Thursday, September 12, 2013

Reactions to the QS Rankings

Once again the publication of the QS rankings has led to a mixed chorus of triumph, lamentation and soul searching. In most cases there is a plea for more money to prevent national champions from falling further or to maintain their high position. Some commentators offered implausible reasons for changes, although I suspect that in some cases, ascent or descent may be due at least in part to the academic and employer surveys.

Richard Adams of the Guardian reported that:

"Cambridge has slipped down an authoritative list of international university rankings in a league table of top universities published on Tuesday.

It was ousted from second place in the QS World University Rankings by Harvard University; both were behind the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the list of the world's leading universities."

He reports that:

'John O'Leary, member of the QS global academic advisory board, said: "The UK invests below the OECD average in higher education, so it is unrealistic to expect its universities to continue to punch above their weight indefinitely.

"The current success of leading institutions shows how vital it is that the government matches the investments being made by other countries in order to maintain their world-class status." '

The Philippine Daily Inquirer noted:

"The country’s leading universities remain highly regarded in international academic circles, but most of them slipped in the latest ranking of the world’s top 800 universities by the ratings firm Quacquarelli Symonds (QS).

The University of the Philippines, Ateneo de Manila University and the University of Santo Tomas dropped in the 2013 QS World University Rankings, while De La Salle University maintained its place from last year. "

According to the Beirut Daily Star, cited in edarabia:

"Of the 11 Middle Eastern institutions on the list, the American University in Cairo was the only one to make an improvement from last year’s listing, jumping from 392nd to 348th.

AUB held steady at 250th in the world, while universities in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar precipitously fell from their spots at the middle and bottom of the international listing.

The reason for the decline was due to years’ worth of political instability and unrest, a researcher at the group said.

“Middle Eastern institutions are producing less widely cited research than in previous years, which may be related to unrest in the region,” said Ben Sowter, a researcher with the ranking organization."

This is not very plausible. If a university produces less research in 2012, that will probably mean that publication will start to decline two years later and citations in another two years and that will not have an impact on the rankings until 2016 or 2017. If the short-lived Arab spring had any effect on university rankings, it was probably more likely because of its impact on international perceptions reflected in the academic and employer surveys. Notice that universities in politically stable Arab countries fell while the American University in Cairo rose.


Meanwhile, Lucy Townend from the Manawatu Standard in New Zealand reports that:

"New Zealand universities' slide down world rankings has tertiary education leaders uneasy - saying Government investment in the sector is falling short of what's needed for them to keep up.
 
But Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce refutes any funding shortfalls, and says the rankings reflect the increased competitiveness of the international university market. "


heraldscotland proclaims that:

"SCOTLAND has three universities ranked in the top 100 in the world, according to a new international league table.
The top Scottish institution is Edinburgh, which came 17th overall and fifth in the UK after climbing four places from last year.
 
The second ranked institution was Glasgow University, which came 51st after a rise of three places.
St Andrews took 83rd place after climbing 10 places in the rankings."



Tuesday, September 10, 2013

The QS Rankings

The QS World University Rankings top 200 have just been published. The top 800 will be released later today.

The top ten are:

1.  MIT
2.  Harvard
3.  Cambridge
4.  University College London
5.  Imperial College London
6.  Oxford
7.  Stanford
8. Yale
9. Chicago
10. Caltech

Saturday, August 17, 2013

The Shanghai Rankings 2004-2013

One sign of the reliability of the Shanghai Academic Ranking of World Universities is that at the top there is little change from year to year. It is difficult to get excited about Tokyo slipping one place to join University College London in 21st position although I must admit the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich moving up two whole places is rather intriguing.

These rankings are best used to study changes over a few years. Since 2004, according to data provided by the Shanghai rankers, the following countries have increased their membership of the world's elite of the top 100 universities

Australia          +3
Israel                +2
USA                 +1
Switzerland      +1
Netherlands      +1
Denmark          +1
Belgium           +1

These countries have seen universities leave the top 100.

Germany        -3
Japan              -2
UK                 -2
Sweden          -1
Italy                -1
Austria           -1


At the very top there is no sign of the erosion of English speaking dominance (academically I think Israel can be classed as English speaking). If anything, it is being extended although with a shift from the UK to the US and Australia.

Looking at the top 500, which we might consider to include world class research universities, the picture is different. From 2004 to 2013 the following changes occurred.

China                      +26
Australia                  +5
Saudi Arabia            +4
South Korea             +3
Portugal                    +3
Brazil                       +2
New Zealand            +2
Spain                        +1
Sweden                     +1
Turkey                      +1
Malaysia                   +1
Slovenia                    +1
Iran                            +1
Egypt                         +1
Croatia                       +1
Chile                          +1
Serbia                        +1
Mexico                      +1


USA                         -21
Japan                        -16
Germany                    -5
UK                             -5
Italy                            -4
France                        -2
India                           -2
Switzerland                -1
Netherlands                -1
Denmark                    -1
Hungary                     -1



Here the big story is the relative decline of the US, Northern Europe, Japan and India and the rise of China and, to a lesser extent, Australia, Korea, Southwest Asia, Southern Europe except Italy and Latin America.

There is very little sign of any Asian renaissance outside Greater China and Korea and maybe the Middle East. India has actually lost ground over the last decade and there is now only one institution from the whole of South Asia and central Asia.

     

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

The Webometrics Methodology

Isidro F. Aguillo of Webometrics has kindly sent me a summary of the methodology:

- The ranking intends to measure global performance of the 
universities using the web only as a proxy. Web design is mostly 
irrelevant, web contents are key if the web policy intends to mirror 
all the university missions on the web.

- We have a MODEL for the weighting of the variables in the composite 
indicator. It is the traditional "impact factor" developed several 
decades ago in bibliometrics adapted to the web: A ratio 1:1 (50%:50%) 
between ACTIVITY and IMPACT.

- For measuring IMPACT (visibility?, impact?, quality?) there are 
three alternatives: prestige surveys (THE, QS), peers citations 
(Leiden, NTU, URAP) or link visibility (number of external inlinks or 
backlinks). We use this last option because in this way we acknowledge 
a larger diversity of activities and missions and (very important) by 
a huge amount of users, a truly global audience.

- Personally I have two important objectives with the ranking: First, 
I am a scholar (scholar.google.com/citations?user=SaCSbeoAAAAJ) who is 
paid by the Spanish government to make scientific research, so the 
ranking provides me with a lot of valuable data useful for analysis 
and papers. Second, I have a "political" agenda, that is supporting 
Open Access initiatives.

- So, for measuring ACTIVITY the key issue is considering the 
full-text documents, so Openness consists of the number of files in 
pdf, doc, ppt and similar formats.

- An important innovation in the 3 latest editions is the Excellence 
indicator that is not really web related but intends to acknowledge 
the research intensive institutions. The data is provided by Scimago 
and reflects the top 10% more cited papers in 21 disciplines.