The THE World University Rankings: Arguably the Most Amusing League Table in the World

If ever somebody does get round to doing a ranking of university rankings and if entertainment value is an indicator the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings (WUR) stand a good chance of being at the top.

The latest global rankings contain many items that academics would be advised not to read in public places lest they embarrass the family by sniggering to themselves in Starbucks or Nandos.

THE would, for example, have us believe that St. George's, University of London is the top university in the world for research impact as measured by citations. This institution specialises in medicine, biomedical science and healthcare sciences. It does not do research in the physical sciences, the social sciences, or the arts and humanities and makes no claim that it does. To suggest that it is the best in the world across the range of scientific and academic research is ridiculous.

There are several other universities with scores for citations that are disproportionately higher than their research scores, a sure sign that the THE citations indicator is generating absurdity.  They include Brandeis, the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Clark University, King Abdulaziz University, Anglia Ruskin University, the University of Iceland, and Orebro University, Sweden.

In some cases, it is obvious what has happened. King Abdulaziz University has been gaming the rankings by recruiting large numbers of adjunct faculty whose main function appears to be listing the university as as a secondary affiliation in order to collect a share of the credit for publications and citations. The Shanghai rankers have stopped counting secondary affiliations for their highly cited researchers indicator but KAU is still racking up the points in other indicators and other rankings.

The contention that Anglia Ruskin University is tenth in the world  for research impact, equal to Oxford, Princeton, and UC Santa Barbara, and just above the University of Chicago, will no doubt be met with donnish smirks at the high tables of that other place in Cambridge, 31st for citations, although there will probably be less amusement about Oxford being crowned best university in the world.

Anglia Ruskin 's output of research is not very high, about a thirtieth of Chicago's according to the Web of Science Core Collection. Its faculty does, however, include one Professor who is a frequent contributor to global medical studies with a large number of authors, although never more than a thousand, and hundreds of citations a year. Single-handedly he has propelled the university into the research stratosphere since the rest of the university has been generating few citations (there's nothing wrong with that: it's not that sort of place) and so the number of papers by which the normalised citations are divided is very low.

The THE citations methodology is badly flawed. That university heads give any credence to rankings that include such ludicrous results is sad testimony to the decadence of the modern academy.

There are also many universities that have moved up or down by  a disproportionate number of places. These include:

Peking University rising from 42nd  to 29th
University of  Maryland at College Park rising from 117th to 67th.
Purdue University rising from 113th to 70th.
Chinese  University of Hong Kong rising from 138th  to 76th.
RWTH Aachen rising from 110th to 78th
Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology rising from  148th to 89th


Vanderbilt University falling from 87th to108th
University of Copenhagen falling from 82nd to 120th
Scuola Normale Pisa falling from 112nd to 137th
University of Cape Town falling from 120th to 148th
Royal Holloway, University of London falling from 129th to173rd
Lomonosov Moscow State University falling from 161st to 188th.


The point cannot be stressed too clearly that universities are large and complex organisations. They do not in 12 months or less, short of major restructuring, change sufficiently to produce movements such as these. The only way that such instability could occur is through entry into the rankings of universities with attributes different from the established ones thus changing the means from which standardised scores are derived or significant methodological changes.

There have in fact been significant changes to the methodology this year although perhaps not as substantial as 2015. First, books and book chapters are included in the count of publications and citations, an innovation pioneered by the US News in their Best Global Universities. Almost certainly this has helped English speaking universities with a comparative advantage in the humanities and social sciences although THE's practice of bundling indicators together makes it impossible to say exactly how much. It would also work to the disadvantage of institutions such as Caltech that are comparatively less strong in the arts and humanities.

Second, THE have used a modest version of fractional counting for papers with more than a thousand authors. Last year they were not counted at all. This means that universities that have participated in mega-papers such as those associated with the Large Hadron Collider will get some credit for citations of those papers although not as much as they did in 2014 and before. This has almost certainly helped a number of Asian universities that have participated in such projects but have a generally modest research output. It might have benefitted some universities in California such as UC Berkeley.

Third, THE have combined the results of the academic reputation survey conducted earlier this year with that used in the 2015-16 rankings. Averaging reputation surveys is a sensible idea, already adopted by QS and US News in their global rankings, but one that THE has avoided until now.

