1 / 53

The World University Rankings 2007

The World University Rankings 2007. The Challenges of University Ranking. Presentation by Martin Ince Contributing editor, THES, Universit é Libre, Brussels December 12, 2007. The THES. Since 1971 Weekly newspaper formerly associated with The Times [of London] Group including TES

urbain
Download Presentation

The World University Rankings 2007

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The World University Rankings 2007 Martin Ince Communications Limited

  2. The Challenges of University Ranking Presentation by Martin Ince Contributing editor, THES, Université Libre, Brussels December 12, 2007 Martin Ince Communications Limited

  3. The THES • Since 1971 • Weekly newspaper formerly associated with The Times [of London] • Group including TES • Online at www.thes.co.uk since 1994 Martin Ince Communications Limited

  4. Why rank universities? • Interest in ranking things and people • Hospitals • Schools • Local authorities • Rich lists; Britain, world, Asians, footballers • Universities: The Times Martin Ince Communications Limited

  5. Does it matter? • Some of these rankings are fun or pornography, eg Rich Lists • Others are serious • Bad marks for school or hospital • Likewise for a university department • Over 1000 “failing” public bodies in UK – schools, police forces etc Martin Ince Communications Limited

  6. National Rankings • The Times • produced by John O’Leary, former editor of THES • Institutions as well as subjects Criteria for subjects include: - Teaching quality • Research quality • Entry standards • Employability Martin Ince Communications Limited

  7. National rankings (2) • Criteria for institutions include • Teaching standards • Staff/student ratio • Library spending • Facilities spending • Good degrees • Jobs • Research Martin Ince Communications Limited

  8. The US Comparison • US News and World Report “America’s Best Colleges” • Mainly about how likely you are to graduate • Also student experience eg class size • However, many other tables eg liberal arts, business, engineering colleges • Likewise McLean’s (Canada) et al Martin Ince Communications Limited

  9. Richness of data • Main table in US News has 18 main columns • Likewise Times Good University Guide • How can we do this globally? Martin Ince Communications Limited

  10. Why world rankings? • Long overdue: higher education has always been very international • Unique position of the THES • Universities becoming more global • Knowledge the real factor in international competitiveness • Increasing desire for comparative information Martin Ince Communications Limited

  11. Why world rankings (2)? • GATS • EU and Bologna • 3 million students outside home country • Forecast to be 5 million by 2010 • BTA • UK as a major source and destination • UK as major collaborator • UK universities opening in China and elsewhere Martin Ince Communications Limited

  12. And Tony says so • “In 10 years we will think nothing of students going off to university anywhere in the world” Tony Blair at the Labour Party conference, September 2006 Martin Ince Communications Limited

  13. In addition • Interest from governments – UK Treasury, Lambert • EU, Germany • Shanghai Jiao Tong • OECD from 2010 Martin Ince Communications Limited

  14. How to do it? • Audience includes – • Internationally mobile students • Internationally mobile staff • Internationally mobile money • Focus on: • Teaching • Research • International orientation Martin Ince Communications Limited

  15. Peer review • Peer review is the way academic value is measured • We decided to make it the centrepiece of this ranking • It is the least understood aspect of our work • So here is the explanation Martin Ince Communications Limited

  16. Peer review (2) • Total 5,101 over three years • International spread • Subject spread • Active academics Martin Ince Communications Limited

  17. The peers • Gathered by QS listbuilding • 41 per cent in Europe • 30 per cent the Americas • 29 per cent Asia Pacific • Aggregate no more than three years Martin Ince Communications Limited

  18. The question • Online survey • The top 30 universities in the topics they know about • Arts and humanities • Social sciences • Science • Biomedicine • Technology Martin Ince Communications Limited

  19. Plusses • Simple • Understandable • Robust • Self-correcting if large enough sample • Hard to cheat Martin Ince Communications Limited

  20. Minuses • Biases include • Age • Size • Name • Beijing • Loughborough • Brussels, Leuven Audience conservatism Martin Ince Communications Limited

  21. Employers • Another group who know about university quality • Innovation in 2005 • Mainly private sector • At 10 per cent of total • Therefore academics cut from 50 to 40 per cent • Will be improved • 2007 sample 1,471 Martin Ince Communications Limited

  22. Employers are: • Americas 43 per cent • Europeans 32 per cent • Asia Pacific 25 per cent • Again, maximum three years aggregation Martin Ince Communications Limited

  23. Quantitative measures • Aim to measure universities in terms of • Student commitment • Research commitment • International commitment and competitiveness Martin Ince Communications Limited

  24. How to do this • Extensive data gathering exercise • By UK firm QS • Mix of data sources • National • Institutional • Direct contact Martin Ince Communications Limited

