Australian Comment on Rankings

A short article in the Sydney Morning Herald has some useful comments about university rankings:

Shanghai's Jiao Tong University and Britain's The Times Higher Education Supplementproduce the two most well-known global rankings.

These two rankings produce different results, which is not surprising since they use different measures. The Shanghai rankings assess research performance whereas the Times supplement looks at employer opinions and the number of international students (among others).

There is no doubt that rankings affect the behaviour of potential applicants. When a famous US university fell two places in the rankings, it had a 5 per cent fall in student applications.

Rankings also affect the behaviour of institutions. For example, if universities are ranked according to the number of first-class honours they award, they may decide to give more firsts just to climb up the rankings.

Recognising the futility of summarising a complex institution such as a university using a single number, some rankings, such as Canada's Macleans magazine, describe universities using a variety of criteria.

The Macleans approach seems closer to reality. Universities differ and students are all individuals. Some students may prefer a university with good sporting facilities and extensive offerings in the fine arts; others may be looking for night classes and low fees.

In each case the question that students should be trying to answer is not which university is the greatest but which university is best for them.