Under the directive of the Prime Minister the Higher Education Commission has developed the first ever ‘Ranking of Universities’ for Pakistan. Approved through a specialist Ranking Board constituted by the Chairman of the HEC, the ranking methodology has been developed by the HEC Quality Assurance Committee (QAC) through a transparent consultative process in which various leading international ranking practices and systems were analyzed. The ranking model was developed by the QAC through extensive stakeholder participation, tailoring the process according to the ground realities of the higher education sector in Pakistan.

 The primary purpose of the ranking exercise conducted by the Higher Education Commission is to share with the General Public comprehensive data on the key issues that determine the state of higher education in a particular institution. This information is being published to disseminate information on key indicators of higher education institutions in Pakistan to allow students, parents and all other stake holders to make informed decisions on higher education institutions. It also provides a transparent mechanism to universities on how they compare against their peers.

 The rankings have been presented in broad subject areas, to account for the evolution of universities in Pakistan towards specialization in certain disciplines. The differing modes of operation and features unique to universities in certain disciplines would not allow for equitable comparisons to be made across the sectors. A ranking between subject areas (such as agriculture universities versus engineering universities) should not be attempted as the comparisons are meaningful only within each category.  For this reason, the rankings are published according to broad institutional subject areas. The ranking of universities will be a continuous process to be conducted every year, with future ranking exercises to compare and rank university departments in key disciplines.

 University rankings are inherently controversial, and no ranking is satisfying to all. Despite years of refinement to their ranking procedures the most prominent and widely used rankings in developed countries still generate discord and draw criticism. The controversy associated with rankings essentially arises from the question of whether the quality of universities can be precisely measured by numerical indicators alone. It is for this reason that all readers should be cautious about any ranking, and should not completely rely on the ranking list as being definitive. Instead, this ranking is to be used simply as a kind of reference to assist in the decision making processes. All readers are encouraged to read the ranking methodology carefully and understand it completely before looking at the ranking lists. Readers are then encouraged to use these rankings as a tool to assist in making sophisticated, informed decisions on the basis of all information available to them.

 The Rankings are published with the following key features: 

• The Rankings published are on the basis of Data for the Years 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004
• Universities and Degree Awarding Institutes awarded Charters after 2001 have been excluded from this Ranking
• Private Sector Universities currently not meeting minimum Cabinet Criteria for Establishment of Universities (i.e. those in Categories Y & Z) are not included in the Ranking
• Universities/Institutes imparting education via Distance Learning are excluded
• The Rankings are based on data collected on the following key issues with relative weightages for each provided respectively: Students (17%), Facilities (15%), Finances (15%), Faculty (27%) and Research (26%).

It is not possible to have a discussion on Rankings on Institutions without controversy. The immediate questions that arise are: 

• Why should we rank Institutions?
• Is it possible to have a single number for an Institution consisting of multiple departments?
• Can quality be measured?

 The controversy surrounding rankings is extensive, yet there is no shortage of rankings conducted by various Institutions. A comprehensive discussion on this issue is available at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign website and the interested reader may visit here (http://www.library.uiuc.edu/edx/rankoversy.htm) to obtain a comprehensive overview of the issue.  

University rankings are inherently controversial, and no ranking is absolutely objective. The most prominent and widely used rankings in developed countries are typically conducted by Media organizations and despite years of refinement to their ranking procedures, still generate discord and draw widespread criticism. However, despite the controversy, university rankings are becoming more and more popular. The U.S. News rankings have great prominence and draw increased attention in the United States and beyond. The United  Kingdom  has  several  League  tables  including  the  ‘Times Good University Guide’ and the Guardian’s  Guide  to Universities. Others include the MacLean’s University Ranking in Canada, the German University Ranking (Die Besten Unis) in Germany and Asia Week’s Best Universities in Asia. There are also several university rankings in China.

 The controversy associated with rankings essentially arises from the question of whether the quality of universities can be precisely measured by numerical indicators. This is similar to the complaint of whether the quality of a student can be precisely measured by scores. Universities and professors are continuing to score the performance of students without any significant changes. However students are usually not judged by scores alone- universities and potential employers tend to make sophisticated, independent judgments. 