This year's survey saw a very large reduction in the number of responses from researchers in the arts and humanities and a very large increase, for reasons unexplained, in the number of responses from business studies and the social sciences, separated now but combined in 2015.

Had the responses for 2016 alone been counted there might have been serious consequences for UK universities, relatively strong in the humanities, and a boost for East Asian universities, relatively strong in business studies. Combining the two surveys would have limited the damage to British universities and slowed down the rise of Asia to media-acceptable proportions.

One possible consequence of these changes is that UC Berkeley, eighth in 2014-15 and thirteenth in 2015-16, is now, as predicted here,  back in the top ten. Berkeley is host for the forthcoming THE world summit although that is no doubt entirely coincidental.

The overall top place has been taken by Oxford to the great joy of the vice-chancellor who is said to be "thrilled" by the news.

I do not want to be unfair to Oxford but the idea that it is superior to Harvard, Princeton, Caltech or MIT is nonsense. Its strong performance in the THE WUR is in large measure due to the over- emphasis in these tables on reputation, income and a very flawed citations indicator. Its rise to first place over Caltech is almost certainly a result of this year's methodological changes.

Let's look at Oxford's standing in other rankings. The Round University Ranking (RUR) uses Thomson Reuters data just like THE did until two years ago. It has 12 of the indicators employed by THE and eight additional ones.

Overall Oxford was 10th, up from 17th in 2010. In the teaching group of five indicators Oxford is in 28th place. For specific indicators in that group the best performance was teaching reputation (6th) and the worst academic staff per bachelor degrees (203rd).

In Research it was 20th. Places ranged from 6th for research reputation to 206th for doctoral degrees per admitted PhD. It was 5th for International Diversity and 12th for Financial Sustainability

The Shanghai ARWU rankings have Oxford in 7th place and Webometrics in 10th (9th for Google Scholar Citations).

THE is said to be trusted by the great and the good of the academic world. The latest example is the Norwegian government including performance in the THE WUR as a criterion for overseas study grants. That trust seems largely misplaced. When the vice-chancellor of Oxford University is thrilled by a ranking that puts the university on a par for research impact with Anglia Ruskin then one really wonders about the quality of university leadership.

To conclude my latest exercise in malice and cynicism, (thank you ROARS) here is a game to amuse international academics .

Ask your friends which university in their country is the leader for research impact and then tell them who THE thinks it is.

Here are THE's research champions, according to the citations indicator:

Argentina: National University of the South
Australia: Charles Darwin University
Brazil: Universidade Federal do ABC (ABC refers to its location, not the courses offered)
Canada: University of British Columbia
China: University of Science and Technology of China
France: Paris Diderot Univerity: Paris 7
Germany: Ulm University
Ireland: Royal College of Surgeons
Japan: Toyota Technological Institute
Italy: Free University of Bozen-Bolzano
Russia: ITMO University
Turkey: Atilim University
United Kingdom: St George's, University of London.

The long wait for the THE rankings is nearly over ...

but we can still have some fun reading the latest post at ROARS by Guiseppe de Nicolao.

Times Higher Education still changes the rules: a little help at Oxford and Cambridge? And the Italian?

Update on previous post

The reputation data used by THE in the 2016 world rankings, for which the world is breathlessly waiting, is that which was used in their reputation rankings  released last May and collected between January and March.

Therefore, the distribution of responses from disciplinary groups this year was 9% for the arts and humanities and 15% for social sciences and 13% for business (28% for the last two combined). In 2015 it was 16% for the arts and humanities and 19% for the social sciences (which then included business).

Since UK universities are relatively strong in the humanities and Asian universities relatively strong in business studies the result of this was a shift in the reputation rankings away from the UK and towards Asian universities. Oxford fell from 3rd (score 80.4) to 5th (score 69.1) in the reputation rankings and Bristol and Durham dropped out of the top 100 while Tsinghua University rose from 26th place to 18th, Peking University from 32nd to 21st and Seoul National University from 51-60 to 45th.

In the forthcoming world rankings British universities (although threatened by Brexit) ought to do better because of the inclusion of books in the publications and citations indicators and certain Asian universities, but by no means all, may do better because their citations for mega-projects will be partially restored.

