Another Sustainability Ranking

 

People and Planet is a British student network concerned with environmental and social justice. It has just published a league table that claims to measure the environmental and ethical performance of UK universities.

The top five universities are Cardiff Metropolitan, Bedfordshire, Manchester Metropolitan, Reading, and University of the Arts London. It is interesting that this league table shows almost no overlap with the other rankings that claim to assess commitment or contributions to sustainability.

Here are all the six British universities in the latest UI GreenMetric ranking in order: Nottingham, Nottingham Trent, Warwick, Glasgow Caledonian, Loughborough, Teesside.

The top five British universities in the THE Impact Rankings are Newcastle, Manchester, Glasgow, Leicester, King's College London. For the QS Sustainability rankings we have: Edinburgh, Glasgow, Oxford, Newcastle, Cambridge.

There is some similarity between the QS Sustainability and the THE Impact Rankings, because both give prominence to research on environmental topics. But even this is quite modest compared to the much greater overlap between conventional research based rankings such as Leiden, Shanghai or URAP (Middle East Technical University).

This surely raises serious questions about the trend to rankings based on sustainability. If the rankers produce league tables that show such a modest degree of correlation then we have to ask whether there is any point at all to the exercise.

 

Implications of the new QS methodolgy

QS have announced that the world rankings due to appear in 2023 will have a new methodology. This is likely to produce significant changes in the scores and ranks of some universities even if there are no significant changes in the underlying data. 

There will no doubt be headlines galore about how dynamic leadership and teamwork have transformed institutions or how those miserable Scrooges in government have been crushing higher education by withholding needed funds.

The first change is that the weighting of the academic survey will be reduced from 40% to 30%. This is quite sensible: 40% is far too high for any one indicator. It remains, however, the largest single indicator and it remains one that tends to favour the old elite or those universities that can afford expensive marketing consultants, at the expense of emerging institutions. The employer survey weight will go up from 10% to 15%.

Next, the weighting of faculty student ratio has been cut from 20% to 10%. Again this is not a bad idea. This metric is quite easy to manipulate and has only a modest relationship to teaching quality, for which it is sometimes supposed to be a proxy.

What has not changed is the citations per faculty indicator. This is unfortunate since rankers can get very different results by tweaking the methodology just a bit. It would have been a big improvement if QS had used several different metrics for citations and/or publications, something that Times Higher Education has just got round to doing.

Then there are three new indicators: international research network, graduate employability, and sustainability.

This means that international indicators will now account for a 15% weighting, adding a further bias towards English-speaking universities, or those in small countries adjoining larger neighbours with similar languages and cultures and working against China and India. 

The introduction of a sustainability metric is questionable. It requires a considerable amount of institutional data collecting and this will tend to favour schools with the resources and ambitions to jump through the rankers' hoops.

On the surface, it seems that these changes will be a modest  improvement. However, I suspect that one effect of the changes will be a spurious boost for the scores and ranks of the elite Western and English-speaking  universities who can mobilise partners and alumni for the surveys, nurture their global networks, and collect the data required to compete in the rankings.

The QS Sustainability Rankings

 

Do we need to measure social and environmental impact?

Richard Holmes  29 October 2022

Article published in University World News.

Australia and the THE World Rankings

 

The Latest Rankings

The latest Times Higher Education (THE) world rankings have just been announced at a summit in New York. Around the world political leaders, mass media, and academics have been proclaiming their delight about their universities rising in the rankings. Australian universities are especially fascinated by them, sometimes to the point of unhealthy obsession.

Study Australia reports that "Australia shines again." Insider Guides finds it "particularly exciting" that six Australian universities in the top 200 have climbed the charts. Monash University is celebrating how it has "skyrocketed" 13 places, further proof of its world-leading status.

It is unfortunate that Australian media and administrators are so concerned with these rankings. They are not the only global rankings and certainly not the most reliable, although they are apparently approved by universities in the traditional elite or their imitators.  They are not totally without value, but they do need a lot of deconstructions to get to any sort of meaningful insight.

Transparency

One problem with the THE rankings, to be painfully repetitive, is that they are far from transparent. Three of their five current “pillars” consist of more than one indicator so we cannot be sure exactly what is contributing to a rise or fall. If, for example, a university suddenly improves for THE’s teaching pillar that might be because its income has increased, or the number of faculty has increased, or the number of students has decreased, or it has awarded more doctorates or fewer bachelor’s degrees, or it has got more votes in THE’s reputation survey, or a combination of two or more of these.

