ARWU 2010


Published on

Published in: Education
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

ARWU 2010

  1. 1. Methodology of Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU)<br />Dr. Ying CHENG <br />Center for World-Class UniversitiesGraduate School of Education<br />Shanghai Jiao Tong University<br />3 December, 2010<br />Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey<br />
  2. 2. Outline<br />History<br />Methodology<br />Results and Analysis<br />Features and Impact<br />Future <br />
  3. 3. HISTORY<br />
  4. 4. Chinese Dream of WCU<br /><ul><li>World-Class University (WCU) is a dream for generations of Chinese. It’s not only for pride, but also for the future of China.
  5. 5. Since 1990s, Chinese government has launched several initiatives for research universities. The best-known one is specially designed to build WCU (985 Project).
  6. 6. Many top Chinese universities had setup their strategic goals as WCU. Most of them have also set time tables for reaching the goals. </li></li></ul><li>Questions About WCU<br /><ul><li>What is the definition and criteria for a WCU
  7. 7. How many WCU should there be in the world?
  8. 8. What are the positions of top Chinese universities in the world?
  9. 9. How can Chinese universities improve themselves to reach the goal of WCU?</li></li></ul><li>Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU)<br /><ul><li>2003
  10. 10. 2004
  11. 11. 2005
  12. 12. 2006
  13. 13. 2007
  14. 14. 2008
  15. 15. 2009
  16. 16. 2010</li></ul>Find out the positions of top Chinese Universities in the world higher education system<br />Provide one source of information for the global comparison of universities<br /><ul><li>Transparent methodology
  17. 17. Objective indicators
  18. 18. Third-party data</li></li></ul><li>Academic Ranking of World Universities by Broad Subject Fields (ARWU-FIELD)<br />2007, 2008, 2009, 2010<br />Five Broad Subject Fields<br /><ul><li>Natural Sciences and Mathematics (SCI)
  19. 19. Engineering/Technology and Computer Sciences (ENG)
  20. 20. Life and Agriculture Sciences (LIFE)
  21. 21. Clinical Medicine and Pharmacy (MED)
  22. 22. Social Sciences (SOC) </li></li></ul><li>Academic Ranking of World Universities by Subject Fields (ARWU-SUBJECT)<br />2009, 2010<br />Five Subject Fields<br /><ul><li>Mathematics
  23. 23. Physics
  24. 24. Chemistry
  25. 25. Computer Sciences
  26. 26. Economics / Business</li></li></ul><li>METHODOLOGY<br />
  27. 27. Selection of Universities<br /><ul><li>Any university that has any Nobel Laureates, Fields Medals, Highly Cited Researchers, or papers in Nature or Science
  28. 28. Major universities of every country with significant amount of papers indexed by Citation Indexes of Thomson</li></ul>Number of universities actually ranked <br />1200 <br />Number of universities published<br />Top 500<br />Top 100<br />Top 100<br />Number of universities scanned<br />> 2000<br />ARWU<br />ARWU-FIELD<br />ARWU-SUBJECT<br />
  29. 29. Criteria and Weights of ARWU<br />*: For institutions specialized in humanities and social sciences such as London School of Economics, N&S is not considered and the weight of N&S is relocated to other indicators<br />
  30. 30. 12<br />Definition of Indicator: Alumni<br /><ul><li>The weighted number of the alumni of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals.
  31. 31. Alumni are defined as those who obtain bachelor, Master’s or doctoral degrees from the institution.
  32. 32. Different weights are set according to the periods of obtaining degrees. The weight is 100% for alumni of 1991-2000, 90% for alumni of 1981-1990, 80% for alumni of 1971-1980, and so on.
  33. 33. If a person obtains more than one degrees from an institution, the institution is considered once only. </li></li></ul><li>13<br />Definition of Indicator: Award<br /><ul><li>The weighted number of the staff of an institution winning Nobel prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Medicine and Economics and Fields Medal in Mathematics.
