Pride and Prejudices: league tables aua 2011
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Pride and Prejudices: league tables aua 2011

on

  • 1,949 views

"Pride and Prejudices: Problems with national and international league tables" - Presentation delivered at AUA conference 19 April 2011

"Pride and Prejudices: Problems with national and international league tables" - Presentation delivered at AUA conference 19 April 2011

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,949
Views on SlideShare
864
Embed Views
1,085

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0

5 Embeds 1,085

http://registrarism.wordpress.com 1064
https://registrarism.wordpress.com 8
http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk 5
http://www.linkedin.com 5
url_unknown 3

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

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

Pride and Prejudices: league tables aua 2011 Pride and Prejudices: league tables aua 2011 Presentation Transcript

  • Pride and prejudices:Problems with nationaland international leaguetablesDr Paul Greatrix, Registrar,University of Nottingham 1
  • League Tables•  Background•  Who wants to know?•  Who are the providers of this valuable information?•  Mad, bad and dangerous•  National and international dimensions•  Measuring the unmeasurable? 2
  • Background•  They sell papers...•  ...and, some would suggest, create 3 perverse incentives
  • Who wants to know?•  The Government •  Parents, teachers,•  The State advisors •  Employers – national and•  The Funding Councils international•  Potential Students •  Overseas sponsors•  Alumni •  Jo Public•  Journalists •  The Universities •  Dangerous obsessives 4
  • Who’s responsible for providing thisvaluable data?•  The Times •  Shanghai Jiao Tong University•  Sunday Times •  QS•  The Guardian •  US News and World Report•  Complete University Guide •  HEFCE •  Others...•  Financial Times •  and, of course,•  THE Government 5
  • Invaluable information•  For all stakeholders•  Intelligent decision-making•  Better than prejudice•  Reflecting the realities ofthe market place•  We have a right to know•  Employers have right to know•  We aren’t stupid 6
  • League tables are a bad thing...“The silly season that marks the publication ofUniversity league tables is nonsensical and illogical.As any New Scientist knows, letters into numbers;quality into quantity won’t go. League tables aresimplistic, divisive and undermine the qualitativenature of a University’s work” 7
  • But we’ll use them anyway!“Having said that, I’m notashamed to report that we came avery creditable 79th overall, withmy own department rating aparticularly good score forresearch- and as I remarked to the Dean,you can’t get much better thanthat.” 8
  • Dangerous...•  Criteria used do not reflect quality of education•  Historical data•  Variation over time•  Scores are institutional averages – mask strengths•  Distorting effect of weightings and scalings and data manipulation•  Many of criteria used are inter-related (ie not independent) 9
  • ... extremely dangerous...•  Apples and elephants and paperclips•  Perverse incentives•  Hugely political•  Open to manipulation•  Delivered by journalists•  Spurious precision•  Serious consequences for universities, departments, staff and students 10
  • The Times 20101 Oxford 11 Edinburgh2 Cambridge 12 Exeter3 Imperial 13 Bath4 St Andrews 14 Bristol5 LSE 15 Leicester6 Durham 16= Loughborough7 UCL 16= King’s8 Warwick 18 Sheffield9 York 19 Southampton10 Lancaster 20 Nottingham 11
  • Sunday Times 20101 Oxford 11 Bristol2 Cambridge 12 Nottingham3 Imperial 13 York4 UCL 14 Edinburgh5 LSE 15 Sheffield6 Durham 16 Loughborough7 St Andrews 17 Exeter8 Warwick 18= Southampton9 Bath 18= Birmingham10 King’s 20 Newcastle 12
  • The Guardian 20101 Oxford 11 SOAS2 Cambridge 12 Leicester3 Warwick 13 Bath4 St Andrews 14 Exeter5 UCL 15= Sussex6 Lancaster 15= Edinburgh7 Imperial 17 Durham8 LSE 18 Southampton9= Loughborough 19 UEA9= York 20 Surrey 13
  • Complete University Guide 2011 1 Cambridge 11 Bristol 2 Oxford 12 York 3 Imperial 13 Edinburgh 4 LSE 14 Southampton 5 Durham 15 Exeter 6 St Andrews 16 King’s 7 UCL 17 Nottingham 8 Warwick 18 SOAS 9 Lancaster 19= Loughborough 10 Bath 19= SussexTuesday, April 19, 2011 14
  • And a completely different approach:UEL: TQ in the South East 2005Surplus of good practice over recommendations (in QAA audit reports)1  East London 42  King’s College London 23  Brunel 24  Queen Mary, London 05  Kent 06  Hertfordshire 07 Royal Holloway -18  London South Bank -39 Greenwich -610 Essex -611 Anglia Polytechnic -9 15
  • International value-added•  HE is now a global business•  Global branding assisted by competitive ranking•  International benchmarking increasingly important, especially in research•  Student recruitment is increasingly international...•  ...mobile students are increasingly choosy•  It’s all good healthy fun 16
  • Just as dangerous...•  Again, the criteria used do not reflect quality of education•  Archaic and irrelevant data•  Major biases to large, English- speaking, research- and science- intensive universities•  Institutional scores are extraordinarily broad brush•  Distorting effect of weightings, scalings and data manipulation•  Far from comprehensive surveys of peers and employers 17
  • Times Higher Education World Rankings 20106= Cambridge 79= Sussex6= Oxford 81= York9 Imperial College 85 Durham22 University College 86 LSE London 87 Manchester40 Edinburgh 88 Royal Holloway68= Bristol 90= Southampton77 King’s 18