THE's citations indicator, which purportedly measures research impact or research quality, stands alone but it is also extremely opaque. To calculate a university’s score for citations you have to work out the number of citations in 8,000 “boxes” (300 plus fields multiplied by five years of publication multiplied by five types of documents) and compare them to the world average. Add them up and then apply the country bonus, the square root of the national impact score, to half of the university’s score. Then calculate Z scores. For practical purposes this indicator is a black box into which masses of data disappear, are chopped up, shuffled around, processed, reconstituted and then turned into numbers and ranks that are, to say the least, somewhat counter-intuitive.

This indicator, which accounts for a 30% weighting, has produced some remarkable results over the last decade, with a succession of improbable institutions soaring into the upper reaches of this metric. This year’s tables are no exception. The world leader is Arak University of Medical Sciences, Iran, followed by Cankaya University, Turkey, Duy Tan University, Vietnam, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Iran, and Jimma University, Ethiopia. Another two Iranian medical universities are in the top 25. They may not last long. Over the last few years quite a lot of universities have appeared briefly at the top and then in a few years slumped to a much lower position.

One of the more interesting things about the current success of the THE rankings is the apparent suspension of critical thought among the superlatively credentialed and accredited leaders of the academic world. One wonders how those professors, rectors and deans who gather at the various summits, seminars, webinars, and masterclasses would react to a graduate student who wrote a research paper that claimed that Arak University of Medical Sciences leads the world for “research quality”, Istanbul Technical University for “knowledge transfer”, or Macau University of Science and Technology for “international outlook”.

Volatility

Not only do the rankings lack transparency they are also extremely volatile. The top fifty list, or even the top one hundred, is reasonably stable but after that THE has seen some quite remarkable and puzzling ascents and descents. There have been methodological changes and there is a big one coming next year but that alone does not explain why there should be such dramatic changes. One cause of instability in the rankings is the citations indicator which is constructed so that one or a few researchers, often those working on the Gates-funded Global Burden of Disease Study (GBDS), can have a massively disproportionate impact.

Another possible cause of volatility is that the number of ranked institutions is not fixed. If the rankings expand new universities will usually be at the lower end of the scale and the effect of this is that the mean score for each indicator is lowered and this will affect the final score for every institution since the standardised scores that appear in the published tables are based on means and deviations.

There may be other reasons for the volatility of this year’s rankings. Fluctuating exchange rates may have affected reported income data, international students’ numbers may have fallen or even recovered. Some universities might have performed better in the surveys of teaching or research.

 

Australian universities rising and falling

Some Australian universities appear to have been quite mobile this year. In some cases, this has a lot to do with the citation indicator. Two years ago, Bond University was ranked in the 501 – 600 band and 26^th in Australia. Now it is tenth in Australia and in the world top 300, driven largely by a remarkable rise in the citations score from 56.4 to 99.7. A lot of that seems to have come from a small number of publications relating to the 2020 PRISMA statement which amassed a massive number of citations in 2021 and 2022.

Another example is Australian Catholic University. In 2018 it was in the world 501-600 band and this year it is in band 251-300. This is mainly due to an improvement in its citations score from 59.5 to 98.5, the result of a series of articles between 2017 and 2020 related to the multi-author and massively cited GBDS.

The problem with relying on citations to get ahead in the THE rankings is that if the researchers who have been racking up the citations move on or retire the scores will eventually decline as their papers pass outside the period for counting publications. This might have happened with the University of Canberra which has benefitted from GBDS papers published between 2015 and 2018. This year, however, the 2015 and 2016 papers no longer count, and the result is that Canberra’s citation score has fallen from 98.6 to 92.6 and its world rank from 170^th to 250-300. A university might even start falling just because its peers have started racking up scores of 99 plus for citations.

This is similar to the trajectory of quite a few international universities that have risen and fallen in the wake of a few highly cited papers such as Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, Iran, the Indian Institute of Technology Ropar, the University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan, Durban University of Technology, South Africa, and Nova Southeastern University, USA.

Citations have a lot to do with Australia’s success in the THE rankings. All the Australian universities the world rankings have a higher score for citations than for research, which is measured by publications, reputation, and research income and six have citation scores in the 90s. Compare that with Japan, where the highest citation score is 82.8. and leading universities do better for research than for citations. If THE had taken some of the weight from citations and given it to research, Australian universities might be in a different position.

Are the THE rankings any use?

Over the long term the THE rankings might have some value in charting the general health of an institution or a national system. Should a university fall steadily across several indicators despite changes in methodology and despite proclaimed excellence initiatives, then that might be a sign of systemic decline.

