scholarly journals Global Ranking of Universities by Reputation: The Hidden Criterion

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (1-3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor F. Peretomode

ABSTRACT The ranking of World Universities is a fairly recent phenomenon. It is one of the products of internationalization of higher education. Many of the indices used by the ranking systems are now familiar to readers and writers. The age of an institution is one salient factor often not considered in rankings. The objective of this study is to critically discuss the relevance of age in relation to the metrics used and to determine whether or not age can be shown to have a place in university rankings .The analysis of data shows the average age of the top 50 institutions by reputation to be 206 years and the median 162. A look at the rankings will not reveal this important criterion except each of these ranked universities is linked with the year it was founded. It concludes that there is value in age and should be factored into university rankings.

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 529-546 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pepka Boyadjieva

The starting point of this study is the argument that not only rankings of higher education institutions (HEIs) are inescapable, but so is the constant criticism to which they are subjected. Against this background, the paper discusses how HEIs from Central and Eastern Europe countries (CEECs) are (non)represented in the main global university rankings. The analysis adopts two perspectives: 1) From the point of view of higher education in CEECs – what are the specificity, basic problems and perspectives of higher education in CEECs as seen through the prism of the global ranking systems? 2) From the point of view of the ranking systems – what strengths and weaknesses of the global ranking systems can be identified through the prism of higher education in CEECs? The study shows that most of the HEIs from CEECs remain invisible in the international and European academic world and tries to identify the main reasons for their (non)appearance in global rankings. It is argued that although global rankings are an important instrument for measuring and comparing the achievements of HEIs by certain indicators, they are only one of the mechanisms – and not a perfect one – for assessing the quality of higher education.


Author(s):  
P. S. Aithal ◽  
Suresh Kumar P. M.

Higher Education Institutions try to enhance their competitiveness so as to become distinguished centers of learning and research. Various agencies conduct rankings of institutions independent of each other using different criteria. Although the purpose of ranking is to encourage healthy competition and distinguish the best institution in the interest of the learners to choose, the differences in criteria have cast a lot of confusion in building a parity. Academic performance and allied factors, as well as research, publication, and allied factors, are common to all. Some ranking agencies take into consideration industry-institution collaborations, international outlook, alumni, overall reputation, and even financial stability. This paper aims to attempt a comparison of the ranking methodology adopted by selected prominent Global University Ranking Agencies all over the world and throw light on the positive and negative outcomes of the global ranking. Based on in-depth analysis and critical comments on the limitations of these ranking systems, a generic model for balanced global university ranking is also proposed. Given the fact that nations differ, cultures differ, and the context of higher education itself differ across nations, the study illuminates the fallacy and dangers of segregating all institutions under the same mould.


Author(s):  
Fraide A. Ganotice Jr. ◽  
Hei-Hang Hayes Tang ◽  
Gordon Tsui ◽  
Jonalyn B. Villarosa ◽  
Susanna S. Yeung

This chapter discusses how Asian universities respond to the global prevalence of university rankings, which are operated in various form with different emphases. First, it defines the context and rationales of the rise of world university rankings. Next, it compares and contrasts the three dominant university rankings, namely, Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), Quacquarelli Symonds (QS), and Times higher Education University Rankings (THE). After assessing the controversies, limitations and solutions of the dominant ranking systems, we will evaluate the current performance of Asian universities and discuss what lessons are to be learned by Asian universities amid the globalizing forces of world university ranking.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Lokman I. Meho

This study uses the checklist method, survey studies, and Highly Cited Researchers to identify 100 highly prestigious international academic awards. The study then examines the impact of using these awards on the Academic Ranking of World Universities (the Shanghai Ranking), the QS World University Rankings, and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. Results show that awards considerably change the rankings and scores of top universities, especially those that receive a large number of awards and those that receive few or no awards. The rankings of all other universities with relatively similar numbers of awards remain intact. If given 20% weight, as was the case in this study, awards help ranking systems set universities further apart from each other, making it easier for users to detect differences in the levels of performance. Adding awards to ranking systems benefits United States universities the most as a result of winning 58% of 1,451 awards given in 2010–2019. Developers of ranking systems should consider adding awards as a variable in assessing the performance of universities. Users of university rankings should pay attention to both ranking positions and scores.


