Using Webometrics to Rank University Systems

Recently there has been some interest in ranking higher education systems in addition to institutions or departments. See here and here.  But both of these efforts, from Universitas 21 and QS, rank only 50 countries.

The Webometrics rankings attempt to cover every university in the world or anything that might conceivably claim to be a university, institute or college. The indicators comprise web activity and research output. So, there is data here to create a simple and comprehensive  ranking of countries. Below is the list of countries and territories ranked according to the world rank of the highest ranked university. If the Webometrics methodology remains unchanged it will be updated twice a year.

The table is not very surprising overall but it is worth noting that the leading Asian countries are already in the top ten and that Brazil and Mexico  are not too far behind. The performance of Arab countries is not too impressive even if they are rich in oil.

It's a safe bet that the highest ranked Chinese university will rise steadily over the next few years followed by South Korea and Singapore, but probably not Hong Kong and Australia.

Rank	Country	Rank of highest ranked university
1	USA	1
2	UK	7
3	Canada	19
4	Switzerland	32
5	China	33
6	Hong Kong	45
7	Australia	46
8	Singapore	50
9	Netherlands	63
10	Japan	69
11	Brazil	74
12	Denmark	76
13	Belgium	78
14	Finland	87
15	Norway	93
16	Germany	97
17	Sweden	106
18	Taiwan	111
19	South Korea	116
20	Italy	120
21	Spain	133
22	Mexico	141
23	Austria	150
24	New Zealand	153
25	Israel	157
26	Czech Republic	204
27	Portugal	208
28	Greece	224
29	Russia	226
30	Argentina	228
31	Ireland	230
32	South Africa	274
33	France	292
34	Chile	323
35	Malaysia	352
36	Argentina	372
37	Poland	388
38	Saudi Arabia	415
39	Iran	417
40	Estonia	440
41	Serbia	464
42	India	471
43	Turkey	475
44	Thailand	513
45	Iceland	533
46	Hungary	563
47	Egypt	602
48	Colombia	614
49	Croatia	619
50	Luxembourg	631
51	Puerto Rico	649
52	Belarus	684
53	Cyprus	700
54	Macau	720
55	Slovakia	732
56	Lithuania	750
57	Indonesia	771
58	Costa Rica	844
59	Malta	866
60	Romania	881
61	Bulgaria	934
62	Jamaica	953
63	Qatar	958
64	Peru	971
65	Kenya	987
66	Vietnam	1013
67	Slovenia	1103
68	Latvia	1106
69	Uganda	1129
70	Jordan	1149
71	UAE	1158
72	Philippines	1199
73	Ghana	1209
74	Nigeria	1233
75	Pakistan	1269
76	Ethiopia	1314
77	Oman	1346
78	Georgia	1423
79	Morocco	1515
80	North Macedonia	1569
81	Venezuela	1593
82	Ecuador	1638
83	Palestine	1646
84	Bosnia	1669
85	Kazakhstan	1793
86	Trinidad	1794
87	Iraq	1804
88	Brunei	1829
89	Fiji	1831
90	Bangladesh	1895
91	Tanzania	1913
92	Ukraine	1977
93	Sri Lanka	1981
94	Zimbabwe	2014
95	Algeria	2061
96	Cuba	2134
97	Bahrain	2161
98	Kuwait	2200
99	Mozambique	2280
100	Paraguay	2297
101	Mauritius	2422
102	Guatemala	2458
103	Uruguay	2499
104	Botswana	2583
105	Grenada	2583
106	Armenia	2643
107	Liechtenstein	2761
108	Montenegro	2878
109	Guam	2900
110	Sudan	2936
111	Bolivia	2960
112	Mongolia	2962
113	Benin	2980
114	Malawi	3001
115	Zambia	3001
116	Senegal	3008
117	Moldova	3151
118	Tunisia	3198
119	Rwanda	3220
120	Nepal	3243
121	Namibia	3316
122	Panama	3391
123	Cameroon	3527
124	Barbados	3538
125	Azerbaijan	3573
126	US Virgin Islands	3579
127	Syria	3593
128	Burkina Faso	3634
129	Dominica	3679
130	Honduras	3892
131	Uzbekistan	4017
132	Libya	4040
133	Yemen	4126
134	Faroe Islands	4368
135	Madagascar	4372
136	Togo	4392
137	Eswatini	4428
138	Laos	4431
139	Nicaragua	4458
140	El Salvador	4542
141	Kyrgyzstan	4554
142	French Polynesia	4640
143	Albania	4735
144	Monaco	4842
145	Dominican Republic	4903
146	Cambodia	5060
147	San Marino	5107
148	Papua New Guinee	5205
149	Greenland	5378
150	Afghanistan	5676
151	Lesotho	5872
152	Antigua	6040
153	Guyana	6149
154	Ivory Coast	6306
155	Anguilla	6374
156	Suriname	6641
157	Democratic Republic of the Congo	7033
158	American Samoa	7213
159	Myanmar	7221
160	Belize	7497
161	Micronesia	7962
162	Haiti	8082
163	Angola	8091
164	Bhutan	8159
165	Niger	8384
166	Sierra Leone	8560
167	Somalia	10154
168	St Kitts & Nevis	10527
169	Cape Verde	10685
170	Andorra	10772
171	Gambia	11020
172	Seychelles	11235
173	South Sudan	12329
174	Cayman Islands	13011
175	Samoa	13132
176	Bermuda	13431
177	British Virgin Islands	13694
178	Maldives	13864
179	Palau	13864
180	St Lucia	13981
181	Tajikistan	14180
182	Djibouti	14186
183	Central African Republic	14433
184	Northern Marianas	14444
185	Marshall Islands	15827
186	Gabon	16002
187	Aruba	16347
188	Solomon Islands	17867
189	Montserrat	18103
190	East Timor	18433
191	Guinea	18588
192	French Guiana	18703
193	Liberia	19463
194	Isle of Man	20029
195	Mali	20172
196	Mauretania	22144
197	Equatorial Guinea	23382
198	Niue	23892
199	Eritrea	24481
200	Turks & Caicos Islands	27918