Notice that THE have also said that this year they will combine the reputation scores for 2015 and 2016, something that is unprecedented. Presumably this will reduce the fall of UK universities in the reputation survey. Combined with the inclusion of books in the database, this may mean that UK universities may not fall this year and may even go up a bit (ATBB).  

Some predictions for the THE rankings and summit

Here are my predictions for the THE rankings on the 21st and academic summit on the 26th -28th.

• Donald Trump will not be invited to give a keynote address.

• The decline of US public universities will be blamed on government spending cuts.

• British universities will be found to be in mortal danger from Brexit and visa controls.

• Phil Baty will give a rankings "masterclass" but will have to apologise to feminists because he couldn't think of anything else to call it.

• The words 'prestige' and 'prestigious' will be used more times than in the novel by Christopher Priest or the film by Christopher Nolan

• The counting of books will help British universities, especially Oxford and Cambridge, but they will still be threatened by Brexit.

• The partial reinclusion of citations of papers with 1,000+ authors, mainly in physics, will lead to a modest recovery of some universities in France, Korea, Japan and Turkey. The rise of Asia will resume.

• Since the host city or university of THE summits somehow manages to get in the top ten, Berkeley will recover from last year's fall to 13th place. 

• Last year the percentage of survey responses from the arts and humanities fell to 9% from 16%. I suspect that this year the fall might be reversed and that the reason THE are combining the reputation survey results for this year and 2015 is to reduce the swing back to UK universities, which are suffering because of visa controls and Brexit.

• At least one of the above will be wrong..

Waiting for the THE world rankings

The world, having recovered from the shocks of the Shanghai, QS and RUR rankings, now waits for the THE world rankings, especially the research impact indicator measured by field normalised citations.

It might be helpful to show the top 5 universities for this criterion since 2010-11.

2010-11
1. Caltech
2. MIT
3. Princeton
4. Alexandria University
5. UC Santa Cruz

2011-12
1. Princeton
2. MIT
3. Caltech
4. UC Santa Barbara
5. Rice University

2012-13
1. Rice University
2. National Research Nuclear University MePhI
3. MIT
4. UC Santa Cruz
5. Princeton

2013-14
1. MIT
2. Tokyo Metropolitan University
3. Rice University
4. UC Santa Cruz
5. Caltech

2014-15
1. MIT
2. UC Santa Cruz
3. Tokyo Metropolitan University
4. Rice University
5. Caltech

2015-16
1. St George's, University of London
2. Stanford University
3. UC Santa Cruz
4  Caltech
5. Harvard

Notice that no university has been in the top five for citations in every year.

Last year THE introduced some changes to this indicator, one of which was to exclude papers with more than 1000 authors from the citation count. This, along with a dilution of the regional modification that gave a bonus to universities in low scoring countries, had a devastating effect on some universities in France, Korea, Japan, Morocco, Chile and Turkey.

The citations indicator has always been an embarrassment to THE, throwing up a number of improbable front runners aka previously undiscovered pockets of excellence. Last year they introduced some reforms but not enough. It would be a good idea for THE to get rid of the regional modification altogether, to introduce full scale fractional counting, to reduce the weighting assigned to citations, to exclude self-citations and secondary affiliations and to include more than one measure of research impact and research quality.

Excluding the papers, mainly in particle physics, with 1,000 plus "authors" meant avoiding the bizarre situation where a contributor to a single paper with 2,000 authors and 2,000 citations would get the same credit as 1,000 authors writing a thousand papers each of which had been cited twice.

But this measure also  meant that some of the most significant scientific activity of the century would not be counted in the rankings. The best solution would have been fractional counting, distributing the citations among all of the institutions or contributors, and in fact THE did this for their pilot African rankings at the University of Johannesburg.

Now, THE have announced a change for this year's rankings. According to their data chief Duncan Ross.

" Last year we excluded a small number of papers with more than 1,000 authors. I won’t rehearse the arguments for their exclusion here, but we said at the time that we would try to identify a way to re-include them that would prevent the distorting effect that they had on the overall metric for a few universities.

This year they are included – although they will be treated differently from other papers. Every university with researchers who author a kilo-author paper will receive at least 5 per cent credit for the paper – rising proportionally to the number of authors that the university has.

This is the first time that we have used a proportional measure in our citations score, and we will be monitoring it with interest.

