Another day, another ranking.
Times Higher Education (THE) has published a "bang for the bucks" ranking.
THE is taking the scores for institutional income, research income, and income from industry and comparing them with the scores "for research, teaching, and working with industry." This, presumably, is supposed to reveal those universities that are able to process their funding efficiently and turn it into publications, citations, patents, doctorates, and survey responses
There are some methodological issues here. It is not clear exactly how the income scores are calculated. Is it from the raw monetary data that THE collects from universities, or has it been through the THE standardization and normalization machine? Is there some sort of weighting or just an average of the three income categories?
Also, there is a chart that suggests that all the scores are counted except for the financial metrics, but the text implies that the international pillar is not counted as part of the bang that THE purports to measure.
Another issue is that the financial data in the THE rankings refers to the year two years before the date of publication. However, citation and publication data are from a five—or six-year period before the ranking is published. In effect, THE is claiming that their favored schools have a remarkable ability to send money back in time to the years when research proposals were written, papers published, and citations recorded.
THE lists ten countries as good bang producers, starting with the UK and including Pakistan and Egypt. It does not list China, South Korea, Canada, or Australia, which should make us a little suspicious,
Then, looking at the list of twenty universities with the biggest bangs, we see a few familiar names, including Sussex and Brighton Medical School, Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, and Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, that have appeared in this blog before because they received remarkably high scores for citations and consequently did well in the overall rankings. Some, including Quaid-i-Islam University, COMSATS University, Auckland University of Technology, Government College University Faisalabad, and University College London, have contributed to citation-rich multi-contributor papers from the Global Burden of Disease Studies or the Large Hadron Collider project. Others, such as Shoolini University of Biotechnology and Management Sciences and Malaviya National Institute of Technology, have scores for research quality that are disproportionate to those for research environment or teaching. It looks as though a lot of THE's Big Bang simply consists of getting masses of citations.
It is also possible that universities might obtain a good bang for the buck score by underreporting their income, perhaps accidentally, which would help here, although not in conventional rankings. This has happened to Trinity College Dublin and probably to Harvard, although the latter case went unnoticed by almost everyone. Probably, the very high scores for Sorbonne University and Universite Paris Cite result from the special features of the French funding system.
I suspect quite a few institutions will take this ranking seriously or pretend to and use it as a pretext to try to obtain more largesse from increasingly impoverished states.
It would seem that THE is engaged in a public relations exercise for upmarket British and perhaps for US and continental universities. These are doing all sorts of amazing, brilliant, and exciting things for which they receive insufficient funds from cheapskate governments. Just imagine what they could do if they got as much money as Chinese universities do.