The success of Australian universities in the THE rankings might represent genuine progress but it is necessary to identify exactly why they are rising and how sustainable that progress is.

The rankings certainly should not be used to punish or reward researchers and teachers for “success” or “failure” in the rankers, to allocate funds, or to attract talented faculty or wealthy students.

Other rankings

The THE rankings are not the only game in town or in the world. In fact, for most purposes there are several rankings that are no worse and probably a lot better than THE. It would be a good idea for Australian universities, students and stakeholders to shop around a bit,

For a serious analysis of research quantity and quality there are straightforward rankings of research conducted by universities or research centres such as Shanghai Ranking, CWTS Leiden University, University Ranking by Academic Performance, or National Taiwan University. They can be a bit boring since they do not change very much from year to year, but they are at least reasonably competent technically and they rely on data that is fairly objective and transparent.

For prospective graduate and professional students, the research-based rankings might be helpful since the quality of research is likely to have an effect, even if an unpredictable, on the quality of postgraduate and professional instruction.

For undergraduate students there is not really too much that is directly relevant to their needs. The QS employability rankings, the Employer opinion survey in the QS world rankings, the Emerging/Trendence rankings employability rankings, the student quality section in the Center for World University Ranking tables, now based in the Emirates, can all help to provide some helpful insights.

Next year?

It seems that THE has finally steeled itself to introduce a set of changes. The precise effect is unclear except that the world rankings look to be getting even more complex and even more burdensome for the underpaid drones toiling away to collect, process and transmit the data THE requires of its “customers”. It is not clear exactly how this will affect Australian universities.

No doubt Australian deans and rectors will be wondering what lies ahead of them in the 2024 rankings coming next year. But not to worry. THE is offering “bespoke” shadow rankings that will tell them how they would have done if the new methodology had been applied this year. 

 

 

 

 

 

California in the Shanghai Rankings

Global rankings are often misleading and uninformative, especially those that have eccentric methodologies or are subject to systematic gaming. But if their indicators are objective and reliable over several years, they can tell us something about shifts in the international distribution of research excellence.

I would like to look at 20 years of the Shanghai Rankings from the first edition in 2003 to the most recent, published this week. The first thing that anyone notices is of course the remarkable rise of China -- not Asia in general -- and the relative decline of the USA. These rankings can also be used to find regional trends within nations. Take a look at California universities. In 2003 California was the research star of the US with six universities in the world top twenty. Two decades later that number has fallen to five with the University of California (UC) San Diego falling from 14th to 21st place.

That is symptomatic of a broader trend. UC Santa Barbara has fallen from 25th to 57th, the University of Southern California from 40th to 55th, and UC Riverside from 88th to the 201-300 band. 

American universities in nearly all the states have been falling and have, for the most part, been replaced, by Chinese institutions. But even within the USA California has been drifting downwards. Caltech has gone from 3rd to 7th, UC San Francisco, a medical school, from 11th to 15th, and UC Davis from 27th to band 40-54.

This is not universal. Stanford is still second in the USA in 2022 while UC Los Angeles (UCLA) has risen from 13th to 11th.

But overall California is falling. Of the thirteen universities in the top 500 in 2003, nine had fallen in the US table by 2022, two, UC Santa Cruz and UCLA, rose and, two remained in the same rank. The decline is especially apparent in the Publications metric, which is based on recent articles in the Web of Science.

Recent events in California, including learning loss during the pandemic, the abandonment of standardised testing, and the imposition of political loyalty tests for faculty, suggest that the decline is not going to be halted or reversed any time soon.

 

What's the Matter with Harvard?

When the first global ranking was published by Shanghai Jiao Tong University back in 2003, the top place was taken by Harvard. It was the same for the rankings that followed in 2004, Webometrics and the THES - QS World University Rankings.  Indeed, at that time any international ranking that did not put Harvard at the top would have  been regarded as faulty.

Is Harvard Declining?

But since then Harvard has been dethroned by a few rankings. Now MIT leads in the QS world rankings, while Oxford is first in THE's  and the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Nature Index. Recently Caltech deposed Harvard at the top of the Round University Rankings, now published in Georgia.

It is difficult to get excited about Oxford leading Harvard in the THE rankings. A table that purports to show Macau University of Science and Technology as the world's most international university, Asia University Taiwan as the most innovative, and An Najah National University as the best for research impact, need not be taken too seriously.

Losing out to MIT in the QS world rankings probably does not mean very much either. Harvard is at a serious disadvantage here for international students and international faculty.