It is for this reason that all readers should be cautious about any ranking, and should not completely rely on the ranking list as being definitive. Instead, rankings are to be used simply as one kind of reference to assist in decision making processes. All readers are encouraged to read the ranking methodology carefully and understand it completely before looking at the ranking lists. Readers are then encouraged to use these rankings as a tool to assist in making sophisticated, informed decisions on the basis of all information available to them.

The primary purpose of the ranking exercise conducted by the Higher Education Commission is to share with the General Public comprehensive data on the key issues that determine the state of higher education in a particular institution. The ranking exercise has been conducted on the basis of extensive information supplied by the Public and Private Universities and Degree Awarding Institutions legally authorized to grant degrees in Pakistan.

The methodology adopted in the publication of these university rankings was developed by the Quality Assurance Committee of the HEC through a transparent consultative process in which various leading international ranking practices and systems were analyzed. The ranking model proposed by the QEC was developed through extensive stakeholder participation, tailoring the process according to the ground realities of the higher education sector in Pakistan. The final methodology proposed by the QEC was presented to the Commission of the HEC for further scrutiny and approval of the ranking criteria.

The process of data collection for the ranking exercise was implemented specific to the ranking criteria approved by the Commission. An extensive questionnaire was developed and sent to all universities for completion. On receipt of the data from the Universities, the HEC conducted an exhaustive process of vetting to ensure that the data provided by the universities was indeed accurate. The detailed proforma on which the Institutions of higher learning supplied information is available here. The data was collected for the financial years 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004.

The data collected through this exercise was processed through the ranking methodology to obtain preliminary ranking lists for universities. The rankings generated through this process were presented to the Ranking Board, a Board of eminent educationists constituted by the Chairman of the HEC under the directive of the Prime Minister, for final review and approval.

The final Ranking Criteria used to generate the rankings under this process are provided in the table below. Each of the five key Categories for this exercise, namely Students, Facilities, Finances, Faculty and Research, is assigned a weightage with the cumulative totals of the Categories adding to 100.

Ranking Criteria for Universities

	Students
	Sr.# Name of Fields Score 1 Student produced having 16 years of education 2 2 Student produced having M.Phil/16 + years of education 3 3 Number of Ph.D. Produced. 4 4 Student Selectivity 5 5 % of students getting admission having 60% and above marks 3   Total: 17

	Facilities
	Sr.# Name of Fields Score 1 Number of Books in Main Library 2 2 Number of Books / Student 2 3 Number of Journals  Subscribed in the Main Library 1 4 Number of Computers for Students per Student. 1 5 Number of Computers for Faculty per Faculty. 1 6 Bandwidth per Student 2 7 Labs for Practical 2 8 Number of Teams Participating in Inter University Games 1 9 Ranking of University in Inter University Games 1 10 Equipment Costing >2 million (Operational) 2   Total: 15

	Finances
	Sr.# Name of Fields Score 1 Amount Generated through Own Sources as  (% age ) of Tot. Budget 2 2 Amount Spent on Library + Research as % of  Total Budget 4 3 Recurring Expenditure / Student 5 4 Non-Recurring Expenditure/ Student 4   Total: 15

	Faculty
	Sr.# Name of Fields Score 1 Full Time Ph.D.  Faculty 3 2 Ratio of Ph.D. Faculty to Total Faculty 9 3 Full Time Faculty having M.Phil/16 + years of Education 2 4 National & International Awards won by Faculty 2 5 Student Teacher Ratio 5 6 Trainings received by Faculty 2 7 Amount of Funds obtained through Competitive Grants for Research Projects/Faculty 4   Total: 27

	Research
	Sr.# Name of Fields Score 1 Number of Research Papers Published by the Faculty Members & Students during 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 4 2 Research Papers  / Faculty 3 3 Number of Journals Published by the University 1 4 Number of Books Published by the Faculty Members 1 5 Number of Papers Presented and Published at Refereed International Conferences by Faculty Members and Students. 1 6 Number of Papers Presented and Published at Refereed National Conferences by Faculty Members and Students. 1 7 Gross Score Point of  all Faculty Members as Determined by PCST 2 8 Gross Score Point/Faculty Member 2 9 University Organized Conferences/Symposia/Seminars/Workshops at National Level Sponsored by other Agencies 1 10 University Organized Conferences/Symposia/Seminars/Workshops at International Level Sponsored by other Agencies 2 11 Number of Patent Designs/Formula/Approved Varieties 2 12 Number of International Collaborative Research Projects 3 13 M. Phil. Produced /Faculty 1 14 Ph.D. Produced /Faculty 2   Total: 26

Total Marks: 100

Each individual Category is comprised of ranking Criteria relevant to the field, with each assigned a number of points. The cumulative total of these points equals the relative weightage of the Category itself.