Rankings case shows need to reform citations indicator

My previous post has just been republished by University World News.

Comments here are welcome.

Trinity College Dublin: Time to forget about THE?:

Global rankings, especially THE's, have been very useful to British universities, at least to those sitting at the apex of the system. If a Russell Group university falls in the rankings then it is the fault of impending Brexit and/or the terrible austerity inflicted on the nation's research prowess. If it rises then this is cause for congratulation but with a hint of foreboding. How can they keep advancing with Ebenezer Scrooge controlling  the treasury and the bitter winds of Brexit howling at the door? The universities have reciprocated by not inquiring about how THE constructs its rankings, particularly the citations and industry income indicators. 

Across the Irish Sea, universities have for the most part also been loyal to THE. Trinity College Dublin (TCD) has continued to submit data to THE and also to QS and has passively accepted the results of the rankings even when they show the institution going down and down. The steady decline is usually blamed on the meanness of the Irish government and its failure to provide sufficient funds.

I have dealt with Trinity's misfortunes here,  here, here, and here, In 2015 TCD fell seven places in the QS world rankings and 22 in THE's. In contrast it had been rising in the Shanghai ARWU rankings since 2004 and in the Round University Rankings (RUR) since 2010, although everybody pretended not to notice this.

This year history repeats itself all over again. TCD has fallen in THE world rankings from 120th place to 164th. Again this supposedly is the fault of the Irish state to provide enough money.

But we get a very different picture when we look at the Shanghai Rankings. TCD has risen from 167th place to 154th, getting close to the 101-150 band. Leaving aside the Nobel and Fields Awards, Trinity has gained 6.6 points for highly cited researchers, 1.4 for publications, and 1.4 for productivity per capita. It has, however, fallen 0.6 for papers in Nature and Science.

Looking at RUR, TCD has risen from 75th to 57th for Research and 35th to 29th for international diversity. It has fallen slightly for financial sustainability from 191st to 197th and for Teaching from 275th to 335th, mainly because of a fall in the number of academic staff.

It seems perverse for TCD to keep on about its decline in the THE rankings when it can point to a steady rise in the Shanghai rankings which are not perfect but are certainly more stable, consistent and realistic than THE. 

Does THE really want to be judged by rankings that apparently think that Anadolu University is best for Innovation, Luxembourg for International Orientation and Aswan for research impact measured by Citations?

But if TCD really insist on sticking with THE then I suggest that they recruit a few researchers taking part in the Global Burden of Disease Study, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.*

They should also think about amalgamating with the Royal College of Surgeons.

*assuming no methodological change

Seven Modest Suggestions for Times Higher Education

My post of the 24th of August has been republished in Arabia Higher Education

Going Up and Up Down Under: the Case of the University of Canberra

It is a fact almost universally ignored that when a university suddenly rises or falls many places in the global rankings the cause is not transformative leadership, inclusive excellence, team work, or strategic planning but nearly always a defect or a change in the rankers' methodology.

Let's take a look at the fortunes of the University of Canberra (UC) which THE world rankings now have in the world's top 200 universities and Australia's top ten. This is a remarkable achievement since the university did not appear in these rankings until 2015-16 when it was placed in the 500-600 band with very modest scores of 18.4 for teaching, 19.3 for research, 29.8 for citations, which is supposed to measure research impact, 36.2 for industry income, and 54.6 for international outlook.

Just four years later the indicator scores are 25.2 for teaching, 31.1 for research, 99.2 for citations, 38.6 for industry income, and 86.9 for international orientation. 

The increase in the overall score over four years, calculated with different weightings for the indicators, was composed of 20.8 points for citations and 6.3 for the other four indicators combined. Without those 20.8 points Canberra would be in the 601-800 band.

I will look at where that massive citation score came from in a moment. 

It seems that the Australian media is reporting on this superficially impressive performance with little or no scepticism and without noting how different it is from the other global rankings. 

