Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: The Battle for World-Class Excellence

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011...

Author: Ellen Hazelkorn

138 downloads 1002 Views 1MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education

10.1057/9780230306394 - Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education, Ellen Hazelkorn

Also by Ellen Hazelkorn A GUIDE TO IRISH POLITICS (co-authored) DEVELOPING RESEARCH IN NEW INSTITUTIONS


THE DYNAMICS OF IRISH POLITICS (co-authored)


The Battle for World-Class Excellence Ellen Hazelkorn Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland



Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education

© Ellen Hazelkorn 2011 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission.

Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The author has asserted her right to be identified as the author of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2011 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries ISBN 978-0-230-24324-8

hardback

This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hazelkorn, Ellen. Rankings and the reshaping of higher education : the battle for world-class excellence / Ellen Hazelkorn. p. cm. Includes index. Summary: “University rankings have gained popularity around the world, and are now a significant factor shaping reputation. This book is the first comprehensive study of rankings from a global perspective, making an important contribution to our understanding of the rankings phenomenon” – Provided by publisher. ISBN 978–0–230–24324–8 (hardback) 1. Education, Higher–Evaluation–Cross-cultural studies. 2. Universities and colleges–Evaluation–Cross-cultural studies. 3. Higher education and state–Cross-cultural studies. 4. Globalization. I. Title. LB2331.62.H39 2011 378–dc22 2011001482 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham and Eastbourne



No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.

List of Tables

vi

List of Figures

vii

List of Boxes

viii

Abbreviations and Terminology

ix

Introduction and Acknowledgements

1

Chapter 1

Globalization and the Reputation Race

4

Chapter 2

What Rankings Measure

29

Chapters 3 Impact and Influence of Rankings – The View from Inside Higher Education

82

Chapter 4

Rankings, Student Choice and Recruitment

121

Chapter 5

Rankings and Policy Choices

153

Chapter 6

Reshaping Higher Education

187

Appendix: Methodology

207

Notes

210

References

212

Index

253

v



Contents

Table 1.1 Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 2.5 Table 2.6 Table 2.7 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 5.1 Table 6.1

Indicator of Global Competitiveness? Characteristics of Global Rankings Examples of Rankings by Unit of Analysis and Scope National and Global Rankings Weightings (Shaded Rankings are National) Measuring Research Examples of Significant Changes in THE-QS Top University Ranking Different Ways to Measure Quality Advantages and Disadvantages of Commonly Used Indicators HE Leaders’ Views on How Rankings are Influencing Key Stakeholders Impact and Benefits of Rankings: True or False Top Ten Most Important Factors Influencing Student Choice Importance of Following Reasons in Choice of College/University, 1995 and 2006 Number of Universities in Top 100, 2003–2010 Indicative Mapping of Institutional Actions against Rankings

vi


25 32 44 53 56 57 58 60 92 94 138 150 166 192


List of Tables

Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2 Figure 1.3 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5 Figure 3.6 Figure 3.7 Figure 3.8 Figure 3.9 Figure 3.10 Figure 3.11 Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 6.1 Figure 6.2

Status Systems as Portrayed by Accreditation and Rankings Rankings Correlated with Population Size Rankings Correlated with GDP Current National Rank vs. Preferred National Rank Current International Rank vs. Preferred International Rank Satisfaction with Position vs. Desire to Improve Ranking by Institutional Type) Satisfaction with Position vs. Desire to Improve Ranking by World Region Stated Purpose of Rankings Target Audience vs. Actual User Influence of Rankings on Key Stakeholders How Rankings are Influencing Policymaking Helped or Hindered Comparison between Germany and Rest of World: Impact and Benefits of Rankings Consider Peer Ranking Prior to Discussions University Selection Variables Rankings and Reputation, Important/Very Important Factor Position in Rankings by Qualification Level Harvard-Here Model World-Class System Model according to Field Specialization

21 26 26 86 87 87 88 89 90 90 91 94 95 116 138 139 139 198 199

vii



List of Figures

Box 1.1 Box 2.1 Box 3.1 Box 5.1

Media Headlines Typology of Transparency Instruments University of Iceland Strategy 2006–2011 Rankings and Global Positioning

viii


24 41 112 156


List of Boxes

• •

• • • • • • •

• •

ARWU – Academic Ranking of World Universities, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Faculty – academic staff, although occasionally both terms are used, e.g. when referring to all staff in an HEI or when quoting from other sources GFC – Global Financial Crisis, 2008 HE – Higher education HEEACT – Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan, Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for Research HEI – Higher education institution (see also university below) THE-QS – Times Higher Education Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings THE-TR – Times Higher Education Thompson Reuters World University Rankings University – refers to all HEIs undertaking research and awarding higher degrees, irrespective of their name and status in national law USNWR – U.S. News and World Report Best Colleges Vice Chancellor/President – refers to the institutional head, irrespective of the name in national law or institutional convention.

Currency conversions as of July 2010

ix



Abbreviations and Terminology


This page intentionally left blank


International post graduate students use rankings to assess the university they’re applying to just as the university uses rankings to assess the post graduate students that are applying (Faculty, pre-1945 public research intensive university, Australia). Nowadays all universities are aware of the importance of rankings and are looking at rankings, and the institutions which are ranked (Rector, post 1945 public teaching intensive University of Applied Sciences, Germany). The government is influenced by their own rankings systems when allocating funds to universities (Vice president, public regional university, Japan). The first global ranking of universities was developed in 2003 by Shanghai Jiao Tong University – and the rest, as they say, is history. Political and higher education leaders took immediate note; an EU meeting in Liege, Belgium, was told that publication of the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) was a ‘wake-up call’ to European higher education (Dempsey, 2004). Within a short space of time, policymakers and higher education leaders began to refer to national and institutional ambitions in terms of global rankings. The University of Oslo said it aspired to ‘achieve a leading position in the Nordic region and be among the 20 best in Europe’ in recognized international rankings (University of Oslo, 2005), while the Chief Executive of Forfás, Ireland’s policy advisory board for enterprise and science, said Ireland should aim to have ‘two universities ranked in the top 20 worldwide’ by 2013 (Cronin, 2006). This study of the Impact and Influence of Rankings on Higher Education Decision-Making and Government Policymaking began in 2006. It was 1



Introduction and Acknowledgements

prompted by publication of the Shanghai Jiao Tong Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) in 2003 and the Times QS World University Rankings (THE-QS) in 2004. In the two intervening years, it had become clear that global rankings were capturing the public’s and policymakers’ attention, and higher education institutions were taking notice and action. To understand this fast-moving phenomenon, the OECD’s Programme on Institutional Management of Higher Education (IMHE) and the International Association of Universities (IAU) sponsored a study to learn how HEIs were responding to rankings, and what impact or influence they were having. In 2008, additional support was received from the Institute of Higher Education Policy (IHEP) with funding from the Lumina Foundation. Given their visibility and popularity, this research has sought to understand the extent to which rankings are influencing and impacting on higher education, higher education leaders, faculty and students: Is the experience international or more predominant in particular countries or among certain types of institutions? How are HEIs responding, what kind of actions are they taking? How are rankings influencing key decisionmakers and policymakers? What about students, and other stakeholders – do they take account of rankings, and to what extent are they influenced by them? What are the longer term implications? This book is the first comprehensive and international examination of the phenomenon of higher education rankings. Since 2006, I’ve traversed the globe and invaded colleges and universities, talked with Presidents and Vice Chancellors, faculty, senior administrators and students, met with key stakeholders, policymakers, student leaders and trade unionists to learn at first-hand how rankings are impacting on higher education, and influencing (or not) institutional decisionmaking and government policymaking. It draws upon many articles, working papers, reports and presentations previously published or presented, some of which are included in the bibliography. A full account of the methodology is in Appendix 1. Because respondents in all questionnaires and interviews were guaranteed anonymity, quotations used throughout the book are amplified by reference to a simple classification system, where sufficient information is available, e.g. Senior administrator, public pre-1945 research-intensive, Germany. Where very short comments are used, normally no such classification is used to ensure a better flow within the text; these are italicized to indicate they come from interviews and to differentiate them from other references, e.g. Institutions believe that high rankings can boost their ‘competitive position in relationship to government’.



2 Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education

This study has been generously supported by a sabbatical from the Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT), and by the OECD Programme for Institutional Management of Higher Education (IMHE), the International Association of Universities (IAU) and the Institute of Higher Education Policy (IHEP), the latter with funding from the Lumina Foundation. During this time, I was hosted by the OECD, Paris and the Centre for the Study of Higher Education (CSHE), University of Melbourne, Australia. Special thanks are due to Richard Yelland (OECD) and Eva Egron-Polak (IAU) who supported the project from the outset, to Alisa Cunningham and Lacey Leegwater (IHEP), Jamie Merisotis of the Lumina Foundation, and to colleagues in Germany, Australia and Japan – too numerous to mention here – for their hospitality, help organizing the various interviews, and their valuable conversations and comments throughout the research. Special thanks to Oon Ying Chin, Peter Eckel, Pamela Eddy, Gero Federkeil, Barbara Kehm, Fumi Kitigawa, Adeline Kroll, Nian Cai Liu, Alex McCormick, Wolfgang Mackiewicz, Simon Marginson, Vin Massaro, Henk Moed, Gavin Moodie, Robert Morse, Jun Oba, Kris Olds, Jaana Puukka, Jamil Salmi, Tony Sheil, Morshidi Sirat, Andrée Sursock, John Taylor, Alex Usher, Ben Wildavsky, Ross Williams, Shinichi Yamamoto and Akiyoshi Yonezawa for helping source material, partaking in conversations and their generous comments during the research and on my various papers over the years. Special thanks to Machi Sato who translated for me while in Japan, Jacqueline Smith, who took the time to read and edit chapters and Bernadette Farrell who did the index. International Graduate Insight Group (i-Graduate), UK, an international education and recruitment market consultancy, was extremely generous allowing access to their extensive database of over 95,000 international students, and the analysis of this data is published with their permission. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to my colleagues at DIT for their help and support, particularly John Donovan, Brian Norton and Brian O’Neill, to my executive assistants Paul Kilkenny and Eidin Finlay, and my two research assistants, Amanda Moynihan and Chris Connolly. Susan Chambers, David Forde and Fiachra Mangan in the DIT Library went beyond the call of duty to respond to my urgent requests for articles, theses and reports; likewise Philip Cohen, Frank Costello, Jen Harvey and Frank McMahon provided useful assistance and comparative knowledge about libraries, and admissions policies and systems. I would especially like to thank my family, Eric, Ila and Lisa, who ‘stayed the course’; their support and trust throughout was essential. Any errors or misinterpretations are, of course, my own.



Introduction and Acknowledgements 3


The current strength of research in European universities has been called into question in two recent surveys, which – despite some cultural and methodological biases – came to the conclusion that European universities are not performing strongly in global comparisons (Europa, 2004, p. 23). The world rankings of the 500 universities show the poor state of academic institutions in Islamic countries…To ameliorate this situation, … the OIC … resolved to strengthen selected universities in the fields of science and engineering, with the goal of elevating at least 20 universities within the Islamic countries to the rank among the top 500 world universities (Organisation of the Islamic Conference, in Bilal, 2007).

Globalisation and rankings There is a growing obsession with university rankings around the world. What started as an academic exercise in the early 20th century in the US became a commercial ‘information’ service for students in the 1980s and the progenitor of a ‘reputation race’ with geo-political implications today. Around the world, rankings consciousness has risen sharply and, arguably inevitably, in response to globalization and the pursuit of new knowledge as the basis of economic growth, and the drive for increased public accountability and transparency. Rankings are a manifestation of what has become known as the worldwide ‘battle for excellence’, and are perceived and used to determine the status of individual institutions, assess the quality and performance of the higher education system and gauge global competitiveness. As 4



1

internationalization has become a priority for both government and higher education, the talent-catching and knowledge-producing capacity of higher education has become a vital sign of a country’s capacity to participate in world science and the global economy. In the process, rankings are transforming universities and reshaping higher education. Despite the fact that there are over 15,000 higher education institutions (HEIs) worldwide,1 there is a fascination with the standing and trajectory of the top 100, less than 1 percent of the world’s institutions. Like the ranking of restaurants or hotels, no one wants to be at the bottom of the hygiene list. Published by, inter alia, government and accreditation agencies, higher education, research and commercial organizations, and the popular media, rankings have become ubiquitous since the 1990s. The U.S. News and World Report’s special issue on ‘America’s Best Colleges’ has been published annually in U.S. News magazine and as a separate newsstand guidebook since 1987, and remains the most popular in that country. Around the world, media organizations have predominated in the publication of such lists, inter alia, the Times Higher Education Supplement (first published in The Times, October 1992), the Financial Times and The Sunday Times (UK/Ireland), Der Spiegel (Germany), Macleans (Canada), Reforma (Mexico). In recent years, government and accreditation agencies, and higher education organizations have developed their own systems for evaluating and ranking institutional performance: e.g. CHE (Germany), AQA (Austria), CIEES, CACEI, CNEIP and CONEVET (Mexico), NAAC, NBA (India), Higher Education Council and TUBITAK (Turkey), the Commission on Higher Education and Philippine Accrediting Association of Schools, Colleges and Universities (Philippines), and the Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT).2 In addition, there are a variety of commercial college ‘guide’ books and websites, e.g. the Good Universities Guide (Australia), Bertelsmann Stiftung (Germany) and Re$earch Infosource Inc. (Canada). As higher education has become globalized, the focus has shifted to worldwide university rankings, e.g. the Shanghai Jiao Tong Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), Times Higher Education QS Top Universities (THE QS), Webometrics, and so on. Today, there are over 50 national ranking systems and ten global rankings of varying significance, including a new one in 2011. The transformation of the higher education environment over the last few decades has been well documented (CERI, 2009; Marginson and van der Wende, 2007a; Altbach et al., 2010). Despite different perspectives, there is a general consensus about the speed and depth of the



Globalization and the Reputation Race 5

revolution impacting on higher education and the extent of change required or occurring in response. Without being too simplistic, there are probably four headline drivers. First, the positioning of knowledge as the foundation of economic, social and political power has driven the transformation of economies and the basis of wealth production from those based on productivity and efficiency to those based on higher valued goods and services innovated by talent. If the first phase of globalisation was marked by ‘working cheaper,’ the current phase is measured by connecting people and processes globally, and breaking down traditional barriers (Cheese et al., 2007, p. 2) – a contemporary version of Marx’s ‘heavy artillery … batter[ing] down all Chinese walls’ (1948, p. 125). Friedman’s (2007) flattening out of the globe, and Castell’s (1996) ‘networked society’ are not just ignorant of national boundaries but are actively and daily destroying those boundaries and its industries while creating new working practices and forms of social networking. Today, almost 80 percent of a company’s value comes from intangibles or soft knowledge – unique knowledge of services, markets, relationships, reputation, and brand (Hutton, 2006). Successful economies are those which rely on the ability to develop and exploit new knowledge for ‘competitive advantage and performance … through investment in knowledge-based and intellectual assets – R&D, software, design new process innovation, and human and organisational capital’ (Brinkley, 2008, pp. 17–18). Research shows that ‘productivity growth in the United States has been generated largely by advances in technology’ which in turn have been driven in recent years by innovation as measured by the number of patents awarded to industry and universities (Chellaraj et al., 2005, p. 1). This has placed higher education – a provider of human capital through education and training, a primary source of new knowledge and knowledge/technology transfer, and a beacon for international investment and talent – at the centre of policymaking. Governments have endeavoured to steer and restructure higher education in ways which, while supporting autonomy, use performance-based funding and, in many instances, institutional contracts to ensure higher education meets its social and economic objectives. The EU Lisbon Agenda aimed to make Europe ‘the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world’ by significantly increasing investment in R&D to 3 percent of GDP and doubling the number of PhD students (Europa, 2000); it has been followed by Europe 2020 which focuses on ‘smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (Europa, 2010a). Most governments have similar models: Building Ireland’s Smart Economy (Government of Ireland, 2008), Brain Korea 21 (Korean Research Council,




1999), Malaysia’s Vision 2020 (Government of Malaysia, 1991), Abu Dhabi Economic Vision 2030 (Government of Abu Dhabi, 2008) and India’s National Knowledge Commission (Government of India, 2009), to name just a few. The global financial crisis of 2008 sounded alarm bells but it simply accelerated the speed of change bringing the BRIC countries (e.g. Brazil, Russia, India, and China) more firmly into the competitive spotlight. Second, at the moment when countries are dependent upon talent, many are under demographic pressure. This has arisen for a combination of reasons, including greying of the population and retirement of professionals combined with the end of the ‘baby boomer’ bubble and decline in the number of students. While the world population is likely to increase by 2.5 billion over the years to 2050, the population of the more developed regions is expected to remain largely unchanged, and would have declined, if not for net migration from developing to developed countries. In 2005, young people were 13.7 percent of the population in developed countries, but their share is expected to fall to 10.5 percent by 2050 (Bremner et al., 2009, pp. 2, 6). This will affect the pool of secondary students, ultimately challenging government strategies for growing knowledge-intensive sectors of their economies. As a result, what the Daily Yomiuri calls the ‘scramble for students’ (Matsumoto and Ono, 2008, p. 1) and the Economist refers to as the ‘battle for brainpower’ (Wooldridge, 2006) is complementing more traditional struggles for natural resources. Knowing that people with higher levels of education are more likely to migrate (Europa, 2006a), governments around the world are introducing policies to attract ‘the most talented migrants who have the most to contribute economically’ (Rüdiger, 2008, p. 5; ICREA), especially in science and technology. The importance of mobility stems not just from its contribution to the production and dissemination of codified knowledge but also transmitting tacit knowledge in the broadest sense. There can be benefits for both sending and receiving countries (not just brain drain but brain circulation), if the latter has the appropriate absorptive capacities to attract (back) and retain high skilled talent (Hvistendahl, 2008). Internationalization, once seen simply as a policy of cultural exchange, is now a necessary mechanism to increase the number of international students, especially graduate research students (Hazelkorn, 2008b). The importance of the lucrative international student market has raised the global competitive stakes (Guruz, 2008; Green and Koch, 2010). In terms of actual numbers and percentage of total students, Western Europe and North America are the world regions of choice.




Together, they host approximately 1.7 million of the 2.5 million international students, or 70 percent of all international students (Guruz, 2008, p. 230). Under GATS, international or cross-border student mobility has become a recognizable, tradable commodity which is likely to encompass 7.2 million students annually by 2025 (Varghese, 2008, p. 11). In Australia, education services were the third largest export earner in 2007–2008, just behind coal and iron ore (AEPL, 2009), while ‘well-trained international graduate students and skilled immigrants from such countries as India, China, Korea, and Singapore (the last two of which rank at the top in mathematics and science achievement)’ into the US plug the education gap caused by deficiencies elsewhere in the system (Chellaraj et al., 2005, p. 2). Other countries are copying these examples; Singapore, China, Malaysia, Japan, Jordan and Korea – to name just a few – want to significantly expand the number of international students within the next 5–10 years (Wildavsky, 2010, p. 24; Anon, 2010a). The Bologna initiative, initially focused on enhancing mobility within the EU, has prompted a worldwide re-tooling of educational systems to ease international mobility and enhance competition for the lucrative international student market (Cemmell and Bekhradnia, 2008). UK universities have been urged to ‘buckle up for a rough ride’ (Gill, 2008) while Japanese universities are having to ‘send … recruiters out to high schools, hold … open houses for prospective students, build … swimming pools and revamp … libraries, and recruit … more foreign students’ (McNeill, 2008). As a counter measure, governments are seeking better alignment between higher education, innovation and immigration policies to guarantee access to the global talent pool. Third, higher education has been transformed from being considered a social expenditure to being an essential component of the productive economy; accordingly, the way in which higher education is governed and managed has become a major policy issue. There is increasing emphasis on value-for-money, productivity and efficiency, and ensuring investor confidence, often referred to as ‘new public management’ (Deem, 2001) or what the EU calls the ‘modernization’ agenda (Europa, 2006b, 2007a). The extent and breadth of the changes vary across national jurisdictions and sectors, but generally includes: restructuring academic programmes to make them more compatible, competitive and attractive; increased emphasis on research targets and outputs which are measurable and supported by competitively earned funding; links with industry and technology/knowledge transfer activities; and merging departments to promote efficiency, critical mass and visibility or abolishing those which no longer attract sufficient students or meet




quality standards. Changes in academic work and terms of employment chronicle the transformation from a relatively autonomous profession operating within a self-regulated code of ‘collegiality’ to an ‘organizationally managed’ workforce comparable to other salaried employees (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997; Rhoades, 1998; Farnham, 1999; Altbach, 2000a and 2000b; Altbach and Lewis, 1996; Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004; Hazelkorn and Moynihan, 2010). At the system level, many governments are moving away from an egalitarian approach – where all institutions are broadly equal in status and quality – to one in which hierarchical or vertical differentiation is encouraged through competitive positioning and funding. If higher education is the engine of the economy, then the productivity, quality and status of higher education institutions and university-based research becomes a vital indicator. The EU (Europa, 2006b) said Universities should be funded more for what they do than for what they are, by focusing funding on relevant outputs rather than inputs, … Competitive funding should be based on institutional evaluation systems and on diversified performance indicators with clearly defined targets and indicators supported by international benchmarking. Or more succinctly, it ‘isn’t enough to just go around telling ourselves how good we are – we need to measure ourselves objectively against the world’s best’ (Carr, 2009). Finally, because education and graduate outcomes and lifestyle are strongly correlated with higher qualifications and career opportunities, students (and their parents) have become savvy consumers (Santiago et al., 2008). This is driven also by the rising costs of higher education – including tuition and relocation costs; students assess institutions and programmes as an opportunity-cost. Tuition fees reflect not just the actual costs of instruction but supply and demand factors. Widening access and higher education attainment may be important societal goals but the rewards are increasingly viewed as bringing private benefit. In return, students require more consumer type information through guide books or comparative or benchmarking data, increasingly on a global scale and accessible online; student satisfaction surveys of teaching and academic endeavour, comparison of employability and potential salaries and reviews on the quality of the student experience and campus life are common place. And because there is a decline in the traditional student market and heightened competition




for high-achieving students, the balance of consumer power is shifting. In the absence of institutionally generated comparative material, rankings have arguably and controversially become the accountability and transparency instrument by which students – especially international students –, governments and other stakeholders acquire such information. According to Webster (1992), HE administrators are partially ‘to blame’ for the rise in rankings; because higher education does not provide sufficient information about themselves, it encourages others to do so. These factors have combined to transform rankings from a consumer product into a global strategic instrument.

