The magazine Spiked is descended from Living Marxism although some think it is now more libertarian than socialist. It has just published the latest edition of its free speech university rankings.
These are not actually rankings but a classification or a rating, since they just divide UK universities into three groups. They have been subjected to mockery from sections of the academic blogosphere, including WONKHE, that might be justified on technical grounds. This is, however, such an important topic that any sort of publicity has to be welcomed.
Universities are divided into three categories:
RED; "A students’ union, university or institution that is hostile to free speech and free expression, mandating explicit restrictions on speech, including, but not limited to, bans on specific ideologies, political affiliations, beliefs, books, speakers or words."
AMBER; "A students’ union, university or institution that chills free speech and free expression through restricting vague and subjective types of speech, such as ‘offensive’ or ‘insulting’ speech, or requiring burdensome vetting procedures for events, speakers, posters or publications. Many policies in this category might not explicitly limit speech, but have the potential to be used to that end, due to purposefully vague or careless wording."
GREEN; "A students’ union, university or institution that, as far as we are aware, places no significant restrictions on free speech and expression – other than where such speech or expression is unlawful."
The roll of honour in the green category includes exactly seven universities, none of them in the Russell Group: Anglia Ruskin, Buckingham, Hertfordshire, Robert Gordon, Trinity St David, West of Scotland, and Winchester.
Tuesday, February 06, 2018
Interesting data from Webometrics
The Webometrics rankings perform the invaluable function of ranking 27,000 plus universities or entities claiming to be universities around the world. Also, their Excellence indicator identifies those institutions, 5,776 this year, with any claim to involvement in research.
Consequently, it has often been used in unofficial national rankings in countries, especially in Africa, where very few places can make it into the top 500 or 1,000 universities included in the better known international rankings.
However, there seems to be a universal law that when a ranking becomes significant it will have unintended and perverse consequences. In the UK we have seen massive inflation in the number of first and upper second class degrees partly because this is a n element in popular national rankings. Sophisticated campaigns can also produce significant gains in the QS academic opinion survey which has a 40% weighting and a few hundred strategic citations can boost the most unlikely universities in the research impact indicator of THE world and regional rankings.
Webometrics also has indicator that seems to be susceptible to bad practices. This is "Presence", the number of pages in the main webdomain including subdomains and file types such as rich files, with a 5% weighting. Apparently this can be easily manipulated. Unlike other rankings, Webometrics does not attempt to ignore this but has highlighted it in several recent tweets, which is helpful since it indicates who might be manipulating the variable. It is possible that there might have been a misunderstanding of the Webometrics guidelines, an error somewhere, or perhaps some totally valid and innocent explanation. If the latter is the case iIwill be happy to publish a statement.
Here is a selection of universities with their world rank in the Webometrics Presence indicator. The overall rank is in brackets.
4. University of Nairobi, Kenya (874)
5. Masaryk University in Brno, Czechia (433)
9. Federal university of Santa Catarina, Brazil (439)
15. Charles University in Prague (203)
17. University of Costa Rica (885)
20. University of the West Indies St Augustine (1792)
32. National University of Honduras (3777)
40. Mahidol University, Thailand (548)
55. Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Indonesia (6394)
Consequently, it has often been used in unofficial national rankings in countries, especially in Africa, where very few places can make it into the top 500 or 1,000 universities included in the better known international rankings.
However, there seems to be a universal law that when a ranking becomes significant it will have unintended and perverse consequences. In the UK we have seen massive inflation in the number of first and upper second class degrees partly because this is a n element in popular national rankings. Sophisticated campaigns can also produce significant gains in the QS academic opinion survey which has a 40% weighting and a few hundred strategic citations can boost the most unlikely universities in the research impact indicator of THE world and regional rankings.
Webometrics also has indicator that seems to be susceptible to bad practices. This is "Presence", the number of pages in the main webdomain including subdomains and file types such as rich files, with a 5% weighting. Apparently this can be easily manipulated. Unlike other rankings, Webometrics does not attempt to ignore this but has highlighted it in several recent tweets, which is helpful since it indicates who might be manipulating the variable. It is possible that there might have been a misunderstanding of the Webometrics guidelines, an error somewhere, or perhaps some totally valid and innocent explanation. If the latter is the case iIwill be happy to publish a statement.
Here is a selection of universities with their world rank in the Webometrics Presence indicator. The overall rank is in brackets.