The university has issued a statement quoting vice-chancellor Professor Deep Saini as saying that the "result confirms the steady strengthening of the quality at the University of Canberra, thanks to the outstanding work of our research, teaching and professional staff" and that the "increase in citation impact is indicative of the quality of research undertaken at the university, coupled with a rapid growth in influence and reach, and has positioned the university as amongst the best in the world."

The Canberra Times reports that the vice-chancellor has said  that part of the improvement was the result of a talent acquisition campaign while noting that many faculty were complaining about pressure and excessive workloads.

Leigh Sullivan, DVC for research and innovation, has a piece in the Campus Morning Mail that hints at reservations about UC's apparent success, which is " a direct result of its Research Foundation Plan (2013-2017) and "a strong emphasis on providing strategic support for research excellence in a few select research areas where UC has strong capability." He notes that when the citation scores of research stars are excluded there has still been a significant increase in citations and warns that what goes up can go down and that performance can be affected by changes in the ranking methodology.

The website riotact quotes the vice-chancellor on the improvement in research quality as evidence by the citation score and as calling for more funding for universities: the "government has to really think and look hard at how well we support our universities. That's not to say it badly supports us, it's that the university sector deserves to be on the radar of our government as a major national asset."

The impressive ascent of UC is unique to THE. No serious ranking puts it in the top 200 or anywhere near. In the current Shanghai Rankings it is in the 601-700 band and has been falling for the last two years. In Webometrics it is 730th in the world and 947th for Excellence, that is publications in the 10% most cited in 25 disciplines.  In  University Ranking by Academic Performance it is 899th and in the CWUR Rankings it doesn't even make the top 1,000.

Round University Ranking and Leiden Ranking do not rank UC at all.

Apart from THE UC does best in the QS rankings where it is 484th in the world and 26th in Australia.

So how could UC perform so brilliantly in THE rankings when nobody else has recognised that brilliance? What does THE know that nobody else does? Actually, it does not perform brilliantly in the THE rankings, just in the citations indicator which is supposed to measure research influence or research impact.

This year UC has a score of 99.2 which puts it in the top twenty for citations just behind Nova Southeastern University in Florida and Cankaya University in Turkey and ahead of Harvard, Princeton and Oxford. The top university this year is Aswan University in Egypt replacing Babol Noshirvani University of Technology in Iran. 

No, THE is not copying the interesting methodology of the Fortunate 500. This is the result of an absurd methodology that THE is unable or unwilling for some reason to change.

THE has a self-inflicted  problem with  a small number of papers that have hundreds or thousands of "authors" and collect thousands of citations. Some of these are from the CERN project and THE has dealt with them  by using a modified form of fractional counting for papers with more than a thousand authors. That has removed the privilege of institutions that contribut to CERN projects but has replaced it with the privilege of those that contribute to the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBDS) whose papers tend to have hundreds but not thousands of contributors and sometimes receive over a thousand citations. As a result, places like Tokyo Metropolitan University, National Research University MEPhI and Royal Holloway London have been replaced as citation super stars by St Georges' London, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, and Oregon Health and Science University.

It would be a simple matter to apply fractional counting to all papers, dividing the number of citations by the number of authors. After all Leiden Ranking and Nature Index manage to do it but THE for some reason has chosen not to follow.

The problem is compounded by counting self-citations, by hyper-normalisation so that the chances of hitting the jackpot with an unusually highly cited paper are increased, and by the country bonus that boosts the scores for universities by virtue of their location in low scoring countries. 

And so to UC's apparent success this year. This is entirely the result of it's citation score which is entirely dependent on THE's methodology. 

Between 2014 and 2018 UC had 3,825 articles in the Scopus database of which 27 were linked to the GBDS which is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Those 27 articles, each with hundreds of contributors, have received 18,431 citations all of which are credited to UC and its contributor. The total number of citations is 53,929 so those 27 articles accounted for over a third of UC's citations. Their impact might be even greater if they were cited disproportionately soon after publication.

UC has of course improved its citation performance even without those articles but it is clear that they have made an outsize contribution. UC is not alone here. Many universities in the top 100 for citations in the THE world rankings owe their status to the GBDS: Anglia Ruskin, Reykjavik, Aswan, Indian Institute of Technology Ropar, the University of Peradeniya, Desarrollo, Pontifical Javeriana and so on.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the GBDS nor with UC encouraging researchers to take part. The problem lies with THE and its reluctance to repair an indicator that produces serious distortions and is an embarrassment to those universities who apparently look to the THE rankings to validate their status.

What should universities do about organised cheating?

Every so often the world of higher education is swept by a big panic about systemic and widespread cheating. The latest instance is concern about contract cheating or essay mills that provide bespoke essays or papers for students.

It seems that the Australian government will introduce legislation to penalise the supply or advertising of cheating services to students. There are already laws in several American states and there have been calls for the UK to follow suit.

There is perhaps a bit of hypocrisy here. If universities in Europe Australia and North America admit more and more students who lack the cognitive or language skills to do the required work and if they chose to use assessment methods that are vulnerable to deception and dishonesty such as unsupervised essays and group projects then cheating is close to inevitable. 

