Academic Ranking of World Universities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Academic Ranking of World Universities
Academic Ranking of World Universities logo.png
Categories Higher education
Frequency Annual
Publisher Shanghai Ranking Consultancy (since 2009)
Shanghai Jiao Tong University (2003–2008)
Country  China
Language Ten languages with English & Chinese
Website www.shanghairanking.com

Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), also known as Shanghai Ranking, is an annual publication of university rankings by Shanghai Ranking Consultancy based in China.[1] The league table was originally compiled and issued by Shanghai Jiaotong University in 2003, the first global ranking with multifarious indicators,[2] after which a board of international advisories was established to provide suggestions.[3][4] The publication currently includes world's overall and subject league tables, alongside independent regional Greater China Ranking and Macedonian HEIs Ranking. ARWU is regarded as one of the three most influential and widely observed university measures, alongside QS World University Rankings and Times Higher Education World University Rankings.[5][6][7][8] It is praised for its objective methodology but draws some condemnation for narrowly focussing on raw research power, undermining humanities and quality of instruction.[5][7][9]

Global rankings[edit]

Overall[edit]

Methodology[edit]

ARWU methodology[10]
Criterion Indicator Code Weighting Source
Quality of education
Alumni
  • 10%
Official websites of Nobel Laureates & Fields Medalists[Note 1]
Quality of faculty
  • Staff as Nobel Laureates & Fields Medalists
  • Highly cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories
Award
HiCi
  • 20%
  • 20%
Official websites of Nobel Laureates & Fields Medalists[Note 1]
Thomson Reuters' survey of highly cited researchers[Note 1]
Research output
  • Papers published in Nature and Science[* 1]
  • Papers indexed in Science Citation Index-expanded and Social Science Citation Index
N&S
PUB
  • 20%
  • 20%
Citation index
Per capita performance
  • Per capita academic performance of an institution
PCP
  • 10%
--
*
  1. ^ Not applicable to institutions specialized in humanities and social sciences whose N&S scores are relocated to other indicators.

Reception[edit]

ARWU is praised by several media and institutions for its methodology and influence. 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."[11] In 2010, The Chronicle of Higher Education called ARWU "the best-known and most influential global ranking of universities".[12] EU Research Headlines reported the ARWU's work on 31 December 2003: "The universities were carefully evaluated using several indicators of research performance."[13] Chancellor of University of Oxford, Chris Patten and former Vice-Chancellor of Australian National University, Ian Chubb, said: "the methodology looks fairly solid ... it looks like a pretty good stab at a fair comparison." and "The SJTU rankings were reported quickly and widely around the world… (and they) offer an important comparative view of research performance and reputation." respectively.[14] Philip G. Altbach named ARWU's 'consistency, clarity of purpose, and transparency' as significant strengths.[15] Whilst ARWU has originated in China, the ranking have been praised for being unbiased towards Asian institutions. [16]

Criticism[edit]

Like all other rankings, ARWU has criticism. It is condemned for "relying too much on award factors" thus undermining the importance of quality of instruction and humanities.[5][7][17][18] 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.[19] A 2013 paper in the same journal finally showed how the Shanghai ranking results could be reproduced.[20] In a report from April 2009, J-C. Billaut, D. Bouyssou and Ph. Vincke analyse how the ARWU works, using their insights as specialists of Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM). Their main conclusions are that the criteria used are not relevant; that the aggregation methodology has a number of major problems; and that insufficient attention has been paid to fundamental choices of criteria.[21] The ARWU researchers themselves, N.C Liu and Y Cheng, think that the quality of universities cannot be precisely measured by mere numbers and any ranking must be controversial. They suggest that university and college rankings should be used with caution and their methodologies must be understood clearly before reporting or using the results. ARWU has been criticised by the European Commission as well as some EU member states for "favour[ing] Anglo-Saxon higher education institutions". For instance, ARWU is repeatedly criticised in France, where it triggers an annual controversy, focusing on its ill-adapted character to the French academic system.[22][23]

Results[edit]

