University rankings criticised as oversimplified, distorted

A European report that finds fault with the way university rankings are derived has itself been criticised International university rankings come in for criticism in a report published last Friday by the European University Association (EUA), which found they provided an “oversimplified picture” of institutions. The report, Global University Rankings And Their Impact, launched in Brussels by the EUA, which represents 850 European universities, says rankings focus on research indicators ahead of quality and performance, and encourage universities to spend resources on improving their rankings rather than on teaching and learning. The EUA said in a statement that it had commissioned the report “as a response to the recent growth in international and national rankings and as a result of increasing questions from [our] members requesting information and advice on such rankings”. It considers methodologies and argues for greater transparency in the rankings process, including explainations of what elements are being measured and how scores are calculated. Another criticism raised is that the rankings generally cover only 200-500 of the world’s 17,000 universities, particularly favouring large research institutions and neglecting those that focus on “non-traditional” students or regional needs. Phil Baty, deputy editor of the Times Higher Education supplement, said the rankings his publication produces were comprehensive and recognised “a wide range of what global universities do”. Commenting shortly before the report’s launch, he said the THE had revamped its rankings system in 2010, using advice from readers and experts to create the new methodology. “The tables are the result of a global survey of user needs and 10 months of open consultation and were devised with expert input from more than 50 leading figures from 15 countries, representing every continent,” he said. “They use 13 separate indicators – more than any other global system – to take a holistic view.” Baty said the rankings specifically worked to only compare “a select world elite” – probably no more than the world’s top one per cent – but that this did “not preclude diversity” in the institutions considered. “While the institutions in our top 200 have different histories, cultures, sizes and structures, they all share broadly similar characteristics: they recruit from the same global pool of leading administrators, academics and students; they push the boundaries of knowledge with world-class research, published in leading international journals; they teach at both the undergraduate and postgraduate levels; and they tend to be well resourced. “Ranking the world's top one per cent does not preclude diversity. We fully support a wide diversity of university missions and roles be they global national or local.”