The ranking industry is expanding and new rankings appear all the time. Most global rankings measure research publications and citations. Others try to add to the mix indicators that might have something to do with teaching and learning. There is now a ranking that tries to capture various third missions.
The Round University Rankings published in Russia are in the tradition of holistic rankings. They give a 40 % weighting to research, 40 % to teaching, 10% to international diversity and 10% to financial sustainability. Each group contains five equally weighted indicators. The data is derived from Clarivate Analytics who also contribute to the US News Best Global Universities Rankings.
These rankings are similar to the THE rankings in that they attempt to assess quality rather than quantity but they have 20 indicators instead of 13 and assign sensible weightings. Unfortunately, they receive only a fraction of the attention given to the THE rankings.
They are, however, very valuable since they dig deeper into the data than other global rankings. They also show that there is a downside to measures of quality and that data submitted directly by institutions should be treated with caution and perhaps scepticism.
Here are the top universities for each of the RUR indicators.
Teaching
Academic staff per students: VIB (Flemish Institute of Biotechnology), Belgium
Academic staff per bachelor degrees awarded: University of Valladolid, Spain
Doctoral degrees per academic staff: Kurdistan University of Medical Science, Iran
Doctoral degrees per bachelor degrees awarded: Jawaharlal Nehru University, India
World teaching reputation Harvard University, USA.
Research
Citations per academic and research staff: Harvard
Doctoral degrees per admitted PhD: Al Farabi Kazakh National University
Normalised citation impact: Rockefeller University, USA
Share of international co-authored papers: Free University of Berlin
World research reputation: Harvard.
International diversity
Share of international academic staff: American University of Sharjah, UAE
Share of international students: American University of Sharjah
Share of international co-authored papers: Innopolis University, Russia
Reputation outside region: Voronezh State Technical University, Russai
International Level: EPF Lausanne, Switzerland.
Financial sustainability:
Institutional income per academic staff: Universidade Federal Do Ceara, Brazil
Institutional income per student: Rockefeller University
Papers per research income: Novosibersk State University of Economics and Management, Russia
Research income per academic and research staff: Istanbul Technical University, Turkey
Research income per institutional income: A C Camargo Cancer Center, Brazil.
There are some surprising results here. The most obvious is Voronezh State Technical University which is first for reputation outside its region (Asia, Europe and so on), even though its overall scores for reputation and for international diversity are very low. The other top universities for this metric are just what you would expect, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Oxford and so on. I wonder whether there is some sort of bug in the survey procedure, perhaps something like the university's supporters being assigned to Asia and therefore out of region. The university is also in second place in the world for papers per research income despite very low scores for the other research indicators.
There are other oddities such as Novosibersk State University of Economics and Management placed first for papers per research income and Universidade Federal Do Ceara for institutional income per academic staff. These may result from anomalies in the procedures for reporting and analysing data, possibly including problems in collecting data on income and staff.
It also seems that medical schools and specialist or predominantly postgraduate institutions such as Rockefeller University, the Kurdistan University of Medical Science, Jawarhalal Nehru University and VIB have a big advantage with these indicators since they tend to have favourable faculty student ratios, sometimes boosted by large numbers of clinical and research only staff, and a large proportion of doctoral students.
Jawaharlal Nehru University is a mainly postgraduate university so a high placing for academic staff per bachelor degrees awarded is not unexpected although I am surprised that it is ahead of Yale and Princeton. I must admit that the third place here for the University of Baghdad needs some explanation.
The indicator doctoral degrees per admitted PhD might identify universities that do a good job of selection and training and get large numbers of doctoral candidates through the system. Or perhaps it identifies universities where doctoral programmes are so lacking in rigour that nearly everybody can get their degree once admitted. The top ten of this indicator includes De Montfort University, Shakarim University, Kingston University, and the University of Westminster, none of which are famous for research excellence across the range of disciplines.
Measures of international diversity have become a staple of global rankings since they are fairly easy to collect. The problem is that international orientation may have something do with quality but it may also simply be a necessary attribute of being in a small country next to larger countries with the same or similar language and culture. The top ten for the international student indicators includes the Central European University and the American university of Sharjah. For international faculty it includes the University of Macau and Qatar University.