Academic Ranking of World Universities (500) – Top 50[24][Note 2]
Institution 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
United StatesHarvard University 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
United StatesStanford University 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2
United StatesMassachusetts Institute of Technology 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 4 3 3
United StatesUniversity of California, Berkeley 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 4 4 3 4 4
United KingdomUniversity of Cambridge 5 3 2 2 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5
United StatesPrinceton University 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 6
United StatesCalifornia Institute of Technology 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7
United StatesColumbia University 10 9 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8
United StatesUniversity of Chicago 11 10 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
United KingdomUniversity of Oxford 9 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 10
United StatesYale University 8 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
United StatesUniversity of California, Los Angeles 15 16 14 14 13 13 13 13 12 12 12 12 12
United StatesCornell University 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13
United StatesUniversity of California, San Diego 14 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 14 14 14
United StatesUniversity of Washington 16 20 17 17 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 15 15
United StatesJohns Hopkins University 24 22 19 20 19 20 19 18 18 17 17 17 16
United StatesUniversity of Pennsylvania 18 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 15 16 17
United KingdomUniversity College London 20 25 26 26 25 22 21 21 20 21 21 20 18
United StatesUniversity of California, San Francisco 13 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 17 18 18 18 18
SwitzerlandSwiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich 25 27 27 27 27 24 23 23 23 23 20 19 20
JapanUniversity of Tokyo 19 14 20 19 20 19 20 20 21 20 21 21 21
United StatesUniversity of Michigan 21 19 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 23 22 22
United KingdomImperial College London 17 23 23 23 23 27 26 26 24 24 24 22 23
United StatesUniversity of Wisconsin - Madison 27 18 16 16 17 17 17 17 19 19 19 24 24
CanadaUniversity of Toronto 23 24 24 24 23 24 27 27 26 27 28 24 25
JapanKyoto University 30 21 22 22 22 23 24 24 27 26 26 26 26
United StatesNew York University 55 32 29 29 30 31 32 31 29 27 27 27 27
United StatesNorthwestern University 29 30 31 33 29 30 30 29 30 30 30 28 28
United StatesUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 45 25 25 25 26 26 25 25 25 25 25 28 29
United StatesUniversity of Minnesota 37 33 32 32 33 28 28 28 28 29 29 30 30
United StatesDuke University 32 31 32 31 32 32 31 35 35 36 31 31 31
United StatesWashington University in St. Louis 22 28 28 28 28 29 29 30 31 31 32 32 32
United StatesRockefeller University 28 29 30 30 30 32 32 34 33 32 34 33 33
United StatesUniversity of Colorado at Boulder 31 34 35 34 34 34 34 32 32 33 33 34 34
DenmarkUniversity of Copenhagen 65 59 57 56 46 45 43 40 43 44 42 39 35
FrancePierre and Marie Curie University 65 41 46 45 39 42 40 39 41 42 37 35 36
United StatesThe University of Texas at Austin 47 40 36 39 38 39 38 38 35 35 36 39 37
United StatesUniversity of California, Santa Barbara 26 35 34 35 35 36 35 32 33 34 35 41 38
United StatesUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 52 56 55 59 58 38 39 41 42 41 43 36 39
CanadaUniversity of British Columbia 35 36 37 36 36 35 36 36 37 39 40 37 40
United KingdomUniversity of Manchester 89 78 53 50 48 40 41 44 38 40 41 38 41
FranceUniversity of Paris-Sud 72 48 61 64 52 49 43 45 40 37 39 42 41
United StatesUniversity of Maryland, College Park 75 57 47 37 37 37 37 36 38 38 38 43 43
AustraliaUniversity of Melbourne 92 82 82 78 79 73 75 62 60 57 54 44 44
United StatesUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas 34 36 38 38 39 41 48 49 51 48 46 45 44
GermanyHeidelberg University 58 64 71 66 65 67 63 63 62 62 54 49 46
United KingdomUniversity of Edinburgh 43 47 47 52 53 55 53 54 53 51 51 45 47
SwedenKarolinska Institutet 39 46 45 48 53 51 50 42 44 42 44 47 48
United StatesUniversity of Southern California 40 48 50 47 50 50 46 46 46 46 47 51 49
United StatesUniversity of California, Irvine 44 55 47 44 45 46 46 46 48 45 45 47 50

Alternative[edit]

As it may take much time for rising universities to produce Nobel laureates and Fields Medalists with numbers comparable to those of older institutions, the Institute created alternative rankings excluding such award factors so as to provide another way of comparisons of academic performance. The weighting of all the other factors remains unchanged, thus the grand total of 70%.

