Universities and International Rankings: what and so what

1
Universities and International Rankings what and
so what!

• NUAS meeting at Faroe Islands
• 23.8.2007
• Markus Laitinen

2
Different Types of Rankings

• Formal Informal (common knowledge)
• Subject specific Institutional
• Multi-indicator Single indicator
• Categorised ordinal (League Tables)
• National
• Regional
• International

3
International University-wide rankings main
cases 1/3

• Shanghai Jiao Tong University
• Started in 2003, updated annually
• Relatively stable (reliable?)
• http//ed.sjtu.edu.cn/ranking.htm
• Times Higher Education Supplement
• QS performs the ranking, THES publishes it
• Started in 2004
• Universities positions fluctuate
• http//www.topuniversities.com/worlduniversityrank
  ings/results/2006/

4
Comparison of SJT and THES indicators

• Times Higher Education
• Peer review 40
• Recruiter review 10
• Intl faculty 5
• Intl students 5
• Faculty/student 20
• Citations/faculty 20

• Shanghai Jiao Tong
• Alumni (Nobel Fields) 10
• Staff (Nobel Fields) 20
• Nature Science publ. 20
• Highly Cited Scientists 20
• Citation Indexes 20
• Size

5
International University-wide rankings main
cases 2/3

• Leiden Center for Science and Technology Studies
  (CWTS)
• Not comprehensive globally (yet?)
• Criteria
• Bibliometric indicators, ranking on research only
• Different types of impact indicators
• Nordic/European Universities fare better than in
  THES or SJT
• Probably too complicated for the public to take
  notice
• Allows generic and field of study specific
  listings (rankings)
• http//www.cwts.nl/cwts/LeidenRankingWebSite.html
  
• http//studies.cwts.nl/projects/ec-coe/cgi-bin/izi
  te.pl?showhome

6
International University-wide rankings main
cases 3/3

• Others
• Newsweek 100 top Global Universities
• Compilation of THES, SJT
• Groningen bibliometric
• http//www.rug.nl/Bibliotheek/catalogiBestanden/el
  ekTijdschr/rankingList
• Webometrics
• http//www.webometrics.info/top4000.asp
• Conclusions
• Current international rankings are based on
  research (performance and reputation)
• They do not take differentiated missions into
  account

7
Problems/Criticism

• General Purpose of Rankings
• Reliability
• Leiden gt Shanghai gtTHES
• THES problem reputation 50 of the total rank
• Problems in sampling
• Validity
• Is 1 at the top? Is 50 better than 60?
• Language issues
• Budgetary issues
• Transparency

8
Berlin Principles on Ranking

• Response to THES and SJT
• Code of conduct for rankers
• Developed initially by an informal group (IREG)
• Non-binding in nature
• 16 principles over four main areas
• Purposes and Goals
• Design and Weighting of Indicators
• Collection and Processing of Data
• Presentation of Ranking Results
• http//www.cepes.ro/hed/meetings/berlin06/Berlin2
  0Principles.pdf

9
Universities Perceptions of Rankings

• IAU global survey among university leadership
  (Hazelkorn 2007)
• 80-90, want to improve their national or
  international ranking.
• 58 not happy with current institutional ranking
• Current ranking
• 3 are nationally ranked 1st in their country,
  but 12 want to be so ranked
• None are internationally ranked 1st, but 3 want
  to be so ranked
• 70 wish to be in top 10 nationally, and 71
  want to be in top 25 internationally.

10
What is the correct/proper rank for a University?
In SJT University of Helsinki outranks every
Chinese, Irish, Belgian, Italian, Austrian and
Spanish university, yet the media/ decision
makers claim that it is doing poorly.
11
So What? 1/2

• Possible Institutional responses
• Awareness and knowledge concerning rankings
• Know thy enemy (individual, group?)
• Clean your data
• Bigger is not better
• Manage your updates
• Proactive measures
• Publication policies
• Recruitment policies
• Staff and students
• Star retention policies

12
So What? 2/2

• Universities should act their rank
• E.g. tuition fee levels
• Usage of rankings in image/brand building
• Including marketing and recruitment
• Usage in selecting international co-operation
  partners
• As supplementary source of information?
• Educating university staff, decision makers and
  the general public
• A losing battle? Easily interpreted as giving
  excuses
• EVEN LOUSY RANKINGS GET PEOPLES ATTENTION,
  UNIVERSITIES SHOULD TAKE NOTICE