within the university.
Scenarios for Universities in Turkey
For institutions in the Turkish higher education ecosystem, we generally encounter two typical scenarios:
- The Visibility Gap: Well-established universities with very strong academic outputs but whose names are not mentioned in global surveys. For these institutions, “Reputation Management” strategies focused on QS should be prioritised.
- Data Fragmentation: Dynamic universities that operate at international standards but cannot report these activities using the language of ranking bodies (mapping). For these institutions, “Data Inventory and Reporting Discipline” at THE and GreenMetric standards is an urgent need.
Conclusion: Integrated Success with the TUAS Vision
Which target is the right one for your university? The answer lies in the institution’s vision, current academic capacity and budget priorities. At TUAS, our goal is not just to get universities into these lists, but to use these two different methodologies as management tools to initiate a process of institutional maturation.