Theorizing rankings While rankings have occupied the attention of policy makers and HE leaders, they have also generated hundreds of academic articles, masters and PhD theses, and international conferences and seminars in addition to many more journalist articles and policy papers; there are even university courses dedicated to the topic (O’Meara, 2010). Over 1,000 books, papers and articles have been sourced during the research and writing of this book; this must be a far cry from the minds of those who conceived and originated national or global rankings. ARWU was initiated to illustrate the position of Chinese universities vis-à-vis international leaders in order to support the ‘dream of generations of Chinese’ and lobby their government for appropriate support (Liu, 2009, p. 2), while USNWR aimed to provide ‘prospective students and their parents with key evaluative information they need to make an informed college choice that has important job and career implications’ (Morse, 2010a). Quacquarelli of QS, whose company launched the world university rankings with Times Higher Education (THE) in 2004, said its original purpose was to ‘serve students and their families’ although it is now used by ‘governments and university leaders … to set strategic targets’ (Sharma, 2010a). By capturing the Zeitgeist, these early market movers have created a lucrative industry. The literature on rankings can be roughly divided into two categories, methodological concerns and theoretical understanding. Most commentators have focused on the former, questioning and challenging the basis by which the indicators have been chosen, the weightings assigned to them, and the statistical method and accuracy or appropriateness of the calculations. This attention is not surprising given that rankings are a quantitative exercise, the methodology is still evolv-




ing and the results can be controversial. Given its infancy, rankers have welcomed and encouraged engagement with commentators and critics, and hosted conferences and workshops. It could be argued that this dialogue is necessitated by their brand image and underpinning philosophy; in other words, if rankings are about the transparency of higher education performance then it is incumbent upon the promoters to be equally transparent. On the other hand, the dialogue is arguably an essential part of the legitimizing process; by engaging users in the process and clarifying their concerns the end product becomes more acceptable – and influential. A smaller group of commentators has sought to contextualize the growing obsession with rankings, to understand the basis of their popularity and to examine their impact and implications for and on higher education, and faculty and stakeholder behaviour. This literature has sought to explain the rankings phenomenon in terms of (i) nation states and supranational entities (e.g. the EU) locked into strategies for national competitive advantage; (ii) institutions striving for survival in the process of which organizational and institutional culture and behaviour is transformed in response to the external environment; or (iii) students and faculty using and responding to positive and negative correlations of self and peer perceptions of the status system. These issues can be broadly grouped into three sets of theoretical arguments, each of which seeks to situate changes in higher education within a broader frame: globalization and networks of power, organizational behaviour and change, and social capital and positional goods. This section summarizes these positions, setting a context for the previous discussion and the remainder of the book. While each of the theoretical strands discussed below are read and used independently by different authors, this author’s argument is that these frameworks can be read in tandem. There is a strong linkage or overlap, with each theoretical approach describing or offering an explanation of different aspects of the rankings phenomenon. To preface the discussion below and throughout the book: rankings are an inevitable outcome and metaphor for the intensification of global competition, around which, higher education as both the progenitor of human capital and knowledge has become the fulcrum around which geo-political battles for a greater share of the global market are being fought. At the same time, HEIs are knowledge intensive industries behaving as other actors/firms in a competitive environment; to survive and thrive, many institutions are making changes to institutional strategy or adapting their behaviour to fit the norm promulgated by rankings. Their behaviour is influenced




by the perception that benefits – whether it is more and better able students, increased resources or enhanced prestige – flow to those who, according to rankings, are best. Students associate high rankings with better education quality and critically better career and lifestyle choices. Governments are doing likewise, restructuring or reshaping their systems in the view that high ranked institutions are beacons for investment and international talent – vital components for global competitiveness. Globalization and networks of power Globalization is the process of convergence and integration over national borders, creating a ‘single world market’ and ‘a common store of knowledge’. According to Castells (1996, p. 92), a global economy differs qualitatively from a world economy. In the latter, which has existed since the 16th century, ‘capital accumulation proceeds throughout the world’ while in the former, capital has the ‘capacity to work as a unit in real time on a planetary scale’. By managing capital around the clock, capital and information flows are at once both global and autonomous from place and the actual performance of individual national economies. The ability to operate in an asymmetrical structure enhances the capacity of science, technology and knowledge as the determinant of social, economic and political power. Because innovation is the key to translating knowledge into new products and services, nations increasingly compete on the basis of their knowledge and innovation systems (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997). For Castells, knowledge is a commodity within globalized capital accumulation. In contrast with traditional (historic) factors, such as ‘land (natural resources), labour (human effort) and capital goods (machinery), knowledge is the “new factor of production”’ (Robertson, 2008, p. 4). Accordingly, academic research is no longer solely the pursuit of individual intellectual curiosity but is driven in large measure by national funding priorities which are tied to strategies of economic growth and competitiveness. Knowledge is important primarily in its ability to be converted into new products and services; in other words, ‘knowledge is defined as intellectual property (IP) that has commercial value’ that ‘can be realized, in turn creating economic value and thus economic growth’ (Robertson, 2008, p. 5). Competitiveness is dependent upon the capacity of ‘national and supranational institutions to steer the growth strategy of those countries or areas under their jurisdiction including the creation of competitive advantage …’ (Castells, 1996, p. 105). While nation states remain important, the architecture and geometry of the global economy rests




upon the interdependence of economic regions ‘polarized along an axis of opposition between productive, information-rich, affluent areas and impoverished areas, economically devalued and socially excluded’ (Castells, 1996, p. 145). Clusters of high technology and highly specialized services and financial goods are congregated into what are known as ‘technopoles’ (Castells, 1994a), ‘global cities’ (Sassen, 2001) or ‘knowledge regions’ (Reichert, 2006); these form the ‘organizing nodes’ of a networked world (Friedman, 1995). According to Hall (2006), these nodes become centres where ‘professional talent of all kinds congregate …’, ‘[S]tudents and teachers are drawn to the world cities: they commonly contain great universities, as well as a host of specialized institutions for teaching and research in the sciences, the technologies and the arts’. For city states, regions or nations to be attractive requires HEIs having, or growing, a reputation. These developments have major consequences for higher education, and have been responsible for transforming it into a key instrument of economic development; new public management (NPM), twinned with neo-liberalism, has transformed HEIs into private market and performance-driven ‘competing universities-as-firms’ (Marginson, 2010a). This has involved the application of economic and business principles and management processes, with a strong emphasis on accountability, transparency and performance. Engagement in marketing, customer focus, entrepreneurship and industry-driven research has had implications for academic culture and work. Marginson (2010a) argues that this has created twin and somewhat oppositional actions: deregulation of the ‘university-as-firm’ to enable it to respond to the (labour) market, with all the vagaries that brings, and ‘over-regulation of academic output as performance’. Slaughter and Leslie (1997, pp. 36–37) contend that globalization has had ‘four far-reaching implications for higher education’: i) the ‘constriction of money for discretionary areas’, ii) ‘growing centrality of techno-science and fields’ which is closely involved with international markets, iii) tightening relationships between multinational corporations and state agencies, and iv) increased focus on intellectual property strategies. By redirecting education towards wealth creation and economic competitiveness, the distinction between knowledge and commodity collapses and ‘knowledge becomes commodity’, with profound implications for institutions and faculty (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997, p. 38). The interconnection between knowledge, economic/industrial policy and intellectual property has helped reshape undergraduate and graduate education, and scholarly practice. Their argument is simple: nations compete on the basis of innovation which is ‘fundamentally




stored in human brains’ (Castells, 1996, p. 95); it therefore necessitates investment in ‘academic capital’. Because higher education plays a fundamental role in creating competitive advantage in a market environment, performance matters. Marginson and van der Wende (2007a, p. 17) argue that governments and globally active HEIs pursue two related objectives: i) maximizing ‘capacity and performance within the global landscape’, and ii) optimizing the ‘benefits of global flows, linkages and offshore operations back home in the national and local settings’. The higher education landscape is a ‘relational landscape’; this means that institutions and nations are constantly measured against each other according to indicators of global capacity and potential in which comparative and competitive advantages come into play. According to Robertson (1998, p. 224), in contrast to earlier periods when political struggle and human capital considerations combined to ‘compel an expansion of higher education’, the current period challenges that historical movement: ‘when the struggle for social equality … can no longer be resisted, ruling elites worldwide intensify reputational (and therefore social) differentiation between institutions’. While individual institutions and nations may pursue their own path, ‘they no longer have full command over their destinies’ (Marginson and van der Wende, 2007a, p. 13); they are part of a wider geo-political struggle in which ‘governments need to invigorate their national innovation systems in the context of a global knowledge economy’ (Robertson, 1998, p. 227). This is especially true in the aftermath of the GFC. While the quest for world-class status preceded this event, the manner by which rankings have become a key driver of global reform of higher education stresses its significance for building strategies for competitive advantage – which depends upon higher education’s ability to act as a beacon for investment and international talent (Gulbrandsen, 1997). Because research activity is the source of knowledge, intellectual property and innovation, global university rankings have become a critical relational indicator, strengthening ‘the element of competition and the status of the established institutions’, nations and world regions – and conferring power (Marginson and van der Wende, 2007a, p. 34). The quotes at the beginning of this chapter and the media headlines below (see Box 1.1) illustrate the way in which higher education has become (interpreted as) a global battle ground. Organizational behaviour and change The normalization of the discourse of competitive rankings has contributed to their rapid proliferation and dominance; the discussion




which follows draws, inter alia, on Foucault and Gramsci. The former provides a useful theoretical frame by which to understand how institutions and governments feel compelled to respond – and make changes – to higher education in line with the model proffered by rankings in order to thrive, while the latter speaks to the way in which rankings have come to dominate higher education discourse. Writing on discipline, surveillance and punishment, Foucault (1977, p. 209) argued that control has shifted from punishment to more abstract forms of ‘disciplinary technology’ which normalize behaviour by regulating the space, time or activity of people’s lives. The ‘schema of exceptional discipline’ is transformed into ‘what might be called in general the disciplinary society’, whereby power is exercised, not in a direct manner, but through a series of complex relations and relationships ‘enacted through subtle practices and banal procedures’. … neither the territory (unit of domination), nor the place (unit of residence), but the rank: the place one occupies in a classification … Discipline is an art of rank, a technique for the transformation of arrangements … (Quoted in Sauder and Espeland, 2009, p. 69). Thus, ‘one of the great instruments of power’ is that of normalization – by which homogeneity is achieved and differences in behaviour are exposed. Barker and Cheney (1994, p. 20) explain that while The whip and the watch govern our behaviour … the governance of the watch is the more unobtrusive and more thoroughgoing of the two types of ‘authority’ because our regular submission to it is a willing, almost wholly voluntary act. Foucault postulates that power and control are exercised through continual and anonymous surveillance, whereby the regulators and the regulated are juxtaposed and interdependent in a way which is embedded in everyday practice. The effect parallels commonly used sayings such as ‘that’s the way things are done around here’ or ‘conventional wisdom’ (Barker and Cheney, 1994, p. 24). Drawing on Foucault, Sauder and Espeland (2009) show how rankings not only change perceptions of education through both coercive and seductive means, but how constant surveillance of performance, through the use of rankings, can result in an obsessive form of control which is internalized. They argue that higher education as well as individual HE actors has come under pressure to conform – responding to




different stakeholders and the complex environment, demonstrating accountability and transparency in increasingly quantitative measures. Reactions to rankings are ‘best understood as the evolving responses of an assortment of actors who struggle to reconcile their sense of themselves as professional educators with an imposed market-based logic of accountability’ (Sauder and Espeland, 2009, p. 66). While higher education may seek to ‘de-couple’ itself from the pressure of rankings – and the way in which they influence external perceptions of the university – it is difficult to successfully achieve this. Drawing on their research of law schools, Sauder and Lancaster (2006, p. 130) say many administrators note that internal constituencies such as current students, faculty, and even members of the administration itself are affected by changes in rank; among the manifestations of these effects are morale changes, transfers, changes in the ability to attract new faculty, and an increase or decrease in job security for administrators. Rankings may provoke anger and resentment, by exhibiting a constant ‘surveillance’ or presence in/over the higher education environment, but they have become a ‘self-disciplining’ force. In comparing institutions with each other, ‘one person’s or one institution’s performance [is pitted] against all others’ thereby imposing a process of normalization (Sauder and Espeland, 2009, p. 73). Rankings create hierarchies by establishing a ‘single norm for excellence’, which are turned into mechanisms or tools of differentiation. This is done through the use of measurement and quantification ‘to judge and control these relations’ in the same way Foucault’s ‘discipline’ ‘constructs compliant, self-policing subjects’ and ‘defines normal, marks deviance, and creates the experts who maintain the boundaries’ (Espeland and Sauder, 2007, pp. 4–5). These norms play a central role in influencing, incentivizing and changing behaviour and attitudes ‘above and beyond one’s own perceptions of quality’ (Bowman and Bastedo, 2009, p. 4), including encouraging some schools to adopt missions that conform to assumptions embedded in rankings (Espeland and Sauder, 2007). Drawing on the concepts of ‘reactivity’ and ‘reflectivity’, Espeland and Sauder (2007, p. 33) argue that rankings affect a gradual transformation of HEIs ‘into entities that conform more closely to the criteria used to construct rankings, and … prompt[ing] the redistribution of resources, the redefinition of work, and gaming’. Essentially, over time, higher education actors are brought into line, behaving rationally and




responding appropriately to the ‘contaminating influence of measurements on their target object’ (Espeland and Sauder, 2007, p. 6). Gramsci’s concept of hegemony also helps to explain how rankings have come to dominate the discussion of higher education quality and performance. Like Foucault, Gramsci (1971, p. 419) believed power is not exercised directly but opaquely through cultural norms (views, practices, institutions, etc.) which become pervasive and thus are seen to be normalized, as ‘lived experience’ or ‘common sense’ which is ‘uncritically absorbed by the various social and cultural environments …’ Hall et al. (1978) concept of ‘moral panic’ is drawn from Gramsci. In his writings, he discussed how crime statistics are often manipulated by the political world and media to sensitize the public to a particular viewpoint; in this way, they help ‘set the agenda’ of public discourse. Statistics – whether crime rates or opinion polls – have an ideological function: they appear to ground free floating and controversial impressions in the hard, incontrovertible soil of numbers. Both the media and the public have enormous respect for ‘the facts’ – hard facts (Hall et al., 1978, p. 9). Rankings play a similar hegemonic function. They create a powerful set of ideas or values around which a particular model of higher education or concept of quality or excellence becomes the accepted norm. Rational choice theory adds a further dimension; it argues that individuals choose actions that are most ‘likely to give them the greatest satisfaction’ (Scott, 2000, p. 128) or make choices on the basis of ‘return on investment’. Becker argues that ‘people rationally evaluate the benefits and costs of activities…whether they be selfish, altruistic, loyal, spiteful, or masochistic’. While their ‘behaviour is forwardlooking’, it ‘may still be rooted in the past, for the past can exert a long shadow on attitudes and values’ (Becker, 1993, p. 402). Levitt and Dubner (2009, p. 12) also use economics to understand behaviour arguing that ‘incentives are the cornerstone of modern life’. Whether higher education leaders seek to mitigate the impact on their institution, redefine goals or seek to improve performance, it could be argued that they are responding rationally to the circumstances in which they find themselves. The fact that they are doing so illustrates how successfully rankings have embedded themselves within the environment and incentivize behaviour. Finally, Bastedo and Bowman (2011) use open system theory to ‘contribute to our understanding of rankings as an interorganisational




dependency’ to show ‘how organisations adapt and manage the norms, values and beliefs in their environment, in order to increase the chances of organisational survival.’ This includes developing tactics to influence rankings (for example by manipulating the data supplied), boycotting the questionnaires sent by rankings for peer review, or responding strategically. The latter illustrates that contrary to views that HEIs are hapless in a highly deterministic environment, they are pro-actively engaged in a range of strategic responses, ‘including reactivity, decoupling, and impression management’ in a manner which reveals an ‘interorganisational dependency on resource flows related to the U.S. News & World Report college rankings.’ Ultimately there is a resource dependency relationship; resource and financial benefits can result from ‘the evaluations of certain legitimate third parties through their influence with external resource providers’ (Bastedo and Bowman, 2009, p. 26). Because the stakes are so high, rankings provoke retaliatory or protective responses. Elsbach and Kramer (1996, p. 470) show that when organisational members perceive that their organisation’s identity is threatened, they try to protect both personal and external perceptions of their organisation as well as their perceptions of themselves as individuals. This may involve focusing ‘members’ attention on what they should be doing and why’, explaining ‘what their organisation is about’ in order to re-categorize it, directing and focusing attention on other (more positive) aspects of performance, or ultimately ‘chang[ing] or reshap[ing] their identities’ (Elsbach and Kramer, 1996, p. 472). Social capital and positional goods The work of Bourdieu, Hirsch and Frank et al. shows that rankings have heightened competition between institutions and nations, by focusing on reputational value and limited access to what are called positional goods. In doing so, rankings elevate and fetishize particular conceptualizations of status, creating a social norm against which all institutions are measured that quietly insinuates itself into public discourse. Bourdieu (1986) differentiates between three kinds of capital: economic capital, which can be converted into money and institutionalized in the form of property; cultural capital, which in certain circumstances may be converted into money or institutionalized in, inter alia, educational qualifications; and social capital. Social capital is a function of power rela-




tions whereby individuals seek to advance their interests and social position, and the division of economic, cultural and social resources in general are legitimized. It is the ‘aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition’. Social capital provides ‘its members with the backing of the collectivity-owned capital, a “credential” which entitles them to credit, in the various senses of the word.’ For example, membership of a family, class, tribe or school may confer social capital or status on an individual or group. Profits or benefits can accrue by membership of such groups by the reproduction of social capital; this assumes that there is a ‘continuous series of exchanges in which recognition is endlessly affirmed and reaffirmed’. Taking a corresponding view, Hirsch (1997, p. 6) developed the concept of ‘positional goods’ whereby people’s access to ‘socially scarce goods and facilities … is determined in accord not with absolute but relative real income.’ The key factor is the ‘individual’s position in the distribution of purchasing power’. However, competition for such goods is scarce; this means that only a few people can benefit at any one time. It becomes a zero sum game – as some people gain, others must lose out. Veblen had earlier emphasized that ‘it is the relative value of any good, quality, or achievement from which status value is derived’ (Quoted in Sauder, 2006, p. 302). Frank (2001) similarly argued that because of their limited nature, ‘positional goods’ create an ‘arms race’ or a scenario in which the ‘winner takes all’. To the ‘buying public’ there may be an imperceptible difference between success and failure, but to the ‘manufacturers the stakes are often enormous’. In the process, these ‘high stakes have created a new class of “unknown celebrities”; those pivotal players who spell the differences between corporate success and failure’ (Frank and Cook, 2003, p. 55; Bastedo and Bowman, 2009, p. 28). The widening gap between winners and losers has intensified competition for top prizes and positions, and in the process has conferred gate-keeper status on elite educational institutions because they are perceived as having the capability to boost one’s status relative to others. Another way of describing the circle of benefit which corresponds to a winner-take-all market is the concept of the ‘Matthew Effect’ whereby the ‘elite receive disproportionate credit and resources, as they are caught in a virtuous cycle of cumulative advantage’ (Gumport, 2000, pp. 4–5). This is based on a line in St. Matthew’s Gospel (Matthew 25:29) that says, ‘For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath’




(Biblos). In other words, ‘The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer’ – or the ‘winner takes all’. How do these concepts relate to rankings? Brewer et al. (2001) write that reputation and prestige are assets which allow HEIs to convey ‘non price information to customers’; ‘reputation is built over time and can be tested, while prestige is intangible and may be based on opinion or perception’. Although the boundary between elite and non-elite universities may have been known only amongst a few people heretofore, this is no longer the case especially in the context of the massification of higher education and the demands of the knowledge economy which privileges such credentials. For Bastedo and Bowman (2011, p. 10), ‘rankings constitute a third-party status system that forms a significant part of the normative environment of universities’. Chang and Osborn (2005, p. 341) use Debord’s theory of ‘spectacle’ to argue that rankings create powerful images, which like advertising offer a simple ‘picture’ through which consumers, parents and students can ‘see’ an institution. More specifically, students see an institution’s place (i.e. its ‘value’) in the hierarchical order of a USN-created spectacular economy. They encourage a ‘positional arms race’ with elite degrees conferring advantage which is heightened by their limited number and restricted access (Winston, 2000). In different ways, accreditation and rankings create status systems by emphasizing vertical or hierarchical stratification; Figure 1.1 was designed to illustrate the effect of accreditation systems, but it is equally appropriate to rankings. Since status confers benefits, HEIs are active participants in the construction of status systems (Becher and Trowler, 2001). O’Meara (2007, pp. 123–124) describes institutional behaviour or reaction as ‘striving’, building upon earlier concepts of ‘vertical extension’ (Schultz & Stickler, 1965), ‘academic drift’ (Berdahl, 1985) and ‘upper drift’ (Aldersley, 1995), ‘academic ratcheting’ (Massey & Zemsky, 1994), and institutional isomorphism towards research culture (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Milem, Berger & Dey, 2000; Morphew, 2002; Riesman, 1956). Additionally, this concept has been called, ‘institutional homogenization’ or ‘institutional imitation’ (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Jencks & Reisman, 1968; Scott, 1995) (sic). Universities which seek to improve their position in rankings – thereby enhancing their status – are seen to be ‘striving’. A more pejorative way




Globalization and the Reputation Race 21 Figure 1.1

Status Systems as Portrayed by Accreditation and Rankings Top 10

Elite

Second Tier

Third Tier Non-Elite Fourth Tier ABA Accreditation Standard

ABA Accreditation Standard

Source: With kind permission from Springer Science+Business Media: Theory and Society, Third Parties and Status Position: How the Characteristics of Status Systems Matter’, vol. 35, no. 3, 2006, pp. 307–308, M. Sauder, Figure 1 and 2.

of describing higher education behaviour uses the ‘game’ metaphor, thereby suggesting that engagement with rankings conforms to accepted rules or norms (Corley and Gioia, 2000, p. 320; Wedlin, 2006). Volkwein and Sweitzer (2006) argue that mission, size and wealth influence how an institution deploys its resources and affects (positively) its ‘institutional attractiveness’. Similarly, Winston (2000, p. 16) argues that the ‘positional arms race’ propels all HEIs to spend more money to attract high achieving students; ‘pressure from a school below, through increased spending or reduced price, is more effective in inducing an arms race response than is a growing gap with a school above’. Rankings are a symptom (Ehrenberg, 2001, p. 16) but also an accelerator of the ‘reputation race’. While higher education has always been competitive, ‘rankings make perceptions of prestige and quality explicit’ (Quoted in Freid, 2005, p. 17). Because of the increased number of institutions and students, and the link between attendance at prestigious universities and career and salary benefits, a ‘higher education arms war’ has emerged. Brewer et al. (2001) and Freid (2005, p. 89) argue that ‘reputation and prestige conferred on elite colleges today is based in part on their selectivity – of the best students and of the best faculty’. Van Vught (2008, p. 168) argues that academic norms play a significant role in shaping institutional and faculty responses to pressures from the external environment; this is especially the case in a market in which ‘universities and other higher education institutions appear to be particularly driven by the wish to maximize their (academic) prestige and to uphold their



Top 25

reputations’. Because rankings advantage traditional academic outputs, they increase the ‘reputation race’ by encouraging ‘mimicking behaviour (imitating the high-rankings institutions) …’ (van Vught, 2008, p. 172). In turn, by restricting access to what society views as critical ‘positional goods’, rankings help maintain the status system (Bok, 2003, p. 159). Ultimately, only one university can be number 1; as one moves up, another must move down. Similarly, each HEI has a limited number of student places which enhances the value of each place and intensifies competition.

