• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Academic Ranking of World Universities
 

Academic Ranking of World Universities

on

  • 520 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
520
Views on SlideShare
520
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Academic Ranking of World Universities Academic Ranking of World Universities Document Transcript

    • Academic Ranking of World Universities From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), commonly known as the Shanghairanking, is a publication that was founded and compiled by the Shanghai Jiaotong University torank universities globally. It is the first world university ranking to be published and the rankingshave been conducted since 2003 and updated annually. Since 2009, the rankings have beenpublished by the Shanghai Ranking Consultancy.The ARWU is regarded to be one of the three most influential and widely observed internationaluniversity rankings, along with the QS World University Rankings and the Times HigherEducation World University Rankings. Its consistent and objective methodology is praised whencompared with other rankings. However, it has also been criticized for its heavy focus onthe natural sciences over the social sciences or humanities, and over the quality of instruction.MethodologyThe ranking compares 1200 higher education institutions worldwide according to a formula thattook into account alumni winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (10 percent), staff winningNobel Prizes and Fields Medals (20 percent), highly-cited researchers in 21 broad subjectcategories (20 percent), articles published in the journals Nature and Science (20 percent),the Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index (20 percent) and the per capitaacademic performance (on the indicators above) of an institution (10 percent). The methodologyis set out in an academic article by its originators, N.C. Liu and Y. Cheng.[7] Liu and Chengexplain that the original purpose of doing the ranking was "to find out the gap between Chineseuniversities and world-class universities, particularly in terms of academic or researchperformance."The methodology used by the Shanghai Rankings is largely academic and research oriented.InfluenceAs the first multi-indicator ranking of global universities, ARWU has attracted a great deal ofattention from universities, governments and media. A survey on higher education publishedby The Economist in 2005 commented ARWU as "the most widely used annual ranking of the
    • worlds research universities." In 2010, the Chronicle of Higher Educationcalled ARWU "thebest-known and most influential global ranking of universities"One of the factors in the significant influence of ARWU is that its methodology looks globallysound and transparent. EU Research Headlines reported the ARWUs work on 31st Dec 2003:"The universities were carefully evaluated using several indicators of research performance."Chancellor of Oxford University, Prof. Chris Patten, said "the methodology looks fairly solid ...it looks like a pretty good stab at a fair comparison." Vice-Chancellor of Australian NationalUniversity, Prof. Ian Chubb, said "The SJTU rankings were reported quickly and widely aroundthe world… (and they) offer an important comparative view of research performance andreputation." Margison (2007) also commented the ARWU ranking that one of the strengths of"the academically rigorous and globally inclusive Jiao Tong approach" is "constantly tuning itsrankings and invites open collaboration in that." Philip G. Altbach named ARWUs "consistency,clarity of purpose, and transparency" as significant strengths.The ARWU ranking and its content have been widely cited and applied as a starting point foridentifying national strengths and weaknesses as well as facilitating reform and setting newinitiatives. Bill Destler (2008), the president of the Rochester Institute of Technology, drawreference to the ARWU ranking to analyze the comparative advantages the Western Europe andUS have in terms of intellectual talent and creativity in his publication in the journal Nature.European commissioner of Education, Jan Figel, pointed out in an interview in 2007 that "if youlook at the Shanghai index, we are the strongest continent in terms of numbers and potential butwe are also shifting into a secondary position in terms of quality and attractiveness. If we dontact we will see an uptake or overtake by Chinese or Indian universities." Also, Enserink (2007)referred to ARWU and argued in a paper published in Science that "Frances poor showing in theShanghai ranking ... helped trigger a national debate about higher education that resulted in anew law... giving universities more freedom." The world leading think tank RandCorporation used the ARWU ranking as evidence in their consultancy paper to the EuropeanInstitute of Innovation and Technology.In two subsequent research papers published by Academic Leadership (2009), then inan article published by the Times Higher Education (2009), Paul Z. Jambor ofKoreaUniversity established the connection between any unfavorable image/reputation universitiesmay develop (and/or their association, by country, to those universities linked to thewrongdoing) to a halt in their climb or even to a drop in their Times Higher Education – QSWorld University Rankings. This is because 40% and 10% of THE – QS World Methodology isbased on Academic Peer Review and Employer Review respectively. In essence, any