To conclude, these indicators suggest that self submitted institutional data should be used sparingly and that data from third party sources may be preferable. Also, while ranking by quality instead of quantity is sometimes advisable it also means that anomalies and outliers are more likely to appear.
Discussion and analysis of international university rankings and topics related to the quality of higher education. Anyone wishing to contact Richard Holmes without worrying about ending up in comments can go to rjholmes2000@yahoo.com
Showing posts sorted by date for query oxford reputation. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query oxford reputation. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Friday, May 11, 2018
Friday, April 13, 2018
At last. A Ranking With Cambridge at the Bottom
Cambridge usually does well in national and global rankings. The most recent ARWU from Shanghai puts it in third place and although it does less well in other rankings it always seems to be in the top twenty. It has suffered at the hands of the citations indicator in the THE world rankings which seem to think that Anglia Ruskin University, formerly the Cambridgeshire College of Arts and Technology, has a greater global research impact but nobody takes that seriously.
So it is a surprise to find an article in the Guardian about a ranking from the Higher Education Policy Institute ( HEPI) in the UK that actually puts Cambridge at the bottom and the University of Hull at the top. Near the bottom are others in the Russell group, Oxford, Bristol and LSE.
At the top we find Edge Hill, Cardiff Metropolitan and, of course, Anglia Ruskin Universities.
The ranking was part of a report written for HEPI by Iain Martin, vice-chancellor of Anglia Ruskin University, that supposedly rates universities for fair access, that is having a student intake that mirrors society as a whole. It compares the percentage of participation in higher education of school leavers in local authority areas with the percentage admitted by specific universities. Universities have a high rank if they draw students from areas where relatively few school leavers go to university. The rationale is the claim that learning outcomes are improved when people of diverse backgrounds study together.
It is noticeable that there several Scottish universities clustered at the bottom even though Scotland has a free tuition policy (not for the English of course) that was supposed to guarantee fair access.
This rankings looks like an inversion of the ranking of UK universities according to average entry tariff, ie 'A' level grades, and a similar inversion of most global rankings based on research or reputation.
Cambridge and other Russell Group universities have been under increasing pressure to relax entry standards and indiscriminately recruit more low income students and those from historically unrepresented groups. It seems that they are slowly giving way to the pressure and that as academic standards erode they will be gradually eclipsed by the rising universities of East Asia.
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
Is Erdogan Destroying Turkish Universities?
An article by Andrew Wilks in The National claims that the position of Turkish universities in the Times Higher Education (THE) world rankings, especially that of Middle East Technical University (METU) has been declining as a result of the crackdown by president Erdogan following the unsuccessful coup of July 2016.
He claims that Turkish universities are now sliding down the international rankings and that this is because of the decline of academic freedom, the dismissal or emigration of many academics and a decline in its academic reputation.
'Turkish universities were once seen as a benchmark of the country’s progress, steadily climbing international rankings to compete with the world’s elite.
But since the introduction of emergency powers following a failed coup against President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in July 2016, the government’s grip on academic freedom has tightened.
A slide in the nation's academic reputation is now indisputable. Three years ago, six Turkish institutions [actually five] were in the Times Higher Education’s global top 300. Ankara's Middle East Technical University was ranked 85th. Now, with Oxford and Cambridge leading the standings, no Turkish university sits in the top 300.
Experts say at least part of the reason is that since the coup attempt more than 5,800 academics have been dismissed from their jobs. Mr Erdogan has also increased his leeway in selecting university rectors.
Gulcin Ozkan, formerly of Middle East Technical University but now teaching economics at York University in Britain, said the wave of dismissals and arrests has "forced some of the best brains out of the country".'
There has been a massive decline in METU's position in the THE rankings since 2014 but that is entirely the fault of THE's methodology.
In the world rankings of 2014-15, published in 2014, METU was 85th in the world, with a whopping score of 92.0 for citations, which carries an official weighting of 30%. That score was the result of METU's participation in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) project which produces papers with hundreds or thousands of authors and hundreds and thousands of citations. In 2014 THE counted every single contributor as receiving all of the citations. Added to this was a regional modification that boosted the scores of universities located in countries with a low citations impact score.
In 2015, THE revamped its methodology by not counting the citations to these mega-papers and by applying the regional modification to only half of the research impact score.
