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 Melbourne as an example, a summary of rankings from published sources placed University of Melbourne in tier 1 within Australia.  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)

After the basic analysis, information from local sources was evaluated. The rule applied was this -- to be classified as a tier 1 or 2 University, it must meet all of these four criteria:

(i)   most subjects are taught by the University’s lecturers and  

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

(iii) the degree earned in the distance learning programme is the same as the one conferred at the University's main campus.  (For example, someone graduating from the University's distance learning programme does not earn a different degree -- i.e. one which says, "University of ABC -- Distance Learning Course" or "University of ABC -- External Programme") and

(iv)  the course is not a pure correspondence programme.  It should not be possible to complete the programme without regular feedback and assistance from local or main-campus teaching staff either through direct learning or through e-learning.

III. Sources of Information

(A) Published Sources:

(1) UK Programs:

(i) The Times “Good Universities Guide”,

(ii) The Sunday Times “University Guide”,

(2) Australia Programs:

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

(ii) Asia Week “Australia University Rankings”,

(iii) Financial Times “Australia University Rankings”.

(3) US programs:

(i) College University Almanac 2004,

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

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

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

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

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

(4) Other programs (Singapore, France):

(i) Asia Week “Australia University Rankings” and

(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.

IV. 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.