  25. First quantitative criterion… • Staff/student ratio • Classic measure of commitment to teaching • 20 per cent of final score Martin Ince Communications Limited

  26. How international? • Two criteria rated at 5 per cent each • Is this somewhere where people want to be? • Staff • Students • Again raises issues • Visiting scholars? • EU cross-border students? • Doing full courses? • Geography advantage Martin Ince Communications Limited

  27. Citations • Like peer review • Classic measure of research quality • Use Scopus data Martin Ince Communications Limited

  28. Citations (2) • Citations per staff member to see density of brain power • Not citations per paper • Well-understood bias • against non-English publication • against arts and humanities • against national-oriented topics This accounts for the final 20 per cent Martin Ince Communications Limited

  29. Comparison with Shanghai Jiao Tong • Not a newspaper • Nobel + Fields prizes Nobel 6/9 in 2007 Fields 4/6 in 21st century • These used twice • Science and Nature • Science and Social Science citations • 500 rather than our 200 Martin Ince Communications Limited

  30. Comparison with Shanghai Jiao Tong • But: • Ends up looking rather similar near the top • Share 133/200 Next – OECD Martin Ince Communications Limited

  31. Changes in 2007 • Scopus: better at Asia • Also more transparent • Better at non-English sources Martin Ince Communications Limited

  32. Changes (2) • Z score: Measure distance from centre Normalise top to 100 Effects outliers such as CalTech, LSE Martin Ince Communications Limited

  33. Changes (3) • Harder to cheat Main effects in South Asia FTEs more rigorously defined Martin Ince Communications Limited

  34. What did we find? • Harvard • The US – 57 in top 200 • Yale Oxbridge logjam at 2 Martin Ince Communications Limited

  35. But… • The top 200 includes universities in 28 states • US, UK, Australia, Netherlands • Korea, China, Japan • Continental Europe • Developing world: Unam, Brazil (2), Cape Town 200= Martin Ince Communications Limited

  36. International commitment • US shows up badly • HKUST top for international staff, LSE in sixth place • London School of Economics top for international students • Yale among few US with international staff Martin Ince Communications Limited

  37. Peer review • Berkeley the winner • Cambridge, Oxford, Stanford, Harvard popular • Well-liked universities all over the world • Little evidence of patriotism bias • US, UK, Australia, Japan, China, Canada,Singapore dominate the top 20 Martin Ince Communications Limited

  38. Citations • Medical faculty is a big plus • Or major biomedical income • CalTech the winner by some distance, then Stanford, MIT, ENS • Big country effect is at work here Martin Ince Communications Limited

  39. Staff/student ratio • Winner CalTech, US • US, French, Swiss, etc institutions all well placed • Harvard shows badly here at 15th • Asian and European universities well-placed • Weak correlation with research – but not zero Martin Ince Communications Limited

  40. Take home message • Small variations don’t matter much • A position can be gained by many combinations of weakness and strength • eg, many Asian institutions do well despite scoring zero on citations Martin Ince Communications Limited

  41. What we didn’t find • Data on 500 institutions with significant citations • Have to teach undergraduates • Have to teach in at least two areas Martin Ince Communications Limited

  42. Things that don’t work • Library spending • Course cost • Completion • Entry standards • Wealth • Alumni giving Martin Ince Communications Limited

  43. Response • More work than writing the thing • Last year about 30 newspaper articles in Mexico alone • Interest from media, universities etc across Europe and Asia • Less from the US • Political response – Ireland, Malaysia, Switzerland Martin Ince Communications Limited

  44. Types of response • Reject the whole idea • Complain about their position • Think it is about right • Wonder how to do better • Compare Shanghai… Martin Ince Communications Limited

  45. Belgian institutions • Leuven 61 (was 96 in 2006) • Louvain 123 • Ghent 124 • ULB 154 • Antwerp 187 (up from 252) • VUB 229 (down from 133) • Liege 262 (201 in 2006) Martin Ince Communications Limited

  46. This means… • Strong showing cf comparable countries • Cf Netherlands • 11 in top 200, 12 in 500 • Perhaps less international Martin Ince Communications Limited

  47. Good at…. • Peer review • Employer review • Not very international • Somewhat less cited Martin Ince Communications Limited

  48. How to do better • Publish more in the right places • Be more international • Be better represented academically around the world • Have better employer links • Have enough staff to teach your students Martin Ince Communications Limited

  49. The future • Important for staff, students, parents, management, employers • Important for governments • Important for business • Important globally, eg for the EU • Management tool: • How do we look? • Who to talk to? • What are our ambitions? Martin Ince Communications Limited

  50. Future developments • New data • Any suggestions? • Subject specific? • Management indicators Refine existing data, eg from employers More global reach, eg Africa New analyses New entrants And most importantly…. Martin Ince Communications Limited

More Related