Summary The arrival of the ARWU and the THE QS were remarkably well-timed and auspicious, albeit arguably, global rankings were a product whose time had come. They complement the worldwide shift in public policy and impact on three sets of higher education-government relationships: improving performance and productivity, greater institutional governance and fiscal accountability, and market-led quality assurance and accreditation (van Vught et al., 2002). Global rankings have raised the competitive bar and heaped pressure on institutions and systems – becoming the driver and rationale for significant restructuring and the means by which success and failure are gauged (Ritzen, 2010; Aghion et al., 2007; Lambert and Butler, 2006; Boulton and Lucas, 2008). By highlighting reputational advantage, rankings have affected all higher education institutions – even those which had previously been sheltered by history, mission or governance. HEIs are transformed into strategic knowledge-intensive corporations, engaged in positional competition, balanced fragilely between their current and their preferred rank. High-ranked and not-ranked, international-facing and regionallyfocused, all institutions have been drawn into the global knowledge market. By granting visibility to some institutions, rankings have become an important tool for strategic positioning and global branding. The danger of not responding adequately to the challenge of internationalization is tremendous as the best academic institutions are competing intensely to attract the best talent (Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, 2008). As a consequence, HEIs are incentivized by the benefits which are perceived to derive from being highly ranked. They are becoming more strategic, reorganizing structures and procedures, allocating resources





In a rational world, because of the neglect of funding and the crisis a lot of people talk about, the problems universities have, in terms of finding support from public sources, getting the best students possible, increasing research capacity with private investment, all that kind of thing… So the rankings are a very pragmatic thing that a Vice Chancellor has to do because they do flow onto the calibre of students they get, the sources of private investment they get, the reputation and calibre of the university and that is important when the financial situation is difficult (Student leader, Australia). Global rankings are the realization that in a global knowledge economy, national pre-eminence is no longer enough. But rankings have wider sway. As a product of globalization, they appear to order global knowledge, and provide a ‘plausible’ framework or lens through which the global economy and national (and supranational) positioning can be understood (Marginson and van der Wende, 2007a, p. 55). Despite continuing dispute about the validity of the choice of indicators and/or their weightings, rankings have acquired legitimacy because the methodology appears statistically rigorous and the various producers willingly engage with critics and occasionally make modifications. Table 1.1 provides a perspective of global competitiveness through the eyes of media headlines, which in turn, sets the agenda and influences public opinion (Box 1.1). Because rankings use quantification as the basis for determining quality and performance, they privilege older, well-resourced universities, which are highly selective in their recruitment of students and faculty and whose comparative advantages have accumulated over time. Sheil (2009) estimates that there is a superleague of about 25 world-leading universities, the majority of which are private US institutions with extensive endowments. Notwithstanding a steep decline of 11.9 percent in private earnings due to the impact of the GFC, the top ten earning US universities still managed to raise USD 4.4 billion between them in 2009 (Masterson, 2010a; CAE, 2009). If, however the THE QS rankings are recalibrated according to GDP or population size, Beerkens (2008) shows the US slips to 14th position and smaller states like Switzerland, Hong Kong, Denmark, New Zealand and Israel rise to the top (Figures 1.2 and 1.3). Hence, depending upon what is measured and how, the world order changes.



to fields of study and research which are internationally competitive and re-engineering student recruitment.


Box 1.1

Media Headlines

‘America Retreats as Asia Advances’ The Trumpet 2010 (Jacques, 2010) ‘The Fall of American Universities’, The Korea Times, 2010 (Costello, 2010a) ‘Crouching Tigers Ready to Pounce’, Times Higher Education, 2010 (Baty, 2010a) ‘Universities to Rival West’s in 25 years’, Global Times, 2010 (Dong, 2010) ‘Irish Universities Lagging Behind in Global Rankings’, The Independent, 2009 (Donnelly, 2009) ‘Odugbemi – How Varsities Can Make Top Global Ranking’, All Africa, 2010 (Edukugo, 2010b) ‘Looming Challenges – Universities must look abroad to reverse Japan’s brain drain’, The Japan Times, 2010 (Fukue, 2010) ‘RP [Philippine] Schools Lag in R&D in Asia’, Malaya Business Insight, 2010 (Icamina, 2010) ‘UK holds its own against US giants’, Times Higher Education Supplement, 2006 (Ince, 2006) ‘Is Kenya Ready for World-Class Universities?’ The Standard, 2009 (Kigotho, 2009) ‘Oxbridge ‘Could be Matched’ by Chinese Universities’, The Daily Telegraph, 2010 (Paton, 2010) ‘A Technological Powerhouse to Rival MIT and Oxbridge; The French are Waking the Sleeping Giant’, The Independent, 2010 (Prest, 2010)

Even though the financial outlay is so high, pursuit of world-class status has become a mantra for many governments and institutions paralleling the obsession with rankings; arguably the two have become interchangeable. As Altbach (2003) says, ‘Everyone wants a world-class



‘International Losses Could Jeopardise Australian Rankings’, Campus Review, 2009 (Ross, 2009)

Indicator of Global Competitiveness?

Top 100 Universities

THE-QS

ARWU

QS

THE-TR

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2010

2010

2010

US

37

37

32

53

54

55

54

31

54

Europe

28

35

36

39

34

34

32

33

42

Australia/New Zealand

9

8

9

2

3

3

3

8

5

Asia Pacific (incl. Israel)

13

14

16

7

5

6

6

15

10

Latin America/Africa

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Canada

6

5

4

4

4

4

4

4

3

China (incl. HK)

5

5

5

0

0

0

0

6

5

France

2

2

2

4

3

3

3

2

3

Germany

3

3

4

6

6

5

5

5

3

Ireland

1

1

2

0

0

0

0

1

2

Japan

4

4

6

5

4

5

5

5

2

Russia

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

Singapore

2

2

2

0

0

0

0

2

1

Switzerland

1

3

4

3

3

3

3

3

4

Sweden

1

2

2

4

4

3

3

2

2

19

17

18

11

11

11

11

19

14

UK


25

Note: Global regions are indicated above the heavy line, and indicative countries below. Source: ARWU, THE-QS, QS, and THE-TR websites.


Table 1.1

26 Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education Figure 1.2

Rankings Correlated with Population Size Score per Million Population

70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0

Switzerland Hong Kong Singapore Denmark Netherlands Australia Ireland New Zealand United Kingdom Israel Sweden Canada Belgium United States Finland Austria Germany Japan France Korea, South Norway Taiwan Thailand Mexico South Africa China Spain Italy Russia Argentina Greece India Brazil

10.0 0.0

Source: Permission to publish by the author, E. Beerkens, 2008.

Figure 1.3

Rankings Correlated with GDP Score per Million GDP (USD, 2007)

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500

Hong Kong Singapore New Zealand Israel Switzerland Australia Netherlands United Kingdom Denmark Ireland Canada Sweden Belgium United States Finland Korea, South Austria Japan Germany Taiwan France China Thailand South Africa India Norway Mexico Argentina Russia Spain Italy Brazil Greece

0

Source: Permission to publish by the author, E. Beerkens, 2008.

university. No country feels it can do without one.’ To lose position can be humiliating for nations and institutions alike (EdMal, 2005; Alexander and Noonan, 2007). Fetishization of world-class status is the rationale or justification for the pursuit of elite universities and recon-



90.0 80.0

sideration of the basis for the massification of higher education, which was the cornerstone of policy throughout the late 20th century (Altbach, 2008, p. 9). As Mohrman et al. argue (2008), the research university has become the basis for an emerging global model (EGM), which has insinuated itself into public and political discourse (see chapter 6). Individuals and public/private agencies, unaware of the nuances of the nomenclature, have unwittingly become its transmitter, using the language of world-class universities to publicize their region’s attributes or lobby for a particular strategy. While widening participation remains a policy priority for every country, the emphasis has shifted from getting more students into school to quality and excellence, to ‘selective investment and greater concentration of research’ and to ‘greater stratification between universities’ (Marginson, 2007a). The argument is sometimes put forth as too many universities or too many students in the context of the (rising) cost of maintaining quality, sometimes portrayed as a tension or conflict between equality and excellence (Flynn, 2010a; Martin, 2008; Steinberg, 2009; Berger, 2009). Societal goals are seen to be oppositional rather than complementary. This line of reasoning is often ambiguously stated; for example, both OECD and the World Bank temper their promotion of top universities ‘operating at the cutting edge of intellectual and scientific development’ with questions about whether the world-class model is ‘synonymous with “elite Western” models’ and if there can be other types of tertiary education institutions (such as teaching universities, polytechnics, community colleges, and open universities) [which can] also aspire to be among the best of their kind in an international perspective’ (Salmi, 2009, p. 3; Vincent-Lancrin and Kärkkäinen, 2009). Similarly Birnbaum (2007) has argued Rather than more World-class Universities, what we really need in countries everywhere are more world-class technical institutes, worldclass community colleges, world-class colleges of agriculture, worldclass teachers colleges, and world-class regional state universities. The United States doesn’t have a world-class higher education system because it has many world-class universities; instead it has world-class universities because it has a world-class higher education system. But, their warning is lost in the hyperbole.




The policy panic which has accompanied the current global economic and financial collapse has escalated this trend, exposed national insecurities and propelled countries heretofore agnostic to grab hold of rankings as a justification for sudden policy adjustments and system restructuring. International research prestige is pitted against mass education demands (Mohrman et al., 2008, p. 19). The EGM favours institutions with English speaking faculty and students, science disciplines, research topics that attract funding from businesses and society, publications in international journals, and graduate programs in which human capital development and knowledge production are complimentary rather than competitive (Mohrman et al., 2008, p. 25). As will be evidenced later in this book, these are some of the outcomes many HEIs and governments are actively seeking to achieve in the belief that being highly ranked is not just equivalent to having better quality but to being globally competitive. The effect is apparent at all levels. Students – especially international students – are both an object of desire and a diligent user of rankings, as are other stakeholders who range far beyond the initial target audience. Faculty are both victims and cheerleaders, depending upon their own position within the international academic labour market and the status system, as institutional resources are shifted to areas that shape prestige. At the national level, rankings have become a (convenient and timely) policy instrument and management tool. Ultimately, governments and institutions use rankings to guide restructuring of higher education because societies which are attractive to investment in research and innovation and highly skilled mobile talent will be more successful globally. Finally, rankings amplify the growing gap between elite and mass education, heightening the value of key ‘positional goods’ essential for global competitiveness, and intensifying the attractiveness of winners with consequential implications for social equity and other institutions and countries.




2

It is very tricky to rank institutions of very different nature, structure, mission, etc. But usually the information you can obtain (institutions volunteer to make public) makes it worthwhile to dare to introduce rankings in a country (Provost, private post-1990 research informed university, Turkey). It is almost impossible to take all appropriate indicators into account, to be sure they are correctly measured, and relevant for all different groups of stakeholders. No current league table of compiled indices is valid enough (Senior Administrator, public pre-1900 research intensive university, Sweden).

Popularity of rankings Global rankings have become an international phenomenon since 2003, but academic quality rankings have their origins much earlier. According to Webster, the man who ‘invented’ rankings was James McKeen Cattell; his 1910 version of American Men of Science in 1910 ‘showed the “scientific strength” of leading universities using the research reputation of their faculty members’ (Webster, 1986, pp. 14, 107–119). Cattell weighed the prominence of scientists employed and the ratio of ‘starred’ scientists to total faculty in order to arrive at a final score. Cattell’s ranking marked an important watershed, although the real defining historical turning point came in 1959 when rankings emphasizing reputation factors began to dominate over those focused on ‘academic origins’. Early rankings often used several ‘dimensions of quality’, inter alia, faculty expertise, graduate success in later life and academic resources, such as faculty/student ratio or volumes in the 29




library. Research was included almost from the beginning because ‘many universities already considered research their most important, or at least one of their most important, functions’ (Webster, 1986, p. 17). Later formats have come to rely more on reputational indicators, using the Science Citation Index, 1961 and annually thereafter, and the Social Sciences Citation Index, 1966 and annually thereafter. This latter period was dominated by Hayward Keniston’s Graduate Study and Research in the Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania (1959), Allan Carter’s Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education (1966), Kenneth D. Roose and Charles J. Andersen’s Rating of Graduate Programs (1970), Peter Blau and Rebecca Zames Marguiles’ ranking of professional schools in Change magazine (1973, 1974/5), Everett Carl Ladd Jr.’s and Seymour Martin Lipset’s rankings published in the Chronicle of Higher Education (1979), and one published by the National Academy of Sciences (1982) (Webster, 1986, pp. 121–140). U.S. News and World Report Best College Rankings (USNWR) in 1983 marks another defining moment. Its rise to prominence coincided with the ideological and public ‘shift in the Zeitgeist towards the glorification of markets’ (Karabel, 2005, p. 514). It began as a reputation survey of 1,300 presidents of four year colleges (Brooks, 2005, p. 6). Its ultimate success was derived from publishing information about undergraduate education in a magazine with an average issue circulation, in 1987, of 2.5 million readers (Webster, 1992); it also began to rank graduate professional programmes in business, engineering, law and medicine. Since 1988, it has published annually, providing a consumeroriented college-guide for students and their parents, combining aspects of reputation and other objective data, using input (resources, student entry, etc.) and output (reputation of faculty and students) factors. Its use of surveys and focus was qualitatively different from earlier rankings. Today, it ranks 1,400 colleges and universities. Despite various differences between all these rankings, they focused on institutions or programmes within a single national jurisdiction, the US. European rankings have been dominated by the CHE-HochschulRanking. Developed in 1998 by the Centre for Higher Education Development which had been founded in 1994 by the Bertelsmann Foundation and the German Rectors Conference, it uses web-based technologies to facilitate personalization or customization. It allows the user to choose the indicators which are most important for him/her, e.g. discipline or field of science, location, type of institution, learning objective, etc., and then rank the institutions accordingly. In addition, it utilizes student feedback but does not aggregate scores. In subsequent years, national and discipline-based rankings have continued to expand.




The third era is marked by the arrival of global rankings in 2003 which relies primarily on reputational factors with a heavy emphasis on bibliometric indicators and citations drawn from Thomson Reuters’s Web of Science or Elsevier’s Scopus data bases. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the Shanghai Jiao Tong Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) was developed to highlight the position of Chinese universities vis-à-vis competitor universities in response to the government’s desire to establish world-class universities. What was designed to lobby for additional funding for a set of universities in a particular context has effectively become the ‘gold standard’ – with many of the advantages associated with being the ‘first mover’. It was followed by Webometrics (produced by the Spanish National Research Council), and THE-QS World University Ranking (THE-QS) in 2004, the Taiwan Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for Research Universities (HEEACT) in 2007, and USNWR’s World’s Best Colleges and Universities in 2008. The Leiden Ranking (2008), developed by the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) at the University of Leiden, uses its own bibliometric indicators to assess the scientific output of over 1,000 universities worldwide, while SCImago (2009) uses the Elsevier Scopus database. The Russian Global University Ranking (2009) uses data from a questionnaire sent to universities around the world. The THE-QS partnership split at the end of 2009 resulting in QS World University Rankings (which retains its relationship with USNWR) (2010), and THE Thomson Reuters World University Rankings (THE-TR) (2010), the latter representing a significant entry into the market by the producer of one of the major bibliometric databases. It aims to identify the world’s 200 best universities. The EU’s U-Multirank is the sister instrument to U-Map, which is a classification tool. Variously described as a feasibility study or a pilot initiative, U-Multirank, due in 2011, represents a noteworthy departure from other global rankings; based on the experience of the CHE-HochschulRanking, it aims to create a multi-dimensional system which will rank institutions according to different dimensions, but no overall institutional indicators or aggregation into a total score or profile (CHE, 2010a; CHERPA, 2010a and 2010b). As of writing, there are 9 active global rankings, experiencing varying degrees of popularity, reliability and trustworthiness (see Table 2.1) and over 50 national rankings (Salmi and Saroyan, 2007, pp. 63–64; Usher and Jarvey, 2010). While college and university guides were originally produced to help students and their parents, make informed choices about undergraduate education, the audience today is much broader. Even the results of research assessment exercises, e.g. the UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), or competitive research programmes, e.g. the German Exzellenz-



What Rankings Measure 31

Year

Academic Ranking of World 2003 Universities [ARWU] (Shanghai Jiao Tong, China) http://www.arwu.org/index.jsp

Global University Rankings 2009 (RatER, Rating of Educational Resources) [Russia] http://www.globaluniversities ranking.org/

Description

Indicators and Weightings

%

Initially conceived as a means by which Chinese universities could benchmark their performance against the top institutions around the world, ARWU has set an international standard. It is frequently criticized for being overly focused on research-based attributes, particularly for the use of Nobel Prizes or Field Medals.

• Quality of education Quality of faculty • No. Nobel Prize/Field Medal • No. HiCi researchers Research output • No. articles in Nature/Science • No. articles in Citation Index • Size of institution/Per capita academic performance

10

Conducted by independent rating agency RatER, this ranking consists of a questionnaire which is sent to universities around the world asking them to respond with details regarding various aspects of their institutions attributes and achievements. Questions pertain to educational programmes, resources, faculty-student ratios, research publications, faculty and student achievements, graduate employment and achievements, international activity and peer review. Evaluations are combined and weighted to produce an overall score out of 100.

• Level of pedagogic work n/a organization • Level of research work organization (R&D) • Level of professional competence of teaching staff • Level of material and technical provision • Level of socially significant activity of the University graduates • International activity • University experts’ opinion on the leading foreign universities


20 20 20 20 10


Ranking

Characteristics of Global Rankings (alphabetical order)

32

Table 2.1

Characteristics of Global Rankings (alphabetical order) – continued

Ranking

Year

Description


%

Leiden Ranking (Centre for Science and Technology Studies University of Leiden, (CWTS) [Netherlands] http://www.cwts.nl/ranking/ LeidenRankingWebSite.html

2008

This ranking uses its own bibliometric indicators to assess the scientific output of over 1,000 universities worldwide. Unlike other rankings it does not weigh and combine scores to produce an overall rank but ranks institutions according to different bibliometric-based indicators.

• Number of publications (P) • Size independent, field normalized average impact (CCP/FCSm) • Size dependent, ‘brute force’ impact indicator (P*CPP/FCSm) • Simple citations per publication indicator (CPP)

n/a

The HEEACT ranking ‘employs bibliometrics methods to analyse and rank the scientific papers performances of the top 500 universities in the world’. Using data from both the Science and the Social Science Citation Index, it emphasises current and past research performance. The ranking producers acknowledge its approach tends to ‘under-represent performance in arts and humanities research’.

