The ranking season is under way. The latest edition of the QS world rankings has just been announced and we have already seen the publication of the latest tables from Leiden Ranking, CWUR, RUR, uniRank and the THE Impact Rankings plus the THE Asian and Young Universities and Sub-Saharan Africa rankings. Forgive me if I've missed anything.
Each of these tells us something about the current geopolitics of higher education and science and the way in which they are reflected in the global ranking business.
The QS rankings have a new methodology, which makes it quite different from previous editions. Nonetheless, the media have been full of universities celebrating their remarkable achievements as they have soared, surged, risen, ascended in the rankings. No doubt, there will be a few promotions and bonuses.
It is in the nature of ranking that places are finite and if some universities suddenly surge then others will fall. It seems that the general pattern of the QS rankings is that Canadian, Australian, and American universities are rising and Chinese, Korean, and Indian Universities are falling. Russian and Ukrainian universities are also falling although that might be for other reasons.
QS have reduced the weighting of their academic survey from 40% to 30% and faculty student ratio from 20% to 10%. The weighting for the employer survey has increased from 10% to 15% and there are three new indicators, Sustainability, Employment Outcomes, and International Research Network.
QS claim that the new methodology "reflects the collective intelligence of the sector, and the changing priorities of students." If that is so, then the collective intelligence is very localised. The new methodology puts a heavy fist on the scales in favour of Western universities and against Asia.
The revised methodology works against universities that have acquired a good reputation for research or recruited a large and permanent faculty. It favours those that have mobilised their alumni network for the employer survey and are enthusiastic participants in the sustainability movement.
As a result the leading Chinese institutions have taken a tumble. Peking has fallen 5 places to 17th, Tsinghua 11 to 25th, and Fudan 16 to 50th.
Other national and regional flagships have tumbled, Seoul National University from 29th to 41st, the Indian Institute of Science from 115th to 225th, the University of Tokyo from from 23rd to 28th, an the University of Hong Kong from 21st to 26th.
In contrast, the University of British Columbia, McGill University, the University of Toronto, the University of Melbourne, the University of Sydney, the University of Cape Town, Witwatersrand University, Trinity College Dublin, University College Dublin, University of California Berkeley and UCLA are climbing the ladders. For the moment at any rate.
