Rankings 09: Measures matter

I believe the Leiden Ranking published by the Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, uses the most appropriate measures to obtain a fair assessment of universities around the world. It looks only at the impact of research publications (which tells the quality of the research being conducted) and the number of publications (which is an indirect measure of the breadth and multi-disciplinary character of the research being conducted). The Times Ranking relies too much on biased data such as peer and employer review (very limited in number and scope, I mean, academics can only name on average 13 universities when asked to name 30...), and on the assumption that international staff and student bodies are direct indicators of university excellence because they choose to go there (incorrect, since international people are much more prone to going to English-speaking institutions). No ranking is perfect, and even the Leiden Ranking can perhaps improve, but I am sad to see the Times continuing to follow the same methodology year after year. Maybe the Times should hire some of those fine students from UK's top universities to help improve the methodology.

World class university [WCU] rankings are popular. They are useful for educational guidance & counseling. Educational policy, decision-- makers can use the table of excellence for institutional planning. However, the rankings WCUs by THES-QS 2004-2009 were not comprehensive rankings for reflections of real quality. Many universities were missed to the top 200 in 2008, but they've leapfrogged, and highly improvement between 2008, and 2009; i.e., Keio univ was ranked no. 214 [THES 2008], and it's ranked to no. 142 [THES 2009]. Keio Univ was improved and changed 72 position in one year. University of Bergen in Norway leapfrogged from 227[2008] to 144[2009], its changed 83 position??? and so on. In Thailand, Chulalongkorn Univ improved position by leapfrogging 28 places [ from 166 in 2008 to 138 place]. Mahidol Univ, an apex research univ, the best univ in Thailand [Asian Univs Ranking by THES-QS 2009], was missed by THES-QS 2009 [released on 8 Oct]. My suggestions are: 1) Berlin Principles by the International Ranking Expert Group[IREG] should adopt for THES-QS 2010+ 2) Try to get rid of stereotyping, and political issues of rankings in all dimensions to enhance more quality, validity, and accountability of the rankings. Thanks ! Bangkok, Thailand

I like the international staff/student component because it is part of a university's role as a social conscience to be open to multiple discourses, viewpoints, ideologies &c. On the other hand, this measure creates disparity. Tokyo University is in the top 15 for every category - the top ten for most - but outside the top 20 overall because of its international staff/student scores. Its medium of instruction is Japanese, so it is naturally going to have a higher number of Japanese lecturers because there are no other countries in the world which speak Japanese as a first language. In contrast, Oxford, for example, has American, Canadian, New Zealander, or Australian lecturers/students because they all speak English as a first language. Maybe the 'international' component should be modified to account for this imbalance.

Far too much emphasis is placed on the number of international students attending a university...this places non-English speaking universitites at a great disadvantage, as 'foreign' students flock to English-speaking institutions. (E.g. What percentage of foreign students do universities in Iceland have???) Also.. Australia tends to attract massive numbers of Asian students as university fees are much lower than in the US or UK...and many foreign students come to Australia more in the pursuit of attaining permanent resident status than attaining a degree...thus Australia scores very highly on International Student aspects of the Times survey, which inflates Australian rankings. And surely subjective assessments such as employer and peer opinions have limited use in the assessment of a univerisity's international standing. More useful would be an assessment of a university's graduates' domestic and international impact.!!!! That is...does a particular university produce quality graduates who impact their communities.

UCL above MIT and Caltech?!? I have studied or worked at all three institutions, and it's not even close. Thanks anyway for the comic relief. I look forward to next year.

I shurely wan't believe the absolute rankin' reported.I believe the US colleges are the best,no question about that but orientation opinion is something different than absolute result.For example there is not any italian university rankin' below position 192 while 10 main universities of the Netherlands are all present within position 155,ridiculous,if you want to study art,archeology,ancient history, middleages artists and architecture,modern architecture, medicine and technology too,you should be in Italy.i wan't believe that any of those prestigious italian colleges such as uni.Trento,Torino,Milano,Bergamo,Padova,Pisa,Pavia,Venezia,Modena ecc.ecc. known internationally has not been able to score better,not a single of them??? Garbage!!!Afterall you can better study in North Italy for a much cheaper cost.Saluut Luigi di Brianza

Measures matter; but human nature matters more. These tables and the comments above illustrate how difficult, sorry impossible, it is to agree on the quality of the plethora of universities out there in the world. Better to forget reputation and image and concentrate on real markers of quality i.e. contributions to human progress, protection of the environment and empowerment of the disadvantaged and impoverished.