 When ranking the universities, the HEC looked at the information collected under each of the ranking Criteria, and assigned relative scores to the total number of points assigned to each of the Criteria. The university scoring the highest number of points under each Criteria was awarded the total number of points assigned to that item, with the remaining universities assigned a score relative to the total. 

For example, looking at the Research Category Criteria of ‘The Number of Research Papers Published by the Faculty Members & Students’ (during 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04), if University X scored the highest with 1000 papers published during the period, they would be assigned the maximum number of points available under this category, i.e. 4. If University Y published 800 papers, they would be assigned a score relative to that of the highest scoring university, in this case 3.2 (800/1000 x 4). 

The rankings have been presented in broad subject areas, to account for the evolution of universities in Pakistan towards specialization in certain disciplines. The differing modes of operation and features unique to universities in certain disciplines would not allow for equitable comparisons to be made across the sectors. A ranking between subject areas (such as agriculture universities versus engineering universities) should not be attempted as the comparisons are meaningful only within each category.  For this reason, the rankings are published according to the following broad institutional subject areas: Agriculture/Veterinary Sciences, Arts/Design, Business/IT, Engineering, General and Health Sciences.

Universities not included in ranking; either chartered after year 2001 or belong to Category Y & Z : As on 15th August, 2006. For latest information please click on following link:

Categorization of Private Universities/Degree Awarding Institutions

Category W: University/Institutions Meeting Requirements of Criteria

Category X:  University/Institutions With Minor Shortfalls, Expected to Meet Requirements of Criteria

Category Y:  University/Institutions Not Meeting the Requirements of Criteria

Category Z:  University/Institutions Seriously Deficient

Ranking of Universities by Type of University based on Revised Criteria By the Board Final. Only those universities were considered in the ranking list  which were charted before 2002.

University Name	Research	Student	Facilities	Finances	Faculty	Total Rank Score
	Max =26	Max = 17	Max = 15	Max = 15	Max = 27	100

Agriculture / Veterinary

University of Agriculture (UAF), Faisalabad	17.35	14.26	10.51	7.98	16.34	66.44
NWFP University of Agriculture , Peshawar	19.17	7.49	8.97	8.22	20.25	64.10
University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi	6.50	9.16	1.65	12.48	13.78	43.57
Sindh Agriculture University,  Tandojam	3.57	5.09	9.49	9.32	11.85	39.31

Art / Design

National College of Arts,  Lahore	8.40	10.90	6.96	9.04	17.25	52.55
Textile Institute of Pakistan, Karachi	7.00	4.62	10.76	10.53	18.60	51.51
Indus Valley School of Art & Architecture, Karachi	0.00	6.22	4.84	10.84	6.40	28.30

Business / I.T.

Lahore Uni. of Management Sciences (LUMS), Lahore	12.37	6.08	8.68	9.66	20.41	57.20
Institute of Business Administration (IBA), Karachi	7.45	9.01	5.75	8.08	10.00	40.30
Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Institute of Sci. & Tech. Karachi	4.97	7.48	5.21	5.00	11.07	33.73
Iqra University, Defence View, Karachi	6.37	4.48	3.47	6.50	7.99	28.82
Lahore School of Economics, Lahore	2.48	2.71	4.43	10.07	6.69	26.37
Institute of Business Management (IBM),   Karachi	7.06	2.54	1.63	6.47	4.72	22.41
Qurtuba University of Science & Information Technology D.I Khan	1.00	1.54	3.70	3.09	8.35	17.67
Karachi Institute of Economic & Technology (KIET), Karachi	1.02	2.84	4.60	3.79	3.49	15.74
CECOS , Peshawar	0.00	3.03	4.43	2.38	3.57	13.40
City University of Science & Information Tech., Peshawar	0.00	2.11	1.43	3.00	3.76	10.30