As a result, in the 2015-16 rankings METU crashed to the 501-600 band, with a score for citations of only 28.8. Other Turkish universities had also been involved in the LHC project and benefited from the citations bonus and they too plummeted. There was now only one Turkish university in the THE top 300.
The exalted position of METU in the THE 2014-15 rankings was the result of THE's odd methodology and its spectacular tumble was the result of changing that methodology. In other popular rankings METU seems to be slipping a bit but it never goes as high as in THE in 2014 or as low as in 2015
In the QS world rankings for 2014-15 METU was in the 401-410 band and by 2017-18 it had fallen to 471-480 in 2017
The Russian Round University Rankings have it 375 in 2014 and 407 in 407. The US News Best Global Universities placed it 314th last year.
Erdogan had nothing to do with it.
Saturday, December 16, 2017
Measuring graduate employability; two rankings
Global university rankings are now well into their second decade. Since 2003, when the first Shanghai rankings appeared, there has been a steady growth of global and regional rankings. At the moment most global rankings are of two kinds, those that focus entirely or almost entirely on research and those such as the Russian Round Rankings, Times Higher Education (THE) and Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) that claim to also measure teaching, learning or graduate quality in some way, although even those are biased towards research when you scratch the surface a little.
The ranking industry has become adept at measuring research productivity and quality in various ways. But the assessment of undergraduate teaching and learning is another matter.
Several ranking organisations use faculty student ratio as a proxy for quality of teaching which in turn is assumed to have some connection with something that happens to students during their programmes. THE also count institutional income, research income and income from industry, again assuming that there is a significant association with academic excellence. Indicators like this are usually based on those supplied by institutions. For examples of problems here see an article by Alex Usher and a reply by Phil Baty.
An attempt to get at student quality is provided by the CWUR rankings now based in UAE, counting alumni who win international awards or who are CEOs of major companies. But obviously this is relevant only for a very small number of universities. A new pilot ranking from Moscow also counts international awards.
The only attempt to measure student quality by the well known rankers that is relevant to most institutions is the survey of employers in the QS world and regional rankings. There are some obvious difficulties here. QS gets respondents from a variety of channels and this may allow some universities to influence the survey. In recent years some Latin American universities have done much better on this indicator than on any other.
THE now publish a global employability ranking which is conducted by two European firms, Trendence and Emerging. This is based on two surveys of recruiters in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, France, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Singapore, Spain, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, UAE, UK, and USA. There were two panels with a total of over 6,000 respondents.
A global survey that does not include Chile, Sweden, Egypt, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Poland, Malaysia or Taiwan can hardly claim to be representative of international employers. This limited representation may explain some oddities of the rankings such as the high places of the American University of Dubai and and the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
The first five places in these rankings are quite similar to the THE world rankings: Caltech, Harvard, Columbia, MIT, Cambridge. But there some significant differences after that and some substantial changes since last year. Here Columbia, 14th in the world rankings, is in third place, up from 12th last year. Boston University is 6th here but 70th in the world rankings. Tokyo Institute of Technology in 19th place is in the 251-300 band in the world rankings. CentraleSupelec, is 41st, but in the world 401-500 group.
These rankings are useful only for a small minority of universities, stakeholders and students. Only 150 schools are ranked and only a small proportion of the world's employers consulted.
QS have also released their global employability rankings with 500 universities. These combine the employer reputation survey, used in their world rankings with other indicators: alumni outcomes, based on lists of high achievers, partnership with employers, that is research collaboration noted in the Scopus database, employer-student connections, that is employers actively present on campus, and graduate employment rate. There seems to be a close association, at least at the top, between overall scores, employer reputation and alumni outcomes. Overall the top three are Stanford, UCLA, Harvard. For employer reputation they are Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard and for alumni outcomes Harvard, Stanford Oxford.
The other indicators are a different matter. For employer-student connections the top three are Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Arizona State University, and New York University. In fact seven out of the top ten on this measure are Chinese. For graduate employment rate they are Politecnico di Torino, Moscow State Institute of International Relations, and Sungkyunkwan University and for partnership with employers Stanford, Surrey and Politecnico Milano. When the front runners in indicators are so different one has to wonder about their validity.