Alternative Rankings (500) – Top 50[Note 2]
Institution 2014[25] 2015[26]
United StatesHarvard University 1 1
United StatesStanford University 2 2
United StatesMassachusetts Institute of Technology 4 3
United StatesUniversity of California-Berkeley 3 4
United StatesCalifornia Institute of Technology 5 5
United KingdomUniversity of Oxford 6 6
United KingdomUniversity of Cambridge 8 7
United StatesUniversity of California, San Diego 7 8
United StatesUniversity of Washington 10 9
United StatesYale University 9 10
United StatesColumbia University 12 11
United StatesUniversity of Michigan 13 12
United StatesUniversity of California, Los Angeles 11 13
United StatesUniversity of California, San Francisco 15 14
JapanThe University of Tokyo 14 15
United StatesUniversity of Pennsylvania 16 15
United StatesCornell University 18 17
United StatesThe Johns Hopkins University 19 18
CanadaUniversity of Toronto 17 19
United StatesPrinceton University 20 20
United KingdomUniversity College London 21 21
SwitzerlandSwiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich 23 22
United StatesDuke University 22 23
United KingdomImperial College, London 24 24
United StatesNorthwestern University 25 25
United StatesUniversity of Minnesota 26 26
United StatesUniversity of Chicago 27 27
United StatesUniversity of Wisconsin - Madison 28 28
United StatesUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 29 29
United StatesThe University of Texas at Austin 34 30
United StatesUniversity of California, Davis 31 30
DenmarkUniversity of Copenhagen 40 30
United StatesWashington University in St. Louis 30 30
United StatesNew York University 32 34
CanadaUniversity of British Columbia 33 35
United StatesPennsylvania State University 35 36
AustraliaThe University of Melbourne 39 37
United StatesUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 38 38
JapanKyoto University 36 39
United StatesUniversity of Colorado at Boulder 37 40
United StatesThe Ohio State University, Columbus 41 41
United StatesUniversity of Maryland, College Park 42 42
United StatesUniversity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh Campus 43 43
FrancePierre and Marie Curie University 45 44
AustraliaUniversity of Queensland 58 45
CanadaMcGill University 51 46
BelgiumKU Leuven 59 47
United StatesUniversity of California, Santa Cruz 50 47
BelgiumGhent University 53 49
GermanyHeidelberg University 63 49
United StatesUniversity of California, Irvine 48 49

Subject[edit]

There are two categories in ARWU's disciplinary rankings, broad subject fields and specific subjects. The methodology is similar to that adopted in the overall table, including award factors, paper citation, and the number of highly cited scholars.

Broad fields[27] Specific subjects[28]
Natural sciences and mathematics Mathematics
Computer science and engineering Physics
Life and agricultural sciences Chemistry
Clinical medicine and pharmacy Computer science
Social sciences Economics and business

Regional rankings[edit]

Considering the development of specific areas, two independent regional league tables with different methodologies were launched.

Greater China[edit]

Methodology[edit]

Methodology of Greater China Rankings[29][Note 2]
Criterion Indicator Weight
Education
  • Percentage of graduate students
  • Percentage of non-local students
  • Ratio of academic staff to students
  • Doctoral degrees awarded
  • Alumni as Nobel Laureates & Fields Medalists
  • 5%
  • 5%
  • 5%
  • 10%
  • 10%
Research
  • Annual research income
  • Nature & Science Papers
  • SCIE & SSCI papers
  • International patents
  • 5%
  • 10%
  • 10%
  • 10%
Faculty
  • Percentage of academic staff with a doctoral degree
  • Staff as Nobel Laureates and Fields Medalists
  • Highly cited researchers
  • 5%
  • 10%
  • 10%
Resources
  • Annual budget
  • 5%

Results[edit]

Greater China Rankings (100) – Top 10[Note 2][30]
Institution 2011 2012 2013 2014
ChinaTsinghua University 1 1 1 1
TaiwanNational Tsing Hua University 4 3 3 2
TaiwanNational Taiwan University 1 2 2 3
Hong KongThe Hong Kong University of Science & Technology 5 4 7 4
ChinaPeking University 7 7 5 5
Hong KongThe University of Hong Kong 3 6 4 6
Hong KongThe Chinese University of Hong Kong 6 5 6 7
ChinaUniversity of Science & Technology of China 9 11 10 8
TaiwanNational Chiao Tung University 8 8 8 9
ChinaZhejiang University 10 9 9 10