  34. 34. Staff is defined as those who work at an institution at the time of winning the prize.
  35. 35. Different weights are set according to the periods of winning the prizes. The weight is 100% for winners since 2001, 90% for winners in 1991-2000, 80% and so on.
  36. 36. If a winner is affiliated with more than one institution, each institution is assigned the reciprocal of the number of institutions.
  37. 37. For Nobel prizes, if a prize is shared by more than one person, weights are set for winners according to their proportion of prize. </li></li></ul><li>14<br />Definition of Indicator: HiCi<br /><ul><li>The number of highly cited researchers in 21 categories.
  38. 38. The definition of categories and detailed procedures can be found at the website of
  39. 39. The total number of HiCi is about 6000, about 4000 of which are university staff.</li></li></ul><li>15<br />Definition of Indicator: N&S<br /><ul><li>The weighted number of papers published in Nature and Science in the past five years.
  40. 40. To distinguish the order of author affiliation, a weight of 100% is assigned for corresponding author, 50% for first author (second author if the first author is the same as corresponding author), 25% for the next author, and 10% for other authors.
  41. 41. Only publications of Article and Proceedings Paper type are considered. </li></li></ul><li>16<br />Definition of Indicator: PUB<br /><ul><li>Total number of papers indexed in Science Citation Index-expanded (SCIE) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) on the previous year.
  42. 42. A weight of 2 is assigned to articles indexed in SSCI to compensate the bias against social sciences.
  43. 43. Only publications of Article and Proceedings Paper type are considered. </li></li></ul><li>17<br />Definition of Indicator: PCP<br /><ul><li>The sub-total scores of the above five indicators divided by the number of full-time equivalent academic staff.
  44. 44. If the number of academic staff for institutions of a country cannot be obtained, the total scores of the above five indicators is used.
  45. 45. For ranking 2010, the number of full-time equivalent academic staff is obtained for institutions in USA, China, UK, Canada, France, Australia, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, and Belgium etc. </li></li></ul><li>Criteria and Weights of ARWU-FIELD<br />
  46. 46. Criteria and Weights of ARWU-SUBJECT<br />
  47. 47. 20<br />Main Sources of Data<br /><ul><li>Nobel laureates: </li></ul><br /><ul><li>Fields Medals: </li></ul><br /><ul><li>Highly-cited researchers: </li></ul><br /><ul><li>Papers published in Nature and Science:</li></ul><br /><ul><li>Papers indexed in SCIE and SSCI:</li></ul><br />
  48. 48. RESULTS & ANALYSIS<br />
  49. 49. Results -<br /> Top 500 universities<br />ARWU<br /> Top 100 universities in <br /><ul><li>Natural Sciences and Mathematics
  50. 50. Engineering/Technology and Computer Sciences
  51. 51. Life and Agriculture Sciences
  52. 52. Clinical Medicine and Pharmacy
  53. 53. Social Sciences</li></ul>ARWU-FIELD<br /> Top 100 universities in <br /><ul><li>Mathematics
  54. 54. Physics
  55. 55. Chemistry
  56. 56. Computer Sciences
  57. 57. Economics / Business</li></ul>ARWU-SUBJECT<br />
  58. 58. Average Performance by ARWU Indicators<br />
  59. 59. Distribution of Top 100 Universities<br />
  60. 60. Distribution of Top 500 Universities<br />
  61. 61. TOP 500 Universities by Country<br />
  62. 62. Number of Top 500 Universities vs GDP<br />More universities<br />than expected<br />Less universities<br />than expected<br />
  63. 63. Number of Top 500 Univvs GDP per Capita<br />More universities<br />than expected<br />Less universities<br />than expected<br />
  64. 64. Which Countries Could Have More in Top 500?<br />10 Countries<br />Russia<br />Poland<br />Greece<br />Portugal<br />Czech<br />Turkey<br />Saudi Arabia<br />Iran<br />Argentina<br />Mexico<br />