On the supply side there appear to be large numbers of people around the world without decent academic jobs or jobs of any sort who are capable of producing academic of a high standard, sometimes worth an A grade or a first. The Internet has made it possible for lazy or incompetent students to link up with competent writers.

The Daily Mail has reported that Kenya hosts a medium sized industry with  students and academics slaving away to churn out essays for British and American students. This is no doubt a hugely exploitative business but consider the consequences of shutting down the essay mills. Many educated Kenyans are going to suffer financially. Many students will drop out, resort to  other forms of cheating, or will demand more support and counselling and transitional or foundation programmes.

If universities are serious about the scourge of essay mills they need to work on both the supply and the demand side. They might start by offering the essay writers in Kenya to apply scholarships for undergraduate or postgraduate courses or posts in EAP departments. 

On the demand side the solution seems to be simple. Stop admitting students because they show leadership ability, have overcome adversity, will make the department look like Britain, America or the world, will help craft an interesting class, and admit them because they have demonstrated an ability to do the necessary work.












https://www.studyinternational.com/news/australia-essay-mills-contract-cheating-penalty-law/

Are UK universities facing a terrible catastrophe?

A repeated theme of mainstream media reporting on university rankings (nearly always QS or THE) is that Brexit has inflicted, is inflicting, or is surely going to inflict great damage on British education and the universities because they will not get any research grants from the European Union or be able to network with their continental peers.

The latest of these dire warnings can be found in a recent edition of the Guardian, which is the voice of the British progressive  establishment. Marja Makarow claims that Swiss science was forced "into exile" after the 2014 referendum on immigration controls. Following this, Switzerland supposedly entered a period of isolation without access to Horizon 2020 or grants from the European Research Council and with a declining reputation and a loss of international collaboration and networks. This will happen to British research and universities if Brexit is allowed to happen.

But has Swiss research suffered? A quick tour of some relevant rankings suggests that it has not. The European Research Ranking which measures research funding and networking in Europe has two Swiss universities in the top ten. The Universitas 21 systems rankings put Switzerland in third place for output, up from sixth in 2013, and first for connectivity.

The Leiden Ranking shows that EPF Lausanne and ETH Zurich have fallen for total publications between 2011-14 and 2014-17 but both have risen for publications in the top 10% of journals, a measure of research quality.

The Round University Rankings show that EPF and ETH have both improved for research since 2013 and both have improved their world research reputation.

So it looks as though Switzerland has not really suffered very much, if at all. Perhaps Brexit, if it ever happens, will turn out to be something less than the cataclysm that is feared, or hoped for.

Finer and finer rankings prove anything you want

If you take a single metric from a single ranking and do a bit of slicing by country, region, subject, field and/or age there is a good chance that you can prove almost anything, for example that the University of the Philippines is a world beater for medical research. Here is another example from the Financial Times.

An article by John O'Hagan, Emeritus Professor at Trinity College Dublin, claims that German universities are doing well for research impact in the QS economics world rankings. Supposedly, "no German university appears in the top 50 economics departments in the world using the overall QS rankings. However, when just research impact is used, the picture changes dramatically, with three German universities, Bonn, Mannheim and Munich, in the top 50, all above Cambridge and Oxford on this ranking."

This is a response to Frederick Studemann's claim that German universities are about to move up the rankings. O'Hagan is saying that is already happening.

I am not sure what this is about. I had a look at the most recent QS economics rankings and found that in fact Mannheim is in the top fifty overall for that subject. The QS subject rankings do not have a research impact indicator. They have academic reputation, citations per paper, and h-index, which might be considered proxies for research impact, but for none of these are the three universities in the top fifty. Two of the three universities are in the top fifty for academic research reputation, one for citations per paper and two for h-index.

So it seems that the article isn't referring to the QS economics subject ranking. Maybe it is the overall ranking that professor O'Hagan is thinking of? There are no German universities in the overall top fifty there but there are also none in the citations per faculty indicator. 

I will assume that the article is based on an actual ranking somewhere, maybe an earlier edition of the QS subject rankings or the THE world rankings or from one of the many spin-offs. 

But it seems a stretch to talk about German universities moving up the rankings just because they did well in one metric in one of the 40 plus international rankings in one year.

Seven modest suggestions for Times Higher

The latest fabulous dynamic exciting trusted prestigious sophisticated etc etc Times Higher Education (THE) world academic summit is coming. 

The most interesting, or at least the most amusing, event will probably be the revelation of the citations indicator which supposedly measures research impact. Over the last few years this metric has discovered a series of unexpected world-class research universities: Alexandria University, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Anglia Ruskin University, the University of Reykjavik, St. George's London, Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, Brighton and Sussex Medical School. THE once called this their flagship indicator but oddly enough they don't seem to have got round to releasing it as a standalone ranking.

But looking at the big picture, THE doesn't appear to have suffered much, if at all, from the absurdity of the indicator. The great and the good of the academic world continue to swarm to THE summits where they bask in the glow of the charts and tables that confirm their superiority.

THE have hinted that this summit will see big reforms to the rankings especially the citations indicator. That would certainly improve their credibility although they may be less interesting.