Research productivity • No. articles in last 11 years • No. articles in current year Research impact • No. citations in last 11 years • No. citations in last 2 years • Average no. citations in last 11 years Research excellence • HiCi index of last 2 years • No. HiCi papers, last 10 years • No. articles in high-impact journals in current year • No. subject fields where University demonstrates excellence

Performance Ranking of 2007 Scientific Papers for Research Universities (Higher Education Evaluation & Assessment Council of Taiwan, (HEEACT) [Taiwan] http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/ en-us/2007/Page/Background

10 10 10 10 10

10 20 10 10

33



Table 2.1


Ranking

Year

Description


%

Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings (QS) [UK] http://www.topuniversities. com/university-rankings/ world-university-rankings/ home

2010

The new QS ranking draws data from 4 different sources: • Over 2,000 universities in 130 countries; • Citations and papers for each university produced from Elsevier’s Scopus Database; • Global survey of academics will collect at least 200,000 data items per annum; • Global survey of an estimated 5,000 employers USNWR will retain a link with QS for its own World Ranking.

• • • • • •

40 10 20 5 5 20

SCImago Journal and Country Rank (SIR) [Spain] http://www.scimagojr.com/ index.php

2009

Using information gathered from the Scopus database, SCImago ranks both journals and countries according to various bibliometric indicators. It uses the SCImago journal rank (SJR) indicator as a measure of a journal’s scientific prestige. It includes all universities with more than 100 outputs indexed in Scopus in 2007. It therefores includes 1,527 universities in 83 countries.

Journals • H-Index • Total number of documents (2008) • Total number of documents (past 3 years) • Total references • Total citations (past 3 years) • Citable documents (past 3 years)

Academic Peer Review Employer Review International Faculty Ratio International Student Ratio Student Faculty Ratio Citations per Faculty (citation data supplied by Scopus)


n/a


34

Table 2.1


Ranking

Year

Description


%

• Citations per document (past 2 years) • References per document Countries • Documents • Citable documents • Citations • Self-citations • Citations per document • H-Index Times Higher Education Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings (THE-QS) [UK] http://www.topuniversities. com/

2004– 2009

The THE QS ranking used four main ‘pillars’, namely research quality, teaching quality, graduate employability and international outlook. Combining both qualitative and quantitative data, scores on various indicators were weighted and combined to produce a composite, overall score. It relied heavily on both peer review and employer surveys. The partnership between THE and QS ended in 2009.

• Peer appraisal • Graduate employability • Teaching quality/Staff-student ratio • International students • International faculty • Research quality/Citations

40 10 20 5 5 20

35



Table 2.1


Ranking

Year

Description


%

Times Higher Education Thompson Reuters World University Ranking (THE-TR) [UK] http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/worlduniversity-rankings/

2010

The THE Thomson Reuters methodology focuses on five categories of indicators. Most measures are scaled in an effort to reflect productivity rather than size and to control for the varying citation rates across disciplines. There is significant emphasis on research (research + citations = 62.5%). If economic/innovation is added, which measures research income from industry, the total for research activity is 65%. There are two separate reputational surveys for research and teaching which combined equate to 49.5%; they are conducted by Ipos MediaCT. In addition, Thomson Reuters collects data for its Global Institutional Profiles Project, which is used to create detailed profiles of higher education institutions and to build the annual THE tables. (http://science.thomsonreuters.com/ globalprofilesproject/).

Group Weighting: • Teaching • Research • Citations • Economic/Innovation • International Diversity

30 30 32.5 2.5 5

Teaching: • Reputation survey (teaching) • PhDs awarded per academic • Undergraduate entrants per academic • Institutional income per academic • Ratio PhDs/Undergraduate degrees awarded


15 6 4.5 2.25 2.25


36

Table 2.1

Ranking

Characteristics of Global Rankings (alphabetical order) – continued Year

Description


%

Research: • Research Survey (research) • Research Income (scaled) • Academic papers per academic/ research staff • Public Research Income/

0.75

Citations: • Citation Impact (normalized)

32.5

Industry/Innovation: Research Income from Industry per academic staff International Diversity Ratio International/Domestic Students Ratio International/Domestic Staff

19.5 5.25 4.5

2.25

2 3

37



Table 2.1


Ranking

Year

Description


%

U-Multirank (CHERPA) European Commission http://www.u-multirank.eu/

2011

The U-Multirank is being developed by the CHERPA consortium for the European Commission. It draws on the experience of the CHE-HochschulRanking, and is closely associated with the U-Map classification project, also sponsored sponsored by the EU (http://www.u-map.eu/). The multidimensional perspective of ‘institutional profiles’ is stakeholder driven, allowing the user to compare institutions along each dimension. There are no composite scores or institutional ranking. It supports the concept of multiple excellences, and allows analysis at two-levels: institutional and field.

• • • • • •

n/a

Webometrics measures the performance of an institution as reflected by the level of its presence on the web. It calculates the number of rich files available throughout a university’s website, using the institutional domain as the unit for analysis.

• Size: No. pages returned from four engines; Google, Yahoo, Live Search and Exalead • Visibility: Total number of unique external links received (inlinks) by a site obtained from Yahoo Search. • Rich Files • Scholar: Citation count using Google Scholar.

Webometrics (Cybermetrics 2004 Lab) [Spain] http://www.webometrics.info/

Educational profile Student profile Research involvement Knowledge exchange International orientation Regional engagement


20

50

15 15


38

Table 2.1


Ranking

Year

Description

World’s Best Colleges and Universities (US News and World Report) [US] http://www.usnews.com/ sections/education/worldsbest-colleges/index.html

2008

The World’s Best Colleges and Universities has been the leading US-based ranking since its inception. It measures a widerange of higher education activity, and has spawned a variety of different specialist rankings. It is greeted annually with controversy, and has often been the target of boycott. It used THE QS world rankings in what was essentially a rebranding exercise for the US market. It remains with QS post 2010.

Indicators and Weightings • • • • • •

Peer appraisal Graduate employability Teaching quality/SSR International students International faculty Research quality/citations per faculty

% 40 10 20 5 5 20

39



Table 2.1

initiative, have effectively come to be perceived and used as a ranking. As the number of rankings increase, the audience has expanded to include international postgraduate students and faculty, other HEIs and HE organizations, government and policymakers, employers, sponsors, foundations, private investors and industrial partners. Even public opinion, through the publicity generated, is influenced by rankings which in turn can (positively or perversely) affect support for higher education. The latter can be particularly significant for HEIs which rely significantly on public funding. The uses for rankings data have also expanded; as will be illustrated in the next chapters, today it is not uncommon for rankings to inform resource allocation and accreditation of institutions, determine and set quality standards, drive modernization and change within HEIs, and influence economic strategy and national policy. Their popularity is largely related to their simplicity; as with restaurants, televisions or hotels, the ranking of universities appears to provide an easy guide to quality. They focus primarily on whole institutions, although there is an increasing focus on sub-institutional rankings at the field of science level (e.g. natural science, mathematics, engineering, computer science, social sciences) (ARWU, 2010a) or by discipline or profession (e.g. business, law, medicine, graduate schools, etc.). The latter are captured primarily by commercial publishers or websites, such as the Financial Times, Business Week, US News and World Report, Good University Guide UK or http://www.premedguide.com/ and http://www.llm-guide.com/. Another way of viewing global rankings is to see them as part of the growing trend for more transparency, accountability and comparability which began with college guides or handbooks around 1970 (see Box 2.1). While there are differences between the various ‘instruments’, they are part of an over-all movement towards more information and greater comparability. Guides can be divided into three categories, depending upon whether they provide basic statistical information, a narrative account of ‘what it’s really like’ to be a student at a particular college or university or an audience-focused guide to help students find ‘good matches’. Some of the latter rankings target parents (Hunter, 1995, pp. 5–9). This market has grown in response to the rising costs of higher education, student mobility, and the importance attached to a qualification for future career opportunities and quality of life. Accreditation is a different process but there can be similarities and crossovers with rankings (Salmi and Saroyan, 2007, p. 39); to confuse matters, the Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT) is both an accreditation and a ranking organization. Accreditation is undertaken by governments directly or through specialized agencies to recog-





Typology of Transparency Instruments

• College Guide: fulfil public service role, helping and informing domestic undergraduate students and their parents; • Accreditation: used to certify the legitimacy of a particular HEI including the authority to award qualifications, either directly or via another agency; • Evaluation and Assessment: used to assess quality of research, teaching & learning, institutional processes and/or governance structures in order to compare and improve performance; • Benchmarking: used to more strategically, effectively and efficiently manage and make decisions through systematic comparison of practice and performance with peer institutions; • Classification Systems: provides a typology or framework of higher education institutions to denote diversity usually according to mission and type; • National Rankings: national comparison of performance to underpin accreditation, aid resource allocation, improve quality, etc.; • Global Rankings: international comparison of institutional performance and reputation. nize the legitimacy of particular HEIs to offer programmes of instruction and award qualifications; in the process, institutions undergo an assessment process as to the quality of the education or training offered. It focuses on the capacity of the institution to achieve the appropriate standard, but such processes are not competitive. Accreditation may use similar criteria as rankings, e.g. faculty reputation and research productivity, number of research students and ratio to total student population, etc. Programme or professional accreditation provides quality assurance for the public, students and the profession, in business, medicine, law, etc, without which permission to practice in a particular field may be denied. While voluntary, for example in the case of business management, the international span of AACSB, ACBSP or Equis suggests their imprimatur is a coveted quality-mark which aids reputation, brings international recognition and is used by prospective students to identify a good place to study (AACSB, 2010; ACBSP, 2010; Equis, 2010a). The latter’s website highlights its significance: With companies recruiting worldwide, with students choosing to get their education outside their home countries, and with schools



Box 2.1


Professional bodies are influenced by rankings, which in turn can influence the outcome of the professional accreditation process. Assessment or evaluation procedures have developed over the last decades acquiring increasing formality and significance. The focus may be on teaching and learning and/or research, at the subject/discipline level, but also at whole-of-institution level. The European University Association (EUA) Institutional Evaluation Programme (2004) was developed to help prepare universities for greater accountability based on peerto-peer exchange. Research assessment can be a multifaceted review of performance, conducted by public agencies, using qualitative and quantitative indicators. The UK’s research assessment exercise (RAE) is a good example of this. Organized every five years since 1986, it is based on institutional submissions in subject areas or units of assessment, which are ranked by a panel of subject specialist peer reviewers. The results determine the level of resource allocation. This is in sharp contrast to other systems that focus mainly on quality assurance, such as in the Netherlands (Spaapen et al., 2007). In recent years, concern about the financial cost, the human and time resources, and bureaucracy, plus allegations of ‘gaming’, have led to the adoption of indicator-based assessment systems using data sources frequented by rankings. Results are often published in a hierarchical format called a ‘league table’. This practice has led to growing convergence between assessment and rankings (Clarke, 2005). Benchmarking has transformed institutional comparison processes into a strategic tool, helping HE leaders and governments to systematically compare practice and performance with peer institutions or countries. The OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), for example, encourages system-level benchmarking. Unlike the former schemes, benchmarking is usually voluntarily entered into by the institution rather than a process visited upon it. It is often undertaken by a group of peer institutions collectively or individually; often HEIs may choose the appropriate basket of institutions with which to compare performance or activity by choosing an appropriate sub-set within one of the global or national rankings. Like accreditation and assessment, the data sought and the sources can be similar to those of rankings. Data exchange and analysis is a key ingredient of the process.



building alliances across borders and continents, there is a rapidly growing need for them to be able to identify those institutions in other countries that deliver high quality education in international management (Equis, 2010b).

Classification systems provide a typology or framework to ‘describe, characterize, and categorize colleges and universities’ usually according to mission and type. The US Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (CFATL) ‘provided a way to represent … diversity by grouping roughly comparable institutions into meaningful, analytically manageable categories’ (McCormick and Zhao, 2005, pp. 52, 53). As mentioned above, the U-Map project aims to create a European classification system as an institutional profiling instrument – for the benefit of HEIs, but also other stakeholders. Classification systems may be used in tandem with rankings or interpreted as ranking by mission. Higher education rankings have risen in popularity in recent years because they are perceived to provide independent information about the quality and performance of higher education. They are seen to play an important role deciphering mass higher education to the public and potential consumers, students and their parents. Recent years have witnessed the growth of a worldwide rankings industry of which there are six major types (see Table 2.2; Usher and Medow, 2009, pp. 10–11), according to scope (national, regional and global) and unit of analysis (discipline or programme/institutional). Appropriate to an industry of such scale, international guidelines have been promulgated; the Berlin Principles of Ranking of Higher Education Institutions was adopted in 2006 (CHE, 2010b). National rankings usually capture all institutions within a particular jurisdiction, and sometimes rank institutions according to particular categories. USNWR, for example, includes separate listings, or ‘mini league tables’ (Usher and Medow, 2009), for national universities, liberal arts colleges, baccalaureate colleges, etc. The majority of national rankings are produced by private commercial media organizations, such as US News and World Report, Sunday Times, Guardian, Macleans Magazine, etc., but national rankings are also conducted by governments, e.g. Nigeria, Pakistan and Kazakhstan. Global rankings were the next logical step; in a globalized world, cross-national comparisons are an idea whose time has come. The U-Multirank, being developed by the European Commission, takes rankings a step further as it represents the efforts by a supra-national organization to develop a ranking in the interests of its collective membership. Most global rankings allow for sub-sets at the regional level, although AsiaWeek’s short-lived ranking of Asian universities, the CHE Excellence Ranking Graduate Programmes and the Ibero-American rankings were designed from the outset to capture a particular group of regional institutions or programmes. Recent years have seen the rise of both national and regional rankings, particularly in developing countries, as a




Examples of Rankings by Unit of Analysis and Scope 44

Institutional

Discipline/Sub-Categories

International

• 4ICU.org (Online Presence) • AsiaWeek – Asia’s Best Universities • Global University Rankings (RatER – Rating of Educational Resources) (Russia) • Leiden Ranking – Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) (Netherlands) • Newsweek Top 100 Global Universities • Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for Research Universities [HEEACT] (Taiwan) • Professional Ranking of World Universities (France) • SCImago Institutional Rankings • Shanghai Jiao Tong Academic Ranking of World Universities [ARWU] (China) • THE-QS Top University (UK) • U-Multirank (European Commission) • UniversityMetrics.com – G-Factor Rankings • Webometrics (Spain)

• • • •

Business Week MBA Economist Intelligence World MBA Rankings Financial Times MBA Wall Street Journal MBA

National

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

Asiaweek MBA School Rankings (2000) Brian Leiter’s Law School Rankings (US) Dataquest (India) India Today (India) Le Nouvel Observateur (France) Mint (India) Outlook (India) Sherif Magazine (Iran) National Research Council Ranking of Doctoral Programmes (US)

Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Sweden) CHE-HochschulRanking (Germany) Forbes College Rankings (US) Good University Guide (Australia) Google College Rankings (Various) Guangdong Institute of Management Science (China) Guardian University Guide (UK) La Republica (Italy)



Table 2.2

Examples of Rankings by Unit of Analysis and Scope – continued Institutional

Discipline/Sub-Categories

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• Toplawschools.com (US) • Undergraduate American universities rankings for international students (US) • USNWR Top Med Schools (US) • WPROST MBA (Poland)

Macleans On Campus (Canada) Melbourne Institute (Australia) National Accreditation Centre Rankings (Kazakhstan) Netbig (China) OHEC (Thailand) Peace Corps Top Colleges (US) Perspektywy (Poland) Petersons College Rankings (US & Canada) Princeton Review (US) StateUniversity.com (US) Sunday Times (Ireland) Times Higher Education University Guide (UK) University Rankings (Ukraine) U-rank (Sweden) US Today (US) USNWR College Rankings (US) Washington Monthly (US) Wuhan University Research Centre for Science Evaluation (China) • Classification of Italian Universities (Italy)

Regional

• AsiaWeek – Asia’s Best Universities (HongKong) • CHE Excellence Ranking Graduate Programmes (Germany/Europe) • Ranking Iberoamericano (Pan Hispanic) 45



Table 2.2

driver of educational quality and to heighten the visibility of institutions made invisible by global rankings (Usher and Jarvey, 2010). Several alternative rankings aim to challenge the cosy consensus about what constitutes academic excellence, but they are not without their own difficulties. The Washington Monthly College Guide says: ‘While other guides ask what colleges can do for students, we ask what colleges are doing for the country.’ It believes universities should be measured according to the extent they are engines of social mobility, produce the academic minds and scientific research that advance knowledge and drive economic growth, and inculcate and encourage an ethic of service (Editors WM, 2009): In our eyes, America’s best colleges are those that work hardest to help economically disadvantaged students earn the credentials that the job market demands. They’re the institutions that contribute new scientific discoveries and highly trained PhDs. They’re the colleges that emphasize the obligations students have to serve their communities and the nation at large (Editors WM, 2009). Washington Monthly has also developed a ranking of Community Colleges, highlighting their importance within the US system but also their weaknesses (WMCC, 2010) – although this has come under criticism for using ‘data sets [which] were never meant to be used’ for ranking (Moltz, 2010). Another example is the Saviors of Our Cities ranking which measures ‘the positive economic, social, and cultural impact that institutions of higher education have upon the cities in which they reside’ (Dobelle, 2009). Criteria include, inter alia: length of involvement with the community; real dollars invested; presence felt through payroll, research and purchasing power; faculty and student involvement in community service; continued sustainability of neighbourhood initiatives; effect on local student access and affordability to attend college through K-12 partnerships; and recognition of the impact of these institutions within their community. Their methodology has remained consistent over time in order to provide useful benchmarks. The Centre for College Affordability and Productivity (CCAP), in association with Forbes, have established an alternative ranking based 50/50 on student attitudes towards the faculty who teach them, drawn from ratemyprofessors.com, and the ‘proportion of graduates who achieve a high level of vocational distinction by being included in the 2008 edition of Who’s Who in America’ (Alberts, Noer and Ewalt, 2008; Vedder et al., 2009; Chapman, 2008). Another new initiative,




supported by the South East Asian Ministers of Education Organization, measures ‘the value of universities in developing countries’ with indicators for access, educational equity, community engagement and contribution to the environment and regional economy, and promotion of ‘human security’ including values such as individual freedoms, reducing gender and political discrimination and other nontangible measures of progress (Sharma, 2010b). Initially referred to as a ranking, since 2010, it is officially known as the University SelfAssessment System for ASEAN/Southeast Asia – A Pilot Project on the basis that ‘assessment is to improve, not to prove’ (USAS, 2010). The Green Metric World University Ranking, managed by Universitas Indonesia (2010), aims to provide a ‘profile for and way of comparing the commitment of universities towards going green and promoting sustainable operation’. Rankings focused on the quality of the system of education have also emerged, e.g. University Systems Ranking. Citizens and Society in the Age of Knowledge, developed by the Lisbon Council, an independent thinktank based in Brussels, and a National System Strength Rankings developed by QS – both in 2008. The former measured the performance of 17 OECD countries against six criteria: inclusiveness, access, effectiveness, attractiveness, age-range, and responsiveness. It argued higher education should not simply be a mechanism for churning out a handful of elites and perpetuating social inequality … to the contrary, the system must be capable … of empowering and equipping the largest possible number of individuals with the fullest set of tools she or he will need to become wellrounded participants in our social democracy and fully-functioning economic units in that society. It must also stand out … as a centre of world-leading, independent research … (Ederer et al., 2008). The National System Strength Rankings, developed by Quacquarelli Symonds, combines four broad sets of indicators – system, access, flagship and economic – to evaluate a ‘country’s higher education system strengths as a whole’ (QS, 2010a). The debate about rankings has to-date primarily focused on the choice of indicators and their suitability as proxies, whether it is possible to measure and compare complex and diverse HEIs with different missions and contexts, and the weightings attributed to them (Tight, 2000; Bowden, 2000; Turner, 2005; Dill and Soo, 2005; Usher and Savino, 2006; Usher and Savino, 2007; Sadlak and Liu, 2007a; Marginson, 2006;




Marginson and van der Wende, 2007b; Taylor and Braddock, 2007; Saisana and D’Hombres, 2008; Usher and Medow, 2009; Billaut, Bouyssou and Vincke, 2009; Stolz et al., 2010). Because of the difficulties associated with international comparisons, rankings rely on that which can be (easily) measured rather than that which might be most appropriate. Bibliometric and citation data are most commonly used precisely because they are readily available due to the fact that Web of Science and Scopus collect this data. Thus, the availability of internationally comparable data has implications both for the methodology and critically for the results. This latter point is often overlooked or underestimated. The remainder of this chapter provides an overview of rankings and what they measure, focusing particularly on the major global rankings and USNWR. It discusses the main comments and criticisms, drawing heavily on the international literature to provide a state-of-the-art reportcard for the general readership. It offers broad observations rather than dwelling on the details of individual rankings. This discussion forms the backdrop for the remainder of the book.