  65. 65. Which countries could have at least one Top 500 University?<br />Asia: Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, UAE, Kuwait,Kazakhstan <br />Europe: Romania, Slovak, Ukraine<br />Americas: Colombia, Venezuela, Peru<br />Africa: Algeria, Egypt, Morocco<br />GDP > 72 Billions<br />and<br />GDP per capita > 1500<br />
  66. 66. FEATURES & IMPACT<br />
  67. 67. Features<br />
  68. 68. Reports <br />Reported by mainstream media in major countries<br />USA The New York Times<br />UKThe Times<br />GermanyDeutsche Welle<br />France Le Figaro <br />Australia The Australian<br />Japan The Yomiuri Shimbun<br />Reported by hundreds of universities worldwide<br />Campus news<br />Annual reports<br />Promotional brochures<br />
  69. 69. Comments<br />“the most widely used annual ranking of the world's research universities”<br />A world of opportunity. (2005). Economist, Vol. 376. Issue 8443, p14-16. <br />“the most influential international ranking”<br />Bollag, Burton (2006). International group endorses principles for ranking of higher-education institutions. Chronicle of Higher Education, June 1, 2006<br />Chris Patten Chancellor of Oxford University<br />“it looks like a pretty good stab at a fair comparison”<br />Chris Patten's speech. (2004, February 5). Guardian<br />“they offer an important comparative view of research performance and reputation”<br />Chubb, I. (2007). Distinguishing (between) universities. <br />Ian Chubb President of ANU<br />
  70. 70. Applications<br />To analyze the comparative advantages of Western Europe and US<br />Destler, B. (2008) A new relationship. Nature, 453, 853-854, Dec 2008<br />“France's poor showing in the Shanghai rankings--helped trigger a national debate about higher education that resulted in a new law, passed last month, giving universities more freedom.” <br />Enserink, M. (2007). Who Ranks the University Rankers? Science, Vol. 317. no. 5841, p 1026-1028. <br />The Pursuit of Excellence. A European Institute of Technology<br />Available at:<br />
  71. 71. FUTURE<br />
  72. 72. Limitations of Ranking<br />Ranking is controversial, there are limitations and problems in any ranking.<br />However, there are university rankings in almost every major country of the world.<br />Whether universities and other stakeholders agree with rankings, they are clearly here to stay. <br />The key issue then becomes how to improve rankings by rankers and how to wisely use the rankings by various stakeholders. <br />
  73. 73. Updating ARWU<br /><ul><li>ARWU
  74. 74. ARWU-FIELD
  75. 75. ARWU-SUBJECT</li></ul>more subjects<br />
  76. 76. Improving ARWU<br /><ul><li>Including more international scientific awards</li></ul>- possibly one from each subject area<br /><ul><li>Including more internationally renowned scholars</li></ul>- plenary speakers etc.<br /><ul><li>Including more internationally renowned alumni</li></ul>- executives in top companies and intl. organizations<br /><ul><li>Including more products of social science research </li></ul>- books, etc.<br />
  77. 77. Diversifying ARWU<br /><ul><li>Ranking of specialized universities </li></ul>- engineering, medicine, etc. (classification)<br /><ul><li>Ranking emphasizing per capita performance </li></ul>- comparable definition and data of academic staff<br /><ul><li>Ranking according to university missions </li></ul>- teaching universities, entrepreneur universities, etc.<br /><ul><li>Ranking considering history, budget etc.
  78. 78. Ranking by regions such as South America</li></li></ul><li>Profiling Universities<br /><ul><li>Building databases of world research universities with as many indicators as possible
  79. 79. Profiling and analysis of world-class universities at faculty/school level
  80. 80. Benchmarking with top research universities at departmental/program level
  81. 81. Annual report of world-class universities
  82. 82. ------</li></li></ul><li>Thanks for Your Attention!<br /><br />