There are some very substantial differences in the ranks given to various universities in these rankings. Caltech is first in the Emerging-Trendence rankings and 73rd in QS. Hong Kong University of Science and Technology is 12th in Emerging-Trendence but not ranked at all by QS. The University of Sydney is 4th in QS and 48th in Emerging-Trendence. The American University of Dubai is in QS's 301-500 band but 138th for Emerging-Trendence
The rankings published by THE could be some value to those students contemplating careers with the leading companies in the richest countries.
The QS rankings may be more helpful for those students or stakeholders looking at universities outside the very top of the global elite. Even so QS have ranked only a fraction of the world's universities.
It still seems that the way forward in the assessment of graduate outcomes and employability is through standardised testing along the lines of AHELO or the Collegiate Learning Assessment.
The ranking industry has become adept at measuring research productivity and quality in various ways. But the assessment of undergraduate teaching and learning is another matter.
Several ranking organisations use faculty student ratio as a proxy for quality of teaching which in turn is assumed to have some connection with something that happens to students during their programmes. THE also count institutional income, research income and income from industry, again assuming that there is a significant association with academic excellence. Indicators like this are usually based on those supplied by institutions. For examples of problems here see an article by Alex Usher and a reply by Phil Baty.
An attempt to get at student quality is provided by the CWUR rankings now based in UAE, counting alumni who win international awards or who are CEOs of major companies. But obviously this is relevant only for a very small number of universities. A new pilot ranking from Moscow also counts international awards.
The only attempt to measure student quality by the well known rankers that is relevant to most institutions is the survey of employers in the QS world and regional rankings. There are some obvious difficulties here. QS gets respondents from a variety of channels and this may allow some universities to influence the survey. In recent years some Latin American universities have done much better on this indicator than on any other.
THE now publish a global employability ranking which is conducted by two European firms, Trendence and Emerging. This is based on two surveys of recruiters in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, France, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Singapore, Spain, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, UAE, UK, and USA. There were two panels with a total of over 6,000 respondents.
A global survey that does not include Chile, Sweden, Egypt, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Poland, Malaysia or Taiwan can hardly claim to be representative of international employers. This limited representation may explain some oddities of the rankings such as the high places of the American University of Dubai and and the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
The first five places in these rankings are quite similar to the THE world rankings: Caltech, Harvard, Columbia, MIT, Cambridge. But there some significant differences after that and some substantial changes since last year. Here Columbia, 14th in the world rankings, is in third place, up from 12th last year. Boston University is 6th here but 70th in the world rankings. Tokyo Institute of Technology in 19th place is in the 251-300 band in the world rankings. CentraleSupelec, is 41st, but in the world 401-500 group.
These rankings are useful only for a small minority of universities, stakeholders and students. Only 150 schools are ranked and only a small proportion of the world's employers consulted.
QS have also released their global employability rankings with 500 universities. These combine the employer reputation survey, used in their world rankings with other indicators: alumni outcomes, based on lists of high achievers, partnership with employers, that is research collaboration noted in the Scopus database, employer-student connections, that is employers actively present on campus, and graduate employment rate. There seems to be a close association, at least at the top, between overall scores, employer reputation and alumni outcomes. Overall the top three are Stanford, UCLA, Harvard. For employer reputation they are Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard and for alumni outcomes Harvard, Stanford Oxford.
The other indicators are a different matter. For employer-student connections the top three are Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Arizona State University, and New York University. In fact seven out of the top ten on this measure are Chinese. For graduate employment rate they are Politecnico di Torino, Moscow State Institute of International Relations, and Sungkyunkwan University and for partnership with employers Stanford, Surrey and Politecnico Milano. When the front runners in indicators are so different one has to wonder about their validity.
There are some very substantial differences in the ranks given to various universities in these rankings. Caltech is first in the Emerging-Trendence rankings and 73rd in QS. Hong Kong University of Science and Technology is 12th in Emerging-Trendence but not ranked at all by QS. The University of Sydney is 4th in QS and 48th in Emerging-Trendence. The American University of Dubai is in QS's 301-500 band but 138th for Emerging-Trendence
The rankings published by THE could be some value to those students contemplating careers with the leading companies in the richest countries.
The QS rankings may be more helpful for those students or stakeholders looking at universities outside the very top of the global elite. Even so QS have ranked only a fraction of the world's universities.