We’re also pleased that this year the calculation of the Times Higher Education World University Rankings has been subject to independent audit by professional services firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). "

This could have perverse consequences. If an institution has one contributor to a 1,000 author paper with 2,000 citations then that author will get 2,000 citations for the university. But if there are 1001 authors then he or she would get only 50 citations.

It is possible that we will see a cluster of papers with 998, 999, 1000 authors as institutions remove their researchers from the author lists or project leaders start capping the number of contributors.

This could be a way  of finding out if research intensive universities really do care about the THE rankings.

Similarly, QS now excludes papers with more than ten contributing institutions. If researchers are concerned about the QS rankings they will ensure that the number of institutions does not go above ten. Let's see if we start getting large numbers of papers with ten institutions but none or few with 11, 12 13 etc.

I am wondering why THE would bother introducing this relatively small change. Wouldn't it make more sense to introduce a lot of small changes all at once and get the resulting volatility over and done with?

I wonder if this has something to do with the THE world academic summit being held at Berkeley on 26-28 September in cooperation with UC Berkeley. Last year Berkeley fell from 8th to 13th in the THE world rankings. Since it is a contributor to several multi-contributor papers it is possible that the partial re-inclusion of hyper-papers will help the university back into the top ten.

More on Brexitophobic hysteria

John Field, an expert on lifelong learning, comments on the growing Brexit hysteria blowing through academia.

Professor Field quotes the Vice Chancellor of the University of York:

"York, along with many other British universities, appears to have fallen in the QS league table because of concerns about the impact of Brexit; specifically, this has been attributed to worries about future access to research funding and whether we will be able to recruit excellent academic staff and students from all over the world."

The shadow of Brexit falls across the land

The western chattering and scribbling classes sometimes like to reflect on their superiority to the pre-scientific attitudes of the local peasantry, astrology, nationalism and religion and things like that. But it seems that the credentialled elite of Britain are now in the grip of a great fear of an all pervading spirit called Brexit whose malign power is unlimited in time and space.

Thus the Independent tells us that university rankings (QS in this case) show that "post Brexit uncertainty and long-term funding issues" have hit UK higher education.

The Guardian implies that Brexit has something to do with the decline of British universities in the rankings without actually saying so.

"British universities have taken a tumble in the latest international rankings, as concern persists about the potential impact of Brexit on the country’s higher education sector. "

Many British universities have fallen in the QS rankings this year but the idea that Brexit has anything to do with it is nonsense. The Brexit vote was on June 23rd, well after QS's deadlines for submitting respondents for the reputation surveys and updating institutional data. The citations indicator refers to the period 2011-2015.

The belief that rankings reveal the dire effects of funding cuts and immigration restrictions is somewhat more plausible but fundamentally untenable.

Certainly, British universities have taken some blows in the QS rankings this year. Of the 18 universities in the top 100 in 2015 two are in the same place this year, two have risen and 14 have fallen. This is associated with a general decline in performance in the academic reputation indicator which accounts for 40% of the overall score.

Of those 18 universities three, Oxford, Cambridge and Edinburgh, hold the same rank in the academic reputation indicator, one, King's College London, has risen and fourteen are down.

The idea that the reputation of British universities is suffering because survey respondents have heard that the UK government is cutting spending or tightening up on visa regulations is based on some unlikely assumptions about how researchers go about completing reputation surveys.

Do researchers really base their assessment of research quality on media headlines, often inaccurate and alarmist? Or do they make an honest assessment of performance over the last few years or even decades? Or do they vote according to their self interest, nominating their almae matres or former employers?

I suspect that the decline of British universities in the QS reputation indicator has little to do with perceptions about British universities and a lot more to do with growing sophistication about and interest in rankings in the rest of the world, particularly in East Asia and maybe parts of continental Europe.

What was that about the origins of science in seventeenth century England?

Trigger warning

If you're triggered by just about anything, don't read this.

Those who dislike inherited privilege will be entertained by this account of the last days of Charles II. it is from a post by Gregory Cochran at the blog, West Hunter.  

It seems that there has been a little bit of progress over the centuries. The future Charles III has a thing about homeopathy, expensive pseudoscientific rubbish but at least it's harmless.

I can't help wondering whether the malign spirit of pseudoscience has now taken refuge in university faculties of social science with their endless crises of irreproducible research.