Engineering

Pakistan Institute of Engg. and Applied Sciences, Islamabad	11.70	9.73	6.52	12.42	20.98	61.35
National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad	10.10	9.27	8.33	6.84	14.53	49.07
Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering, Swabi	10.07	7.69	6.05	8.73	13.24	45.78
University of Engg. & Technology (UET),  Lahore	7.87	13.00	6.23	2.36	12.81	42.26
Mehran University of Engg. & Technology (MUET), Jamshoro	6.30	6.27	4.51	1.80	10.29	29.17
University of Engg. & Technology (UET), Taxila	4.90	5.94	3.30	5.72	5.15	25.00
National Univ. of Computer and Emerging Sciences, Islamabad	2.47	5.53	3.69	3.88	9.26	24.84
COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad	3.36	4.35	2.55	3.26	8.91	22.42
NWFP University of Engg. & Technology,  Peshawar	2.70	5.23	2.87	2.05	6.00	18.85
NED University of Engg. & Technology,  Karachi	2.79	5.52	4.40	1.50	4.44	18.65
Quaid-e-Awam University, Nawabshah	2.23	3.58	3.50	3.72	5.61	18.64
Sir Syed University of Engineering & Technology, Karachi	1.56	4.95	3.00	4.64	2.91	17.06
Balochistan University of Engg & Tech.  Khuzdar	0.00	2.49	4.18	3.17	5.74	15.57

General

Quaid-i-Azam University (QAU), Islamabad	17.63	8.14	7.98	4.91	19.50	58.16
University of the Punjab, Lahore	10.49	12.04	6.91	5.07	11.41	45.92
University of Karachi,  Karachi	9.71	7.97	6.99	5.48	11.87	42.01
University of Peshawar, Peshawar	10.18	10.86	3.49	3.28	8.98	36.78
Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan	8.56	7.49	3.04	4.03	10.23	33.34
Government College Lahore University,  Lahore	6.44	4.98	4.19	7.03	9.14	31.78
Isra University, Hyderabad	2.16	4.28	2.67	11.65	9.08	29.84
International Islamic University, Islamabad	6.45	6.33	4.58	4.15	8.31	29.82
University of Sindh,  Jamshoro	6.67	6.65	3.46	3.68	8.54	29.00
Hamdard University,    Karachi	0.96	2.99	8.65	10.43	4.65	27.68
University of Balochistan, Sariab Road, Quetta	5.60	2.16	2.74	7.15	7.04	24.69
Gomal University, D.I.Khan	3.60	5.45	2.68	4.49	7.37	23.60
Islamia University, Bahawalpur	3.65	5.34	2.32	3.45	8.16	22.92
University of Azad Jammu & Kashmir , Muzaffarabad	2.20	2.86	2.31	4.87	9.81	22.05
Lahore College for Women University, Lahore	1.18	4.66	2.84	6.65	5.66	20.99
Hazara University , Dhodial, Mansehra	2.00	2.97	2.60	5.38	7.52	20.47
Muhammad Ali Jinnah University,   Karachi	0.73	3.33	2.43	8.23	4.81	19.52
Fatima Jinnah Women University,  Rawalpindi	1.48	6.42	2.24	5.42	3.73	19.29
Bahria University, Islamabad	0.61	5.97	2.66	5.87	3.49	18.60
Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur	1.69	1.21	2.08	6.27	5.95	17.20
University of Malakand  Chakdara, Dir, Malakand	0.66	7.36	1.36	2.01	2.10	13.49
Kohat University of Science & Technology, Kohat	1.26	2.16	2.17	5.22	2.03	12.84
National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad,	1.82	2.06	2.56	2.94	2.85	12.23
Jinnah University for Women (JUW), Karachi	0.64	2.44	0.84	3.41	1.91	9.24

Health Sciences

Aga Khan University, Karachi	15.87	7.27	10.68	14.85	21.24	69.91
Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro	8.40	11.47	7.67	5.81	14.94	48.29
Baqai Medical University, Karachi	7.64	9.88	4.11	5.19	5.87	32.69
Zia-ud-din Medical University,  Karachi	6.47	3.52	4.29	7.67	8.43	30.38