4. University of Nairobi, Kenya (874)
5. Masaryk University in Brno, Czechia (433)
9. Federal university of Santa Catarina, Brazil (439)
15. Charles University in Prague (203)
17. University of Costa Rica (885)
20. University of the West Indies St Augustine (1792)
32. National University of Honduras (3777)
40. Mahidol University, Thailand (548)
55. Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Indonesia (6394)
Wednesday, January 24, 2018
Fake Rankings from Nigeria?
Although the Webometrics rankings, based mainly on web activities, receive little attention from the good and the great among the world 's university administrators they do serve the important function of providing some sort of assessment of over 20,000 universities or entities that claim to be universities. They get to places where the market leaders, Shanghai Ranking, THE and QS, cannot go.
As a result, the media in several African countries have from time to time published local rankings based on Webometrics that do not appear all that different from what would be expected from a ranking based on research or reputation.
For example, the current top five in Webometrics are:
1. University of Ibadan
2. Covenant University
3. Obafemi Awolowo University
4. University of Nigeria
5. University of Lagos.
The Nigerian press have in the last few years announced the results of rankings supposedly produced by the country's national university commission. In 2016 Nigerian Scholars reported that the NUC had produced a ranking with the top five being:
1. University of Ibadan
2. University of Lagos
3. University of Benin
4. Obafemi Awolowo University
5. Ahmadu Bello University.
Now we have this published in The Nation .Professor Adamu Abubakar Abdulrasheed, Executive Secretary of the NUC, has announced that the rankings attributed to the NUC were fake and that the commission had not published any ranking for several years.
This is a bit strange. Does that mean that nobody on the commission noticed that fake rankings were being published in its name until now? There may be more to the story.
For the moment, it looks as though Nigeria and other countries in Africa may have to continue relying on Webometrics.
As a result, the media in several African countries have from time to time published local rankings based on Webometrics that do not appear all that different from what would be expected from a ranking based on research or reputation.
For example, the current top five in Webometrics are:
1. University of Ibadan
2. Covenant University
3. Obafemi Awolowo University
4. University of Nigeria
5. University of Lagos.
The Nigerian press have in the last few years announced the results of rankings supposedly produced by the country's national university commission. In 2016 Nigerian Scholars reported that the NUC had produced a ranking with the top five being:
1. University of Ibadan
2. University of Lagos
3. University of Benin
4. Obafemi Awolowo University
5. Ahmadu Bello University.
Now we have this published in The Nation .Professor Adamu Abubakar Abdulrasheed, Executive Secretary of the NUC, has announced that the rankings attributed to the NUC were fake and that the commission had not published any ranking for several years.
This is a bit strange. Does that mean that nobody on the commission noticed that fake rankings were being published in its name until now? There may be more to the story.
For the moment, it looks as though Nigeria and other countries in Africa may have to continue relying on Webometrics.
Saturday, January 20, 2018
What use is a big endowment?
Quite a lot. But not as much as you might expect.
The website THEBESTSCHOOLS has just published a list of the world's 100 wealthiest universities, as measured by the value of their endowments. As expected, it is dominated by US institutions with Harvard in first place. There are also three universities from Canada and two each from the UK, Australia, Japan, Singapore and Saudi Arabia
There are of course other elements in university funding but it worth looking at how this ranking compares with others. The top five are familiar to any rankings observer, Harvard with an endowment of 34.5 US$ followed by Yale, the University of Texas system, Stanford and Princeton. Then there is a surprise, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia in sixth place with an endowment of 20 billion.
Some of the wealthy universities also do well in other rankings. Stanford, in fourth place here, is second in the overall Shanghai rankings and seventh for publications, and fifth in the Leiden Ranking default publications indicator. It does even better in the QS employer survey indicator, where it is ranked second.
There are, however, several places that are very wealthy but just don't get anywhere in the global rankings. Williams College, the University of Richmond, Pomona College, Wellesley College, Smith College, and Grinnell College are not even given a value in the QS employment indicator, or the Leiden or Shanghai publication indicators. They may of course do well in some other respects: the University of Richmond is reported by the Princeton Review to be second in the US for internships.
On the other hand, some less affluent universities do surprisingly well. Some California schools seem to among the best high-performers. Caltech is 47th here but 9th in the Shanghai rankings where it has always been first in the productivity per capita indicator. Berkeley is 65th here and fifth in Shanghai. The University of California San Francisco, a medical school, is 90th here and 21st in Shanghai.