It still seems that the way forward in the assessment of graduate outcomes and employability is through standardised testing along the lines of AHELO or the Collegiate Learning Assessment.
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
Comments on an Article by Brian Leiter
Global
university rankings are now nearly a decade and a half old. The Shanghai
rankings (Academic Ranking of World Universities or ARWU) began in 2003,
followed a year later by Webometrics and the THES-QS rankings which, after an
unpleasant divorce, became the Times Higher Education (THE)
and the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) world rankings. Since then the number of
rankings with a variety of audiences and methodologies has expanded.
We now
have several research-based rankings, University Ranking by Academic
Performance (URAP) from Turkey, the National Taiwan
University Rankings, Best Global Universities from US News, Leiden
Ranking, as well as rankings that include some attempt to assess and
compare something other than research, the Round University Rankings from
Russia and U-Multirank from
the European Union. And, of course, we also have subject
rankings, regional
rankings, even age
group rankings.
It is
interesting that some of these rankings have developed beyond the original
founders of global rankings. Leiden Ranking is now the gold standard for the
analysis of publications and citations. The Russian rankings use the same Web
of Science database that THE did until 2014 and it has 12 out of the 13
indicators used by THE plus another eight in a more sensible and transparent
arrangement. However, both of these receive only a fraction of the attention
given to the THE rankings.
The
research rankings from Turkey and Taiwan are similar to the Shanghai rankings
but without the elderly or long departed Fields and Nobel award winners and
with a more coherent methodology. U-Multirank is almost alone in trying to
get at things that might be of interest to prospective undergraduate students.
It is
regrettable that an article by Professor Brian Leiter of the University of
Chicago in the Chronicle of Higher Education , 'Academic
Ethics: To Rank or Not to Rank' ignores such developments
and mentions only the original “Big Three”, Shanghai, QS and THE. This is
perhaps forgivable since the establishment media, including THE and the
Chronicle, and leading state and academic bureaucrats have until recently paid
very little attention to innovative developments in university ranking. Leiter
attacks the QS rankings and proposes that they should be boycotted while trying
to improve the THE rankings.
It is a
little odd that Leiter should be so caustic, not entirely without justification,
about QS while apparently being unaware of similar or greater problems with THE.
He begins
by saying that QS stands for “quirky silliness”. I would not disagree with that although
in recent years QS has been getting less silly. I have been as sarcastic as
anyone about the failings of QS: see here and here for
an amusing commentary.
But the
suggestion that QS is uniquely bad in contrast to THE is way off the target.
There are many issues with the QS methodology, especially with its employer and
academic surveys, and it has often announced placings that seem very
questionable such as Nanyang Technological University (NTU) ahead of Princeton
and Yale or the University of Buenos Aires in the world top 100, largely
as a result of a suspiciously good performance in the survey
indicators. The
oddities of the QS rankings are, however, no worse than some of the absurdities
that THE has served up in their world and
regional rankings. We have had places like University of Marakkesh Cadi
Ayyad University in Morocco, Middle East Technical University in Turkey,
Federico Santa Maria Technical University in Chile, Alexandria University
and Veltech University
in India rise to ludicrously high places, sometimes just for a year or two, as
the result of a few papers or even a single highly cited author.
I am not
entirely persuaded that NTU deserves its top
12 placing in the QS rankings. You can see here QS’s
unconvincing reply to a question that I provided. QS claims that NTU's excellence
is shown by its success in attracting foreign faculty, students and
collaborators, but when you are in a country where people show their passports
to drive to the dentist, being international is no great accomplishment. Even
so, it is evidently world class as far as engineering and computer science are
concerned and it is not impossible that it could reach an undisputed overall top
ten or twenty ranking the next decade.
While the
THE top ten or twenty or even fifty looks quite reasonable, apart from Oxford
in first place, there are many anomalies as soon as we start breaking the
rankings apart by country or indicator and THE has pushed some very weird data
in recent years. Look at these
places supposed to be regional or international centers of across
the board research excellence as measured by citations: St Georges University
of London, Brandeis University, the Free University of Bozen-Bolsano,
King Abdulaziz University, the University of Iceland, Veltech University.
If QS is silly what are we to call a ranking where Anglia Ruskin University is
supposed to have a greater research impact than Chicago, Cambridge or Tsinghua.