Harvard and Leiden Ranking

On the other hand, the performance of Harvard in CWTS Leiden Ranking, which is generally respected in the global research community,  might tell us that something is going on. Take a look at the total number of publications for the period 2017-20 (using the default settings and parameters). There we can see Harvard at the top with 35,050 publications followed by Zhejiang and Shanghai Jiao Tong Universities.

But it is rather different for publications in the broad subject fields. Harvard is still in the lead for Biomedical Sciences and for Social Sciences and Humanities. For Mathematics and Computer Science, however, the top twenty consists entirely of Mainland Chinese universities. The best non - Mainland institution is Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. Harvard is 128th.

You could argue whether this is just a matter of quantity rather than quality. So, let's turn to another Leiden indicator, the percentage of publications in the top 10% of journals for Mathematics and Computer Science. Even here China is in the lead, although somewhat precariously. Changsha University of Science and Technology tops the table and  Harvard is in fifth place.

The pattern for Physical Sciences and Engineering is similar. The top 19 for publications are Chinese with the University of Tokyo in 20th place. However, for those in the top 10% Harvard still leads. It seems then that Harvard is still ahead for upmarket publications in physics and engineering but a growing and substantial amount of  research is done by China, a few other parts of Asia, and perhaps some American outposts of scientific excellence such as MIT and Caltech.

The Rise of China

The trend seems clear. China is heading towards industrial and scientific hegemony and eventually Peking, Tsinghua, Fudan and Zhejiang and a few others will, if nothing changes, surpass the Ivy league, the Group of Eight, and Oxbridge, although it will take longer for the more expensive and demanding fields of research. Perhaps the opportunity will be lost in the next few years if there is another proletarian cultural revolution in China or if Western universities change course.

What Happened to Harvard's Money?

It is standard to claim that the success or failure of universities is dependent on the amount of money they receive. The latest edition of the annual Nature Index tables was accompanied by headlines proclaiming that that China's recent success in high impact research was the result of a long term investment program. 

Money surely had a lot to do with it but there needs to be a bit of caution here. The higher education establishment has a clear vested interest in getting as much money from the public purse as it can and is inclined to claiming that any decline in the rankings is a result of hostility to higher education..

Tracing the causes of Harvard's decline, we should consult the latest edition of the Round University Rankings, now based in Georgia,  which provides ranks for 20 indicators. In 2021 Harvard was first but this year it was second, replaced by Caltech. So what happened?  Looking more closely we see that in 2021 Harvard was 2nd for financial sustainability and in 2022 it was 357th, That suggests a catastrophic financial collapse. So maybe there has been a financial disaster over at Harvard and the media simply have not noticed bankrupt professors jumping out of their offices, Nobel laureates hawking their medals, or mendicant students wandering the streets with tin cups. 

Zooming in a bit, it seems that, if the data is accurate, there has been a terrible collapse in Harvard's financial fortunes. For institutional income per academic staff Harvard's rank has gone from 21st to 891st.

Exiting sarcasm mode for a moment, it is of course impossible that there has actually been such a catastrophic fall in income. I suspect that what we have here is something similar to what happened  to Trinity College Dublin  a few years ago when someone forgot the last six zeros when filling out the form for the THE world rankings.

So let me borrow a flick knife from my good friend Occam and propose that what happened to Harvard in the Round University Rankings was simply that somebody left off the zeros at the end of the institutional income number when submitting data to Clarivate Analytics, who do the statistics for RUR. I expect next year the error will be corrected, perhaps without anybody admitting that anything was wrong.

So, there was no substantial reason why Harvard lost ground to Caltech in the Round Rankings this year. Still it does say something that such a mistake could occur and that nobody in the administration noticed or had the honesty to say anything. That is perhaps symptomatic of deeper problems within American academia. We can then expect the relative decline of Harvard and the rise of Chinese universities and a few others in Asia to continue.

Is China really quitting the international rankings?

For some time, there have been signs that some of the leading higher education powers are disenchanted with global rankings, at least those based in the UK. Russia has wound up its 5 Top 100 project, aimed at getting five universities in the top 100 of selected rankings, and several of the highly regarded Indian Institutes of Technology have withdrawn from the THE world rankings. This seems to be part of a general withdrawal from global, or Western, standards and practices in higher education and research, the latest example of which is Russia leaving the Bologna process.

Recently University World News reported that three Chinese universities, Nanjing,  Renmin University of China, and Lanzhou would not participate in "all international rankings",  which appears  to mean the THE and QS rankings. 

