Universities from Australia and New Zealand and the 2013 edition of the Shanghai ranking (original) (raw)
Related papers
Global University Rankings: Implications in general and for Australia
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 2007
Global university rankings have arrived, and though still in a process of rapid evolution, they are likely to substantially influence the long-term development of higher education across the world. The inclusions, definitions, methods, implications and effects are of great importance. This paper analyses and critiques the two principal rankings systems prepared so far, the research rankings prepared by Shanghai Jiao Tong University and the composite rankings from the Times Higher Education Supplement. It goes on to discuss the divergence between them in the performance of Australian universities, draws attention to the policy implications of rankings, and canvasses the methodological difficulties and problems. It concludes by advocating the system of university comparisons developed by the Centre for Higher Educational Development (CHE) in Germany. This evades most of the problems and perverse effects of the other rankings systems, particularly reputational and whole-of-institution rankings. It provides data more directly useful to and controlled by prospective students, and more relevant to teaching and learning.
Griffith University. Disponible en: http://www. griffith. …, 2005
I delivered this paper in March 2005. It describes and discusses the national and international rankings of universities that are most important for Australian universities: the Swiss Centre for Science and Technology Studies’ Champions league, Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s World academic ranking of universities, The Times Higher Education Supplement’s World university rankings and Williams & Van Dyke’s International standing of Australian universities. Even though they are based largely on research, these rankings influence international students’ choice of institution, they affect the perceptions of governments and prospective staff and will become increasingly influential over prospective domestic students.
Universities in the United Kingdom and the 2013 edition of the Shanghai ranking
The emergence of international academic rankings is one of the most interesting phenomena in the field of comparative analysis of higher education. The growing influence of the Shanghai ranking led its many critics to show strong reluctance in using it as a source of analysis and improvement, mainly because it was generally thought that its results were not reproducible. Once we have found a way to accurately replicate the results of the ranking, we are in a position to shed light into the performance of whole Higher Education systems. This technical report presents the results of 109 universities from the UK in the 2013 edition of the Shanghai ranking.
An anatomy of the academic ranking of world universities (Shanghai ranking)
SN Social Sciences
International academic rankings of research universities are widely applied and heavily criticised. Amongst the many international rankings, the Shanghai ranking has been particularly influential. Although this ranking’s primary data are generally accessible and its methods are published in outline format, it does not follow that its outputs are predictable or straightforward. In practice, the annual and time series Shanghai rankings rely on data and rules that are complex, variable, and not fully revealed. Patterns and changes in the ranking may be misinterpreted as intrinsic properties of institutions or systems when they are actually beyond the influence of any university or nation. This article dissects the rules that connect raw institutional data to the published ranking, using the 2020 edition as a reference. Analysing an ARWU review of ranking changes over 2004–2016, we show how exogenous or methodological changes have often driven changes in ranking. Stakeholders can be mis...
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.