New data partner for World University Rankings - Comments

Measure quality, not size. So norm each institution's number of indexed publications, citations, etc by its number of academic staff, or if comparable data on academic staff aren't readily available, by its equivalent full time students.

A top 500 list would make the new ranking more credible than just top 200. There are many excellent institutions in the 201-500 range and failing to recognise these promotes misunderstanding outside of the higher education sector - within governments industry and amongst prospective staff and students. With respect to research, field normalised citation rates must play a part if all institutions are to measured using the same indicators. In reality though several of the indicators that are used to rank the world leaders are quite different to what is meaningful for those outside the top 100. There is scope for innovative use of a sliding scale where the weighting placed on indicators is altered further down the list so that institutions do not engage in strategies to be like Harvard.

The hype you give to the Web of Science in your article says it all. Your tables-and the Shanghai tables-are biassed in favour of subjects where the majority of research output is via journal papers, often with high citation rates. Please spare a thought for those of us who take years to write a carefully-researched book which, even if it becomes definitive or paradigm-breaking, won't get any points on your scale.

I am surprised as I have read and researched the QS THE WUR and did find them quite well done.Ranking done on the basis of peer recommandations, recruiters recommandations, student ratio per teacher, research publication per teacher and percentage of international students and teachers seems a good basis and great methodology. Allow me to think there is something economic behind this change, a the rankings done by the two entities have worked very well and with educational world recognition until now....

I think it's a good idea that you guys want to improve your rankings. Here are some suggestions: -careful with the peer review (40% is quite high for something that could be acused of being subjective. Maybe you can increase the number of academics interviewed) -I don't understand why you don't take into account the resources the University has at their disposal (you can't really assure academic excellence without money) -take into account the jobs students get after graduation -I like the employer review : it's definitely a keeper -Great that you already thought of subject rankings -Maybe take into account a little (5%) the international awards received by academics teaching at that University. Good luck.

Yes, rankings are here to stay and THE can play a big role in giving greater attention to the scientific production in the social sciences and humanities. This implies, however, not only relying on one single language (English) but becoming more international in your approach to scientific indexed production. In addition, if you continue giving such an important spàce to peer reviews it would be great to understand better what peer revierw of a university entails..

The quality of the student experience as a graduate student is essential to evaluating a school's ranking. I think the following are good indicators of that student experience: 1. percentage of graduate students on full fellowship and percentage receiving assistantships (stipends in return for work such as teaching undergraduates. The more students on full fellowship, the better the school. The fewer with undergraduate teaching responsibilies the better. 2. students report they are encouraged to start or complete research for their dissertations. Surprisingly, this varies in the U.S.A. by region of the country with the northeast where such famed schools as Princeton U and Columbia U. are located less encouraging than schools in the South such as UNC at Chapel Hill or Duke or U. of Colorado in the West. (see my new book "Crippled at the Starting Gate [2009: University Press of America]). 3. I agree foreign students coming to a school can be a mark of its quality but it is not a linear relationshp. More than ten percent of the graduate student body foreign may be a statement more of the school's hunger for money than of the quality of its educational experience. 4. Student access to state-of-the-art equipment and facilities is an important indicator, especially in the hard sciences such as physics and chemistry. Schools with obsolete plant or that restrict access to the best equipment are not training people as well as less famed institutions that are offering access to such state of the art equipment. 5. Faculty turnover. Some turnover is good but a lot of turnover indicates problems in the department. Similarly, lack of opportunity for younger profesors to advance to top rank at the school is a sign of problems in the school. I would be suspicious of the quality of a school with a group of elderly senior professors and a bunch of junior young faculty. Better a mix of people in the senior faculty by age and gender than a geriatric department even if the people there have big reputations/