It is typical of the biases of the ranking world that it seems to be assumed that abandoning the QS and THE world rankings is equivalent to leaving international rankings altogether.  

In itself, the reported withdrawal by the three universities means little. None of them were in the world top 100. But it does seems that China is become more sceptical of the pretensions of the western rankers. Most Chinese universities, for example, have ignored the THE impact rankings, although  Fudan University did make an appearance in the most recent edition, getting first place for clean and affordable energy. 

China may also have noticed that proposed changes by QS and THE could work to its disadvantage. QS says that next year it will introduce a new indicator into the world rankings, International Research Network, where Chinese institutions do not do very well. THE is considering a variety of changes the impact of which is still not clear, perhaps not even to HE's data team, and which may have an unsettling effect on Asian universities.

It seems that the world's universities are beginning to diverge in several important ways, not just with regard to rankings. China, for example, is deemphasising publications in international journals. US and European institutions are increasingly concerned with social and political matters that are of limited interest in other parts of the world.

It seems that some countries are adopting a pragmatic approach to rankings, making use of them when convenient and ignoring them if necessary. One sign of this  approach recently came come from Shanghai where the city is opening the hukou, a document that regulates access to education, health insurance and  housing,  to graduates of universities at the top of the one of four world rankings rankings, Shanghai, QS, THE and  the US News Best Global Universities. The hukou will be available to those from universities in the top fifty if in full time employment for sixth months and after six months for those with degrees from universities ranked 51-100.

This is part of an effort to restart the city's economy after recent lockdowns. It would be unsurprising if other Chinese cities and other countries adopted similar policies.

Has China Really Stopped Rising? Looking at the QS Subject Rankings

For the last few years the publication of global rankings has led to headlines about the rise of Asia. If these were to be believed we would expect a few Asian universities to be orbiting above the stratosphere by now.

The Asian ascent was always somewhat exaggerated. It was true largely for China and perhaps Southeast Asia and the Gulf States. Japan, however, has been relatively stable or even declining a bit and India so far has made little progress as far as research or innovation is concerned. Now, it seems that the Chinese research wave may be slowing down. The latest edition of the QS subject rankings suggests that that  the quality of Chinese is levelling off and perhaps even declining. 

A bit of explanation here. QS publishes rankings for broad subject fields such as Arts and Humanities and for narrow subject areas  such as Archaeology. All tables include indicators for H-index, citations per paper, academic review, and employer review, with varying weightings. This year, QS has added a new indicator, International Research Network (IRN), with "broad" -- does that mean not unanimous? -- support from its Advisory Board, which is based on the number of international collaborators and their countries or territories. Chinese universities do much less well here than on the other indicators.

With QS, as with the other rankings, we should always be careful when there is any sort of methodological change. The first rule of ranking analysis is that any non-trivial change in rank is likely to be the result of methodological changes.

So lets take a look at the broad field tables. In Arts and Humanities  the top Chinese university is Peking University which fell seven places from 36th to 43rd between 2021 and 2022.

It was the same for other broad areas. In Engineering and Technology, Tsinghua fell from 10th to 14th, and in Natural Sciences from 15th to 23rd. (In this table Peking moved slightly ahead of Tsinghua into 21st place). In Social Sciences and Management Peking went from 21st to 26th 

There was one exception. In Life Sciences and Medicine Peking rose from 62nd to 53rd, although its overall score remained the same at 79.

However, before assuming that this is evidence of Chinese decline we should note the possible impact of the new indicator where Chinese institutions, including Peking and Tsinghua, do relatively poorly. In Life Sciences and Medicine every single one of the 22 Chinese universities listed do better for H-Index and Citations than for IRN. 

It looks as though the ostensible fall of Chinese universities  is partly or largely due to QS's addition of the IRN metric.

Looking at  Pitations per paper, which is a fairly good  proxy for research quality, we find that for most subject areas, the best Chinese universities have improved since last year. In Engineering and Technology Tsinghua has risen from 89.1 to 89.6. In Life Sciences and Medicine Peking has gone from 79.2 to 80.6 and in Social Science and Management from 89.7 to 90.7.

For Natural Science Tsinghau, had a score for citations of 88.6. It fell this year but was surpassed by Peking with a score of 90.1.

If Citations per Paper are consider the arbiter of research excellence then Chinese universities have been improving over the last year and the apparent decline in the broad subject areas is largely the result of the new indicator. One wonders if the QS management knew this was going to happen.

That is not the end of the discussion. There may well be areas where the Chinese advance is faltering or at least reaching a plateau and this might be revealed by a scrutiny of the narrow subject tables.