I really recommend you change your policy to give such incorrect information.

You have not had the experience of knowing MIT and Caltech these days. Caltech is down, way down even in American terms. As for MIT, the tenure system is killing the innovation. In some departments the same professors exist for decades with no chance of retiring. We in the UK has retirement age at 65 and do not have tenure for life. These two were good some years ago, UCL is improving fast. My 3 nearest young relatives study there and I know it.

The actual impact of these listings need to be considered. Each university puts this rank in its blurb to funders. Indeed the media in Ireland regularly lambast the quality or lack of a University based on it's rank within the THES list. The list has obvious bias - the Australian arguement being glaring. There are many excellent research universities, but the international student figure inflates the scores. The research/teaching numbers also influence a score, with "research institutes" putatively increasing scores compared to others that see themselves as "teaching" schools. Surely, a weighted ranking system is not beyond the THES. Hopefully a system that accounts for many of the obvious bias such that those universities that produce excellent work and students despite being in a non-migrant market would achieve some reflected glory. Although ranks are welcomed as light relief, far too much can and is made of them in the politics of education, research and funding.

Contrary to the comments of FJ above,I feel that the tenure system should be maintained. After all universities are not factories.

ha ha ha, what a joke! Seriously, if you guy's want to be taken seriously you have to a) either develop relevant measures and/ or b) take measures against bribes of your staff. That so many Australian universities qualify CAN’T be anything else than a result of miss measuring or representatives of the Australian "education" industry (because that's what it is - it's an industry, rather dealing with promises of visas to students from development countries, then dealing with quality education) paying money for good ratings. Look, I've seen the intellectual / academic capacity of Australia and i'm not impressed. In almost EVERY aspect (business, industry, society, research, technology and education) Australia - is miles away from even comparing with most other western countries. The thought that their universities offer competitive education is simply ridiculous - and on your list almost ALL of their major "universities" are in the top 100 (for example, in all cases higher ratings than for example the major Swedish, internationally very recognized and merited universities @ the edge of the global research frontier, with almost double the proportion of GDP spent on higher education and many, many world leading companies springing off these true places of learning and science. Ha ha ha - I don’t think so, guy’s….;-)) At least the Aussies are good at lobbying…. Let me ask you- have you even been there? Take a closer look at the place (especially the opportunistic visa industry) and you'll understand what I mean. ;-)). There is absolutelly nothing we should learn from them (it's actually the other way around....). It's so obvious it reeks!

Ha ha ha - this is soo funny. I cant stop laughing ;-)) "University of Newcastle" and "Univerity of Wollongong" in Australia just a little behind The famous Sourbonne University in France. Yeah - that makes sense! Do you have ANY scrutiy at all?!!! Just to give you a clue - Newcastle in Australia is a run down, depressive community that is going nowhere but down. Everything is run down and the only industry of significance is coal shipping (but to be fair - a quite large operation). The univerity here is nothing than an academic backwater. ...and university of Wolongong??!!! Are you kidding me? Take ANY small time collegue in any remote little community in continental Europe and you would see the difference right away. These type of ratings are difficult to make and there are allways debatable elements. This one, however, is so extremelly flawed only after a few glances that no students should pay any attention to it. Seriously, you guys speciallize in this - it's what you "sell". So at least try to do it properly enough at least to avoid looking like fools! This kind of low quality shit makes me friggin angry and it's obvious that you have no qualifications in this area!

Your language says it all. Best to ignore your rant.

reply to: "To Logozz" You shouldn't pay too much attention to my language - it's quite irrelevant. Rather, you should evaluate what it is I'm actually saying or even better, see for yourself (as I have done) to see if it bears any relevance. If you would have any intention to see things "as they are", you would examine this "rating" with a critical mindset - as I have done. If you would come to a different conclusion, then I have to say you are indeed a "sucker" (and belong in a “Micky Mouse university”). The reason I’m using such a direct language is because one should call a shovel a shovel as crappy and half done work should be called what it is in the same way. Perhaps quality is of lesser importance to you (like in Australia, ey) But hey, mate – it’s your call. Go get YOUR PhD in Wollongong ;-))

I agree with Logozz...

