I. Step One (Basic Analysis)

The basic methodology is simply a summary of the University rankings taken from the sources listed below in "(A) Published Sources".  

This summary places the University in one of four tiers within its home country.

Tier 1 is the highest and tier 4 the lowest.

Taking University of Chicago as an example, a summary of rankings from published sources placed University of Chicago in tier 1 within the US.  It is also assumed to be in tier 1 worldwide, as per the "key assumption".

Key assumption: The quality of University education is similar in the US, UK, Australia, France, Switzerland and Singapore.  (These are home countries for the Universities ranked.)

II. Step Two (Fine Tuning)

1) After the basic analysis, information from local sources was evaluated. The rule applied was this: A University was downgraded one tier if it had any two of these four undesirable characteristics:

(i) a first degree is not required for admission to the program,

(ii) it is a mini-program offering fewer than 10 subjects,

(iii) most subjects are not taught by the University’s lecturers,

(iv) assessment is primarily by take-home assignments and not invigilated exams.

2) A second, less stringent screening was applied only to tier 1 and 2 Universities. The rule is this: to be classified as a tier 1 or 2 University, it must meet two of the following three criteria:

(i) An average GPA (grade point average) for admitted students of 3.2 or higher (out of 4.0),

(ii) An average GMAT for admitted students of 550 or higher and

(iii) At least one of these top business accreditations: AACSB or EQUIS.

For these three criteria, the necessary data was available for US Universities, most Australian Universities and some UK Universities. If (i) GPA, (ii) GMAT and (iii) accreditation data was not available, the University was not considered for downgrading.  This probably resulted in a slight bias in favour of UK Universities.

In actual practice, nearly all tier 1 and 2 Universities passed this screening.

III. An Example of the Ranking Procedure

1) The basic analysis placed the University of London (UOL) in the first-tier among UK Universities.

As per the key assumption, it is ranked equivalent to first-tier Universities in other countries -- such as University of Melbourne (Aus), University of Chicago (US), Insead (France) and National University of Singapore.

2) In step 2, the University of London (UOL) was downgraded because it had two of four undesirable characteristics:

(i) it is classified as a "mini-MBA" because only 7 subjects are needed to complete the programme and

(ii) it is taught primarily by local lecturers and not UOL lecturers.

3)  UOL was moved from Tier 1 to Tier 2.

4) University of London (UOL) was not affected by the final screening for GMAT, GPA and AACSB accreditation. Therefore, it remained in Tier 2.

(IV) Sources of Information

(A) Published Sources:

(1) UK Programs:

(i) The Times “Good Universities Guide”,

(ii) The Sunday Times “University Guide”,

(iii) Thomson – Peterson “MBA Programs” and

(iv) The Economist Intelligence Unit "Which MBA?".  

(2) Australia Programs:

(i) Federal Committee for Quality Assurance in Higher Education,

(ii) Asia Week “Australia University Rankings”,

(iii) Economist Intelligence Unit “World MBA rankings” and

(iv) Financial Times “Australia University Rankings”.

(3) US programs:

(i) College University Almanac 2004,

(ii) The Princeton Review “Complete Book of Colleges 2004”,

(iii) Thomson – Peterson “MBA Programs 2004”,

(iv) US News, “America’s Best Colleges, 2004 edition”,

(v)  The Yale Daily News "Insiders Guide to the Colleges, 2004, 30th edition”,

(vi)  The Kaplan "Guide to Colleges, 2004” and

(vii)  The Fiske "Guide to Colleges, 2004”.

(4) Other programs (Singapore, France):

(i) Economist Intelligence Unit “World MBA rankings”,

(ii) Asia Week “Australia University Rankings” and

(iii) Thomson – Peterson “MBA Programs”.

(B) Local Sources:

This includes information from the local agents representing the degree programs.  The information was obtained from phone or in-person interviews.  It was also obtained from brochures and pamphlets published and distributed by the local agents.

(V) Statistical Note

Consensus approach: A consensus approach is used to produce this "mega-ranking".  A mega-ranking is one which relies on summarizing the research done by others.

It is sensitive to the criteria chosen by the secondary sources to define academic quality.  For example, use of accreditation standards which define quality in terms of excellence in academic research will bias the definition of "quality" in this direction. 

A limitation of this study is that important variables, such as social aspects of the campus, have been largely neglected in the sources used to develop this mega-ranking.  As such it offers only a partial picture of the educational experience for on-campus study at the University.

Gross rankings: The initial approach assigned a score to each University.  This allowed for the ranking of ALL Universities relative to one another.

It was later decided that such fine-tuning was not helpful.  In fact, it was incorrect to rank one University superior to another because it scored 0.5 points higher.  Such small differences typically indicate nothing about the relative quality of Universities.

The approach ultimately taken was to group the Universities into four broad categories -- tiers 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Within each tier, there is no attempt to differentiate, and the Universities are ranked in alphabetical order.

Work-in-Progress:  This mega-ranking should be viewed as a "work in progress".  Additional variables (secondary sources) and additional observations (Universities) will continue to be added, deleted and updated.

Prospective students are advised to independently verify the relative quality of the Universities ranked here. 

One may do this by researching the "Sources of Information" listed directly above this Statistical Note.

Local Agent: The rankings do not consider the quality of the local agent. This is because the University solely determines the recognition and standing of the degree.

Many advertisements for degree programs cite approval by the Ministry of Education (MOE).  This can be misleading. The MOE approves local agents and their facilities.  It does not accredit, approve or disapprove either foreign or local Universities offering degree courses in Singapore.

Input:  Feedback has been considered and continues to be considered from a wide variety of academic and non-academic sources in the construction and development of these rankings. Continuing input is sought to develop an ever more useful scheme for University rankings.

Feedback is appreciated regarding additional data sources not included in the "Sources of Information" above.  It is also sought in the application of information from these sources to the Universities ranked.

Disclaimer:  There is no explicit or implied warranty or guarantee either expressed or statutory as to the quality of education which a student will receive as a result of attending one of the degree programs listed in these rankings.