Overall there is an association between endowment value and research output or reputation among employers that is definitely positive but rather modest. The correlation between endowment and Shanghai publication score is 0.38, between endowment and number of publications 2012-15 (in the Leiden Ranking) 0.46, and between endowment and the QS employer survey score 0.40. The relationship would certainly be higher if we corrected for restriction of range.
Having a lot of money helps a university produce research and build up a reputation for excellence but it is certainly not the only factor involved.
Here is the top ten in a a ranking of the 100 universities by papers (Leiden Ranking) per billion dollars of endowment.
1. University of Toronto
2. University of British Columbia
3. McGill University
4. University of California San Francisco
5. University of Melbourne
6. Rutgers University
7. UCLA
8. University of Florida
9. University of California Berkeley
10. University of Sydney.
When it comes to research value for money it looks as though Australian and Canadian universities and US state institutions are doing rather better than the Ivy League or Oxbridge.
Ranking News: Chinese Think Tank Ranking
From the China Daily
The Global Think Tank Research Center affiliated with Zhejiang University of Technology has released a ranking of domestic university think tanks.
The first three places go to the National Academy of Development and Strategy at Renmin University of China, the national School of Development at Peking University, and the National Conditions Institute at Tsinghua University.
The Global Think Tank Research Center affiliated with Zhejiang University of Technology has released a ranking of domestic university think tanks.
The first three places go to the National Academy of Development and Strategy at Renmin University of China, the national School of Development at Peking University, and the National Conditions Institute at Tsinghua University.
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
Ranking News: US State K-12 Rankings
Education Week has produced a ranking of states according to three criteria: Chance for Success, School Finance and K-12 Achievement. Overall, the top state is Massachusetts, which is also first for Chance for Success and K-12 Achievement. Pennsylvania is top for school finance. Overall the worse performing state is Nevada while New Mexico is worst for Chance for Success, Idaho for School Finance, and Mississippi for K-12 achievement.
California is an interesting case. Overall it is below average and gets a grade of C-. For K-12 its grade is D+. The state has some of the best universities in the world. Typically three or four of them will be found in the top ten of any global ranking. So why is the performance of primary and secondary schools so poor? Could it be that Education Week has identified the future of California's tertiary sector?
California is an interesting case. Overall it is below average and gets a grade of C-. For K-12 its grade is D+. The state has some of the best universities in the world. Typically three or four of them will be found in the top ten of any global ranking. So why is the performance of primary and secondary schools so poor? Could it be that Education Week has identified the future of California's tertiary sector?
Thursday, January 11, 2018
Ranking news: Jordan cancels classification of universities
The Higher Education Accreditation Commission of Jordan has cancelled its proposed classification of universities. Apparently, academics were opposed because it was based on international rankings and ignored "“the reality of the universities and the damage to their reputation”.
Source
Jordan Times
Source
Jordan Times
Friday, December 29, 2017
Getting ready for next year's university rankings
Getting ready for next year's university rankings.
More on Japan and the Rankings
The Japan Times recently published an article by Takamitsu Sawa, President and Distinguished Professor at Shiga University, discussing the apparent decline of Japan's universities in the global rankings.
He notes that in 2014 there were five Japanese universities in the top 200 of the Times Higher Education (THE) world rankings but only two in 2016. He attributes Japan's poor performance to the bias of the citations indicator towards English language publications and the inability or reluctance of Japanese academics to write in English. Professor Sawa seems to be under the impression that THE does not count research papers not written in English, which is incorrect. It is, however, true that the failure of Japanese scholars to write in English prevents their universities doing better in the rankings. He also blames lack of funding from the government and the Euro-American bias of the THE reputation survey.
The most noticeable thing about this article is that the author talks about exactly one table, the THE World University Rankings. This is unfortunately very common especially among Asian academics, There are now over a dozen global rankings of varying quality and some of them tell a different, and perhaps more accurate, story than THE's. For example, there are several well known international rankings in which there are more Japanese universities in the world top 200 than there are in THE's.
There are currently two in the THE top 200 but seven in the Shanghai Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), ten in the QS World University Rankings, ten in the Russian Round University Rankings, seven in the CWTS Leiden Ranking total publications indicator and ten in the Nature Index.