Macedonia[edit]

Methodology[edit]

Methodology of rankings of Macedonian higher educational institutions[31][Note 3]
Criterion Indicator Weight
Teaching and learning
  • Percentage of incoming students who participated in state matura examination
  • Average score of incoming students in state matura examination
  • Percentage of foreign students
  • Academic staff / undergraduate students ratio
  • Proportion of academic staff with the highest degree
  • Proportion of academic staff with 1 year or above foreign work experience
  • Proportion of students with academic scholarships from Ministry of Education and Science
  • Institutional income per student
  • Spending on library resources per student
  • Spending on IT infrastructure and equipment per student
  • Proportion of undergraduates who graduated within regular time
  • Proportion of undergraduates with 3 months or above foreign study/practical experience under the state-level agreements
  • Employment rate of undergraduates
  • 5%
  • 5%
  • 5%
  • 4%
  • 8%
  • 6%
  • 6%
  • 2%
  • 1%
  • 1%
  • 1%
  • 2%
  • 4%
Research
  • Total research income per academic staff
  • Research income from the Ministry of Education & Science per academic staff
  • Papers published in peer reviewed journals per academic staff
  • Papers indexed by Web of Science per academic staff
  • Books published per academic staff
  • Numbers of doctorates granted per academic staff
  • 4%
  • 6%
  • 6%
  • 10%
  • 4%
  • 6%
Social service
  • Research income from industry per academic staff
  • Patents issued per academic staff
  • 6%
  • 8%

Results[edit]

Macedonian HEIs Rankings (20) – Top 10[Note 2][32][33]
Institution 2011–12 2013–14
Ss. Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje 1 1
Goce Delčev University of Štip 3 2
South East European University 2 3
University of Information Science and Technology "St. Paul The Apostle" 5 4
University "Ss. Kliment Ohridski" – Bitola 4 5
University American College Skopje 10 6
International Balkan University 6 7
FON University 11 8
State University of Tetovo 13 9
European University-Republic of Macedonia 7 10

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ a b c Official datum sources adopted by ARWU: Nobel Laureate Web, Fields Medalist Web, Thomson Reuters' survey of highly cited researchers & Thomson Reuters' Web of Science.
  2. ^ a b c d e Order shown in accordance with the latest result.
  3. ^ This table shows the latest version which is different from that of the previous year.

References[edit]