Leiter
starts his article by pointing out that the QS academic survey is largely
driven by the geographical distribution of its respondents and by the halo
effect. This is very probably true and to that I would add that a lot of the
responses to academic surveys of this kind are likely driven by simple self
interest, academics voting for their alma mater or current employer. QS does
not allow respondents to vote for the latter but they can vote for the former
and also vote for grant providers or collaborators.
He says
that “QS does not, however, disclose the geographic distribution of
its survey respondents, so the extent of the distorting effect cannot be
determined". This is not true of the overall survey. QS does in fact
give very
detailed figures about the origin of its respondents and there
is good evidence here of probable distorting effects. There are, for example,
more responses from Taiwan than from Mainland China, and almost as many from
Malaysia as from Russia. QS does not, however, go down to subject level when
listing geographic distribution.
He then
refers to the case of University
College Cork (UCC) asking faculty to solicit friends in other
institutions to vote for UCC. This is definitely a bad practice, but it was in
violation of QS guidelines and QS have investigated. I do not know what came of
the investigation but it is worth noting that the message would not have been
an issue if it had referred to the THE survey.
On
balance, I would agree that THE ‘s survey methodology is less dubious than QS’s
and less likely to be influenced by energetic PR campaigns. It would certainly
be a good idea if the weighting of the QS survey was reduced and if there was more
rigorous screening and classification of potential respondents.
But I
think we also have to bear in mind that QS does prohibit respondents from
voting for their own universities and it does average results out over a five-
year period (formerly three years).
It is
interesting that while THE does not usually combine and average survey
results it
did so in the 2016-17 world rankings combining the 2015 and 2016
survey results. This was, I suspect, probably because of a substantial drop in 2016 in the
percentage of respondents from the arts and humanities that would, if
unadjusted, have caused a serious problem for UK universities, especially those
in the Russell Group.
Leiter
then goes on to condemn QS for its dubious business practices. He reports that
THE dropped QS because of its dubious practices. That is what THE says but it
is widely rumoured within the rankings industry that THE was also interested in
the financial advantages of a direct partnership with Thomson Reuters rather
than getting data from QS.
He also
refers to QS’s hosting a series of “World Class events” where world university
leaders pay $950 for “seminar, dinners, coffee breaks” and “learn best practice
for branding and marketing your institution through case studies and expert
knowledge” and the QS stars plan where universities pay to be audited by QS in
return for stars that they can use for promotion and advertising. I would add
to his criticism that the Stars program has apparently undergone a typical
“grade inflation” with the number of five-star universities increasing all the
time.
Also, QS
offers specific consulting services and it has a large number of clients from
around the world although there are many more from Australia and Indonesia than
from Canada and the US. Of the three from the US one is MIT which has
been number
one in the QS world rankings since 2012, a position it
probably achieved after a change in the way in which faculty were classified.
It would,
however, be misleading to suggest that THE is any better in this respect. Since
2014 it has launched a serious and unapologetic “monetisation of data” program.
There are
events such as the forthcoming world "academic summit" where for 1,199
GBP (standard university) or 2,200 GBP (corporate), delegates can get "Exclusive
insight into the 2017 Times Higher Education World University
Rankings at the official launch and rankings masterclass,”, plus “prestigious
gala dinner, drinks reception and other networking events”. THE also provides a variety of
benchmarking and performance analysis services, branding, advertising and
reputation management campaigns and a range of silver and gold profiles,
including adverts and sponsored supplements. THE’s data
clients include some illustrious names like the National University of
Singapore and Trinity College Dublin plus some less well-known places such as
Federico Santa Maria Technical University, Orebro University, King Abdulaziz University,
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI Moscow, and Charles Darwin
University.
Among
THE’s activities are regional events that promise “partnership opportunities
for global thought leaders” and where rankings like “the WUR are presented at
these events with our award-winning data team on hand to explain them, allowing
institutions better understanding of their findings”.
At some
of these summits the rankings presented are trimmed and tweaked and somehow
the hosts emerge in a favourable light. In February 2015, for example, THE held
a Middle East and North Africa (MENA) summit that included a “snapshot ranking” that
put Texas A and M University Qatar, a branch campus that offers nothing but
engineering courses, in first place and Qatar University in fourth. The ranking
consisted of precisely one indicator out of the 13 that make up THE’s world
university rankings, field and year normalised citations. United Arab Emirates
University (UAEU) was 11th and the American University of
Sharjah in the UAE 14th.