Replying Logozz, I think you have a very biased view of academic or intellectual standards in Aus. I wonder though what International Student score means? One thing I think is really a shame is the commercialisation of education in Australia. Academics are pressured EXPLICITLY to recruit international students, at the expense of lowering educational standards. But can we say the pressure to commercialise is not the same (even if to a different extent) in some Western countries (e.g. UK)?

Could somebody help me? I am really interested about the questions what have been asked to rank the Uni-s. Are they open for the public and availebe to read somewhere? Thanks a million!

NM - I partly have an academic background in Statistics - but I still don't quite understand what you mean by me having a biased view, or how you managed to find enough information to even form that kind of opinion? But I think I know what you are implying...(or trying to make explicit) For your information i studied at 4 different European (not UK) universities, so I think I have something to compare with....I also worked with "cream of the crop" Australian graduates in many different industries and it is mainly (but not only) from that experience that I judge the Australian educational system. It simply doesn't compare at all! The best universities in Australia are without doubt university of Sydney and Melbourne. I still don't think they are even close to the European ones (or the US ones). The rest wouldn't qualify as "academic" using European standards. And that's the main issue with Australia, really. Standards are so extremely low and people seem to have a reflex to interpret things in their favor on the expense of the truth (which is the basis of science). So I can imagine how this “result” will be used by “education egancies” (or should I say “visa brokers”) in Australia. In general, most things are "dumbed down" in australia, not just education. I have also learned that the concept of quality control and self criticism is completely non existing over there. Australian marketing is all about exaggeration and you find more brilliant thinking in many development countries. It's very simple: you go to australia to surf and enjoy the good weather and not to obtain a quality education. Everyone knows (except the people who produced this study, it seems) that AU universities are extremely dominated by Chinese and indian students (nothing wrong with that per se), resulting in an EXTREME native to international student ratio. And we see what that in turn has resulted in, in this "study". I am well a ware of the quality difference (and money spent on education etc etc) so the only explanation is that the people who designed this study didn't (at all) manage to come up with an appropriate model to compare universities. I have no "personal" reason to talk down Aussie universities - i just know they are extremely and consistently overrated in this study, and that's why I have to conclude that this study isn't worth shit. Without this flaw I wouldn't have been able to form a fair opinion at all, but it just so happened that I know the truth in this case, so that's why I can shoot down the study as a whole. Take my word for it or don’t. Best look for your self but I am quite convinced that most (ambitious) European students would be shocked by the low level of Australian education. Not saying this can’t change, but since self criticism is so much weaker than opportunism among Australians – it’s going to take a while. with "cream of the crop" Australian graduates in many different industries and it is mainly (but not only) from that experience that I judge the Australian educational system. It simply doesn't compare at all! The best universities in Australia are without doubt university of Sydney and Melbourne. I still don't think they are even close to the europeans. The rest wouldn't qualify as "academic" using european standards. And that's the main issue with australia. Standards are so extremelly low and just everything is done wrong. In general, most things are "dumbed down" in australia, not just education. I have also learned that the concept of quality controll and self criticism is completelly non existing over there. Australian marketing is all about exaggeration and you find more brilliant thinking in many development countries. It's verry simple: you go to australia to surf and enjoy the good weather and not to obtain a quality education. Everyone knows that AU universities are extremelly dominated by chinese and indian students (nothing wrong with that per se), resulting in an EXTREME native to international student rating. And we see what that in turn has resulted in in this "study". I am well a whare of the quality difference (and money spent on education) so the only explanation is that the people who designed this study didn't (at all) manage to come up with an apropriate model to compare universities. I have no "personal" reason to talk down Aussie universities - i just know they are extremelly and consistently overrated in this study, and that's why I have to conclude that this study isn't worth shit. Without this flaw I wouldn't have been able to form a fair oppinion, but it just so happened that I know the truth in this case, so that's why I can shoot down the study as a whole. Take my word for it or dont. Best look for your self.

Why is the open university not in the top 10?

@Joe: Because it just plain sucks. It's a momey-making machine with as much automated assessments as they can decently implement, poor human support, and a very unsatisfying level of degrees. In the end, the only people I know who were satisfied with Open University were very bad students. They ended up liking it and finding it challenging, worth their time and money. That doesn't make it good. It makes it good for them.