I have discussed THE's citation problems here, here, here, and here. So, for one last time, I hope, here the main flaws and we will see whether THE will fix them.

1. A 30% weighting for any single indicator is far too high. It would be much better to reduce it to 10 or 20%.

2. Using only one method to measure citations is not a good idea. Take at look at the Leiden Ranking and play around with the settings and parameters. You will see that you can get very different results with just a bit of tweaking. It is necessary to use a variety of metrics to get a broad picture of research quality, impact and influence.

3. THE have a regional modification or country bonus that divides the research impact score of universities by the square root of the scores of the country where they are located. The effect of this is to increase the score of every university except those in the top ranking country with the increase being greater for those with worse research records. This applies to half of the indicator and is supposed to compensate for some researchers lacking access to international networks. For some reason this was never a problem for the publications, income or international indicators. Removing the bonus would do a let to make the metric more credible.


4. The indicator is over-normalized. Impact scores are bench marked to the world average for over three hundred fields plus year of publication. The more fields the greater the chance that a university can benefit from an anomalous paper that receives an unusually high number of citations. It would help if THE reduced the number of fields although that seems unlikely.

5. Unless a paper has over a thousand authors THE treat every single contributor as receiving every single citation. Above that number they use fractional counting. The result is that the THE rankings privilege medical institutions such as St George's and the Brighton and Sussex Medical School that take part in multi-author projects such as the Global Burden of Disease study. All round fractional counting would seem the obvious answer although it might add a bit to costs.

6. Self-citation has become an issue recently. THE have said several times that it doesn't make very much difference. That may  be true but there have been occasions when a single serial self citer can make a university like Alexandria or Veltech soar into the research stratosphere and that could happen again.

7.  A lot of researchers are adding additional affiliations to their names when they publish. Those secondary, tertiary, sometimes more affiliations are counted by rankers as though they were primary affiliations. It would make sense to count only primary affiliations as ARWU does with highly cite researchers.

Rankings are everywhere

This is from an Indian website. The QS World University Rankings are being used to sell real estate in Australia.

SYDNEY: Leading Australian developer Crown Group is developing six new residential apartment developments near six of the world's top 200 university cities, according to the new QS World University Rankings 2020.

University of the Philippines beats Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, Harvard, Tsinghua, Peking etc etc

Rankings can do some good sometimes. They can also do a lot of harm and that harm is multiplied when they are sliced more and more thinly to produce rankings by age, by size, by mission, by region, by indicator, by subject. When this happens minor defects in the overall rankings are amplified.

That would not be so bad if universities, political leaders and the media were to treat the tables and the graphs with a healthy scepticism. Unfortunately, they treat the rankings, especially THE, with obsequious deference as long as they are provided with occasional bits of publicity fodder.

Recently, the Philippines media have proclaimed that the University of the Philippines (UP) has beaten Harvard, Oxford and Stanford for health research citations. It was seventh in the THE Clinical, Pre-clinical and Health category behind Tokyo Metropolitan University, Auckland University of Technology, Metropolitan  Autonomous University Mexico, Jordan University of Science and Technology, University of Canberra and Anglia Ruskin University.

The Inquirer is very helpful and provides an explanation from the Philippine Council for Health Research and Development that citation scores “indicate the number of times a research has been cited in other research outputs” and that the score "serves as an indicator of the impact or influence of a research project which other researchers use as reference from which they can build on succeeding breakthroughs or innovations.” 

Fair enough, but how can UP, which has a miserable score of  13.4 for research in the same subject ranking have such a massive research influence? How can it have an extremely low output of papers, a poor reputation for research, and very little funding and still be a world beater for research impact.

It is in fact nothing to do with UP, nothing to do with everyone working as a team, decisive leadership or recruiting international talent.

It is the result of a bizarre and ludicrous methodology.  First, THE does not use fractional counting for papers with less than a thousand authors. UP, along with many other universities, has taken part in the Global Burden of Disease project funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This has produced a succession of papers, many of them in the Lancet, with hundreds of contributing institutions and researchers, whose names are all listed as authors, and hundreds or thousands of citations. As long as the number of authors does not reach 1,000 each author is counted as though he or she were the recipient of all the citations. So UP gets the credit for a massive number of citations which is divided by a relatively small number of papers.

Why not just use fractional counting, dividing the citations among the contributors or the intuitions, like Leiden Ranking does. Probably because it might add a little bit to costs, perhaps because THE doesn't like to admit it made a mistake.

Then we have the country bonus or regional modification, applied to half the indicator, which increases the score for universities in countries with low impact.

The result of all this is that UP, surrounded by low scoring universities, not producing very much research but with a role in a citation rich mega project, gets a score for this indicator that puts it ahead of the Ivy League, the Group of Eight and the leading universities of East Asia.

If nobody took this seriously, then no great harm would be done. Unfortunately it seems that large numbers of academics, bureaucrats and journalists do take the THE rankings very seriously or pretend to do so in public. 