Comparing what rankings measure Rankings compare HEIs using a range of different indicators, which are weighed differently according to ‘some criterion or set of criteria which the compiler(s) of the list believe … measure or reflect … academic quality’ (Webster, 2001, p. 5). The scores are aggregated to a single digit in a descending order, often referred to as a ‘league table’, using the metaphor usually applied to sports teams (Tight, 2000). Universities scoring the best are given the lowest score, for example 1st or 2nd place, while institutions considered less good are ranked as high as 500+; due to this format, differences between institutions is often statistically insignificant. Rankings highlight ‘differences between institutions and in addition weight each indicator and then aggregate scores across a number of indicators to come up with a single “best institution”’ (Usher and Medow, 2009, p. 4). This is because rankings are essentially onedimensional, since each indicator is considered independently from the others – whereas in reality ‘multicollinearity is pervasive’ (Webster, 2001, p. 236); for example, older well-endowed private universities are more likely to have better faculty/student ratios and per student expenditure compared with newer public institutions. It could be argued, for example, that an institution’s academic reputation is influenced by knowledge of the SAT scores of admitted stu-





Ultimately, the choice of indicators and weightings reflect the priorities or value judgements of the producers. There is no such thing as an objective ranking. In addition, by claiming to represent an entire institution’s activities, rankings cast further doubt on their credibility. Arguably, the narrower and more precise the focus, the more objective they can claim to be; thus ARWU claims to be an academic ranking of world universities yet it is more accurately a ranking only of scientific concentration in some disciplines. Rankings, or the hierarchical listing of institutions, differ from either ‘rating’ or ‘banding’, although like rankings the choice of indicators or threshold is usually set by the producer. Ratings is a process by which institutions – or hotels, restaurants, films, etc. – meet particular criteria and are awarded the appropriate grade or star, for example *, **, ***, etc. There is no a priori limit to the number of institutions which can be awarded a particular grade. Australia’s Good University Guide rates universities according to 24 different criteria, rather than giving a single aggregate score. Banding seeks to group or classify particular sets of institutions together because they share a number of similar characteristics; they may be ranked within bands but this is not essential. Although the CHE-HochschulRanking calls itself a ranking, it actually bands institutions according to whether they are in the top, middle or bottom group of a select group of criteria or indicators which the user himself/herself chooses. Unlike Carnegie, CHE-HochschulRanking does not classify by institutional function or type albeit it does allow the user to choose between a university or Fachhochschulen/University of Applied Sciences. It says it creates ‘League Groups instead of League Positions’. Rankings draw their information from three main sources (Usher and Medow, 2009, p. 6): 1) Independent third party sources, e.g. government databases hold a wide range of data on higher education performance, primarily in statistical format, and often in response to regulatory reportage by the institutions; 2) HEI sources, e.g. published data from the institutions often provided directly by way of questionnaires or data surveys; and



dents. Retention rates, enrolments, and alumni contributions are likely to be affected by academic reputation, which, in turn, would influence an institution’s financial resources, per-student expenditures, faculty/student ratios, faculty compensations, etc. (Webster, 2001, p. 236).


There are advantages and disadvantages to each form of information, which often leads to the accusation that the availability of data is dictating what is measured or that the information itself can be gamed or open to manipulation. Government data is collected for national accounting purposes; while considered the most accurate, it is not usually in the format that organizations require for comparative purposes. Moreover, definitional and contextual differences make cross-jurisdictional comparisons particularly problematic. Another source is bibliometric and citation data usually supplied by Thomson Reuter’s Web of Science or Elsevier’s Scopus but electronic formats, such as Google Scholar, are increasingly frequent. This data is used to provide evidence of research productivity and impact albeit there is considerable debate about the inherent unfairness towards the arts, humanities and social sciences, the extent to which self-referencing is significant, and English language bias. There is also an assumption that journal quality is a proxy for article quality. HE data is the richest source of information but can be open to significant distortion or manipulation; ‘the main drawback is that there is absolutely no guarantee that institutions will actually report the data to the ranker on a consistent basis’ even if there is a standard set of questions being asked (Usher and Medow, 2009, p. 7). This may be due to national or system context, different ways in which institutions count students or report research income, or institutions wishing to put-their-best-foot-forward. Finally, survey data can capture valuable stakeholder opinion about a wide range of issues and measure esteem, but reputational data are susceptible to bias, self-perpetuating a view of quality, and gaming. There are also concerns about the sample size. Each ranking system measures different things depending upon the perspective of the producer and the availability of data. This gives rise to several significant problems. First, many rankings purport to measure academic or educational quality. However, measuring the breadth of higher education activity – e.g. teaching and learning, the ‘added value’ that each HEI contributes to the student’s learning over-and-beyond the student’s entry level, research productivity and its impact, knowledge and technology transfer activities, engagement and third mission, and social and economic impact – is very difficult. Global rankings depend on internationally comparative data but this can be complex and imperfect; national contexts resist attempts to make simple and easy comparisons



3) Survey data of students, peers, employers or other stakeholders, e.g. questionnaires, focus groups or student satisfaction surveys.

and there is a serious lack of consistency in the data definition, sets, collection and reporting – even within national borders (Liu and Cheng, 2005; Wellman, 2007; Adelman, 2009; Hauptman, 2009). Arguably, global rankings deliberately focus on research due to easier availability of such data, and commentators and rankers have retro-fitted a rationale as to why this is the best methodology. ARWU has sought to turn this debate to its advantage, recycling commentary as advertising, highlighting that universities have been ‘carefully evaluated’ and the methodology is ‘academically rigorous and globally inclusive’ (ARWU, 2010b). Second, to get around the data problem, measurements are rarely direct but consist of proxies. Student entry scores are often used to gauge the quality of the student, but is this an appropriate indicator to measure the quality of the educational experience? Likewise, the selectivity index is used to measure institutional quality; in other words, the more selective or conversely the more difficult to be accepted onto a particular programme, the better that programme is seen to be. Publications, citations, the number of Nobel or other prize winners and research income are all used to measure academic quality; the size of the budget and expenditure equates with the quality of the infrastructure including the library; graduate employment rates measure the quality of the programme and the employability potential of graduates. Two inter-related problems arise with the use of proxies: the choice of proxy and whether the indicator itself is a worthy and appropriate measurement. In other words, do people believe that the indicator is a valid proxy for the underlying feature? These difficulties are compounded by the fact that while each ranking purports to measure quality and rank institutional performance they include different indicators or combinations of indicators, each of which is weighted differently. As Table 2.3 illustrates, each system depicts ‘very different definitions of quality’ albeit there are some common themes (Usher and Medow, 2009, p. 12). Many give preferential weight to research, e.g. HEEACT (100%), ARWU (100%), THE-TR (65%), Wuhan (49%), Netbig (45%) and Guangdong (43%). At the global level, research is measured principally by bibliometric and citation data, while at the national level there is a wider array of data sources (Table 2.4). UK-based rankings, including THE-QS, Times Good University Guide, the Guardian University Guide and the Daily Telegraph, are broader in scope and place considerable emphasis on teaching and learning. This was the Achilles heel of the THE-QS because it was handicapped by the absence of internationally comparable data. Hence, it was forced to make continual methodological modifications resulting in fluctuations in institutional




positions thereby undermining its credibility (Sowter, 2009); ‘in 2009, the average shift in position among the top 200 was 14 places, and three institutions moved more than 70 places each’ (Baty, 2010c). USNWR adopted a different stance to methodological changes, insisting that modifications were not a sign of volatility but a mark of improvement (Morse, 1995, p. 94), a position THE used to justify its new partnership with Thomson Reuters (Baty, 2010b). Table 2.5 shows fluctuations, upwards and downwards, for a select group of universities in the THE-QS ranking. Knowing that universities change so slowly, one or other or both of the above explanations could be the answer (Adaptation of Casper, 1996). Finally, a university’s position can change considerably depending upon the weight ascribed to the particular criteria. This leads to inconsistency across the rankings but it also highlights the arbitrariness of the weightings (Clarke, 2004). Most of the movement occurs within the middle ranking, where small statistical changes make large numerical differences to an institution’s position. Grewal et al. (2008, p. 6) claim that different ‘subranks’ of institutions behave differently. Overall ‘a highly ranked university gets more leverage from growing financial resources while lower ranked universities get more leverage from improvements in academic reputation’. For example, University College Dublin’s surge in the 2009 THE-QS ranking was attributed to ‘very positive feedback’ in a single indicator, ‘from employers about the quality of its graduates’ (Flynn, 2008). Table 2.2 illustrates how different rankings attribute different weightings to the same indicators while Table 2.6 looks specifically at how the different weightings can affect a university’s position, in other words how different rankings define excellence. Universities which rank high overall, often rank less well in particular categories which may surprise users. For example, California Institute of Technology (CalTech) which has a reputation for being close to industry, is ranked 142 by employers, or the London School of Economics (LSE) is ranked 443 for its citations; on the contrary, Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT) which sits mid-range receives a high score on the faculty/student indicator. By disaggregating the rankings in this way, it is possible to rank institutions according to different criteria, thereby affecting the overall world-order. It is often argued that prospective students are the intended target audience for rankings, yet, much of the information is not of direct concern to undergraduate students. By aggregating results into a single digit, rankings do not necessarily reflect what users think they represent. Ironically, the problem of fluctuation threatens to obscure the converse problem, the relative uniformity of rankings. Ridley and Berina (1999), Tight (2000), Dill and Soo (2005), Turner (2005), Usher and Savino (2006),




National and Global Rankings Weightings (Shaded Rankings are National) Beginning Characteristics

Learning Inputs – Faculty

Learning Inputs – Resources

Learning Environment

Learning Outputs

Final Outcomes

Research

Reputation

0

0

0

0

0

0

1001

0

25

28

10

0

0

0

17

20

Daily Telegraph (UK)

0

100

0

0

0

0

0

0

Financial Times (UK)

9

19

15

0

10

27

20

0

Guangdong Institute of Management Science (China)

0

0

0

0

57

0

43

0

Academic Ranking of World Universities [ARWU] (Shanghai Jiao Tong, China) AsiaWeek – Asia’s Best Universities

Guardian University Guide (UK)

17

32

17

0

17

17

0

0

La Republica (Italy)

17

31

22

0

10

0

20

0

Maclean’s University Rankings (Canada)

11

20

48

0

5

0

0

16

Melbourne Institute (Australia)

11

3

11

0

13

5

40

17

National Accreditation Centre Rankings (Kazakhstan)

23

17

26

0

14

0

20

0

Netbig (China)

12

22

6

0

0

0

45

15

0

0

0

0

0

0

100

0


53

Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for Research Universities [HEEACT] (Taiwan)


Table 2.3

National and Global Rankings Weightings (Shaded Rankings are National) – continued Beginning Characteristics


18

26

Professional Ranking of World Universities (France)

0

0

Quacquarelli Symonds World Ranking [QS] (UK)

5

20

Ranking Iberoamericano (Pan Hispanic)

0

0

0

0

SCImago Journal and CountryRank (SIR) [Spain]

0

0

0

33.3

0

13.3

Perspektywy/Rzeczpospolita Uniwersytet Europe (Poland)

Sunday Times (Ireland) Times Higher Education Thompson Reuters World University Ranking (THE-TR) [UK]

9.5

Times Higher Education Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings [THE-QS] (UK)

5

Times Good University Guide (UK)

3.3

2.25



Learning Outputs

Final Outcomes

31

0

0

0

0

25

0

0

0

100

0

0

10

20

40

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

13.3

13.3

13.3

5

0

15

25

0

53

7

Research

13.3

Reputation

0 (15)2 (19.5)

8.25

0

65

0

0

0

20

50

0

3.3

3.3

30

0



54

Table 2.3

National and Global Rankings Weightings (Shaded Rankings are National) – continued Beginning Characteristics




Learning Outputs

Final Outcomes

Research

Reputation

University Rankings (Ukraine)

15

49

19

0

9

8

0

0

US News and World Report [USNWR] (US)

15

20

15

0

25

0

0

25

0

0

0

0

0

0

50

50

11

8

17

0

3

1

49

12

Webometrics (Spain) Wuhan University Research Centre for Science Evaluation (China)

1 Usher and Medow (2009) award 10 percent for education outputs, but because it measures ‘Alumni of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals’ this is arguably a research indicator – this is reflected in the above table. 2 There are two reputation surveys, one each for teaching and research. These are included in their appropriate columns, but also highlighted under reputation in order to illustrate the emphasis on reputational data.

Source: Updated and amended from Usher, A. and J. Medow (2009) ‘A Global Survey of University Rankings and League Tables’, in Kehm, B.M. and B. Stensaker (eds) University Rankings, Diversity, and the New Landscape of Higher Education. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, pp. 10–11.

55



Table 2.3

56 Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education Measuring Research

Indicators used for Research

Ranking System (Country)

Overall grants (money amount)

Slovakia

Grants per faculty (money amount)

Austria, Germany, Italy

Grants per faculty (absolute numbers)

Italy

Research projects funded by EU

Italy

Participation in international research programmes

Poland

Number of publications

Sweden

Publications per researcher

Germany, Slovakia, Switzerland

Citations per faculty

UK

Citations per publication

Germany, Slovakia, Switzerland

Number of international publications

Poland

st

% articles cited within 1 two years after publication

Sweden

Number of publications with 5+ citations

Slovakia

% articles belonging to top 5% most cited articles (HiCi)

Sweden

Number of patents (absolute number)

Germany

Patents per faculty

Germany

Ratio of postgraduate research students to undergraduate students

UK

Research quality

Germany, UK

Reputation for research

Austria, Germany

Hendel, D.D. and I. Stolz (2008) ‘A Comparative Analysis of Higher Education Ranking Systems in Europe’, Tertiary Education and Management, 14, p. 181. Copyright European Higher Education Society reprinted by permission of (Taylor & Francis Ltd, http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals) on behalf of the European Higher Education Society.

Usher and Medow (2009) and Locke et al. (2008a) amongst many others, have all drawn attention to inconsistencies between the rankings but also to an underlying consistency. Despite the appearance of movement, rankings are remarkably consistent although this is truer for some than others (Usher and Medow, 2009, p. 13). Different institutions may appear in slightly different order but essentially the same institutions appear at or near the top in all rankings. This should not be surprising because they



Table 2.4

What Rankings Measure 57 Examples of Significant Changes in THE-QS Top University

University

2006

2007

2008

2009

Highest number of places moved in one year (‘+’ indicates no. of places an institution has gone up in the rankings, ‘–’ indicates the number of places fallen)

University of Michigan, US

29

38

18

19

+20 (2007–2008)

EPF Lausanne, Switzerland

64

117

50

42

–53 (2006–2007) +67 (2007–2008)

University of Copenhagen, Denmark

54

93

48

51

–39 (2006–2007) +45 (2007-2008)

University of Alberta, Canada

133

97

74

59

+36 (2006–2007)

KAIST, Korea

198

132

95

69

+66 (2006–2007)

University College Dublin, Ireland

219

177

108

89

+69 (2007–2008)

Tohuko University, Japan

168

102

112

97

+66 (2006–2007)

University of Oslo, Norway

177

188

177

101

+76 (2008–2009)

University of Minnesota, US

187

142

87

105

+55 (2007–2008)

University of California at Davis, US

170

96

89

108

+74 (2006–2007)

Erasmus University, Netherlands

92

163

126

108

–71 (2006–2007)

Maastricht University, Netherlands

172

111

111

116

+61 (2006–2007)

University of Calgary, Canada

266

166

170

149

+100 (2006–2007)

Yonsei University, Korea

484

236

203

151

+248 (2006–2007)

University of Malaya

192

246

230

180

+50 (2008–2009) –54 (2006–2007)



Table 2.5 Ranking

Different Ways to Measure Quality

University

Cambridge University, UK MIT, US

Overall Rank

Peer Review 40%

2

1

Employer 10%

Citations 20%

Student/ Faculty 20%

International Faculty 5%

International Students 5%

1

42

20

30

40

9

6

10

5

59

351

44

10

23

142

1

66

1

69

4

22

5

68

15

41

32

Heidelberg University, Germany

57

52

256

176

94

188

111

London School of Economic, UK

67

54

4

443

220

13

1

National University of Singapore

30

19

38

92

329

14

15

Rice University, UK

100

193

283

49

67

298

160

Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland

326

493

202

577

53

450

357

Cal Tech, US University of London, UK

NB. Percentage shown is the weighting attributed to the particular indicator. Source: Published with Permission, THE-QS World University Rankings 2009.



58

Table 2.6

are essentially measuring the same things. Between 1999 and 2006, the USNWR top 50 universities annually included the same 47 universities, with Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and Yale all in the top five each year. There are similar results for THE QS top 50, which included the same 39 universities between 2004 and 2009, and ARWU top 50 included the same 42 universities for every year since its birth in 2003. The lesson from these examples is clear: despite a common nomenclature, rankings differ considerably from each other. ‘Which university is best’ can be asked differently depending upon who is asking (Vedder, 2010). However, the fact that rankings do present different perspectives on quality may actually be helpful; different institutional missions and context, and different users require different educational products and services. At the global level this is more difficult because of the absence of internationally comparable data. Essentially, the data drives the rankings.

Do rankings measure what’s important? Rankings stir emotional reactions, mostly of the black and white variety with little room for grey. People are either implacably opposed or favour the concept. After that, most energy is spent discussing the pros and cons of the various indicators. Over the decades, the arguments repeat with only the examples seeming to differ. Using the framework devised by Usher and Medow (2009), this section presents an overview of the most frequently used indicators along the teaching-knowledge transfer spectrum or student life-cycle. There are eight subsections: beginning characteristics, learning inputs – faculty, learning inputs – resources, learning environment, learning outputs, final outcomes, research and reputation. It includes a discussion of their benefits and advantages, drawing on the international literature, which are summarized in Table 2.7. While it is often asked if rankings are measuring what we think they are measuring, the key question is more basic: are rankings measuring what is important? Beginning characteristics The education level of entering students is generally considered a good proxy for student achievement on the basic assumption that a roughly similar range of performance can be expected throughout their higher education career. This is often based on [r]esearch showing that peers substantially influence what students do during college and what they gain in certain areas, particularly in




Advantages and Disadvantages of Commonly Used Indicators 60

Field

Indicator

Advantage

Disadvantage

Beginning Characteristics

e.g. Student entry scores, % international students

• Correlation between scores and achievement; • International students (and faculty) measures importance beyond border

• No statistically significant relationship between ‘leaning and cognitive growth’ and admissions selectivity; • Different definitions of international student makes comparison difficult


e.g. Faculty/Student ratio

• Assesses ‘commitment to teaching’

• No linear correlation between quality of faculty and quality of education


e.g. Budget, physical resources, library volumes

• Strong positive correlation between university budget per student and research performance

• No correlation between value and cost, and is essentially a measure of wealth


e.g. Student satisfaction

• Used to understand quality of learning environment

• Useful to help improve performance but difficult to use for comparisons or ranking

Learning Outputs

e.g. Graduation or completion rates

• Measures educational success and failure

• Can undermine ‘widening participation’ agenda

Final Outcomes

e.g. Employability

• Links education with careers, salaries and lifestyle

• Employability and salary linked to market forces and conditions

Research

e.g. Publications and outputs

• Measures research and scholarly activity and impact

• Bibliometric and citation practices are inaccurate measures of research activity

Reputation

e.g. Peer and stakeholder esteem

• Value and regard as measured by academic peers or key stakeholders

• Subject to rater bias, halo effect and gaming



Table 2.7


In the US, the average Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT) scores are ‘nearly perfectly correlated’ with graduation and retention rates (Webster, 2001, p. 240), future incomes and graduate school admissions (Ehrenberg, 2005, p. 30). Accordingly, so the argument goes, it should not be surprising that 46 percent of Harvard students were awarded A’s in 1996 and 82 percent of graduates received honours (Rosovsky and Hartley, 2002, p. 6; Primack, 2008). This forms the basis by which many HE systems and institutions select students, albeit there is another body of research which suggests that entry scores and standardized testing often simply reflect socio-economic advantage, and as a result unintentionally discriminate against students from culturally or ethnically diverse backgrounds (Beatty et al., 1999). Some American colleges and universities have opted to use SAT scores on an optional basis, placing ‘more weight on a student’s academic record, high-school course of study, and qualitative evaluations’ (McDermott, 2008), albeit some commentators suggest this is really an exercise in massaging reported entry levels (Robinson and Monks, 2002). Kuh and Pascarella (2004, p. 56) warn that failure to control for such student pre-college characteristics could lead to the conclusion that differences in reported student experiences are institutional effects when, in fact, they may be simply the result of differences in the characteristics of the students enrolled at the different institutions. The difficulty arises, however, when entry scores are used to measure the quality of the higher educational experience itself. Undoubtedly, having lots of bright students around makes for a more challenging academic environment, but as Hawkins (2008) remarks, ‘many colleges recruit great students and then graduate great students [but is] that because of the institution, or the students?’ This conclusion is substantiated by an examination of the US National Study of Student Learning (NSSL) and National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) which ‘found no statistically significant relationship between effective teaching practices and admissions selectivity ….’ (Carey, 2006a). In other words, ‘learning and cognitive growth’ and selectively are independent variables (Kuh and Pascarella, 2004, p. 56). The proportion of international students (and faculty) in a given institution is often used as a measure to reflect global reputation, and



their attitudes, values, and other dimensions of personal development (Kuh and Pascarella, 2004, p. 53).