    • unfavorable image developed by a group of universities, associated by country, tends to harmtheir collective rankings. For this reason, universities worldwide should seriously consideradhering to internationally accepted standards so that they do not run the risk of sliding in theranks on the international front. Consequently, a number of critics consider this aspect of THE –QS World University Rankings unfair and even biased.The new Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE-Reuters), published since2010 is based on a revised Methodology. In the Methodology of the THE-Reuters WorldUniversity Rankigs, the Papers per research and academic staff {at 4.5%} and the Citationimpact (normalised average citation per paper) {at 32.5%} indicators make it evident that auniversitys ranking heavily relies on the number and quality of research papers written by itsfaculty. With 95% of research papers written in English, the relationship between Englishlanguage use and a universitys subsequent ranking thus becomes ever more clear. Jamborhighlights the connection between actual English use and university rankings in a pair ofresearch papers respectively published by the US Department of Education: ERIC and AcademicLeadership.CriticismCollege and university rankings often stimulate controversy (see Criticism of college anduniversity rankings (North America) and Criticism of college and university rankings (2007United States)) and the ARWU is no exception. A 2007 paper published in thejournal Scientometrics found that the results from the Shanghai rankings could not be reproducedfrom raw data using the method described by Liu and Cheng.In a report from April 2009, J-C. Billaut, D. Bouyssou and Ph. Vincke analyze how the ARWUworks, using their insights as specialists of Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM). Theirmain conclusions are that the criteria used are not relevant; that the aggregation methodology hasa number of major problems; and that insufficient attention has been paid to fundamental choicesof criteria.The ARWU researchers themselves, N.C Liu and Y Cheng, think that the quality of universitiescannot be precisely measured by mere numbers and any ranking must be controversial. Theysuggest that university and college rankings should be used with caution and their methodologiesmust be understood clearly before reporting or using the results.
    • Others have pointed out, the ARWU is known for "relying solely on research indicators", and"the ranking is heavily weighted toward institutions whose faculty or alumni have won NobelPrizes": it does not measure "the quality of teaching or the quality of humanities."Ioannides et al. suggested that (in common with all ranking systems they reviewed), the rankinglacked construct validity modest concordance between the Shanghai and Times rankings. Theyhighlighted measurement precision, and transparent methodology as important issues.Like the Times Higher Educations rankings, the ARWU has been criticized by the EuropeanCommission as well as some EU member states for "favour[ing] Anglo-Saxon higher educationinstitutions".RankingsThe table below contains the overall rankings as ordinal numbers (i.e., 1 is best, 2 is second best,etc.) from 2003 to 2010 for all universities that ranked in the top 100 in one of the yearstabulated.[1] The ranking is omitted for years in which the school did not land within the top 100.Note the full ranking contains over 500 universities. If a university is not listed in this table, itdid not rank in the top 100 in any of the eight years tabulated. University 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Aarhus University 93 97 98 Arizona State University 100 96 93 94 81 Australian National 49 53 53 54 57 59 59 59University Boston University 98 87 81 81 85 83 74 77 Brown University 49 82 86 85 70 71 69 65
    • University 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 California Institute of 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6Technology Carnegie Mellon 61 62 62 56 60 62 59 58University Case Western Reserve 51 65 65 70 78 83 87 97University Columbia University 10 9 9 7 7 7 7 8 Cornell University 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Duke University 33 31 31 31 32 33 31 35 École normale supérieure 85 93 99 83 73 70 71- Paris Emory University 99 100 100 Free University of Berlin 95 99 83 Harvard University 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hebrew University of 94 90 90 60 64 65 64 52Jerusalem Humboldt University of 95 95Berlin