  • QS World Rankings 2010 1 Cambridge (2) 69 Sheffield (82) 4 UCL (4) 73 Nottingham (91) 6 Oxford (5=) 77 Glasgow (79) 7 Imperial (5=) 80 LSE (67=) 21 King’s (23) 81 Southampton (95=) 22 Edinburgh (20=) 85 Leeds (99) 27 Bristol (34) 88 York (70=) 30 Manchester (26) 92 Durham (103=) 53 Warwick (58) 95 St Andrews (87=) 59 Birmingham (66) 19
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong 2010 5 Cambridge (4) 63 King’s (65) 10 Oxford (10) 66 Bristol (61) 21 UCL (21) 84 Nottingham (79) 26 Imperial (26) 88 Sheffield (81) 44 Manchester (41) 99 Birmingham (94) 54 Edinburgh (53) 20
  • ‘High Impact Universities’ 20101 Harvard University 11 Columbia University2 Stanford University 12 University of Minnesota3 MIT 13 University of Cambridge4 University of California, 14 University of Toronto Los Angeles 15 University of Chicago5 University of California, Berkeley 16 Cornell University6 University of Michigan 17 University of Oxford7 University of Washington 18 University of Wisconsin,8 University of Pennsylvania Madison9 Johns Hopkins University 19 Yale University10 University of California, 20 Pennsylvania State San Diego 21
  • Economist FT MBA Rankings 201015 Cranfield 67 Ashridge17 Henley 68 Birmingham19 London Business School 71 Oxford – Said29 Bath 74 Aston30 Cambridge - Judge 75 Edinburgh34 Warwick 77 Strathclyde55 Durham 89 Lancaster61 Manchester 97 Leeds 22
  • Another approach:Ecole des Mines de Paris Rankings1 Harvard 60= Cambridge10 Ecole des Mines de Paris 89= Heriot-Watt11 Oxford 89= Bath26 Manchester 89= Huddersfield 89= Sheffield35= Queen’s 89= Uni of Wales:35= Glasgow Swansea (and over 100 others…) 23
  • Which league table?1 University of California, Berkeley 11 Bangor University2 University of Nottingham 12 University of Sussex3 York University 13 Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral4 Northeastern University 14 University of Kent5 Cornell University 15 Universitas Indonesia6 Universiti Putra Malaysia 16 Universidad de Alcalá7 Washington University In St. Louis 17 King Mongkut´s University of8 Georgia Institute of Technology Technology Thonburi9 University of Wisconsin-Madison 18 Institut Teknologi Sepuluh November10 University of North Carolina, 19 Hokkaido UniversityChapel Hill 20 National University of Singapore 24
  • Which league table?1 Greenwich2 Sheffield Hallam3 Kingston4 Westminster5 East London6 Central Lancashire7 Leeds Met8 Wolverhampton9 Coventry10 Middlesex 25
  • Which league table?1 Loughborough2 Sheffield3 UEA4 Cambridge5 Dundee6 Oxford7 Glasgow8 Leeds9 Aberystwyth10 Southampton 26
  • Which league table?1 Webb Institute 70.92 Carleton College 61.33 Princeton University 60.34 Middlebury 60.15 Amherst 59.56 Williams College 57.67 Centre College 56.78 Indiana Institute of Technology 55.19 Davidson College 54.910 Thomas Aquinas College 52.5 27
  • Which league table?1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology2 Stanford University3 Harvard University4 University of California Berkeley5 Cornell University6 University of Michigan7 California Institute of Technology8 University of Minnesota9 University of Illinois Urbana Champaign10 University of Texas Austin 28
  • Which league table?1 University of Cambridge, World Rank: 282 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology WR: 403 University of Oxford WR: 424 University of Helsinki WR: 585 University of Oslo WR: 606 University of Edinburgh WR: 657 University College London WR: 688 Utrecht University WR: 719 University of Manchester WR: 8210 Royal Institute of Technology (Sweden) WR: 84 29
  • International approaches 1Shanghai Jiao Tong: Ranking of World Universities –  6 indicators covering: quality of education; quality of faculty; research output; performance relative to size –  Includes: Nobel and Fields winners among alumni and staff; highly cited researchers; articles in Nature and Science; articles in citation indices. 30
  • International approaches 2 31
  • Other tables•  ALOHA, PISA, OECD•  China – number of billionaires•  Just research performance: ranking of scientific papers•  Most conservative, best parties, most interns•  European initiative – U-Multirank•  Islamic universities 32
  • An indicator too far(not covered in the UK tables - yet)•  Alumni giving•  Academic staff pay•  Research income•  Citations•  Brand impactBut international tables will increasingly influencemethodologies of UK tables 33
  • What is to be done•  Publish prolifically and get top RAE grades•  Be Highly Cited•  Get articles in Nature and Science•  Win a Nobel Prize or a Fields Medal•  Make sure your students all get top jobs with big multinationals (and then win Nobels)•  Plug the institution relentlessly and cultivate peers, Headmasters/ mistresses and employers•  Improve NSS results (and SSRs) - every little helps•  Spend more on Library and IT and everything else to do with teaching and learning•  Recruit more international students and staff (all with Nobel potential) 34
  • Conclusions•  They aren’t going to go away•  The international dimension will become increasingly significant•  Methodologies - for both national and international tables - are all dubious, at best•  They can and will be used by many different groups – but can be dangerous in the wrong hands•  Handle with great care! 35
  • FinallyFor a copy of the presentation and further league tablecommentary and observations, visit:http://registrarism.wordpress.com/Also on Twitter: @registrarism 36