Down grading QS in our rankings average

As noted in our Methodology section, our "ranking" uses the average of standard reputational and bibliometric rankings as one of our metrics. This average stands as a reputational and impact component of a programs profile. Of course this isnt perfect, a straight forward average of other rankings might inadvertently over represent one aspect of common methodologies or another. But it is a good first order approximation as to the popular perceptions of a program.

This naturally relies heavily on the idea that respondents to reputational questionnaires are reasonably aware of most major programs in the U.S. or are, at least, honest enough to not rank those programs for which they have little information. However, for the second year in a row we note that the QS rankings of graduate studies in physics includes a significant number of universities that do not offer graduate degrees in physics! Moreover there are several universities in the ranking that do not even have physics departments! While it is true that "department" status is not necessary to offer a PhD. in the field, and subfields such as "medical physics" can be quite excellent programs without the existence of a physics program at a university, it still seems necessary to us that any university ranked as a physics graduate program, should by definition project some commitment to a basic general graduate level physics education. Finding that the QS rankings do not adequately reflect this understanding erodes our faith in them as a ranking. It suggests to us that the metrics being used are not rigorously tested.

With this in mind we are down-grading our inclusion of the QS rankings. While we still look at them and correlate our findings with theirs, they will not a part of the average until we can better understand what has gone wrong - if anything, and what our position on this should be.

TPRP