Chuckie: Agreed!!. International staff/stduent componenet must be given a higher weight. I graduated from Tokyo University. They have English Medium lectures. But, due to lack of international staff (It's very very difficult or almost imposible for a foreigner to be a staff member @ Tokyo uni.) international students face a lot of problems. And many of those materials, for ex. softwares, previous research works, data etc. are in Japanese. Well, the quality of research works may be excellent. But, who knows? many of those are in Japansese. I personally have discouraged some guys who needed some advices before they apply for Tokyo Uni.

Logozz - not sure what shelter you've climbed out from but your rants are superficial and uninformed. I studied at UoW and am an executive of a major global corporation. Having worked in Australia, UK and the US, as well as spending considerable time in most other countries over a 20 year career, I rate highly Australian knowledge, tenacity and work ethic against these other beacons of the developed world you seem to support. Obviously, you've spent too much time in the University environment and not enough in the real world to understand what it takes to translate academic success into comemrcial success. I would have no qualms taking a grad from the Australian universities you slam so freely. I can only assume you were not accepted into an Australian university as an explanation for your vilification of these institutions and the country more broadly. Remember, it is one of only a handful of nations undertaking monetary contraction policies at the moment, which says a lot about the structural strength of the economy there and their leadership on carbon emissions probably means they'll arrive in Copenhagen with tangible commitments, as compared to the other spectators. Informed and worldly experiecned UoW grad.

@ UoW Grad I base my “rant” on what I’ve seen myself. Your overreaction, however, is nothing but far fetched assumptions on my background - on which you have not enough information...but that doesn’t seem to hinder you from engaging in a completely unsubstantiated babbling orgy. In fact, you seem to picture the very result of Aussie education that I am so critical of. So, thank you for establishing my point further: indeed, just another Australian “big time graduate”, displaying a complete lack of factual reasoning, only relying on basic traits, primitive instincts and an oversized mouth. But, I’m not surprised – Aussies are not only known for a lack of self criticism (a result of comparing themselves with third world countries only?) but also for taking criticism badly when received (a result of a subconscious and painful awareness that they are helplessly lagging behind?). And it is partly the (very typical) Australian incapability of embracing criticism that is preventing them from gaining any international recognition of significance. Some others causes are your amassing and consistent incompetence in most fields, lack of customer service and innovativeness – all of them, in turn, a result of your low quality educational. The fact that you defend it so fiercely is indeed scary, but merely an incremental loop of the negative education spiral... I’m quite happy with my achievements that btw includes a successful overseas market entry in a competitive technology field – which statistically suggests that you are out of your league here, “Mr executive” (unless of course you belong to a minority of about 0,00009 percent of the population – do you?). Your eagerness to take credit for Australias limited economic dow turn is also not surprising – in fact it is expected and to be frank a little bit cute. Still, most people with a fairly basic education and insight in the Australian economy would understand that that was (or “is” – it’s not over yet...) a result of Chinas sustained growth – without China buying whatever Australians manage to dig out of the ground (along with good luck in terms of a good wheat harvest), Australia would have gone back to the stone age. And as most people know, Australias ass (and Mines) are about to be OWNED by the Chinese and you aren’t even in position to negotiate your mineral prices. Well, you have already exposed yourself as someone that’s not very insightful (perhaps with Aussie standards?), but really, what you said about the Aussie economy could have passed as an oversight. But why, oh why, did you have to open your mouth on the environmental issue so carelessly? Are you aware that Australia is the world’s second largest polluter – right behind the US (very much because of your coal industry and your unmodern industrial technology)? Damn right you have a responsibility to bring something to the table in Denmark. ..and...what do you think will happen when coal based energy will be restricted? I’ll tell you, mister “business genius”: the end of Newcastle’s coal harbours – AND it’s so called university for a starter. But maybe you live in a special little reality of your own? So, perhaps the least embarrassing alternative for you would be to shut that big food hole of yours – unless you are able to actually argue why Australian education is so damn good. But from what I have read so far, that is probably better done by someone else.

You've wasted more words on this topic than everyone else combined!!! I'm not Australian, only did one degree there, so am not ancestrally parochial. However, I am objective and balanced, something for you to aspire to. Signing off....