the extent to which the institution is recognized for its ability to attract top students and faculty from around the world. It may also capture the extent to which an HEI is seeking to diversify its funding base by recruiting international students. Currently this includes the proportion of students and faculty who hold an overseas nationality but it is not as simple as it first appears, especially for countries and institutions with large resident ‘non-national’ populations (Asmar, 2005). The University of Malaya suffered a very public and humiliating decline in rankings after it plummeted from 89 to 169, between 2004 and 2005, following a recounting of the ethnic minority students as domestic rather than international students by THE. This led to the replacement of the university’s President in March 2006 (Marginson, 2007a). The EU presents another complex situation. EU regulations say that students from one EU member state attending university in another are entitled to domestic tuition rates. Hence, European HEIs usually count international students as those who pay non-EU tuition fees. Ranking organizations may have no way of verifying which definition is used, which makes comparison across different rankings tricky. More importantly, the ‘presence of high numbers of overseas students may tell us more about how good … [a country or institution’s] methods of recruitment [or wider economic factors] are than about the quality of their academic environment’ (Taylor and Braddock, 2007, p. 252). HEIs in prominent cities are likely to be more attractive. Conversely, because the number of applications from foreign students to Australian universities has fallen by 40 percent (Healy, 2010), does this mean its educational quality has also fallen? Learning inputs – faculty According to QS, the faculty/student ratio is, at present, the only globally comparable and available indicator that addresses the objective of evaluating teaching quality. While they acknowledge that it doesn’t say much about the actual quality of the teaching and learning environment, they argue that it does assess ‘commitment to teaching’ as a proxy which should ‘correlate strongly, if not completely with the level of teaching quality’(QS, 2010b). A smaller ratio is viewed as equivalent to better teaching, but in reality this may say more about the funding or efficiency level (what is sometimes called the unit-cost) of the institution and supporting HE system. For example, as a measurement it has different meanings and implications for public and private institutions; many of the latter are well-endowed and can afford the benefits of small classes with direct access to top professors whereas the same learning environment in a publicly funded institution may be inter-




preted as too costly. Institutions of similar size may have very different learning environments (Kuh, 2003). Class size is also a function of discipline, while small class sizes may hide very large undergraduate classes or unevenness across the institution. In reality, an institution may have what is believed to be a good ratio but many of the top professors may never teach, lecturers and professors may be terrible teachers or have little or no interest in their students, and students may be disengaged. It is often assumed that good researchers make good teachers but this is an on-going debate (Hattie and Marsh, 1996). On the other hand, the data can be open to mis-reporting, misrepresentation or inappropriate comparisons. Because of the difficulties inherent in international comparators, only THE-QS (and USNWR which uses QS data) report faculty/student ratio in global rankings. Even USNWR has difficulty with this indicator. According to Jaschik, ‘the two universities with the top scores in this category (both claiming 100 percent full-time faculty) have both acknowledged … they do not include adjunct faculty [part time] members in their calculations’ (Jaschik, 2009a). This could work the other way; institutions may count adjuncts or graduate students as part of their core faculty (Jaschik, 2009b). Another problem arises with how clinicians are counted. Either way, this could have a significant effect on the end-result, as many universities around the world rely heavily on adjuncts or part-time faculty, and evidence shows this trend is increasing (Altbach, 2000b). The ultimate question is what effect this has on teaching quality and the student experience; if a university hired full-time lecturers, at lower salaries, to do more of its undergraduate teaching and devoted the resources that it saved from doing so to increasing the average salaries of its tenure-track faculty would, other factors held constant, go up in the rankings … but would its students be disadvantaged by having a smaller share of their classes taught by tenure and tenure-track faculty? (Ehrenberg, 2005, p. 32) Another way of measuring faculty input on quality is to focus on qualifications, usually by the percent of faculty with a PhD, on research activity or faculty salaries or remuneration. Doctoral qualifications are used because a research-informed curriculum and pedagogy is widely considered a necessary precondition for a higher education teaching and learning environment (Trowler and Wareham, 2007). The data is usually available at the institutional level, but there can be national data. USNWR uses salary data, on the basis that market-forces will ensure the best faculty are attracted to the best universities. However, there is not a linear




correlation between faculty salary and education quality. Salary is arguably a factor of market conditions and an indicator of institutional wealth, and may have little actual bearing on faculty or educational quality. An alternative measurement might be the percent of highlycited, award-winning or senior professors/scholars who teach undergraduate classes to illustrate the impact of research on teaching. Learning inputs – resources National rankings often include some kind of measure to reflect the quality of the learning environment as expressed through the level of resources. Similar to the approach underpinning the faculty/student ratio, the assumption is that high levels of investment reflect commitment. Usually what is being measured is the size of the budget or the library collection. The latter is not surprising because whether an institution stocks the requisite literature for the programmes it offers is critical; accordingly, checking out the library and teaching resources usually forms a key part of any accreditation process. However, the costs associated with building a new library for a developing country or new HEI can be very significant (Oni, 2010). Accordingly, many institutions have switched to electronic access, but these costs are also rising. Another indicator is the size of the annual budget, investment in laboratories or access to internet, etc. often expressed as spending per student. There is little doubt that the level of investment in education is critical; the OECD continually refers to the need to maintain investment and EU policy promotes 3 percent GDP investment in higher education. The OECD Secretary-General drew a correlation between the decline in the average spend per tertiary student in most European countries to below half the level in the US and the fact that ‘in the list of the top-20 universities of the Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2007 there were no institutions from continental Europe’ (Gurria, 2008). Similarly, Aghion et al. (2007) comment on a strong positive correlation between the university budget per student and its research performance in the ARWU. While it is a truism that money improves performance, even ‘elite’ universities are under pressure. They must continue to ‘offer an appealing product’ if they are going to be able to continue to attract essential high tuition fees and endowment income, but ‘… inevitably, such products are costly’ (Tapper and Filippakou, 2009, p. 61; Brewer et al., 2001). There is however an important flip-side. Expenditure per student penalizes ‘institutions that attempt to hold down their expenditures’ (Ehrenberg, 2005, p. 33) and try to keep tuition fees ‘well below the national average for




schools of its type’ (Dean, 2000; Turner et al., 2000). It provides ‘little or no information about how often and how beneficially students use these resources’ (Webster, 1986, p. 152) or, in the case of library resources, ‘the adequacy of the holdings’ (Lawrence and Green, 1980, p. 28). Ehrenberg (2001, pp. 16–17) cautions a literal interpretation: USNWR ranking methodology does not discourage faculty institutions from collaborating with their competitors to improve the education they are offering undergraduate and graduate students … [the] methodology values increasing spending, [but] it does not penalize institutions for reallocating financial savings to improve students’ educational experiences and outcomes. Nevertheless, there is a danger that looking simply at the budget ignores the question of value vs. cost vs. efficiency (Badescu, 2010), and that the indicator is essentially a measure of wealth (Carey, 2006b). Learning environment Measuring student satisfaction has become a commonly used method for understanding the quality of the learning environment. As far back as the 1930s, studies have focused on defining the key characteristics which aid student learning in the realization that factors other than student entry scores or the budget have an impact on student development. This includes ‘working collaboratively with peers to solve problems, study abroad, service learning, doing research with a faculty member, learning communities, etc’ (Kuh, 2003, p. 23; Pace, 1982). Initially, attention was focused on the amount of time spent on the task and the quality of the effort (Tyler, 1949); more recently attention has turned to the impact of the college experience on learning development (Pascarella, 1985; Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005) and student engagement (Kuh et al., 2006; Kuh, 2008). Increasingly this kind of information has been gathered by means of national student surveys, which in turn have helped improve the quality of teaching and learning and benchmark performance. The US National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) seeks to measure effective educational practices using eight different indicators: faculty/student contact, cooperation among students, active learning/time on task, prompt feedback, high expectations, quality of teaching, influential interactions with other students, and supportive campus environment. Its success has been copied




elsewhere, for example in Australia called AUSSE and in the National Student Survey in UK (HEA-UK, 2007; Terenzini, Ro and Yin, 2010, p. 22). However, students have sometimes reported they have felt compelled to positively assess their university because of the potential impact on their own career opportunities while others have been selfmotivated for similar reasons (Kenber and Taylor, 2010). I know from a university in Bavaria the professors told the students to make the department actually better than it was because they are afraid that universities which are better will get more money than others. So they were afraid of a cut of money (Mathematics student, public post-1945 research regional university, Germany). A public furore was caused in 2008 when faculty in the psychology department at Kingston University, UK, were caught instructing students to falsify their approval ratings (Coughlan, 2008b).The power of satisfaction surveys was cited as playing a role in the University of Nottingham’s downward slide because students used the opportunity to express ‘their dissatisfaction with the amount of contact hours they have with their tutors, the lack of feedback and the lack of faculty support’ (Patel quoted in Gadher, 2010). While most users of global rankings think they are measuring educational quality, international comparisons of teaching and learning are extremely difficult. The value of student satisfaction surveys derives from the relative ease with which nationally administered surveys can gather data, interpret the results, and filter the information back to the institution. An international exception is PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), which was developed and is managed by the OECD on behalf of a consortium of countries; it aims to assess the extent to which students towards the end of compulsory education have acquired some of the knowledge and skills essential for full participation in society (OECD, 2010a). By administering a common test to these students, it gathers a substantial amount of useful national and comparative international data on student learning with relevance for decisionmakers as a system-level policy tool – albeit it is not possible to make any correlation to particular institutions. However, when published (e.g. Top of the Class – High Performers in Science in PISA 2006), the results have been quickly interpreted as a ranking of national performance. The OECD has embarked on a similar project aimed at higher education; AHELO (Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes) aims to identify and measure the key factors influencing good teaching




and learning (OECD, 2010b). Developed to challenge the prominence of global rankings on research, the outstanding question is whether it is possible to make such comparisons at the institutional level across different national jurisdictions and institutional missions while avoiding problems associated with norming – in other words, unintentionally forcing all methods of intellectual inquiry and educational programmes towards a common or standard approach. Another way to measure the learning environment is to look at student outcomes as represented by the grades they achieve; the correlation is made between the proportion of high grades and the quality of education. Gater claims that ‘when college students receive higher grades they are less likely to repeat courses and will graduate more quickly’ (Gater, 2002, p. 6). On the other hand, does emphasis on graduation rates encourage grade inflation? (Murphy, 2009; Garner, 2008) Without controlling for student entry scores it is difficult to make any association with education quality or to suggest it is incentivizing grade inflation in order to move upwards in the rankings (Baty, 2006). Learning outputs One of the most noticeable changes in how higher education is funded is the change from inputs to outputs; in other words, not just financing the number of students who enter an institution but the number who actually complete and graduate within a determined time-frame. This is viewed as a way to assess not simply the attractiveness of institutions but the ability to progress students through the system; as an indicator of educational success/failure, the result has implications for national and institutional budgets and human capital development policies. USNWR attempts to control for average entrance test scores and funding per student by measuring an institution’s predictive graduate rate. But educational performance is often influenced by other factors, including the socio-economic profile of the student population (Smith et al., 2000, p. F384; Denny, 2010, p. 6; Gater, 2002, pp. 14–15). Measuring graduation rates means using an average which may be disadvantageous to lower socio-economic and ethnically disadvantaged groups or mature students whose life or family circumstances disturb normal study patterns. It may undermine institutions which are working hard to provide widening participation opportunities to new student groups or to students who might use this opportunity to transfer to higher ranked or other universities. Schools that serve a large number of wealthy students can win the numbers game when graduation and retention rates are reported as





According to NSSE, 40 percent of US seniors began their studies at another institution, and almost half of students at masters and doctoral institutions were transfers (Kuh, 2003, p. 29). Interviewees at a public post-1970 teaching-intensive university in Australia claimed that associate degree level programmes were slowly being abandoned because assessment methods credited the HEI from which the student finally graduated. The US National Governors Association Centre for Best Practice cautions against relying upon methodologies which can inadvertently ‘exclude far too many students and track too few student milestones’: The most commonly used measure for public higher education funding formulas is total student enrolment. This measure creates no incentive to see students through to completion …. Alternatively, strict graduation rate formulas can penalize schools that serve disadvantaged students because these schools will inevitably have lower graduation rates. Moreover, a singular emphasis on graduation can discourage open-enrolment policies, because skimming top students will improve institutional performance despite excluding students who may benefit most from postsecondary education. Graduation rate funding formulas may also pressure schools to lower their graduation standards if they are desperate for funds and are not meeting graduation targets (Limm, 2009). Final outcomes Employability or career readiness has become an issue of major concern for higher education policymakers and HEIs. The OECD has consistently argued that higher education is a strategic investment because of the formative link between education, human capital development, and social and economic progress. People who complete a university degree can look forward to a significantly greater gross earnings premium over his/her lifetime, enjoy better health in addition to being more interested in politics and more trusting of other people (OECD, 2009). This theme is reiterated throughout the European Bologna Process (2007) as illustrated by the London Communiqué which said universities had to consider employability in relation to each of these learning cycles as well as in the context of lifelong learning. This will involve the responsibilities of all stakeholders. Governments and HEIs will need to communicate more



averages among the entire student body. Conversely, schools that serve large numbers of disadvantaged students have nowhere to hide (Jones, 2009).

with employers and other stakeholders on the rationale for their reforms. While this has raised concern amongst those who argue the broader mission of higher education is being lost (Alderman, 2008), there is increasing pressure on HEIs to take responsibility for employability by ensuring students are equipped with the knowledge, skills, competences and attributes individuals need and employers require. Because of the links between education, career, salaries and lifestyle, students are themselves increasingly conscious of the employment record of graduates of the HEI they are considering. Even before the GFC, governments were linking funding to employability; it is even stronger now (Tysome and Goddard, 1999; Smith et al., 2000; Gill, 2008). Such information has usually been based on graduate first destination surveys. It was therefore only a matter of time before rankings began to look at employability because ‘fairly or unfairly, the name of a top-ranked college or university on a résumé opens more doors to jobs and graduate schools than does the name of a school in the bottom tier’ (Morse, 1995, p. 93). National rankings are most capable of collecting such data, albeit as Table 2.2 illustrates, the weightings do differ. A major handicap for first destination data is the time-frame; such surveys usually concentrate on the first six to nine months post-graduation, which means they are insensitive to ‘large annual movements’ (Smith et al., 2000), and unable to distinguish between, for example, employment on ‘graduate-level jobs or under-employed’ (Dill and Soo, 2005, p. 509). Many capable graduates often take a gap year before pursuing employment or further study or they may take any job initially in order to pay off debts (Best Value HE, 2010). Second, while the time-frame may provide useful information during a period of active economic growth, it is arguable that such information can provide an accurate reflection of quality during a recession or a regional down-turn. Depending upon the discipline, students may find it more or less difficult to find suitable employment. For example, unemployment rates amongst UK medicine graduates in 2007 was 0.2 percent or 1.7 percent for nursing students six months after graduation compared with 9.5 percent for IT or 8.5 percent for art and design students (Prospects, 2010). Unemployment rates tend to be much lower in vocationally-oriented programmes than in liberal-arts type subjects (Taylor and Jones, 1989, p. 206). Third, Smith et al. (2000) caution that there are also ‘important differences by subject, class of degree, gender, background and institution attended in terms of early career trajectories’. Artists, designers, musicians and media students can be difficult to categorize because they are not usually employed




full-time in a single firm, but combine their art-practice with teaching or other self-employment. Therefore, longitudinal surveys, e.g. one, three, five, ten, and 20 years after students graduate and categorized by student demographics, taking a range of factors into account, provide the best measure of college success. Aggregate data at the institutional level begins to move beyond the vagaries in particular labour markets and moment in time (Carey, 2010). Using graduate salaries or their taxation contribution as a proxy for education quality raises similar questions. Research shows that earnings ‘differential from attending a higher quality institution is about 6 percent on average … [but] the relationship between university quality and wages is highly non-linear, with a much higher return at the top of the distribution’ (Hussain et al., 2009, pp. 3–4). Women tend to earn less then male colleagues, regardless of educational level. Salary reflects supply and demand in the market and may have little correlation with the quality of the programme – similar to difficulties associated with using faculty salary as a proxy for faculty quality (Anon, 2010b). If we were to take salary as an indicator, then those working in finance and banking, especially during the pre-GFC halcyon days, would represent the best educated. Another way to measure what Webster calls the ‘achievement of graduates’ (2001, pp. 149–150) is illustrated by canvassing employers by way of stakeholder surveys (see section on reputation below). The Professional Ranking of World Universities, developed by École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Paris, assesses the educational background of the CEO or equivalent in leading international companies, as classified by Fortune magazine Global 500. It says ‘this criterion points to the performance of the training courses provided by higher education institutions rather than performance achieved in research by those institutions’ (EMPT, 2008). Despite its novelty, it is difficult to tie personal achievement to educational quality without controlling for other factors including intervening life circumstances. Research Most rankings measure research or scholarly productivity as a measure of faculty quality. This practice is validated by respondents to the 2006 international study (see Chapter 3), and a recent Thomson Reuters report wherein over 90 percent of respondents indicated that faculty output both in terms of publications and citations is a good or essential measure for comparing institutions (Adams and Baker, 2010). Bibliometric databases identify a significant number of peer-reviewed articles (around




9,000 in Web of Science and 18,000 in Scopus) but this is just a proportion of those published. While there are efforts to extend coverage to arts, humanities and social science journals, the main beneficiaries of this methodology have been the physical, life and medical sciences. This is due to the fact that these disciplines publish frequently with multiple authors. In contrast, the social sciences and humanities are likely to have single authors and to publish in a wide range of formats (monographs, policy reports, translations, etc.), whereas the arts produce major art works, compositions and media productions, and engineering focuses on conference proceedings and prototypes. This means that other important sources or publication formats, such as books and conference proceedings, impact on technical standards or policy reports, electronic formats or open source publications, etc. are ignored. New research fields, interdisciplinary research or ideas which challenge orthodoxy often find it difficult to get published or are less likely to be published in high-impact journals (Hazelkorn, 2010b). The practice of focusing on high-impact journals is growing. ARWU awards 20 percent of its score to just two publications, Science and Nature. SCImago uses the ‘journals’ scientific prestige, the SJR indicator, for ranking scholarly journals based on citation weighting schemes’ (GonzálezPereiraa et al., 2009). Many governments and research agencies have adopted this practice to highlight research excellence and/or inform research assessment. The European Science Foundation ERIH project (European Reference Index for the Humanities) has classified journals in 15 fields, each journal being assigned a category – A, B, or C – according to reputation and international reach (ESF, 2010; Howard, 2008). However, this approach has come under criticism because it assumes journal quality is a proxy for article quality; van Raan warns ‘you should never use the journal impact factor to evaluate research performance for an article or for an individual’ (quoted in van Noorden, 2010). Because articles published in new journals remain invisible to most citation indices, they also remain invisible to almost all ranking systems. Such invisibility dramatically skews scholarship … implicitly encourag[ing] conservatism (Adler and Harzing, 2009, p. 78). Such practices can discourage intellectual risk taking; as Marginson (2008, p. 17) notes, ‘Not all path-breaking innovations gain early peer recognition and some are sidelined precisely because they challenge established ideas’. Language or national barriers can be another inhibitor. International databases have tended to favour English language publications; Thomson




Reuters justifies this on the basis that ‘English is the universal language of science at this time in history’. This benefits countries where English is the native language, and countries which publish the largest number of English-language journals. Despite the size of other language groups (Ethnologue), the prevailing position of English corresponds to the simple correlation that a bigger audience means more widely read and more widely cited. This can disadvantage the social sciences and humanities which often consider issues of national relevance and publish in the national language albeit the sciences, e.g. environmental or agricultural science, can suffer for similar reasons. This disparity across disciplines and world regions is further reflected in citation practices. Citations aim to measure the impact of research on faculty knowledge, in line with the adage ‘standing on the shoulders of giants’. The journal impact factor was developed by Garfield (1955, 2005) to distinguish between the importance of a journal and total publication or citation counts. It is used to select the most important scientific journals for inclusion in the Science Citation Index; the Journal Citation Reports (JCR), published by Thomson Reuters, are the most widely dispersed bibliometric publication. The system, however, functions differently across different disciplines, and has natural limitations (Moed, 2006). There can be many reasons why some research is more frequently cited. The Hirsch Index (H-Index) is biased towards older researchers with long careers, and towards those active in fields with high citation frequencies; in contrast, normalized citation impacts attempt to correct for differences in practices among scientific subfields, differences in the expected frequencies of types of papers, and ‘age’ of cited papers. But this does not eliminate many of the difficulties. Citations ‘approximate a Nielsen rating for science’ (Lindsey, 1989). Some research topics are cited more often, e.g. nanotechnology or bioinformatics because of their topicality (Lutz, 2010; Higgins, 2002), while others may be frequently cited in order to dispute an argument (THE, 2009; Adler et al., 2008; Webster, 2001, p. 147). A study by Nature concluded that ‘high journal IF can be the skewed result of many citations of a few papers rather than the average level of the majority, reducing its value as an objective measure of an individual paper’ (Venkatraman, 2010).1 Low-impact journals can contain valuable research papers. In addition, authors are most likely to reference other authors whom they know or are from their own country. Given an intrinsic tendency to reference national colleagues or English-language publications, the reputational or halo factor implies that certain authors are more likely to be quoted than others. Altbach (2006) claims non-English language research is published and




cited less often, because researchers from US universities tend to cite colleagues they know. This may occur because of the significance of their work, or because of informal networks. Self-citation, by which authors reference their own work, can also have knock-on beneficial effects (Fowler and Aksnes, 2007). Many rankings use the entire university as the unit of analysis, producing a total bibliometric and citation count, but how a particular field behaves is often quite different from that of the university as a whole – for better or worse (MacRoberts and MacRoberts, 1996; Moed, 2009). There is evidence of gender bias disadvantaging women scholars, who are under-represented as authors ‘in proportion to their relative numbers in the population at large and to the population of researchers’ and ‘undercited by male citing authors but not by female authors’ (Davenport and Snyder, 1995). Given these difficulties, even Thomson Reuters (1994; see also Garfield, 2005) warns against using the impact factor without ‘careful attention to the many phenomena that influence citation rates’ and ‘without informed peer review’ (sic). The chorus is growing for adopting a broader approach to assessing university-based research (Europa, 2010c), and making a clean break with citations, especially when such measures are used for hiring-and-firing decisions or funding research on the basis of a ‘sliding scale corresponding to the IF of journals in which researchers publish their work’ (Walter et al., 2003). Even the UK’s Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) is reconsidering relying heavily on citations as the basis for its research assessment exercise (Corbyn, 2010). The issue is not simply whether bibliometric and citation rates are good proxies for research excellence but the extent to which they distort societal and faculty understanding of research and knowledge production (see Chapter 6). Arguably this is a problem with data interpretation, but it is also a reflection of the choice of indicators used to measure research quality. Increasingly web-based interfaces, such as Google Scholar, institutional repositories or other standardized web-based technologies, are being used but they are not without their own difficulties (Pagell, 2009). These technologies have the benefit of widening dissemination of research in the interests of the public good and helping overcome the limitations of bibliometric practices to ensure that the full range of research activity and outputs are captured. They also challenge the concept that impact can be measured solely through readership among faculty peers rather than on society and the economy more broadly. Research suggests open access can significantly benefit dissemination, scholarly usage and citation rates, depending upon discipline, up to 580 percent (Swan, 2010; Gargouri et al., 2010). However, tracking ‘hit