2021 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-4
Author(s):  
Anil Kumar Nassa ◽  
Jagdish Arora

Ranking of higher education institutions (HEI) is a convenient and easily understandable method of evaluation and assessment. An ordinal number assigned to an HEI by a ranking system represents its comparative position in a list of ranked institutions based on marks obtained by it on various performance parameters or indicators. Ranking of HEIs have been lauded and criticised simultaneously. University rankings are often criticised for methodology used, choice of indicators and weightage assigned to them, focus on science, technology and English language publications, assessment of institutions as whole (instead of individual program) and the practice of assigning an ordinal number or a rank to represent quality of an HEI. At the same time, university rankings are lauded for serving as information tools for students, researchers, funding agencies, policy makers and other stakeholders as well as for instilling a competitive spirit amongst institutions to perform better in ranking systems. However, most experts agree that rankings are here to stay in the education market place. As such, although ranking system cannot measure quality of education and research in absolute term, it does serve as indicator to various aspects of quality in higher education, which, in turn, can be used by institutions themselves for improving their performance on these parameters. While universities are welcomed to use rankings for improving their performance, ranking systems should not dictate university policy, either at a national or institutional level, but should be used as a source of information for guiding policies that should be decided according to the needs of the university’s own community, traditions, market niche, national role and so on1.


2015 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta JAROCKA

University rankings are extremely important not only for future student, but also for universities themselves. They have a large impact on the institutions of higher education. A lot of universities believe, that rankings help them to maintain and create a reputation. Ranking systems function as some kind of fashion arena, where universities make comparisons between themselves. Universities want to improve their position in published classifications, so very often they try to change their policy and strategy. They also try to influence the ranking indicators, for example by hiring Nobel Prize winners. Therefore, there is an increasing need for reliable and transparent information about schools. However universities need not only statistical data, but also the tools, which will be useful in their comparisons and evaluations. The article presents the possibility of using one of the methods of graphic presentation of multidimensional empirical data structure, so called RGM, proposed by M. Rybaczuk. Thanks to this method universities could easily compare one another. They also could identify the fields of their activities, in which they are able to be better. The proposed way of graphical presentation of the universities could be a useful addition to traditional rankings, which just show us a lists of schools from the best to the worst.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 190
Author(s):  
Hira Khan ◽  
Khairul Anuar Mohammad Shah ◽  
Jamshed Khalid ◽  
Majed Ageel A Harnmal ◽  
Anees Janee Ali

This study focuses on the effect of globalization on university ranking and current developments and challenges that HEIs face in the global higher education market. It provides detailed information about the origins of international ranking systems, diversification of university rankings and strategic planning of higher education institutes. Moreover, this study describes the global university classification, continuous exposure to elite universities, neglect of the humanities, arts and the social sciences researches, limited description of methods and indigent metrics. The expected effects on ranking system amid the COVID-19 crisis are mentioned which are widely being discussed by the researchers. The study concludes that there is a threat that universities which are investing time and money in accumulating and using statistics and data for the sake of improvement in their performance for the rankings may destabilize themselves from the development in other areas such as learning, teaching or community involvement.


Author(s):  
Nattapong Techarattanased ◽  
Pleumjai Sinarkorn

Many universities have drawn attention to world university rankings, which reflect the international competition of universities and represent their relative statuses. This study does not radically contradict all types of global university rankings but calls for an examination of the effects of their indicators on the final ranking of universities. This study investigates the indicator contribution to the ranking of universities in world university ranking systems including the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), Times Higher Education (THE), and QS World University Rankings. Results showed that in the ARWU system, three indicators regarding faculty members who won Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals and papers published in Nature and Science and in the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index journals predicted the ranking of universities. For the QS and THE systems, the more powerful contributors to the ranking of universities were expert-based reputation indicators.