Let's now take a look at the University of Tokyo (Todai), the country's best known university, and it's position in these rankings. Currently it is 46th in the world in THE but in ARWU it is 23rd, in QS 28th, in Leiden Ranking tenth for publications and tenth in the Nature Index. RUR put the university in 43rd place, still a little better than THE. It is very odd that Professor Sawa should focus on the rankings that puts Japanese universities in the worst possible light and ignore the others.
As noted in an earlier post, Tokyo's tumble in the THE rankings came suddenly in 2015 when THE made some drastic changes in its methodology, including switching to Scopus as data supplier, excluding papers with large numbers of authors such as those derived from the CERN projects, and applying a country adjustment to half instead of all the citations indicator. Then in 2016 THE made further changes for its Asian rankings that further lowered the scores of Japanese universities.
It is true that scores of leading Japanese universities in most rankings have drifted downwards over the last few years but this is a relative trend caused mainly by the rise of a few Chinese and Korean universities. Japan's weakest point, as indicated by the RUR and THE rankings, is internationalisation. These rankings show that the major Japanese universities still have strong reputations for postgraduate teaching and research while the Nature Index and the Leiden Ranking point to an excellent performance in research in the natural science at the highest levels.
Nobody should rely on a single ranking and changes caused mainly by methodological tweaking should be taken with a large bucket of salt.
He notes that in 2014 there were five Japanese universities in the top 200 of the Times Higher Education (THE) world rankings but only two in 2016. He attributes Japan's poor performance to the bias of the citations indicator towards English language publications and the inability or reluctance of Japanese academics to write in English. Professor Sawa seems to be under the impression that THE does not count research papers not written in English, which is incorrect. It is, however, true that the failure of Japanese scholars to write in English prevents their universities doing better in the rankings. He also blames lack of funding from the government and the Euro-American bias of the THE reputation survey.
The most noticeable thing about this article is that the author talks about exactly one table, the THE World University Rankings. This is unfortunately very common especially among Asian academics, There are now over a dozen global rankings of varying quality and some of them tell a different, and perhaps more accurate, story than THE's. For example, there are several well known international rankings in which there are more Japanese universities in the world top 200 than there are in THE's.
There are currently two in the THE top 200 but seven in the Shanghai Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), ten in the QS World University Rankings, ten in the Russian Round University Rankings, seven in the CWTS Leiden Ranking total publications indicator and ten in the Nature Index.
Let's now take a look at the University of Tokyo (Todai), the country's best known university, and it's position in these rankings. Currently it is 46th in the world in THE but in ARWU it is 23rd, in QS 28th, in Leiden Ranking tenth for publications and tenth in the Nature Index. RUR put the university in 43rd place, still a little better than THE. It is very odd that Professor Sawa should focus on the rankings that puts Japanese universities in the worst possible light and ignore the others.
As noted in an earlier post, Tokyo's tumble in the THE rankings came suddenly in 2015 when THE made some drastic changes in its methodology, including switching to Scopus as data supplier, excluding papers with large numbers of authors such as those derived from the CERN projects, and applying a country adjustment to half instead of all the citations indicator. Then in 2016 THE made further changes for its Asian rankings that further lowered the scores of Japanese universities.
It is true that scores of leading Japanese universities in most rankings have drifted downwards over the last few years but this is a relative trend caused mainly by the rise of a few Chinese and Korean universities. Japan's weakest point, as indicated by the RUR and THE rankings, is internationalisation. These rankings show that the major Japanese universities still have strong reputations for postgraduate teaching and research while the Nature Index and the Leiden Ranking point to an excellent performance in research in the natural science at the highest levels.
Nobody should rely on a single ranking and changes caused mainly by methodological tweaking should be taken with a large bucket of salt.
Tuesday, December 19, 2017
Saturday, December 16, 2017
Rankings in Hong Kong
My previous post on the City University of Hong Kong has been republished in the Hong Kong Standard.
So far I can find no reference to anyone asking about the City University of Hong Kong's submission of student data to THE or data about faculty numbers for any Hong Kong university.
I also noticed that the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology is not on the list of 500 universities in the QS Employability Rankings although it is 12th in the one published in THE. Is there a dot here?
So far I can find no reference to anyone asking about the City University of Hong Kong's submission of student data to THE or data about faculty numbers for any Hong Kong university.
I also noticed that the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology is not on the list of 500 universities in the QS Employability Rankings although it is 12th in the one published in THE. Is there a dot here?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)