Academic Ranking of World Universities
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Academic Ranking of World Universities[1] is compiled by Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s Graduate School of Education. The ranking compared 1200 higher education institutions worldwide according to a formula that took into account alumni winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (10 percent), staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (20 percent), “highly-cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories” (20 percent), articles published in Nature and Science (20 percent), the Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index (20 percent) and the per capita academic performance (on the indicators above) of an institution (10 percent). The methodology is set out in an academic article by its originators, N.C. Liu and Y. Cheng[2]. Liu and Cheng explain that the original purpose of doing the ranking was “to find out the gap between Chinese universities and world-class universities, particularly in terms of academic or research performance.”[3] The rankings have been conducted since 2003 and then updated annually.
Contents |
[edit] Commentary
As the first multi-indicator ranking of global universities, ARWU has attracted a great deal of attention from universities, governments and public media worldwide since its publication. A survey on higher education published by The Economist in 2005 commented ARWU as “the most widely used annual ranking of the world’s research universities” [4]. Bollag (2006) wrote on Chronicle of Higher Education that ARWU “is considered the most influential international ranking”[5].
One of the factors in the significant influence of ARWU is that its methodology looks globally sound and transparent. EU Research Headlines reported the ARWU’s work on 31st Dec 2003: “The universities were carefully evaluated using several indicators of research performance.”[6] 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 National University, Prof. Ian Chubb, said “The SJTU rankings were reported quickly and widely around the world… (and they) offer an important comparative view of research performance and reputation.” 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 its rankings and invites open collaboration in that”[7].
Notably, the ARWU ranking and its content have been widely cited and applied as a starting point for identifying national strengths and weaknesses as well as facilitating reform and setting new initiatives. Bill Destler (2008), the president of the Rochester Institute of Technology, draw reference to the ARWU ranking to analyze the comparative advantages the Western Europe and US have in terms of intellectual talent and creativity in his publication in the journal Nature[8]. European commissioner of Education, Jan Figel, pointed out in an interview in 2007 that “if you look at the Shanghai index, we are the strongest continent in terms of numbers and potential but we are also shifting into a secondary position in terms of quality and attractiveness. If we don't act we will see an uptake or overtake by Chinese or Indian universities.”[9] Also, Enserink (2007) referred to ARWU and argued in his paper published in Science that “France’s poor showing in the Shanghai ranking ... helped trigger a national debate about higher education that resulted in a new law... giving universities more freedom”[10]. The world leading think tank organisation, Rand Corporation, also used the ARWU ranking as evidence in their consultancy paper to the European Institute of Innovation and Technology[11].
[edit] Criticism
College and university rankings often stimulate controversy (see Criticism of college and university rankings (North America) and Criticism of college and university rankings (2007 United States)) and the ARWU is no exception. A 2007 paper published in the journal Scientometrics found that the results from the Shanghai rankings could not be reproduced from raw data using the method described by Liu and Cheng.[12]
In a report from April 2009, J-C. Billaut, D. Bouyssou and Ph. Vincke analyze how the ARWU works, using their insights as specialists of Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM). Their main conclusions are that the criteria that are used are not relevant, that the aggregation methodology is plagued by a number of major problems and that the whole exercise suffers from an insufficient attention paid to fundamental structuring issues [13].
The ARWU researchers themselves, N.C Liu and Y Cheng[14], think that the quality of universities cannot be precisely measured by mere numbers and any ranking can be controversial. They suggest that university and college rankings should be used with cautions and their methodologies must be read carefully before reporting or using the results.
[edit] Rankings
The table below contains the rankings from 2003 to 2008 for all universities which ranked at least 100 in one of the years.[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, it fell below 100 in all six years.
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
[edit] References
- ^ a b Shanghai Jiao Tong University (2007). "Academic Ranking of World Universities". Graduate School of Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. http://www.arwu.org/. Retrieved on Feb 19 2008.
- ^ N.C. Liu and Y Cheng 2005 “Academic ranking of world universities - methodologies and problems”, Higher Education in Europe, Vol. 30, No 2., and earlier in the proceedings of Meeting of the International Rankings Expert Group 2004.
- ^ N.C. Liu and Y Cheng 2008 “Academic ranking of world universities: FAQ”[1], retrieved Jun 2009
- ^ The brains business, The Economist, Sep 8th 2005[2]
- ^ Bollag, B. 2006 International group endorses principles for ranking of higher education institutions. Chronicle of Higher Education, June 1st[3]
- ^ European Research Headlines 2003 Chinese study ranks world’s top 500 universities[4]
- ^ Marginson, S. 2007 Global university comparisons: the second stage. Paper presented at the Symposium on International Trends in University Ranking and Classifications. Feb 12, 2007, Griffith University, Australia[5]
- ^ Destler, B. 2008 A new relationship. Nature, 453, 853-854, Dec 2008[6]
- ^ Figel, A. 2007 Asia threatens to knock British universities off the top table, The Times [7]
- ^ Enserink, M. 2007 Who ranks the university rankers? Science vol317(5841), pp.1026-1028{http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5841/1026}
- ^ Galama, T. et al. 2006 The Pursuit of Excellence. A European Institute of Technology. [8]
- ^ Răzvan V. Florian (June 2007). "Irreproducibility of the results of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities". Scientometrics 72 (1): 25–32. doi:. http://www.springerlink.com/content/5672012246786l8j/.
- ^ Jean-Charles Billaut, Denis Bouyssou et Philippe Vincke (April 2009). "Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking ?". Internal report LI Tours. http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00388319/fr/..
- ^ N.C. Liu and Y Cheng 2008 “Academic ranking of world universities: FAQ”[9], retrieved Jun 2009