The next
MENA summit was held in January 2016 in Al Ain in UAE. There was no snapshot
this time and the methodology for the MENA rankings included 13 indicators in
THE’s world rankings. Host country universities were now in fifth (UAEU) and
eighth place (American University in Sharjah). Texas A and M Qatar was not
ranked and Qatar University fell to sixth place.
Something
similar happened to Africa. In 2015, THE went to the University of Johannesburg
for a summit that brought together “outstanding global thought leaders from
industry, government, higher education and research” and which unveiled THE’s
Africa ranking based on citations (with the innovation of fractional counting)
that put the host university in ninth place and the University of Ghana in
twelfth.
In 2016
the show moved on to the University of Ghana where another ranking was produced
based on all the 13 world ranking indicators. This time the University of
Johannesburg did not take part and the University of Ghana went from 12th place
to 7th.
I may
have missed something but so far I do not see sign of THE Africa or MENA
summits planned for 2017. If so, then African and MENA university leaders are
to be congratulated for a very healthy scepticism.
To be
fair, THE does not seem to have done any methodological tweaking for this year’s
Asian, Asia Pacific and Latin American rankings.
Leiter
concludes that American academics should boycott the QS survey but not THE’s
and that they should lobby THE to improve its survey practices. That, I
suspect, is pretty much a nonstarter. QS has never had much a presence in the
US anyway and THE is unlikely to change significantly as long as its commercial
dominance goes unchallenged and as long as scholars and administrators fail to
see through its PR wizardry. It would be better for everybody to start looking beyond the "Big Three" rankings.
Monday, July 03, 2017
Proving anything you want from rankings
It seems that
university rankings can be used to prove almost anything that journalists want
to prove.
Ever since
the Brexit referendum experts and pundits of various kinds have been muttering
about the dread disease that is undermining or about to undermine the research
prowess of British universities. The malignity of Brexit is so great that it
can send its evil rays back from the future.
Last year,
as several British universities tumbled down the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) world
rankings, the Independent claimed that
“[p]ost-Brexit uncertainty and long-term funding issues have seen storm clouds
gather over UK higher education in this year’s QS World University Rankings”.
It is
difficult to figure out how anxiety about a vote that took place on June 24th
2016 could affect a ranking based on institutional data for 2014 and
bibliometric data from the previous five years.
It is just
about possible that some academics or employers might have woken up on June 24th
to see that their intellectual inferiors had joined the orcs to raze the ivory
towers of Baggins University and Bree Poly and then rushed to send a late
response to the QS opinion survey. But QS, to their credit, have taken steps to
deal with that sort of thing by averaging out survey responses over a period of
five years.
European and
American universities have been complaining for a long time that they do not
get enough money from the state and that their performance in the global
rankings is undermined because they do not get enough international students or
researchers. That is a bit more plausible. After all, income does account for
three separate indicators in the Times Higher Education (THE) world rankings so
reduced income would obviously cause universities to fall a bit. The scandal
over Trinity College Dublin’s botched rankings data submission showed
precisely how much a given increase in reported total income (with research and
industry income in a constant proportion) means for the THE world rankings. International
metrics account for 10% of the QS rankings and 7.5% of the THE world rankings.
Whether a decline in income or the number of international students has a
direct effect or indeed any effect at all on research output or the quality of
teaching is quite another matter.
The problem
with claims like this is that the QS and THE rankings are very blunt instruments
that should not be used to make year by year analyses or to influence
government or university policy. There have been several changes in
methodology, there are fluctuations in the distribution of survey responses by
region and subject and the average scores for indicators may go up and down as
the number of participants changes. All of these mean that it is very unwise to
make extravagant assertions about university quality based on what happens in those
rankings.
Before
making any claim based on ranking changes it would be a good idea to wait a few
years until the impact of any methodological change has passed through the
system
Another variation
in this genre is the recent
claim in the Daily Telegraph that “British universities are slipping down
the world rankings, with experts blaming the decline on pressure to admit more
disadvantaged students.”