And so committee addicts get bonuses and promotions, talented researchers spend their days in unending ranking-inspired transformational seminars, funds go to the mediocre and the sub mediocre, students and stakeholders base their careers on  misleading data, and the problems of higher education are covered up or ignored.

The Decline of the University of California

Rankings have been justly criticised. Still, they do have their uses. They can identify which institutions and systems are ailing and which are in good health.

California was once the incarnation of the American dream with high wages, cheap housing, free or cheap education right through to college or even law, medical or graduate school. The University of California (UC) system was hailed as the peak of modern public research university education.

Now the state seems to have entered a period of decay. On any measure of literacy or education tCalifornia falls near the bottom of the USA. So how has this affected the public university system?

The question is now more urgent since UC Berkeley has just admitted to sending false data to the US News America's Best Colleges. Apparently the university had inflated the funds donated by alumni, a metric that accounts for five per cent of those rankings. Berkeley is now cast into the dark regions of higher education full of unranked places. It will be interesting to see what happens to applications and donations over the next couple of years. 

Questions about the performance of universities are often answered by reference to the Big Two international rankings, QS and Times Higher Education (THE). That might not be a good idea.These rankings are unbalanced with indicators that have an excessive weighting, THE's citation indicator and QS's academic survey. They are sometimes volatile and can produce  results that can be charitably described as unusual and counter-intuitive. They also rely on surveys and data submitted directly by institutions which are not very reliable. Both, however, suggest that UC is slowly and steadily declining since 2011 (THE) and 2017 (QS).

To get an accurate picture of research quality it would be better look at the Leiden Ranking, which has a consistent and transparent methodology. This too shows that there has been a steady decline in the relative global performance of the UC system. 

First, compare performance for publications, the default indicator, in 2006-9 and 2014-17. Every single campus of UC, except for Merced which is not ranked, has fallen: UCLA from 6th to 23rd, Berkeley from 23rd to 43rd, San Diego from 25th to 37th, Davis from 26th to 54th, San Francisco from 39th to 63rd,  Irvine from 88th to 146th, Santa Barbara from 168th to 28th, Riverside from 270th to 391st, Santa Cruz from 436th to 620th.

If we want to talk about quality we might look at another indicator, the number of papers in the top 1%.

Again we have a  pattern of decline although not so steep: The smallest is San Francisco from 15th to 16th, the largest Riverside from 84th to 252nd. And there is one case of  an improvement: San Diego goes from from 25th to 19th.

So far we have just looked at research. There is no global ranking that makes any serious attempt to assess teaching and learning. There are some that have indicators that might have something to do with student ability or graduate quality. The most useful of these are the Russia based Round University Rankings, which use data from Clarivate Analytics and include 20 indicators in four groups, teaching, research, international diversity and financial sustainability. 

Berkeley was ranked 52nd overall in the world and 32nd in the US in 2011. It was 197th for teaching, 5th for research, 133rd for  international diversity, and 8th for financial sustainability.

In 2019 it was still 52nd overall in the world and 27th in the USA. It had risen for teaching to 168th and for international diversity to 97th but had fallen for research to 20th and to 38th for financial sustainability.

Going into detail we see that Berkeley is improving for numbers of academic staff per student and world teaching reputation but falling for everything related to research.

Berkeley is the best of the UC campuses. All of the others except for the unranked Merced have fallen and all except for Davis have fallen for research.

It seems that UC is approaching the edge of the cliff. It is likely that the fall will get faster as Chinese students stop coming. It is difficult to see how the financial situation can get better in the foreseesble future and where the next generation of college-ready students are going to come from. No doubt there are more headlines and scandals to come.

Singapore and the Rankings Again

As far as the rankings are concerned, Singapore has been a great success story, at least as far as the Big Two (THE and QS) are concerned.

In the latest QS world rankings the two major Singaporean universities, National University of Singapore (NUS) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU, have done extremely well, both of them reaching the eleventh spot. Predictably, the mainstream local media has praised the universities, and quoted QS spokespersons  and university representatives about how the results are due to hiring talented faculty and the superiority of the national secondary education system.

There is some scepticism in Singapore about the rankings. The finance magazine Dollars and Sense has just published an article by Sim Kang Heong that questions the latest performance by Singapore's universities, including the relatively poor showing by Singapore Management University.

The author is aware of the existence of other rankings but names only two (ARWU and THE) and then presents a list of indicators from all the QS rankings including regional and specialist tables as though they were part of the World University Rankings.

The piece argues that "it doesn't take someone with a PhD to see some of the glaring biases and flaws in the current way QS does its global university rankings."

It is helpful that someone is taking a sceptical view of Singapore's QS ranking performance but disappointing that there is no specific reference to how NUS and NTU fared in other rankings.

Last February I published a post showing the ranks of these two institutions in the global rankings. Here they are again:

THE:   23rd and 51st
Shanghai ARWU:  85th and 96th
RUR:  50th  and 73rd
Leiden (publications): 34th and 66th

These are definitely top 100 universities by any standard. Clearly though, the QS rankings rate them much more highly than anybody else. 