2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-58
Author(s):  
N. L. Antonova ◽  
A. D. Sushchenko ◽  
N. G. Popova

Introduction. The main objectives of foreign policy of any state include the extension of its influence in the international arena. In the era of information and knowledge, one of the most effective tools for this task is soft power of education. In this respect, education is seen as a promising soft power instrument, which long-term character allows a country to promote not only its cultural, scientific and technological achievements, but also its cultural values and norms of social organisation. Today, universities are also seeking to strengthen their positions in global education rankings, which are used to define the status and reputation of a particular university in the global market of educational services. This ranking serves as a guide for future students and their parents, when choosing a prestigious education location and when developing individual career paths.The aims of the present research are the following: to analyse soft power of higher education as a soft power mechanism, which allows a country to achieve and maintain leadership positions in the international arena; to specify conditi ons, factors and barriers that determine the position of universities in global ranking systems.Methodology and research methods. The methodological framework is based on the concept of soft power and the theory of internationalisation of higher education. The empirical study was conducted following the tradition of qualitative sociological research. In 2018, a series of semi-structured interviews was conducted among Ural Federal University employees, whose responsibilities were related to the promotion of the university on the global educational market. The Ural Federal University (UrFU) can be considered representative in terms of practices aimed at attracting foreign students to the BRICS countries. In addition, UrFU is a place where the concept of a network BRICS University was realised in 2017. A total of 5 expert interviews were conducted. The collected data were analysed in the context of the World Bank statistics on the money spent by the BRICS countries on education and R&D during the 1999–2015 period (% of GDP), as well as the data provided by the QS World University Rankings – 2019 to analyse the reputation of BRICS universities.Results and scientific novelty. The case study of Ural Federal University allowed the authors to consider the specific practices of BRICS zones for attracting foreign students. The authors analysed the specifics of actions taken by a university to promote its international leadership positions in the international space on the example of students from China. It is shown that the role of global ranking systems (institutional and faculty) in the choice of a university is steadily growing. At the same time, factors determining the attractiveness of the Ural Federal University for foreign students, in particular for Chinese students, include a reasonable level of tuition, the quality of the education and the formed ethnic social networks. For them, the Russian education is expected to be a factor in achieving a higher social status in their home countries. This demonstrates the effective role of education as a soft power instrument, although in the long-term perspective. The authors identified a number of findings concerning the barriers faced by Russian universities on the way to recognising them as global actors of higher vocational education. It is possible to enter the Top 500 best world universities; however, the task of maintaining the achieved position in global rankings is more complicated and cannot be completed without a steady increase in the performance over several years. A world-class university should attract gifted youth, qualified teachers and researchers. The reduction in the number of talented people and research results leads to the loss of geopolitical mission by the educational organisation. Inadequate funding may prevent universities from breakthrough and sustainable improvement of their reputation.Practical significance. The research findings might be useful for managers of higher education and for strategists involved in positioning and making forecasts of educational institutions development. Also, the present findings can be applied by specialists engaged in the issues of educational policy, distribution of public investments, as well as the issues of international interaction and competition between states in order to realise national interests and support national economy in the country in the long term.


Author(s):  
Ainur Seitbattalovna Kenebayeva

This chapter highlights the internationalization of the higher education system in the Republic of Kazakhstan. It briefly discusses Kazakh national initiatives to enhance the country's global economic competitiveness through modernization and capacity-building in the field of higher education and science. National experience on integration to the international educational space by the consecutive implementation of Bologna principles is reflected. The importance of the Bolashak presidential scholarship program is addressed as a strategy for human capital development. This chapter also underlines trends, tendencies, and issues of internationalization of higher education in globalization. Key aspects of internationalization considered through the prism of the Kazakhstani experience include academic mobility, accreditation, university rankings, and research and development (R&D).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document