    • University 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Imperial College London 17 23 23 23 23 27 26 26 Indiana University - 97 90 92 93 90Bloomington Johns Hopkins 24 22 22 20 19 20 19 18University Karolinska Institutet 39 46 46 48 53 51 50 42 Kings College London 75 77 77 83 83 81 65 63 Kyoto University 30 21 21 22 22 23 24 24 Lund University 93 92 92 90 97 97 Massachusetts Institute 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4of Technology McGill University 79 61 61 62 63 60 65 61 McMaster University 86 88 88 90 87 89 91 88 Michigan State 87 80 80 80 80 83 86 86University Moscow State University 66 66 70 76 70 77 74
    • University 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Nagoya University 68 97 97 98 94 82 79 New York University 55 32 32 29 30 31 32 31 North Carolina State 99University Northwestern University 29 30 30 33 29 30 30 29 Ohio State University 81 73 73 66 61 62 62 59 Osaka University 53 54 54 61 67 68 71 75 Pennsylvania State 40 43 43 42 43 42 45 43University Princeton University 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 7 Purdue University 80 71 71 73 68 65 65 69 Rice University 61 75 75 87 87 97 99 99 Rockefeller University 28 29 29 30 30 32 32 34 Rutgers University 38 44 44 46 47 54 55 54 Stanford University 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3
    • University 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Stockholm University 97 97 84 86 86 88 79 ETH Zurich 25 27 27 27 27 24 23 23 Technical University of 60 45 45 54 56 57 57 56Munich Texas A&M University 70 88 91 88 88 95 Tohoku University 64 69 69 76 76 79 84 84 Tokyo Institute of 89 99Technology Tufts University 83 99 99 University of Arizona 55 76 76 76 74 77 77 78 University of Basel 96 91 91 81 82 87 85 86 University of 93 93 90 92 91 94 99Birmingham University of Bonn 99 99 99 97 98 93 University of Bristol 55 60 60 62 62 61 61 66
    • University 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 University of British 35 36 36 36 36 35 36 36Columbia University of California, 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2Berkeley University of California, 36 42 42 42 43 48 49 46Davis University of California, 44 55 55 44 45 46 46 46Irvine University of California, 15 16 16 14 13 13 13 13Los Angeles University of California, 88Riverside University of California, 14 13 13 13 14 14 14 14San Diego University of California, 13 17 17 18 18 18 18 18San Francisco University of California, 26 35 35 35 35 36 35 32Santa Barbara University of Cambridge 5 3 2 2 4 4 4 5 University of Chicago 11 10 10 8 9 9 8 9
    • University 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 University College 20 25 25 26 25 22 21 21London University of Colorado 31 34 34 34 34 34 34 32 University of 65 59 59 56 46 45 43 40Copenhagen University of Edinburgh 43 47 47 52 53 55 53 54 University of Florida 75 67 67 53 51 58 58 68 University of Freiburg 88 88 93 94 96 University of Ghent 99 90 University of Göttingen 91 79 79 85 87 90 90 93 University of Groningen 84 University of Heidelberg 58 64 64 66 65 67 63 63 University of Helsinki 74 72 72 74 73 68 72 72 University of Illinois at 45 25 25 25 26 26 25 25Urbana-Champaign
    • University 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 University of Illinois at 96Chicago University of Iowa 90 95 97 University of Leiden 78 63 63 72 71 76 72 70 University of Manchester 89 78 53 50 48 40 41 44 University of Maryland, 75 57 57 37 37 37 37 36College Park University of Melbourne 92 82 82 78 79 73 75 62 University of Michigan, 21 19 19 21 21 21 22 22Ann Arbor University of Minnesota, 37 33 33 32 33 28 28 28Twin Cities University of Munich 48 51 51 51 53 55 55 52 University of North 52 56 56 59 58 38 39 41Carolina at Chapel Hill University of 80 80 79 81 82 83 84Nottingham University of Oslo 63 68 68 68 69 64 65 75
    • University 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 University of Oxford 9 8 8 10 10 10 10 10 University of Paris 6(Pierre and Marie Curie 65 41 41 45 39 42 40 39University) University of Paris 11 72 48 48 64 52 49 43 45(Paris-Sud 11 University) University of 18 15 15 15 15 15 15 15Pennsylvania University of Pittsburgh 53 48 48 48 49 52 50 56 Sapienza University of 70 93 97 100Rome University of Rochester 72 52 52 74 75 73 77 82 University of Sheffield 68 69 69 69 72 77 81 88 University of Southern 40 48 48 47 50 50 46 46California University of Strasbourg 82 82 96 99 University of Sydney 97 94 92 47 40 40 39 38 39 38 38 University of Texas at
    • University 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Austin University of TexasSouthwestern Medical Center 34 36 36 38 39 41 48 49at Dallas University of Tokyo 19 14 14 19 20 19 20 20 University of Toronto 23 24 24 24 23 24 27 27 University of Utah 81 95 95 94 93 79 80 82 Utrecht University 40 39 39 40 42 47 52 50 University of Vienna 84 86 86 University of Virginia 67 95 91 96 University of 16 20 20 17 16 16 16 16Washington University of 27 18 18 16 17 17 17 17Wisconsin–Madison University of Zurich 45 57 57 58 58 53 54 51 Uppsala University 59 74 74 65 66 71 76 66
    • University 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Vanderbilt University 32 38 38 41 41 42 41 53 Washington University 22 28 28 28 28 29 29 30in St. Louis Yale University 8 11 11 11 11 11 11 11