In a world where higher education is increasingly important to both societies and economies, university ranking has become a highly contested and influential tool. Despite their pervasive influence, university rankings remain deeply problematic. They are not transparent, and they tend to compare incomparable institutions. In addition, they rely on questionable metrics that are biased towards the already established, wealthy and English-speaking universities in the global North. They also contribute to growing academic inequities within and among countries.
If universities continue to engage with the ranking industry, they risk being undermined by its perverse practices and damaging effects. Instead, if they were to develop their own internal rankings that took into account the university community’s views on what matters most, and used indicators that are more appropriate to their institutional missions, this would be a positive step.
However, this is not easy. Many universities, especially the top ones, have a hard time accepting that they might not rank well. Worried about a lack of visibility, they often resort to desperate measures in order to rise again. This has led to some implausible outcomes, such as the creation of giant megauniversities like Paris-Saclay or the recruitment of only scholars on Clarivate’s Highly Cited Researchers list.
But the key point to remember is that rankings should be seen as a shortlisting tool, not a defining factor. Different ranking systems take different criteria into account and assess universities in slightly different ways, so it is worth checking out the latest QS and THE rankings to see how your institution performs. For example, the latter’s International Outlook metric takes into account the number of international students and staff in your university.
About the Author