"Back in the good old days, Charles II, age 53, had a fit one Sunday evening, while fondling two of his mistresses.

Monday they bled him (cupping and scarifying) of eight ounces of blood. Followed by an antimony emetic, vitriol in peony water, purgative pills, and a clyster. Followed by another clyster after two hours. Then syrup of blackthorn, more antimony, and rock salt. Next, more laxatives, white hellebore root up the nostrils. Powdered cowslip flowers. More purgatives. Then Spanish Fly. They shaved his head and stuck blistering plasters all over it, plastered the soles of his feet with tar and pigeon-dung, then said good-night.

Tuesday. ten more ounces of blood, a gargle of elm in syrup of mallow, and a julep of black cherry, peony, crushed pearls, and white sugar candy.

Wednesday. Things looked good:: only senna pods infused in spring water, along with white wine and nutmeg.

Thursday. More fits. They gave him a spirituous draft made from the skull of a man who had died a violent death. Peruvian bark, repeatedly, interspersed with more human skull. Didn’t work.

Friday. The king was worse. He tells them not to let poor Nelly starve. They try the Oriental Bezoar Stone, and more bleeding. Dies at noon."

Another Important Ranking

Ranking fans have a busy week ahead of them. On Tuesday the QS world rankings will be announced and results will probably start leaking on Sunday or Monday. Then there will be the Shanghai broad subject rankings.

Times Higher Education have promised a major revelation on Monday. I suspect that this might just be the top ten or twenty of the world rankings or a preview of their new US college rankings. 

But this ranking might be more important. Hackerrank, "a platform that ranks engineers based on their coding skills and helps companies discover talent faster", has just published a ranking of countries according to the speed and accuracy with which developers can solve a variety of coding challenges. 

China is first and Russia second.

The USA is 28th and the UK 29th. Eastern Europe and East Asia generally perform well.

For once, there is some fairly good news for Africa and the Muslim world: Turkey is 30th, Egypt 42nd, Bangladesh 44th and Nigeria 48th. 

The top ten are

1. China

2. Russia

3. Poland

4. Switzerland

5. Hungary

6. Japan

7. Taiwan

8. France

9. Czech republic

10. Italy

The Pursuit of Excellence

Congratulations to the Institute of Excellence and Higher Education (IEHE) in Bhopal, India, which has managed to maintain its 'A' grade from the National Assessment and Accreditation Council.

If you are wondering how they did it, see the story in the Hindustan Times. 

"The Institute of Excellence and Higher Education (IEHE) in Bhopal improved its teacher and student ratio from 1:47 to 1:24 a day before the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) team was scheduled to visit to retain the institute’s Grade ‘A’.

A three-member NAAC team, led by former vice chancellor SK Singh, will reach on Monday and inspect the institute in 24 sessions.

IEHE, which was facing hardships due to shortage of teachers, appointed 54 guest faculties in a week. The strength of teachers increased from 58 to 112."

There is nothing very unusual about this sort of thing. There have been, for example, suspicions about some British universities offering "relatively short- term contracts"  that expire just after the Research Excellence Framework (REF) assessment is completed.

The Naming of Universities

You can tell a few things about universities from their names. If, for example, a university has a direction in its name then it is usually not ranked very highly: University of East London, Southern Illinois University. Those that are named after long dead people -- Yale, Duke -- are often but not always -- Bishop Grosseteste -- very prestigious.

It might be an idea to have a ranking of institutions with the most interesting or strangest names. After all nearly everything else about higher education is ranked somewhere or other. California University of Pennsylvania should be near the top. And of course there is Hamburger University and Butler University. Or, from a few years ago, The Universal Institute of Food Management and Hotel Administration I was Called by the Almighty and I Said Yes My Lord, which was actually a restaurant somewhere along the road from Maiduguri to Kano in Nigeria.

Another high flier might be the Lovely Professional University, a "semi-residential university college in North India", which is ranked 4326th in the world and 213rd in India by Webometrics. I doubt if it will get many votes in the QS or THE academic surveys unless it changes its name which I suspect might be a literal translation from Hindi or Sanskrit. 

Worth Watching

Video
Salvatore Babones, Gaming the Rankings Game: University Rankings and the Future of the University

Shanghai Rankings 2016 Update

An interesting tweet from qwertzuiop   reports that the average change in rank position in this year's Shanghai rankings was 32 compared to 11.7 between 2014 and 2015. Changes in methodology, even simple ones, can lead to a lot of churning.