rates’ as an indicator of faculty merit can be as problematic as citation counting, including the potential for gaming (Walter et al., 2003). Global rankings rely on other indicators of faculty achievement, most notably awards and honours. ARWU is most noteworthy for its use of Nobel Prizes or Field Medals, either by alumni (10 percent) or current faculty (20 percent). Time-lag favours older institutions and institutions which ‘have kept the same name throughout their history’ and gives added advantage to past performance and old established institutions (Billaut et al., 2009, p. 10). While ARWU defines faculty as ‘those who work at an institution at the time of winning the prize’, the indicator benefits institutions for work conducted several years or decades previously – which may have little reference to current educational or research practice. This has encouraged universities to recruit ‘stars’ on the cusp of an award, as these two examples show: We are working very closely together [with Professor X]. If this Professor would have been a member of our university [when he received his Nobel prize] we would well reach a rank, a hundred or a hundred-and-fifty more than now (Rector, public pre-1900 technological university, Germany). There was a case that University X recruited a professor from [another] university because he might receive the Nobel Prize. By having the Nobel Prize winner, the number of citations would go up and therefore their university might get stronger in the Times ranking (Stakeholder, Japan). To extend the sporting metaphor, the UK has established a ‘transfer season’ when research teams may legitimately move to another institution so as not to impugn the integrity of the research assessment process. Reputation Rankings seek to measure the reputation of a university as valued by its faculty peers and key stakeholders. Information is often gathered by way of a peer survey, in which respondents are asked to identify institutions which they consider meet the criteria being sought. Assessing faculty work, particularly research quality, requires a detailed understanding of the field and its contribution to knowledge. Peer review is a cornerstone of the academy; it forms a vital component of assessment and evaluation, quality assurance, accreditation and rankings – so it is




natural that it would form part of rankings. Reputational surveys work on a similar principle. Because ‘faculty know best when it comes to identifying the best institutions’, THE-QS assigned the most marks, 40 percent, to the faculty peer review survey (Baty, 2009b), and used employer and student feedback. Both methods have drawbacks. Reputational surveys are prone to being subjective, self-referential and self-perpetuating. Rater bias occurs when respondents are asked to either identify the top universities they know or choose from a preselected list based upon their own personal or professional experience. Bowman and Bastedo (in press) say that ‘most people will start with a particular value that is available to them, and then adjust their final judgement accordingly. This phenomenon is known as the ‘anchoring effect’. In the THE-QS survey, each expert is simply asked to list the thirty universities they regard the best in their area without any performance data being provided or requested; however, their information may be quite limited and answers rely on easy recall. Professorial assessment of teaching quality provides the basis for student information in the CHE-HochschulRanking, and THE-TR (2010) rankings. Yet, whatever about making an assessment based upon reading a scholars’ published work or listening to him/her present at a conference, it is uncertain how an assessment can credibly be done for teaching quality, especially at the international level (Ioannidis et al., 2007). Peer judgements say little or nothing about the quality of instruction, the degree of civility or humaneness, the degree to which scholarly excitement is nurtured by student-faculty interaction, and so on (Lawrence and Green, 1980, p. 13). A halo effect arises when the knowledge – either good or bad – about a university is seen to affect everything about that institution; for example, Princeton was reputed to have one of the best law schools in the US even though it didn’t have a law school (Marginson, 2007b); similar misinformation was found for Heidelberg University (Federkeil, 2009, p. 22). It can also occur when a particular school or centre within a university receives a higher score than the institution as a whole but this can also be interpreted in a positive way (Webster, 2001, p. 143). Lawrence and Green (1980, p. 19) ask why there should be a correlation between a whole university and its constituent parts; after all, ‘quality should be assessed by field specialization, both in professional programs and in faculty disciplines’.





Institutions with established reputations are strong in maintaining their position, for they simply have the best possibilities to attract the best people, and this mechanism provides these renowned institutions with a cumulative advantage to further reinforce their research performance. This also begs the question: reputation amongst whom and for what? Because reputation equates with the ‘social ascription of capability, high performance or quality by particular social groups/stakeholders’, it can be relative and social contextual. In other words, the ‘reputation of universities may differ between different social groups, e.g. employers vs. professors … for different subjects, [and] may be different according to national and regional aspects’ (Berghoff and Federkeil, 2006). A German study illustrated that employers graded private business schools very highly while professors had a low opinion of such schools (Federkeil, 2009, p. 23). Reputational surveys are also open to gaming whereby the respondents seek to influence the outcome. This can occur directly or indirectly. Indirectly, the composition of the peer group – its population size or geographical or discipline representation – can affect the outcome. THE-QS survey has been accused of major imbalance in the regional representation within the peer community, with scholars from leading ‘western’ universities being disproportionately represented. This can also be a reflection of sample size or the response rate. Bias is also reflected in overrepresentation from countries where THE is a recognized and reputable brand, e.g., the UK, and commonwealth and post-colonial countries such as Australia and Hong Kong; in 2008, 236 responses were collected from India and 182 from Germany, and the UK provided 563 responses (Baty, 2010d). Because faculty and other peers ‘tend to rank high those departments of the same type, and with the same emphases, as their own universities’ (Webster, 2001, p. 44), or other scholars with whom he/she has come in contact, this practice has advantaged older, Oxbridge/Ivy League and/or English-speaking universities. It could also be argued that reputation rankings are essentially another measure of research, thereby further affecting the balance of weightings illustrated in Table 2.2.



These examples illustrate how overestimation of a university ‘may be related to good performance in the past, whereas underestimation may be a problem for new institutions without long traditions’ (Becher and Trowler, 2001). Van Raan (2007, p. 95) acknowledges that

Similar problems affect THE-QS employer survey; a select number of companies are surveyed, usually large multi-nationals, thereby producing an imperfect picture across institutions and around the world. Respondents may also seek to directly influence the outcome, ranking all others as fair-to-average, and themselves as excellent. A US university President admitted that he ‘filled it [the survey] out more honestly this year than I did in the past…I [used to] check “don’t know” for every college except [my own] …’ (Finder, 2007b; Bastedo and Bowman, 2011). Rather than a good measure of performance, ‘reputation indicators should be seen as [a measure of] social ascription’ (Berghoff and Federkeil, 2006). These methodological problems have afflicted the credibility of reputational rankings. Can university Presidents or other stakeholders credibly know sufficiently about a wide range of other institutions to fairly score them? In addition, both THE-QS and USNWR have experienced difficulties associated with a low response rate, apathy and haphazard responses. One US university President said it was not his job to devote more than ten to 15 seconds to each institution to complete a questionnaire so he can ‘give U.S. News a better answer’ (Lee, 2009). US universities have inflicted a different twist on the same problem; some institutions have deliberately withdrawn from participation in the reputational ranking on the basis that it ‘implies a false precision and authority that is not warranted by the data they use’ (Butler, 2007; Farrell and van der Werf, 2007; Hoover, 2007; Jaschik, 2007d). THE, in its new partnership with Thomson Reuters, is seeking to overcome some problems by reviewing both its methodology and expanding its peer reviewer cohort in line with ‘United Nations’ percentage estimates of global faculty researchers by geographical area’ (Baty, 2010d). In addition to English and Spanish, the survey will now be available in Mandarin, Japanese, French and German. These changes are likely to bring both positive and negative consequences, the latter perversely affecting those countries and institutions which might have experienced the benefits of over-representation of Commonwealth and English-speaking countries (Trounson, 2010a). Nevertheless, these changes are unlikely to avoid most of the difficulties associated with reputational surveys.

Conclusion The choice of indicators and the weightings attributed to them are only part of the story. Is it possible to measure or compare ‘whole’ institutions? Is it possible to measure quality through measurements of quantification? It is widely argued that higher education institutions are




complex institutions; they provide education from undergraduate to PhD level, conduct research, participate in outreach initiatives, and are a source of innovation and entrepreneurship. HEIs are emblems of nationbuilding; to some they are the engine of the economy to others a critical partner in the ecosystem, variously described as the ‘triple-helix’ or ‘knowledge triangle’. Beyond imparting education, higher education is the source of human capital, it acts as a regional, national and global gateway attracting highly-skilled talent and investment, actively engaging with a diverse range of stakeholders through knowledge and technology transfer, and underpinning the global competitiveness of nations and regions. Many universities have medical schools, museums, theatres, galleries, sports facilities and cafes – all of which play a significant role in their community, city and nation. As a group, they sit within vastly different national context, underpinned by different value systems, meeting the needs of demographically, ethnically and culturally diverse populations, and responding to complex and challenging political-economic environments. In such circumstances, it is difficult to imagine a simple methodology that can transcribe complex institutional activities into a ‘wealth of quantitative information’ and aggregate it into a single rank equivalent to a proxy for overall quality. But this is what rankings purport to do. There is little disputing the need for higher education institutions to be transparent and accountable. But, all methodologies introduce an element of bias; what matters most however is whether the bias is sufficient to distort (Usher, 2010). This is why the choice of indicators and what is being measured becomes so vital. The time-span is also important. Many of the issues being measured are important for institutional strategic planning and public policy but annual comparisons are misguided because institutions do not and cannot change significantly from year to year. In addition, many of the indicators or their proxies have at best an indirect impact on faculty or educational quality and could actually be counter-productive. While some rankings allow comparison by field (e.g. CHE-HochschulRanking) or institutional type (e.g. USNWR and Macleans), many others measure all institutions according to the same set of criteria thereby imposing a ‘one-size-fits-all’ measure. By adopting this methodology, institutions are essentially ranked according to how much they deviate from the ‘best’; in other words, to what extent are universities at variance with Harvard? In this way, they promulgate a narrow concept of excellence, based on the indicators which the ranking organizations have chosen. Yet, it is clear that there is no objective set of criteria or weightings nor do rankings elucidate a basic truth; ‘neither




is there any intrinsic reason why indicators need to be either weighted or aggregated’ (Usher and Savino, 2007). CHE-HochschulRanking and U-Multirank enable users to rank institutions according to individual, albeit limited, criteria, while others, such as ARWU and QS, allows limited sorting by field. This provision only serves to highlight the deficiencies associated with comparing institutions on the basis of overall, composite scores. Rankings confer a single definition of excellence in more insidious ways. They usually rank only about 500 institutions, even though they collect significantly more information; this limit is set by the individual ranking organizations because statistical differences between institutions are not valid as the list progresses. As there are over 15,000 HEIs worldwide, institutions ranked about 500 are within the top 3 percent in the world yet rankings have generated a perception amongst the public, policymakers and stakeholders that only those within the top 20, 50 or 100 are worthy of being called excellent. The new THE Thomson Reuters ranking will further drive this ‘race to the top’ by publicly highlighting only 200 globally significant research institutions. It could be argued that these actions will end the race for world-class status by putting the category beyond the reach of all but a few universities; however, on past performance, this is likely to accelerate the reputation race and direct policy attention towards a smaller number of elite institutions. In addition to differences in context and mission, often what is being measured is not applicable to certain institutions. Preference to bibliometric and citation data privileges the bio-sciences; this advantage is further augmented by using journal impact factors and, in the case of ARWU, using publications in Nature and Science as the benchmark of faculty quality. The London School of Economics lost out initially because bibliometric methodology cannot adequately encapsulate the social sciences. Similar problems afflicted national systems where research is conducted in autonomous institutions often outside the university, e.g. French CNRS or German Fraunhofer or Max Planck Institutes. Rather than questioning the methodological logic, governments and HEIs have been swept up by the current, and have sought to restructure their systems and institutions to better conform to the guidelines set by rankings. The discussion has highlighted a tension within the literature and commentary, and within the rankings themselves. Rankings are both consistent and inconsistent. Despite a common nomenclature, they appear to differ considerably from each other. ‘Which university is best’ is asked differently depending upon which ranking is asking the question. This presents a problem for users who perceive the final results as directly




comparable. That rankings present different perspectives on quality may be helpful; there are different institutional missions and context, and different users require different educational products and services. At the same time, the results of the major national and global rankings are similar. Dill and Soo (2005, p. 499) suggest that contrary to accepted wisdom, ‘a common approach to measuring quality in higher education is emerging internationally’; this is based on the quality of incoming students and faculty. According to Usher and Medow, this commonality arises from underlying ‘epiphenomena’ of which ‘quality’ students and faculty are simply the manifestation (2009, p. 13). In other words, rankings measure socio-economic advantage, and the benefits of age, size and money which advantage large institutions and countries which have built up considerable national and international presence over time, and have more researchers and hence more output. Tapper and Filippakou (2009, p. 58) stress that it ‘takes time to build the necessary physical plant and even more time to attract the essential human capital – the star researchers and the accompanying entourage of graduate students’. The cost of achieving and maintaining both – and hence a university’s position within the rankings – cannot be underestimated. In the reputation race which is further fuelled by rankings, public institutions and systems are increasingly disadvantaged. In the post-GFC world, these differentials are becoming even more apparent. If reputation determines rank, does rank determine reputation? Despite the statistical differences between universities being very small, because results are presented in an ordinal format differences appear very great. Bastedo and Bowman (2009, p. 1) argue that ‘published college rankings have a significant impact on future peer assessments, independent of changes in organizational quality and performance, and even of prior peer assessments of reputation.’ Students and other stakeholders rely upon these rankings to make college or policy choices in an environment in which college attainment is closely correlated with post-college success and institutional position is closely aligned with increased benefits and resources. Because high-ranked colleges and universities are ‘gateways to professional positions offering six-figure starting salaries’ they have fuelled a demand for elite educational credentials ‘which explains the growing importance of faculty rankings’; unlike other markets, there are a limited number of places available (Frank, 2001, p. 6; Jaschik, 2010b). Higher education becomes a winner-take-all market where marginal statistical differences in performance lead to large differences in reputation and resources (Frank and Cook, 2003, p. 28). According to Bastedo and Bowman (2010, p. 177) overall results are ‘consistent with predictions




drawn from institutional theory … [wherein] future peer assessments of reputation are substantially influenced by (a) overall rankings, (b) tier level, and (c) changes in tier level’, creating a self-replicating cycle of privilege, largely serving ‘to maintain the status quo’ (Bowman and Bastedo, In Press). Not surprisingly, private US institutions feature prominently in the top 20 across all of the various rankings, with 13 in THE-QS and 11 in ARWU; every institution in the USNWR top 20 is a private university; even the new methodologies of THE-TR or QS have not shifted this dominance, with 12 US private universities in each. Unequal distribution is replicated at the national level; US and European HEIs dominate in world rankings although there is a growing presence of Asian countries with only minor representation from Africa and South America (Marginson and van der Wende, 2007b). Rankings are not just a manifestation of the geo-political battle for excellence, they are a driver of it. It is widely accepted that some form of national and international comparisons are ‘here to stay’. Rankings have emerged as the favoured format of the moment because of their ability to provide simple information to a wide-ranging audience but this is also their Achilles heel. Because of the difficulties identifying and agreeing meaningful reliable and verifiable international comparative indicators and data, rankings measure what is easy and predictable, concentrate on past performance, and emphasize quantification as a proxy for quality. The various indicators or proxies are likely choices but all carry severe handicaps. Because of these handicaps, rankings distort and undermine other aspects of higher education: teaching and learning, engagement, knowledge exchange and technology transfer. In so doing, the broader needs of society are ignored. And, by fostering the view that a particular university (norm) or country will always dominate, rankings promote the view of a static system (Grillo et al., 2010, p. 16). As will be seen in the next chapters, their sphere of influence extends far beyond institutions ranked within the top 20, 50 or 100. Institutions, students and other stakeholders, and national and supra-national governments are making significant changes to higher education, with positive and perverse consequences, in order to conform to a set of criteria designed by ranking organizations. Is this the fault of the rankers – many of whom are commercial enterprises and use every opportunity to promote the universality of their product – or those who use and overinterpret the results?




Impact and Influence of Rankings – The View from Inside Higher Education

Due to very high competition, universities are looking for ways that might increase their position in rankings. It often happens that they are adjusting their programmes, missions or are trying to get into cooperation with highly prestigious universities (Faculty, Poland). If we are not very careful the long term effect will be universities focussing on natural sciences alone, that carries no responsibility for outreach activities and where teaching is something you devote as little effort to as possible (Faculty, Denmark).

Experience of rankings The annual publication of university rankings has perpetrated a feedingfrenzy that sends shock-waves throughout the higher education system worldwide. Few HE leaders are unaware of global rankings, and most have familiarity with either national or global rankings (Adams and Baker, 2010; Jaschik, 2009c). While many HE leaders claim they do not over-emphasize rankings, few HE leaders or senior administrators are either unaware of their own rank or that of their national or international peers. The increasing hype surrounding rankings is treated with a mixture of growing alarm, scepticism and, in an increasing number of instances, with meaningful engagement with the process of collecting the necessary data and responding to the results. University administrators are said to be the ‘most engaged and obsessively implicated’ 82



3

with the collection of data used for rankings and their aftermath (Keller, 2007; Meredith, 2004; Provan and Abercromby, 2000), or providing profiling information to Thomson Reuters and QS (QS, 2010c; Jobbins, 2010). They are effectively ‘caught between not wanting to place public emphasis on their ranking … and privately trying to avoid slipping’ (Griffith and Rask, 2007). According to Espeland and Sauder (2007, p. 24), it was the ‘reactions of students, alumni, media, and peers (that) gradually “taught” law school administrators that rankings mattered’. A senior HE leader of a public, post-1900 research university in Mexico remarked it was a case of ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’. One Law School Dean recounted her coping mechanisms (Whitman, 2002): I developed this protective instinct, which is that I would close my eyes before I turned on the light to give them time to run away so that I didn’t really have to see them. The last time the USN [USNWR] came out, I just closed my eyes and I looked in the fourth tier just to make sure that we weren’t there, because I live in dread fear that we will fall to the fourth tier on my watch. That’s ridiculous! We’re a wonderful law school. This reaction is universal, even among HEIs which are not highly ranked. There is a strong perception among HE leaders – underpinned by growing international evidence – that rankings help maintain and build institutional position and reputation, good students use rankings to ‘shortlist’ university choice, especially at the postgraduate level, and stakeholders use rankings to influence their own decisions about funding, sponsorship and employee recruitment. Other HEIs use rankings to help identify potential partners, assess membership of international networks and organizations, and for benchmarking. There is a sliding-scale; but even for institutions that are ranked lower, the mere inclusion within published rankings can grant an important level of national and international visibility. Rankings can provide branding and advertising value. Since benefits are seen to flow directly from rankings, stories are abound of vice-chancellors or senior administrators being rewarded or fired depending upon the positioning of their institution in the rankings. Despite criticism, these aspects have become vital attributes of an HEI’s recruitment and marketing strategy – essential elements in a competitive marketplace. Indeed, it is not unusual for HEIs to adopt what may appear a cynical approach to rankings, even using the web pages of the ranking organizations to advertise



Impact and Influence of Rankings – The View from Inside Higher Education 83

their own achievements. Love them or loathe them, HE presidents and senior leaders take the results of rankings very seriously. As discussed in the previous chapter, much has been written on the subject of rankings albeit most of the observations have focused on methodological concerns with a small number of articles examining the impact on student choice (Clarke, 2007; Meredith, 2004; Monks and Ehrenberg, 1999; Roberts and Thompson, 2007). Anecdotal and insider accounts and journalistic commentary about the impact and use of rankings have been the most frequent form of writing, with a smaller number of research-based articles and reports. One exception was the 2001 survey of US college presidents, conducted by the Association of Governing Boards (AGB). The US case is interesting because heretofore it was the only country with a lengthy experience of rankings. The AGB study indicated that 76 percent of university presidents thought USNWR rankings were somewhat/very important for their institution; 51 percent had attempted to improve their rankings; 50 percent used rankings as internal benchmarks; and 35 percent announced the results in press releases or on the web. Four percent of university presidents had established a task force or committee to address rankings (Levin, 2002; see NACAC, 2010, p. 4). A recent survey of Japanese universities revealed that ‘approximately 30 percent of Japanese universities are aiming to achieve internationally competitive standards in various, specific areas’, with 47 percent of the 86 national universities referring to world-class rankings as an explicit management objective compared with 9 percent of private universities (Yonezawa et al., 2009). Similar results are revealed in a survey undertaken by Thomson Reuters; 40 percent of HE leaders found ‘analytic comparisons’ ‘extremely/very useful’ and a further 45 percent said they were ‘somewhat useful’ (Adams and Baker, 2010). At the other extreme, universities have chosen to ignore or boycott the process by refusing to submit data or participate in surveys. The most vociferous movements have been in Canada and the US where universities have clubbed together in an effort to undermine the credibility of Macleans and USNWR, respectively (Thacker, 2007; Arnoldy, 2007; Morse, 2010b; de Vise, 2010; Tetley, 2006). In 1999, 35 universities refused to participate in the Asiaweek ranking (Stella and Woodhouse, 2006, p. 5). The more typical response, however, is that universities participate begrudgingly, concerned – if not afraid – that if they do not, they will be invisible. This chapter looks at how rankings are impacting on HEIs and in turn, how institutions are responding by drawing upon the results of surveys and interviews, and international experience. It provides the first comprehensive overview of higher education opinion about rankings, the





influence they are having on higher education, and what changes if any HEIs are making strategically or organizationally in response (Hazelkorn, 2007; Hazelkorn, 2008a; see Appendix on methodology).