India and the QS rankings

The impact of university rankings is mixed. They have, for example, often had very negative consequences for faculty, especially junior, who in many places have been coerced into attending pointless seminars and workshops and churning out unread papers or book chapters in order to reach arbitrary and unrealistic targets or performance indicators.

But sometimes they have their uses. They have shown the weakness of several university systems. In particular, the global rankings have demonstrated convincingly that Indian higher education consists of a few islands of excellence in a sea of sub-mediocrity. The contrast with China, where many universities are now counted as world class, is stark and it is unlikely that it can be fixed with a few waves of the policy wand or by spraying cash around.

The response of academic and political leaders is not encouraging. There have been moves to give universities more autonomy, to increase funding, to engage with the rankings. But there is little sign that India is ready to acknowledge the underlying problems of the absence of a serious research culture or a secondary school system that seems unable to prepare students for tertiary education.

Indian educational and political leaders have lately become very concerned about the international standing of the country's universities. Unfortunately, their understanding of how the rankings actually work seems limited. This is not unusual. The qualities needed to climb the slippery ladder of academic politics are not those of a successful researcher or someone able to analyse the opportunities and the flaws of global rankings. 

Recently there was a meeting of the Indian minister for Human Resource Development (HRD) plus the heads of the Indian Institutes of Technology Bombay and Delhi  and Indian Institute of Science Bangalore.

According to a local media report, officials have said that the reputation indicators in the QS international rankings contribute to Indian universities poor ranking performance as they are "an area where the Indian universities lose out the maximum number of marks - due to the absence of Indian representation at QS panel." 
The IIT Bombay director is quoted as saying "there are not enough participants in the UK or the US to rate Indian universities." 

This shows ignorance of QS's methodology. QS now collects response from several channels including lists submitted by universities and a facility where individual researchers and employers can sign up to join the survey.  In 2019 out of 83,877 academic survey responses collected over five years, 2.6% were from academics with an Indian affiliation, which is less than Russia, South Korea, Australia or Malaysia but more than China or Germany. This does not include responses from Indian academics at British, North American or Australian institutions. A similar proportion of responses to the QS employer survey were from India.

If there are not enough Indian participants in the QS survey then this might well be the fault of Indian universities themselves. QS allows universities to nominate up to 400 potential survey participants. I do not know if they have taken full advantage of this or whether those nominated have actually voted for Indian institutions. 

It is possible that India could do better in the rankings by increasing its participation in the QS surveys to the level of Malaysia but it is totally inaccurate to suggest that there are no Indians in the current QS surveys

If Indian universities are going to rise in the rankings then they need to start by understanding how they actually work and creating informed and realistic  strategies.

Comparing National Rankings: USA and China

America's Best Colleges
The US News America's Best Colleges (ABC) is very much the Grand Old Man of university rankings. Its chief data analyst has been described as the most powerful man in America although that is perhaps a bit exaggerated. These rankings have had a major role in defining excellence in American higher education and they may have contributed to US intellectual and scientific dominance in the last two decades of the twentieth century.

But they are changing. This year's edition has introduced two new measures of "social mobility", namely the number of  Pell Grant (low income) students and the comparative performance of those students. There is suspicion that this is an attempt to reward universities for the recruitment and graduation of certain favoured groups, including African Americans and Hispanics, and perhaps recent immigrants from the Global South. Income is used as a proxy for race since current affirmative action policies at Harvard and other places are under legal attack. 

It should be noted that success is defined as graduation within a six year period and that is something that can be easily achieved by extra tuition, lots of collaborative projects, credit for classroom discussions and effort and persistence, holding instructors responsible for student failure, innovative methods of assessment, contextualised grading and so on.

The new ABC has given the Pell Grant metrics a 5% weighting  and has also increased the weighting for graduation rate performance, which looks at actual student outcomes compared to those predicted from their social and academic attributes, from 7.5% to 8%. So now a total of 13 % in effect goes to social engineering. A good chunk of the rankings then is based on the dubious proposition that universities can and should reduce or eliminate the achievement gap between various groups.

To make room for these metrics the acceptance rate indicator has been eliminated, and the weightings for standardised test scores, high school rank, counsellor reviews and six year graduation rate have been reduced.

Getting rid of the acceptance rate metric is probably not a bad idea since it had the unfortunate effect of encouraging universities to maximise the number of rejected applications, which produced income for the universities but imposed a financial burden on applicants.

The rankings now assign nearly a one third weighting to student quality, 22% to graduation and retention rates and 10% for standardised tests and high school rank. 

It seems that US News is moving from ranking universities by the academic ability of their students to ranking based on the number and relative success of low income and "minority" students.

The latest ranking shows the effect of these changes. The very top is little changed but further down there are significant shifts. William and Mary is down. Howard University, a predominantly African American institution, is up as are the campuses of the University of California system.

ABC also has another 30% for resources (faculty 20% and financial 10%), 20% for for reputation (15 % peer and 5% high school counsellors), and 5% for alumni donations.