Meanwhile, here are the correlations between the various indicators in the ranking. In general, it seems that the indicators are not measuring exactly the same thing and they do not raise red flags by showing a low or zero association with each other.

The lowest correlations are between publications and alumni and award (alumni and faculty winning Nobel and Fields awards). Publications are papers in the Science Citation Index and the Social Science Citation Index in 2015 while the alumni and award indicators go back several decades. Time makes a difference and as a measure of contemporary research excellence Nobel and Fields awards may be losing their relevance.

	alumni	award	highly cited	Nature & Science	publications	PCP	total
alumni	1	.764	.480	.708	.439	.612	.783
award	.764	1	.544	.751	.403	.686	.846
highly cited	.480	.544	1	.738	.581	.588	.825
Nature & Science	.708	.751	.738	1	.628	.687	.925
publications	.439	.403	.581	.628	1	.394	.733
PCP	.612	.686	.588	.687	.394	1	.757
Total	.783	.846	.825	.925	.733	.757	1

All correlations are significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed).
N is 500 in all cases except for Nature and Science where it is 497

The Shanghai Rankings: More Interesting This Year

The Shanghai rankings are usually the most stable and therefore the least interesting (for journalists, politicians and bureaucrat) of the current array.

This year, however, they are quite volatile. The reason for that is that the Shanghai Ranking Consultancy has completed the transition from the old to the new lists of highly cited researchers supplied by Thomson Reuters. In 2014 and 2015 they used both lists with an equal weighting which has reduced the abruptness of the transition. In addition, the rankings now count only primary affiliations. As a result there have been enough ascents and descents to gladden the hearts of higher education journalists and experts.

It should be noted that the effect of this is largely to accelerate trends that were in progress anyway. The old list was clearly out of date and it was time for a new one.

First, to my predictions. Harvard is still number one. Wisconsin at Madison, Rutgers and Virginia Polytechnic Institute have all fallen. Aalborg, Nanyang Technological University, Peking, Chiba and Tsinghua have risen. Peking and Tsinghua are now in the top 100 and heading for the top 50.

But the University of Tehran has not risen. It has fallen by 84 places, presumably because it lost a highly cited researcher during the second half of 2015.

Overall, the rankings provide more evidence for the rise of China with two universities in the top 100 and 54 in the top 500 compared with none and 44 last year, but not the rest of Asia. South Korea has gone from 12 in the top 500 to 11, Japan from 18 to 16 and Israel 6 to 5. India still has only one representative in the top 500 and Malaysia two.

Meanwhile the USA  now has 137 universities in the top 500 compared with 146  last year

Rapidly rising institutions include Toulouse School of Economics, from 375th to 265th, largely because of being given a free pass this year for papers in Nature and Science, University of the Witwatersrand from 244th to 204th, University of Queensland from 77th to 55th and , King Abdullah University of Science and technology from 352nd to 254th.

Kwazulu-Natal has fallen from 413th to 494th, Dartmouth College from 215th to 271st and Universiti Malaya from 353rd to 413th.

My Predictions for the Shanghai Rankings

Watch this Nate Silver.

In the latest edition of the Shanghai Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) to be announced on Monday, the first place will go to Harvard.

The methodology for this prediction is based on an extremely complex and sophisticated algorithm that incorporates a large number of variables and will remain a secret for the moment.

Now for some easier predictions.

The Shanghai rankings are generally famous for their stability and consistency which makes them rather boring for journalists and naive administrators. No shocking headlines about catastrophic plunges in the rankings after the latest vandalism by government Scrooges.

But the Shanghai rankers have had problems with their highly cited researchers indicator. Thomson Reuters have stopped adding to their old list of highly cited researchers and have published a new one. The Shanghai Ranking Consultancy combined the two lists in 2014 and 2015 and have said that this year only the new list will be used in calculating the overall score.

Last year Shanghai published a list of scores for the highly cited indicator in 2013 (the old list), combined scores in 2015 and scores if the new list alone had been used.