@UoW Grad. "Obviously, you've spent too much time in the University environment and not enough in the real world to understand what it takes to translate academic success into comemrcial success." "I can only assume you were not accepted into an Australian university as an explanation for your vilification of these institutions and the country more broadly" A quick analysis of your first post: half of it contains wild assumptions taken out of the blue sky (cited above) and the rest pretty dumb conclusions on the AU economy and environmental policy. And you are still parroting about being "objective and balanced"!!! Could there be a more obvious indication of Aussie education? Thanks again for establishing my point.

I'll make one final comment before getting on with what's important. You appear to jump from discussion stream to discussion stream spouting your bile to anyone that has nothing better to do than listen to your pseudo-academic drivel (I do). Some may not be aware but your participation in discussion groups like "I Hate Australia" means you lack credibility, are totally biased and borderline xenophobic to boot. Best you work on seeking main stream avenues to publish your thoughts... or have you tried that in the past and been rejected? Have a nice life.

Here's a lesson in english, mate - your mother language? Meaning of "biased": "UoW is great", says UoW Grad. What ever truth in your weird statement about my e-whereabouts; sounds like you are sniffing around these forums as well. So I gues your rubbish applies to you just as well? So far your reasoning has been consistently inconsistent and illogic. Is that what you majored in? Thanks again for establishing my point. My god, you seem dumb!

@UoW Grad... ...and here is my last post; i guess i'm not the only one who's "biased".... http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/teacher-quality-sliding/story-e6frgcjx-1225808379088 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/china-alerts-students-on-dodgy-australian-colleges/story-e6frgcjx-1225807521174

..ok, one last clarification to help you out with some simple analysis that suggests the reason for the sceuwed outcome of the Times study (and an example of STATISTICAL bias - for you AND the TIMES team): Quoted from Aussie newspaper (links above): "Australia has almost 150,000 Chinese students who make up a quarter of the country's 610,000 overseas students and as a group fund an estimated quarter of all Australian university teaching." ...and with a model that gives heavy weight to "international studen ratio – you work it out, Einstein! Note how I give examples and references and how you make wild assumptions, allegations and talk nothing by rubbish. Aussie graduate, indeed. It would have served you better to keep your mouth shut - and your employer should ask you to do the same thing, since you prove complete incompetence in supporting a point (except mine, of course)!

Every student knows now which are good universities.

Guys,........ This is a BRITISH/COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTION THAT'S WHY UCL IMPERIAL COLLEGE OXFORD AND ALL OTHER COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITIES APPEAR TOO MUCH AND TOO "OVERSHACKING" FOR ITS ACADEMIC EXCELLENT. DO YOU CONSIDER ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE (research, prize, achievement) and SOCIETY CONTRIBUTION OR JUST THE REPUTATION AND UK/COMMONWEALTH COUNTRY- BASED MEASUREMENT ? -German universities which have produced many scientist, professors, industrialists, experts have overbeaten by Australian Universities, University of Hongkong, and ALL BRITISH LACKEY UNIVERSITIES/COUNTRIES. -Did you consider the achievement by UC Berkeley and Stanford recently? Could you explain why UC Berkeley and Stanford beaten by ANU or UCL or Imperial College ? -Did you weigh up the starting salary, budget on research, impact for society, invention. etc of the alumnus or academics on particular universities on the year of measurement?

Guys,........ This is a BRITISH/COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTION THAT'S WHY UCL IMPERIAL COLLEGE OXFORD AND ALL OTHER COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITIES APPEAR TOO MUCH AND TOO "OVERSHACKING" FOR ITS ACADEMIC EXCELLENT. DO YOU CONSIDER ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE (research, prize, achievement) and SOCIETY CONTRIBUTION OR JUST THE REPUTATION AND UK/COMMONWEALTH COUNTRY- BASED MEASUREMENT ? -German universities which have produced many scientist, professors, industrialists, experts have overbeaten by Australian Universities, University of Hongkong, and ALL BRITISH LACKEY UNIVERSITIES/COUNTRIES. -Did you consider the achievement by UC Berkeley and Stanford recently? Could you explain why UC Berkeley and Stanford beaten by ANU or UCL or Imperial College ? -Did you weigh up the starting salary, budget on research, impact for society, invention. etc of the alumnus or academics on particular universities on the year of measurement?