  1. ^ "About Academic Ranking of World Universities". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2014. Retrieved 26 September 2014. Since 2009 the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) has been published and copyrighted by ShanghaiRanking Consultancy. 
  2. ^ "World university rankings: how much influence do they really have?". The Guardian. 2013. Retrieved 27 January 2015. The first international rankings, the Academic Ranking of World Universities or Shanghai Rankings 
  3. ^ "Shanghai rankings rattle European universities". ABS-CBN Interactive. 8 December 2010. Retrieved 27 January 2015. France's higher education minister travelled to Jiaotong University's suburban campus last month to discuss the rankings, the Norwegian education minister came last year and the Danish minister is due to visit next month.; The idea for the rankings was born in 1998, when Beijing decreed China needed several world-leading universities. 
  4. ^ "ARWU International Advisory Board". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2014. Retrieved 27 January 2015. 
  5. ^ a b c "University rankings: which world university rankings should we trust?". The Telegraph. 2015. Retrieved 27 January 2015. It is a remarkably stable list, relying on long-term factors such as the number of Nobel Prize-winners a university has produced, and number of articles published in Nature and Science journals. But with this narrow focus comes drawbacks. China's priority was for its universities to 'catch up' on hard scientific research. So if you're looking for raw research power, it's the list for you. If you're a humanities student, or more interested in teaching quality? Not so much.  line feed character in |quote= at position 195 (help)
  6. ^ Ariel Zirulnick. "New world university ranking puts Harvard back on top". The Christian Science Monitor. Those two, as well as Shanghai Jiao Tong University, produce the most influential international university rankings out there 
  7. ^ a b c Indira Samarasekera & Carl Amrhein. "Top schools don't always get top marks". The Edmonton Journal. There are currently three major international rankings that receive widespread commentary: The Academic World Ranking of Universities, the QS World University Rankings and the Times Higher Education Rankings. 
  8. ^ Philip G. Altbach (11 November 2010). "The State of the Rankings". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved 27 January 2015. The major international rankings have appeared in recent months — the Academic Ranking of World Universities, the QS World University Rankings, and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE). 
  9. ^ ""Shanghai Academic Ranking: a French Controversy" by Marc Goetzmann, for ''La Jeune Politique''". Lajeunepolitique.com. 29 August 2013. Retrieved 9 June 2014. 
  10. ^ "ARWU – Methodology". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2014. Retrieved 30 January 2015. 
  11. ^ "A world of opportunity". The Economics. 8 September 2005. Retrieved 30 January 2015. It is no accident that the most widely used annual ranking of the world's research universities, the Shanghai index, is produced by a Chinese university. 
  12. ^ "International Group Announces Audit of University Rankings". The Chronicle of Higher Education. 10 October 2010. Retrieved 30 January 2015. ...Shanghai Jiao Tong University, which produces the best-known and most influential global ranking of universities... 
  13. ^ "Chinese study ranks world's top 500 universities". European Research Headlines. 2003. Retrieved 4 February 2015. 
  14. ^ "Rankings and Accountability in Higher Education: Uses and Misuses". United Nations Educational. 2013. p. 26. Retrieved 30 January 2015. 
  15. ^ Philip G. Altbach (11 September 2010). "The State of the Rankings". INSIDE HIGHER ED. Retrieved 30 January 2015. Nonetheless, AWRU's consistency, clarity of purpose, and transparency are significant advantages. 
  16. ^ "Academic Ranking of World Universities 2013 released". Times Higher Education (THE). Retrieved 2016-01-20. 
  17. ^ J. Scott Armstrong and Tad Sperry (1994). "Business School Prestige: Research versus Teaching" (PDF). Energy & Environment 18 (2): 13–43. 
  18. ^ "1741-7015-5-30.fm" (PDF). Retrieved 9 June 2014. 
  19. ^ Răzvan V. Florian (17 June 2007). "Irreproducibility of the results of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities". Scientometrics. Retrieved 30 January 2015. 
  20. ^ Domingo Docampo (1 July 2012). "Reproducibility of the results of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities". Scientometrics. Retrieved 19 May 2015. 
  21. ^ Jean-Charles Billaut, Denis Bouyssou & Philippe Vincke. "Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking?". CCSD. Retrieved 30 January 2015. 
  22. ^ ""Shanghai Academic Ranking: a French Controversy" by Marc Goetzmann, for ''La Jeune Politique''". Lajeunepolitique.com. 29 August 2013. Retrieved 9 June 2014. 
  23. ^ Spongenberg, Helena (5 June 2014). "EUobserver / EU to test new university ranking in 2010". Euobserver.com. Retrieved 9 June 2014. 
  24. ^ "Academic Ranking of World Universities 2015". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2015. Retrieved 29 October 2015. 
  25. ^ "Alternative Ranking 2014 ( Excluding Award Factor ) ( Excluding Award Factor )". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2014. Retrieved 30 January 2015. 
  26. ^ "Alternative Ranking 2015 ( Excluding Award Factor )". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2015. Retrieved 4 September 2015. 
  27. ^ "Academic Rankings of World Universities in subject fields". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2014. Retrieved 31 January 2015. 
  28. ^ "Academic Rankings of World Universities in specific subjects". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2014. Retrieved 31 January 2015. 
  29. ^ "Greater China Ranking – Methodology". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2014. Retrieved 31 January 2015. 
  30. ^ "Greater China Rankings". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2014. Retrieved 31 January 2015. 
  31. ^ "Macedonian HEIs Ranking 2013–2014 – Methodology". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2014. Retrieved 31 January 2015. 
  32. ^ "Macedonian HEIs Ranking 2013–2014". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2014. Retrieved 31 January 2015. 
  33. ^ "Macedonian HEIs Ranking 2011–2012". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2014. Retrieved 31 January 2015. 

External links[edit]