Here are the universities that will rise or fall by ten points (two points in the weighted overall rankings) as the new list replaces the combined lists. This assumes that universities have not recruited or lost highly cited researchers dring 2015. If they have then the predictions will be incorrect. Also, changes in the highly cited indicator may be balanced by changes in other indicators

Predicted to Fall
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Rutgers: State University of New Jersey
Virginia Polytechnic Institute

Predicted to Rise
Aalborg University
Nanyang Technological University
Peking University
Chiba University
Tsinghua University
University of Tehran

Value Added Ranking

There has been a lot of talk about ranking universities by factors other than the usual mix of contributions to research and innovation, reputation surveys and inputs such as spending, teaching resources or student quality.

The emerging idea is that universities should be assessed according to their ability to teach students or to inculcate desirable skills or attributes.

Much of this is powered by the growing awareness that American and European secondary schools are failing to produce sufficient numbers of students with the ability  to undertake and complete anything that could realistically be called a university education. It is unlikely that this is the fault of the schools. The unavoidable  verdict of recent research is that the problem with schools has very little to do with institutional racism, a lack of grit, resilience or the current X factor or the failure to adopt Finnish, Chinese or Singaporean teaching methods. It is simply that students entering the school system are on average less intelligent than they were and those leaving are consequently also less intelligent.

There is now a market for rankings that will measure the quality of universities not by their resources, wealth or research output but by their ability to add value to students and to prepare them for employment or to enable them to complete their courses.

This could, however, lead to massively perverse consequences. If universities are assessed according to the percentage of entrants who graduate within a certain period or their employability then there could be a temptation to dilute graduation requirements .

Nevertheless, the idea of adding value is one that is clearly becoming more popular. It can be seen in the attempt to introduce a national rating system in the US and in the UK to use the proposed Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) to rank universities.

One UK ranking that includes a value added measure is the Guardian University Guide. This includes eight indicators, three of which three of which measure student satisfaction. Other indicators are staff student ratio and spending per student. There is also  a measure of student outcomes, that is graduate level employment or entry into a postgraduate course after six months, one of the quality of students measured by A level qualifications and one a measure of value added, that is the difference between the students entry level exam results and their eventual degree results.

It is therefore possible to get a rough idea of what factors might actually produce positive student outcomes.

The overall ranking for 2015-16 starts by being quite conventional with the top three places going to Cambridge, Oxford and St Andrews. Some might be surprised by Exeter in 9th place and Loughborough in 11th,  ahead of LSE and UCL.

Measuring student quality by exam scores produces unsurprising results at the top. Cambridge is first followed by Oxford and Imperial. For staff student ratio the top three are UCL, Oxford and SOAS and for spending per student Oxford, Cambridge and the University of the Arts London.

For student satisfaction with courses, Bath, Keele and UEA are in the lead while Oxford is 5th and Cambridge 12th. It's when we look at the Value Added that we find some really unusual results. The top three are Gloucester, Edinburgh and Abertay.

After plugging the indicator scores into an SPSS file we can calculate the correlations between the desired outcome, that is graduate level employment or postgraduate study and a variety of possible associated factors.

Here in descending order are the correlations with career prospects:

average entry tariff .820
student staff ratio .647
spending per student .569
satisfaction with course  .559
satisfaction with teaching   .531
value added .335
satisfaction with feedback -.171.

It would seem that if you want to know which university is best for career prospects then the most important piece of data is the average academic ability of the students. The student staff ratio and money spent are also significant as is satisfaction with courses and teaching. 

The correlation between value added and career prospects is much less and rather modest.

The universities were divided into thirds according to average entry tariff. In the top third of universities there was a strong correlation between career prospects and average entry level tariff, .628, and a modest one with spending, .355. Nothing else was associated with career success.

In the middle third the factor most associated with career prospects was course satisfaction, .498, followed by average entry tariff, .449, staff student ratio, .436, and satisfaction with teaching, .362. Satisfaction with feedback and value added were insignificant.

However, for the least selective third of universities, the picture was rather different. The factor most strongly associated with career success was satisfaction with feedback, .493, followed by valued added, .479, course satisfaction, .470, satisfaction with teaching, .439, and average entry tariff, .401. The relationship with spending and staff student ratio was insignificant .

The evidence of the Guardian rankings is that value added would only be of interest to students at or applying to the least selective third of UK universities. For the rest it is of no importance. It is debatable whether it is worth making it the centre of a new set of rankings.