Shanghai Best Chinese University Rankings

The Shanghai Best Chinese University Ranking (BCUR) is a recent initiative although ShanghaiRanking has been doing global rankings since 2003. They are quite different from the US News rankings.

For student outcomes Shanghai assigns a weighting of 10% to graduate employment and does not bother with graduation rates. As noted, ABC gives 22% for student outcomes (six year graduation rate and first year retention rate). 


Shanghai gives a 30% weighting for the dreaded Gaokao, the national university entrance exam, compared to 10% for high school class rank and SAT/ACT scores in ABC.

With regard to inputs, Shanghai allocates just 5% for alumni donations, compared to 30% in the ABC for  class size, faculty salary, faculty highest degrees, student faculty ratio, full time faculty and financial resources. 

That 5% is the only thing in Shanghai that might  be relevant to reputation while ABC has a full 20% for reputation among peers and counsellors. 

Shanghai also has a 40% allocation for research, 10% for "social service", which comprises research income from industry and income from technology transfer, and 5% for international students. ABC has no equivalent to these, although it publishes rankings separately on postgraduate programmes.

To compare the two, ABC is heavy on inputs, student graduation and retention, reputation, and social engineering. Probably the last will become more important over the next few years 
BCUR, in contrast, emphasises student ability as measured by a famously rigorous entrance exam, student employment, research, links with industry, and internationalisation.

It seems that in the coming years excellence in higher education will be defined very differently. An elite US university will be one well endowed with money and human resources, will make sure that most of its students graduate one way or another, will ensure that that the  ethnic and gender composition of the faculty and student body matches that of America or the world, and has a good reputation among peers and the media.

An elite Chinese university will be one that produces employed and employable graduates, admits students with high levels of academic skills, has close ties with industry, and has a faculty that produces a high volume of excellent research.

The Influence of rankings revisited

Rankings are everywhere. Like a cleverly constructed virus they are all over the place and are almost impossible to delete. They are used for immigration policy, advertising, promotion, and recruitment. Here is the latest example.

A tweet from Eduardo Urias noted by Stephen Curry reported that an advertisement for an assistant professorship at Maastricht University included the requirement that candidates "should clearly state the (THE, QS, of FT business school) ranking of the university of their highest degree."

The sentence has since been removed but one wonders why the relevant committee at Maastricht could not be trusted to look up the university ranks by themselves and why should they ask about those specific rankings, which might not be the most relevant or accurate. Maastricht is a very good university, especially for the social sciences (I knew that anyway and I checked with Leiden Ranking), so why should it need to take rankings into account instead of looking at the applicants grad school records publications?

Even though that sentence was removed. this one remains.

"Maastricht University is currently ranked fifth in the top of Young Universities under 50 years."

Are Malaysian Universities Going Backwards?

International university rankings have become very popular in Malaysia, perhaps obsessively so. There is also a lot of commentary in the media, usually not very well informed.

Are Malaysian universities going backwards?

Murray Hunter writing in Eurasia Review thinks so. His claim is supported entirely by their relatively poor performance in the Times Higher Education (THE) world and Asian university rankings.

(By the way, Hunter refers to "THES" but that changed several years ago).

Hunter apparently is one of those who are unaware of the variety and complexity of the current international university ranking scene. The IREG international inventory lists 45 rankings and is already in need of updating. Many of these cover more institutions than THE, some are much more technically competent, and some include more indicators.

THE's is not the only ranking available and it is not very helpful for any institution seeking to make genuine improvements. It bundles eleven indicators in groups so that it is very difficult to work out exactly what contributed to a deterioration or an improvement . The two metrics that stand alone have produced some amusing but questionable results, Babol Noshirvani University of Technology first for research impact, Anadolu University for industry income. 

It really is no disgrace to do badly in these rankings.

Hunter's article is a mirror image of the excitement in the Malaysian media about the rise of Malaysian universities in the QS rankings, which seems to be largely the result of massive Malaysian participation in the QS academic survey, which has a disproportionate weighting of 40%.

Malaysian universities have been celebrating their rise in the QS world rankings for some time. That is perhaps a bit more reasonable than getting excited about the THE rankings but still not very helpful. 

We need to use a broad range of rankings. For a start take a look at the Leiden Ranking for quantity and quality of research. For total publications Universiti Malaya (UM) has risen from 509th place in 2006-09 to112th in 2014-17.

For the percentage of publications in the top 1% of journals, the most selective indicator, its rank has risen from 824th in 2006-2009 to 221st in 2014-17.

Turning to the Moscow based Round University Rankings for a more general assessment, we find that UM has risen from 269th in 2016 to 156th in 2019 (76th for teaching).

Malaysian universities, at least the best known ones, are making significant and substantial progress in stable and reliable global rankings. 

At the end of the article Hunter says that "(t)he fact that Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR) has run into second best Malaysian University in less than 20 years of existence as a university is telling about the plight of Malaysian public universities."

Actually, it says nothing except that THE has a flawed methodology for counting citations. UTAR's performance in the THE rankings is the result of one talented researcher working for the Global Burden of Disease project, limited research output, a bonus for location in a country with a modest impact score and a refusal to use fractional counting.