Global university rankings at the end of 2006: Is this the hierarchy we have to have (original) (raw)

A Global Survey of University Ranking and League Tables

Higher Education in Europe, 2007

and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution , reselling , loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The Impact of Higher Education Ranking Systems on Universities

This book, written by three generations of rankings academics with considerable experience from three very different regions of the globe, lifts the lid on the real impact of higher education ranking systems (HERS) on universities and their stakeholders. It critically analyses the criteria that make up the 'Big Three' global ranking systems and, using interviews with senior administrators, academics and managers, discusses their impact on universities from four very different continents. Higher education continues to be dominated by a reputational hierarchy of institutions that sustains and is reinforced by HERS. Despite all the opinions and arguments about the legitimacy of the rankings as a construct, it seems experts agree that they are here to stay. The question, therefore, seems to be less about whether or not universities should be compared and ranked, but the manner in which this is undertaken. Delivering a fresh perspective on global rankings, this book summarizes the development of HERS and provides a critical evaluation of the effects of HERS on four different major regions-South Africa, the Arab region, South East Asia, and Australia. It will appeal to any academic, student, university administrator or governing body interested in or affected by global higher education ranking systems.

To Rank or To Be Ranked: The Impact of Global Rankings in Higher Education

Journal of Studies in International Education, 2007

Global university rankings have cemented the notion of a world university market arranged in a single "league table" for comparative purposes and have given a powerful impetus to intranational and international competitive pressures in the sector. Both the research rankings by Shanghai Jiao Tong University and the composite rankings by the Times Higher Education Supplement have been widely publicised and already appear to have generated incentives in favour of greater system stratification and the concentration of elite researchers. However, global comparisons are possible only in relation to one model of institution, that of the comprehensive research intensive university, and for the most part are tailored to science-strong and Englishspeaking universities. Neither the Shanghai nor the Times rankings provide guidance on the quality of teaching. It is important to secure "clean" rankings, transparent, free of self-interest, and methodologically coherent, that create incentives to broadbased improvement.

Global university rankings uncovered: introduction

University rankings have gained growing attention from university administrations and faculty members, markets, governments, mass media and the public at large, affecting nearly all aspects directly or indirectly related to academia. This Theme Section includes 12 essays from 16 authors, coming from 9 countries (i.e. Singapore, the USA, the UK, Ireland, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Cyprus and Greece). These essays cover different methodological, socio-political, economical and ethical 'hot issues' emerging from the dominance of rankings in the higher education sector through the views and thoughts of different stakeholders (i.e. university administrators, people involved in performing the rankings, and scientists). We hope that this Theme Section and the questions it raises will further contribute to the recent debate and future of university rankings, whether they be global or regional, as well as help find the nexus between numbers (i.e. rankings) and knowledge (i.e. higher education institutions); to paraphrase Plato's quote 'a good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers'.

What's wrong with university rankings

Australasian Association for Institutional Research, 2005

This paper considers flaws and limitations of 3 university ranks important to Australian universities: The Times Higher Education Supplement’s ‘World university rankings’, Williams & Van Dyke’s Index of the international standing of Australian universities and Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s Academic ranking of world universities – 2005. The paper concentrates on Australian universities. Since the paper was delivered in 2005 there has been much more work which has extended the critique of university league tables, to which their compliers of league tables have responded.

The Expectations and the Actual Framework of University Academic Ranking

Journal of Management Information and Decision Sciences, 2021

University ranking has high open perceivability, the ranking business has prospered, and institutions of higher education have not had the option to overlook it. This investigation of university ranking presents general contemplation of ranking and institutional reactions to it, especially thinking about responses to ranking, ranking as an inevitable outcome, and ranking as a method for changing characteristics into amounts. The researchers present a conceptual framework of university ranking dependent on three propositions and complete a graphic measurable investigation of Jordan also, worldwide ranking information to assess those propositions. The primary proposition of university ranking is that ranking frameworks are differentiated by a serious level of strength, balance, and way reliance. The subsequent proposition joins ranking to institutional characteristic. The third proposition sets that rankings work as an impetus for institutional isomorphism. The end audits some significant new advancements in university ranking.

University Rankings: The many sides of the debate.

2014

Within the context of bourgeoning institutions that rank higher education institutions, this paper examines the merits and demerits of university rankings and diverse ranking methodologies.. It explores and presents recent developments and diversification of international rankings and highlights their general trend towards more broadly balanced and multidimensional criteria. The paper concludes that like any other complex endeavour, rankings have their pros and cons but the latter does not justify their abandonment. What is required is public education that builds a discerning user who can optimally gain from the use of rankings while avoiding their pitfalls.