The Methodology of Three International University Ranking Systems - Essay Example

?Introduction: rankings can be defined as tables of specific groups of s relatively ranked according to a mutual set of pointers in descending order (Usher & Savino, 2007). There has been a recent increase in the popularity of the league tables worldwide due to the desire to secure a place at the most prestigious institution and experience the exclusivity and honour that it brings. The three major international ranking systems that are used for this purpose are The Times Higher Education World University Rankings, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Rankings of World Universities as well as The CHE ExcellenceRanking 2010 (Gallagher, 2011). The essay will start off with a definition of the university league tables and how they work, reasons for their popularity and the substantial growth in their use over the past years. Next, it will explore various areas in relation with the league tables such as critical analysis of the three ranking systems to gauge their strengths and weaknesses, debate on the evidentiary basis of league tables to explain the criteria upon which the universities are ranked and criticism as well as the limitations to the validity of university ranking systems. Lastly, it will single out the methodology that stands out. The need for and growth of ranking systems: The world is in the process of getting preoccupied with rankings more and more every day. Just like scarcity, having access to the ‘finest’ as well as prestige more or less mark the purchase of almost every commodity in our daily lives, so are the customers of the tertiary sector continuously looking out for pointers that improve their capability to know and access the best in the tertiary sector (Salmi & Saroyan, 2007). Criteria for measuring the rankings: In most of the university ranking tables, the criteria used to measure the rankings is: To be distinct about what the ranking will measure. To use a variety of indicators and multiple procedures rather than a single, weighted ranking. To associate comparable programs or institutions. At the institutional level, use rankings for planned preparation and quality enhancement purposes. At the government level, use rankings to kindle a philosophy of quality. Use rankings as one of the tools available to notify and update students, families and employers and encourage public debate (Salmi & Saroyan, 2007) Analysis of the ranking systems: Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU) rankings were formulated in 1998 and were more formally known as ‘The Academic Rankings of the World Universities’ (ARWU). Universities that have field medallists; highly cited researchers as well as Nobel laureates are included in the ranking. According to this criterion, ARWU is not trying to compare all the universities throughout the world; instead it is targeting the world’s top research universities only. ARWU initially picks out around 1000 universities from throughout the world, of which only 500 are later on ranked in the league tables. For all ARWU indicators, data is usually collected from third parties that include the official site of the Nobel Prize as well as numerous Thomson Reuters websites in order to access citation and publications (Rauhvargers, 2011). Moving on to ‘The Times higher Education World University Rankings’, it is apparent that, published in 2004, it was an ‘answer’ to the Shanghai ARWU rankings. The indicated drive of ‘The World University Rankings’ is “to recognise universities as the multi-faceted organisations that they are, to provide a global comparison of their success against the notional mission of remaining or becoming world-class” (Salmi & Saroyan, 2007). This ranking separates 300 in each of the five faculty areas as well as about 600 universities and uses sources such as incorporate surveys from individual academics and researchers, employer organisations, third-party data as well as university information (Salmi & Saroyan, 2007). Lastly, The CHE Centre for Higher Education Development that designed an ‘ExcellenceRanking’ to rank a specific group of European Universities commenced in 2007. The CHE used a two-step system in order to conduct this analysis, which included surveying of all European universities in the selected fields to compare them by general indicators, as well as an in-depth analysis carried out by a student survey and institutional questionnaire (Berghoff et al., 2010). Coming towards the analysis of the ranking systems, it can be seen that ARWU is not a ranking for all universities. It only deliberates around 1200 of the world’s top universities which meet the requirements for the ranking. When used as a global ranking, its results may have negative significances. This is predominantly the case when, as a contrast of the research volume of the world’s elite research universities, it is used to evaluate the overall performance of a variety of other universities. Refining the quality of teaching or increasing regional participation will not progress a university’s scores in ARWU (Taylor & Braddock, 2007). CHE Excellence ranking on the other hand selects a small number of excellent institutions across Europe instead of looking at all HEIs in a single country. Therefore, this strategy enables it to outspread the perspective of the CHE UniversityRanking (Berghoff et al., 2010). Rankings, it is believed, make universities far more‘transparent’. However, the methodologies of the current rankings, and especially those of the most widely held league tables, still have a dearth of transparency themselves (Kalvemark, 2007). Criticism: Most American universities are in the process of investing huge sums in order to formulate interdisciplinary research which is necessary to solve the complex problems of the modern world. A large number of universities such as Duke, California, Indiana, Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology as well as Harvard now see interdisciplinary research as a core business. The major problem with global ranking is that they fail to mirror the global century that we live in. The two popular international university league tables – The Times Higher Education World University Rankings and the Shanghai Jiao Tong University Rankings of World Universities – only measure specialist disciplinary research performance. It is predicted that by 2100, governments from all around the world will have financed trillions of dollars in trying to research upon and solve the society’s issues in order to ensure continuous improvement in the quality of life. As a result, students will be more attracted to the universities which can equip them of facing the challenges of this century (Gallagher, 2011). Conclusion: In conclusion, it is necessary to state that no ranking system by far is perfect. Each has its own share of flaws as well as benefits. The continuous trend of the rankings towards inter-departmental research is an arena that is suitable for research as it will form the basis of future rankings. However, amongst all the ranking methods stated above, The CHE ExcellenceRanking 2010 can be deemed as the most suitable one given the circumstances. It is definitely a more reliable indicator of the rankings of the university and takes into account more or less the entire academic as well as research areas and the opinions of the student body while coming towards a conclusion of the rankings of European universities. CHE Excellence ranking on the other hand selects a small number of excellent institutions across Europe instead of looking at all HEIs in a single country. Therefore, this strategy enables it to outspread the perspective of the CHE UniversityRanking. Hence, it can be concluded that among the rest of the ranking systems it stands out and would be a valid source for checking the ranking of universities. REFERENCES: Berghoff, S. et al. (2010). Identifying the best: The CHE ExcellenceRanking 2010. 137. Gallagher, S. (2011). Rankings can’t measure this century’s research. The Australian. Kalvemark, T. (2007). Universities Ranking Systems: A Critique. Retrieved 24 Aug. 2011 from: https://learning.wmin.ac.uk/@@1097788894B14B41B10C449715E13256/courses/1/NEFLPSE/content/_143869_1/Text%2010.pdf Rauhvargers, A. (2011). Global University Ranking and their Impact. Europeon University Association. Belgium SALMI, J. and SAROYAN, A. ‘‘League Tables as Policy Instruments: The Political Economy of Accountability in Tertiary Education’’. Higher Education in the World 2007: Accreditation for Quality Assurance. Hampshire: Plagrave, 2007, pp. 79–90. ARWU. (2009). Methodology.Retrieved on 12 Jan. 2011 from: http://www.arwu.org/ARWUMethodology2009.jsp Taylor, P & Braddock, R. (2007). International University Ranking Systems and the Idea of University Excellence. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 29(3). 245-260 Usher, A., and Savino, M. (2006). A World of Difference: A Global Survey of University League. Tables. Toronto, ON: Educational Policy Institute. Retrieved 12 Jan. 2011 from: http://www.educationalpolicy.org/pdf/world-ofdifference- 200602162.pdf Read More