Among the
experts is Alan Smithers of the University of Buckingham who is reported as
saying “universities are no longer free to take their own decisions and recruit
the most talented students which would ensure top positions in league tables”.
There is certainly
good evidence that British university courses are becoming much less rigorous. Every
year reports come in about declining standards
everywhere. The latest is the proposal at Oxford to allow
students to do take home instead of timed exams.
But it is unlikely
that this could show up in the QS or THE rankings. None of the global rankings
has a metric that measures the attributes of graduates except perhaps the QS
employers survey. It is probable that a decline in the cognitive skills of
admitted undergraduate students would eventually trickle up to the qualities of
research students and then to the output and quality of research but that is
not something that could happen in a single year especially when there is so
much noise generated by methodological changes.
The cold reality
is that university rankings can tell us some things about universities and how
they change over perhaps half a decade and some metrics are better than others
but it is an exercise in futility to use overall rankings or indicators subject
to methodological tweaking to argue about how political or economic changes are
impacting western universities.
The latest
improbable claim about rankings is that
Oxford’s achieving parity with Cambridge in the THE reputation rankings was the
result of a
positive image created by appointing its first female Vice Chancellor.
Phil Baty, THE’s editor, is reported as saying that ‘Oxford
University’s move to appoint its first female Vice Chancellor sent a “symbolic”
wave around the world which created a positive image for the institution among
academics.’
There is a
bit of a problem here. Louise Richardson was appointed Vice -Chancellor in
January 2016. The polling for the 2016 THE reputation rankings took place
between January and March 2016. One would expect that if the appointment of
Richardson had any effect on academic opinion at all then it would be in those
months. It certainly seems more likely than an impact that was delayed for more
than a year. If the appointment did affect the reputation rankings then it was
apparently a negative one for Oxford’s
score fell massively from 80.4 in 2015 to 69.1 in 2016 (compared to 100 for
Harvard in both years).
So, did Oxford
suffer in 2016 because spiteful curmudgeons were infuriated by an upstart
intruding into the dreaming spires?
The
collapse of Oxford in the 2016 reputation rankings and its slight recovery in
2017 almost certainly had nothing to do with the new Vice-Chancellor.
Take a look
at the table below. Oxford’s reputation score tracks the percentage of THE
survey responses from the arts and humanities. It goes up when there are more
respondents from those subjects and goes down when there are fewer. This is the
case for British universities in general and also for Cambridge except for this
year.
The general
trend since 2011 has been for the gap between Cambridge and Oxford to fall
steadily and that trend happened before Oxford acquired a new Vice-Chancellor
although it accelerated and finally erased the gap this year.
What is
unusual about this year’s reputation ranking is not that Oxford recovered as
the number of arts and humanities respondents increased but that Cambridge
continued to fall.
I wonder if
it has something to do with Cambridge’s “disastrous” performance in the THE
research impact (citations) indicator in recent years. In the 2014-15 world rankings Cambridge was
28th behind places like Federico Santa Maria Technical University
and Bogazici University. In 2015-16 it was 27th behind St Petersburg
Polytechnic University. But a greater humiliation came in the 2016-17 rankings.
Cambridge fell to 31st in the world for research impact. Even worse it
was well behind Anglia Ruskin University, a former art school. For research
impact Cambridge University wasn’t the best university in Europe or England. It
wasn’t even the best in Cambridge, at least if you trusted the sophisticated THE rankings.
Rankings
are not entirely worthless and if they did not exist no doubt they would
somehow be invented. But it is doing nobody any good to use them to promote the
special interests of university bureaucrats and insecure senior academics.
Table:
Scores in THE reputation rankings
Year
|
Oxford
|
Cambridge
|
Gap
|
%
responses arts and
humanities
|
2011
|
68.6
|
80.7
|
12.1
|
--
|
2012
|
71.2
|
80.7
|
9.5
|
7%
|
2013
|
73.0
|
81.3
|
8.3
|
10.5%
|
2014
|
67.8
|
74.3
|
6.5
|
9%
|
2015
|
80.4
|
84.3
|
3.9
|
16%
|
2016
|
67.6
|
72.2
|
4.6
|
9%
|
2017
|
69.1
|
69.1
|
0
|
12.5%
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)