Rankings – as a method of gauging competitiveness, providing transparency and accountability and aiding benchmarking of higher education performance – have spread like a virus. HE leaders and senior administrators readily admit that despite their concern as to the methodological practices and their influence, rankings are ‘part of the landscape whether we like it or not’ (Labi, 2008b) and are ‘here to stay’. For many HEIs around the world, the annual publication of rankings produces a frenzy of anticipation bordering on panic, followed by careful scrutiny of year-on-year performance and assessment of the potential impact on key stakeholders, opinion-formers and decisionmakers. Because the top 25 places rarely change, there is a view that universities in the ‘top 100, maybe 200 (who are) … trying to stay there and climb a little higher’ (Faculty, Netherlands) are most concerned about rankings. Yet, the picture is more complex; rankings are followed, interpreted and acted upon by a wide variety of institutions including those which are not highly ranked or even mentioned. The University of Iceland declared that ‘in order to best serve the Icelandic society … (it) has set itself the long-term goal to become one of the 100 best universities in the world’ (University of Iceland, 2006; Hannibalsson, 2008). Similarly, the strategic plan for Hacettepe University (2007, p. 54) states that as ‘one of the prominent higher education institutions in Turkey which take place in international rankings of universities’ it ‘aims to reinforce its respectful status and improve its position in international rankings within the next five years’. Universities in many countries equate being (highly) ranked as a matter of national pride. Just after the first Times Higher rankings came out I’d been invited to speak to a group of the top five or six universities in Indonesia. When I got there one of them, wanted immediately to talk to me about these rankings and said that their Vice Chancellor had set this target that they had to get into the top one hundred or something (HE Policy Stakeholder A, Australia). Having jumped 44 places in two years, Makerere University, Uganda, aims to be among the top ten in Africa according to Webometric rankings,



Attitudes to rankings and institutional position

because it considers rankings to be an ‘indicator of the impact and prestige of the university and its commitment to disseminating research outcomes’ (Bareebe, 2010). For others, being mentioned – to be made visible in an increasingly competitive environment – is sufficient. The majority of HE leaders are unhappy with their current rank and want to improve their position; 58 percent said they were dissatisfied with their current institutional rank, and 93 percent and 82 percent, respectively, want to improve their national or international position. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 compare respondents’ current rank with their preferred national and international position. For example, currently only 3 percent are ranked first in their country in national rankings but 19 percent want their HEI to be so ranked. While no responding HEI is ranked first internationally, 5.8 percent want to be at the top. In other words, HE leaders desire a much higher institutional rank, both nationally and internationally, than they currently hold. Seventy percent of all respondents want to be in the top 10 percent nationally, and 71 percent want to be in the top 25 percent internationally. Despite the statistical impossibility of everyone achieving their desired status, this has not halted the number of HEIs (as well as ministers and other policymakers) worldwide proclaiming a particular ranking position as a strategic ambition or mission. Pre-1970 HEIs are more likely to be ranked and to be ranked higher, nationally and internationally, than newer ones; likewise, institutions which describe themselves as either research informed or intensive are more likely to be ranked within the top 10 percent than teaching Figure 3.1

Current National Rank vs. Preferred National Rank (% respondents)

35 30 25 20 15 Current National Rank N=56 10

Preferred National Rank N=63

5

pr ia

te

% 50 N

ot

Ap p

ro

To p

% 25 To p

% 10 To p

5% To p

Fi rs

t

0




Impact and Influence of Rankings – The View from Inside Higher Education 87 Figure 3.2 Current International Rank vs. Preferred International Rank (% respondents) 70 60

40 30

Current International Rank N=47

20

Preferred International Rank N=51

10

50 % ot Ap pr op ria te N

To p

25 % To p

10 % To p

To p

Fi

rs t

5%

0

Figure 3.3 Satisfaction with Position vs. Desire to Improve Ranking by Institutional Type (% respondents, N=94) 120 100 80 % Satisfaction with Rank

60

% Improve International Rank 40

% Improve National Rank

20 0 Teaching Intensive

Research Informed

Research Intensive

Specialist

Other

intensive institutions. But HEIs hold ambiguous positions, being, at the same time, satisfied with their ranking but also working to improve it. Figure 3.3 shows that research intensive universities are the least satisfied. This is not surprising because rankings focus primarily on research performance and institutions which measure themselves against that indicator are sensitive to it. On the other hand, specialist institutions were most satisfied. While HEIs ranked within the top 10 percent have the greatest desire to improve their position, non-ranked



50

institutions are also keen to improve and, at the very least, appear in the rankings. German HEIs are either more realistic or less ambitious than their international colleagues; only 60 percent of them want to be in the top 25 percent internationally. They are also happier with their current rank; 54 percent are satisfied compared with only 42 percent of international respondents. There are some interesting differences according to world region (Figure 3.4). Australian or North American (all Canadian), Asian and European institutions were the least happy with their position. Given the importance attached to rankings within their societies, Australians and Asians are most likely to want to improve. Asian HEIs show the greatest sensitivity, being the most unhappy with their current position and having greatest desire to improve. HEIs in the Middle East present another paradox: 100 percent of respondents were content with their current position but they also want to improve. Unhappiness with institutional position has several dimensions. First, it stems from wider concerns about ranking methodology, including: the choice or weighting of the indicators, the inability of the indicators to take account of either the local context or ‘special character’ of different institutions, or the excessive emphasis placed on research, reputation and awards over and beyond wider educational

Figure 3.4 Satisfaction with Position vs. Desire to Improve Ranking by World Region (% respondents, N=94) 120 100 80 60 % Satisfaction of Rank

40

% Improve International Rank

20

% Improve National Ranking

st

Z le id d M

st

ra

lia

Ea

/N

ic a Au

C

en t

ra l

/S

N

or

ou

th

th

Am

Am

er

er

ic a

ia As

Eu

ro

pe

0





In our rather large university (about 40,000 fulltime students) the teaching conditions are worse than in small private universities; not enough time for research and for successfully gaining additional research funds (third party funds); more excellence in research can only be achieved by lowering the extent of teaching and the figures of enrolment (Senior administrator, public pre-1945 research intensive, Germany). Criteria such as Nobel-prize winners exclude universities ‘simply because there is no Nobel-prize in the field’ (Government Official, Denmark). Second, HE leaders register a broader unease with rankings that goes beyond methodology. They believe rankings are having an increasing and perverse influence on stakeholder opinions and actions, as illustrated by comparing the stated objective of rankings with how stakeholder groups use them. Over 70 percent say the main function of rankings is to provide comparative information about higher education (Figure 3.5). Other purposes (in descending order) include designating quality, measuring performance, promoting competition, aiding classification, and informing policy. On the basis that rankings purport to Figure 3.5

Stated Purpose of Rankings (% respondents, N=94)

80

70 Provide Comparative Information

60

Designate Quality Measure Performance

50

Promote Competition 40

Classification Inform Policymaking

30

Other Allocate Research Funding

20

Allocate Core Grant Allocate Other Funding

10 0 % Response

NB. Respondents to this question could indicate multiple replies.



roles and responsibilities, such as teaching and learning, and engagement.


Target Audience vs. Actual User (% respondents)

60 50

30

Target Audience N=90 Target User N=92

20 10 0 Students

Public Opinion

Government

Parents

Funding Agencies

Other

Industry

Benefactors

Employers Don't know


provide comparative information about higher education performance, students are seen to be the key target audience and user of rankings (Figure 3.6). Public opinion is also recognized as an important stakeholder, viewed as both a target audience and ultimate user of ranking information, albeit in different proportions. In contrast, government, parents, and industry are more active ‘users’ of ranking information Figure 3.7

Influence of Rankings on Key Stakeholders (% respondents, N=59)

80 70 60 50 40 30

Positive

20

Negative

10

st ry

es

du

ci en

In

s or at

Ag

nd Fu

C

ol

in g

la b

or

Fa tu

re

er rtn Pa

lty

s

cu

ip

s ct

sh

or

s er fa ne

pl oy Em

Be

Fu

C

ur

re

nt

Fa

cu

lty

t

s

nm en

nt

er

re G ov

Pa

St

ud

en

ts

0




40

than initially foreseen. It is in this context that rankings are seen as having their greatest impact. Accordingly, HE leaders believe rankings are influencing key stakeholders (Figure 3.7) in ways which were unanticipated. While this is generally viewed as having a positive affect, 10 percent said rankings were negatively influencing government, benefactors or philanthropists and funding agencies. Because rankings are often perceived as providing a shorthand ‘quality mark’ by users and stakeholders, HE leaders fear key stakeholders are drawing broad brush-stroke conclusions which are used to either justify or refuse funding, collaboration or accreditation. After students and parents, government is believed to be most strongly affected by rankings; this has the knock-on effect of influencing higher education policy issues, including the classification of institutions and the allocation of funding, specifically research funding (Figure 3.8); over 10 percent believe rankings are affecting the allocation of the core grant and 20 percent say they are shaping research funding. Rankings affect how government and stakeholder groups respond to higher education (Table 3.1). Both higher education’s observation and stakeholder reaction are conditioned by whether an institution’s rank is perceived as high or low. For example, HE leaders say high rankings can boost an institution’s ‘competitive position in relationship to government’, while government and funding agencies are more favourably Figure 3.8

How Rankings are Influencing Policymaking (% respondents, N=70)

30

25

20

Classification of institution Allocation of research funding

15

Accreditation of institution Other

10

Allocation of core grant Allocation of non core funding

5

0 %Reponse






Stakeholder

Comments from Respondents about How Rankings Impact on Stakeholders

Benefactors and Sponsors

• ‘It totally depends on the rank’ • ‘Benefactors don’t want to be associated with losers, they want their image to be associated with winners only’

Collaborators and Partners

• ‘Willingness to join common programme’ • ‘Good for reputation at international level’

Current and Future Academic

• ‘Increases awareness about the importance of publishing high quality research’ • ‘Easier to induce improvement with the department head whose rankings are declining’ • ‘Recruitment will be easier because of good reputation’ • ‘Make standards for appointment/promotion more clear and transparent’

Employers

• ‘Degree holders from universities with good reputation have better chances to get a job (and vice versa)’ • ‘Employers get the signal of quality’ • ‘They feel reassured. Those not open to us become more receptive’

Government

• • • •

Students and Parents

• ‘More students are willing to come to the campus’ • ‘High profile students usually apply to high profile universities’ • ‘Particularly in the international market where status and prestige are considered in decision-making …’ • ‘Advise their children to go to highly ranked universities’

‘Repetition of negative reputation’ ‘Accreditation is easier’ ‘Less pretext for obstacles, more doors opened’ ‘Local government is inclined to spend additional money for an excellent university’

Source: Adapted Hazelkorn, 2007

disposed to highly ranked HEIs. This may be through verbal support, increased ‘funding to promote teaching and research excellence’ (Pro Vice-chancellor, public post-1945 research informed, Australia) or facilitation of accreditation. A senior administrator at a public pre-1945 research intensive university in Germany said ‘government is inclined to spend additional money for an excellent university’ while research funding agencies also use rankings to ‘distribute the money to universities with better reputation’. High standing both assures and reassures potential sponsors and benefactors, enabling them to associate their



Table 3.1 HE Leaders’ Views on How Rankings are Influencing Key Stakeholders

own corporate image with success: ‘Benefactors don’t want to help or be associated with losers, they want their image to be associated with winners only’ and ‘with a successful and prestigious university’ (Senior administrator, pre-1945 private research informed university, Mexico). Employers also respond positively: ‘degree holders from universities with good reputations have better chances to get a job and vice versa’ (Senior administrator, pre-1945 public research intensive university, Germany). There is enormous attention given to every league table that is published as well as to the quality ranking. And they are taken seriously by students, government and especially by the media. Because of this, they have a huge influence on university reputation and via this way, they promote competition and influence policy making (Senior administrator, post-1945, research and teaching intensive university, Germany). The tables produced by government are used to allocate some funding for teaching and research and not intended as ranking exercises per se, although this is of course how they are perceived (Deputy ViceChancellor, public post-WW2 research intensive university, Australia). HE leaders claim that stakeholders can feel reassured or show less interest depending upon an institution’s rank. For those whose ranking is not sufficiently prestigious, there is a concern that rankings are producing a ‘Matthew Effect’ or a cycle of disadvantage. Despite their concerns, over 80 percent of German HE leaders believe rankings are having a positive effect compared with 65 percent of international leaders; 74 percent of German and 63 percent of international leaders believe rankings are advantageous for student recruitment (Figure 3.9, 3.10). While the overwhelming majority of HE leaders believe rankings favour well-established universities and are open to distortion and inaccuracies, they also believe rankings provide useful comparative information and help HEIs set goals for strategic planning and assess performance (Table 3.2). Rankings can helpfully challenge assumptions about performance, such as believing ‘we are the best worldwide’. They can aid marketing, student recruitment, academic partnerships and other collaborations, and boost faculty morale; over two-thirds believe rankings can enhance an institution’s reputation, and almost 50 percent use their institutional position for publicity purposes: press releases, official presentations, and on their website. The fact that more German HE leaders believe rankings to be positive may be due to their




94 Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education Impact and Benefits of Rankings: True or False (% respondents,

True %

False %

89 82 81 73 72 63 50 45 42 40 36 35 23 10

10 17 17 26 26 34 47 48 57 58 59 60 75 89

Favour established universities Establish hierarchy of HEIs Open to distortion and inaccuracies Provide comparative information Emphasize research strengths Help HEIs set goals for strategic planning Provide assessment of HEI performance Promote accountability Can make or break an HEI’s reputation Provide assessment of HE quality Promote institutional diversity Enable HEIs to identify true peers Encourage fair competition Provide full overview of an HEI

NB. Percentages are adjusted to take non-responses to each item into account, thus item percentages do not sum to 100%.

Figure 3.9

Helped or Hindered (% respondents, N=65)

80 Institutional Reputation 70

Marketing/Publicity

60

Recruitment of Students Academic Partnerships

50

International Collaboration Development

40

Faculty morale 30

Benefactors/Sponsorship Industry Partnerships

20

Recruitment of Faculty 10

Research Development Investment

0 Helped

Hindered

Research Income


experience of the CHE-HochschulRanking, which has been broadly welcomed as a useful and fair student information service. Views about rankings are however context-contingent. The reputation is rather damaged as single bad results are generalized and excellent results in research or teaching in many other fields are



Table 3.2 N=115)


100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Germany N=35

an ce

ou nta Ins Can bil ity titu M tio ake n’s /B r e Re pu ak a tat n As ion se ss Qu ali Pr ty om ote div ers He ity lp Ide nti Pr om fy Pe ote ers Fa ir C om p eti Pr tio ov n ide O an verv Ins iew titu of tio n

Pr

om ote

ac c

Se tg oa ls

Pe rfo rm

se ss As

Es

Fa vo ur es t’b HE tab I lis hh ier a Op rch en y to Di sto rtio Co n mp ara tiv Em e ph inf o as ize Re se arc h

ROW N=80

NB. Respondents answered each question true or false. Figure records ‘true’. Percentages differ from Table 3.2 as the latter includes Germany as part of the total.

not appropriately acknowledged (Senior administrator, pre-1945 public research intensive university, Germany). We are in the middle of the pack for comprehensive universities. This is not high enough to have a significant positive impact nor is it low enough to have a negative impact (Senior administrator, post1945 public research informed university, Canada). This ambiguity is apparent when comparing comments between those who say they are experiencing a ‘decline in students’ and those that say there is now ‘widespread recognition’, and ultimately by the statement: ‘success breeds success’. Positive rankings generate ‘better marketing’ and help garner the ‘support of public opinion’ and have a ‘positive effect on policymakers’ while the converse is also true. The public opinion has an impact on the number of students enrolling and the financial support to the institution, in addition to employment of graduates in private sector (Vice President, post1970 public teaching intensive university, Jordan). A low ranking is viewed as attracting ‘negative publicity due to not being among 500 best world Shanghai-rated’ and to forcing an institution to ‘waste our time on damage limitation’. Students may also be discouraged from attending a university which is ‘in the middle range’.



Figure 3.10 Comparison between Germany and Rest of World: Impact and Benefits of Rankings


Rankings have invaded the board rooms of higher education. As ‘university competition is getting globalized, the world ranking becomes more important’ (Senior HE leader, private post-1970 research intensive). They have ‘a strong influence on internal decision making’ (Bowman and Bastedo, 2009, p. 417), although when European universities were asked to consider a range of contemporary developments rankings were considered less important than the Bologna Process, quality assurance or internationalization (Sursock and Smidt, 2010, p. 26). In contrast, fifty-six percent of international HE leaders said that they have a formal process for reviewing their institutional position; this was usually done by a committee chaired by the Vice-Chancellor/President (56 percent) but in some cases it is undertaken by the Governing Authority (14 percent). In Germany, only 6 percent of German HEIs said their governing authority or Kuratorium considered the ranking issue. As a result of these deliberations, 63 percent said they had taken strategic, organizational, managerial or academic action; only 8 percent of the international group but 14 percent of German respondents said they had taken no action. EU policymakers were found to overwhelmingly believe that rankings or classification tools were influencing the decisions of 77 percent of European HEIs, most notably with respect to strategic policymaking and setting institutional targets (Europa, 2010e). A Japanese survey similarly found half of national universities considered rankings for strategic purposes (Yonezawa et al., 2009). Allowing for differences in survey methodology, national context and time lag, a 2002 survey of US university Presidents had found 20 percent of university presidents ignored rankings (Levin, 2002). A key factor shaping HE responses to rankings is the belief that rankings bring benefits, in terms of greater support and recognition from government, students, faculty, peers, employers, benefactors and other stakeholders. At a minimum, rankings have sparked debate: ‘Internally, we have discussed the phenomena of rankings in the university …’ (Senior HE leader, Mexico); others use rankings ‘as a kind of technique to improve performance’ (President, public, post-1900 research intensive university, Japan). Responses may also be ‘driven by fear’ of slipping in the rankings. Few universities admit being directly influenced by rankings, but the evidence is compelling that universities do use rankings as a strategic tool and a management instrument. The fact that you can link an international student driver and a domestic research driver and a government agenda and a philanthropist all



Strategic planning


Put another way, by a research intensive university in the UK, ‘as a manager, it is useful to have different league tables with different methodologies coming out at different times, because one can occasionally use them as levers, which is not unhelpful, although it is not what they are intended for’ (Locke et al., 2008b, p. 39). Rankings provide the evidence for decisionmaking, introducing change, speeding up reform or pursuing a particular agenda. It ‘allows management to be more business-like’; not so much a management tool but ‘a rod for management’s back’ (Vice-chancellor, public post-1970 teaching intensive regional university, Australia). One of the first places where the influence of rankings can be seen is in university vision or mission statements and strategic plans. There are four types of responses: 1) rankings as an explicit goal; 2) rankings as an implicit goal; 3) rankings for target setting; and 4) rankings as a measure of success. 1. Rankings as an explicit goal Rankings have become an intrinsic part of institutional planning, forming an ‘explicit part of target agreements’ or contracts ‘between presidency and departments’, and featured in individual faculty performance contracts. Many strategic plans make specific references to rankings, with targets often oriented toward gaining or maintaining positions within certain tiers. Statements are made by national and institutional leaders, and usually seek to identify being within the top 20, 50 or 100 in either a regional, national or global ranking as the key ambition and confirmation of being within the ‘top league’ or ‘the pantheon of world elite institutions’ (Georghiou, 2009b, p. 48). There can be a humorous side to this ambition; Blasingame declared ‘There’s no reason why America can’t have more than one No. 1 institution’ (Quoted in Winter, 2003). Sometimes the position is stated differently in the public and private domain; compare these two perspectives from within the same institution: Our Vice Chancellor has ‘voiced (his) desire to be no. 49 on Shanghai and 9 on the Times Ranking’ (Senior administrator, public pre-1900 research intensive university, Australia).



through the one mechanism is quite a powerful tool in the arsenal of management and so I actually think it’s been good for the sector in being able to drive change and create a vehicle or a discussion point that then gives management more impetus (Senior administrator, public post-1945 research intensive university, Australia).


RMIT University in Australia has made a similar declaration; its Strategic Plan 2010 Designing the Future aims to ‘Improve RMIT’s ranking amongst Australian universities in the UK Times Higher Education Supplement World University Rankings, and remain in the top 100 universities as ranked by the Times’ (RMIT, 2005, p. 12). Likewise, the University of Botswana has indicated that strong international reputation is an ambition, ‘indicated by presence in the THES top 200 or Shanghai Index of top 500 world universities’ (sic) (University of Botswana, 2007, p. 3).

2. Rankings as an implicit goal Even when universities make no specific reference to rankings, the desire to be recognized among the world’s best institutions or in the top tier is frequently expressed. Words such as ‘world-class’ and ‘leading’ have become synonymous with being positioned within the top tier of global rankings. For example, Trinity College Dublin aims to ‘establish its position as one of the elite group of universities that shape our world’ (TCD, 2009, p. 1). The vision statement of another Irish university, University College Dublin, expresses the desire to be ‘world-class’ and ‘a university where international competitiveness is the benchmark for everything that we do’ (UCD, 2005, p. 3). The University of Latvia aspires to ‘become a leading research university in a Baltic Sea region [over the] next 10 years’ (Faculty, Latvia).

3. Rankings for target setting Others HEIs have an ambiguous love-hate relationship with rankings, and use them ‘selectively, choosing indicators for management purposes’. Performance is mapped against rankings to identify strengths and weaknesses, set strategic goals, define targets, measure performance and allocate resources. In this model, rankings become a KPI (key performance indicator). The President of a regional post-1945 university in Japan said, ‘we use rankings not for strategic action



We pay ‘attention to rankings but … the university does not try to change what it is doing in order to affect its position in either the Shanghai Jiao Tong or the Times Rankings’ (Vice Chancellor, public pre-1900 research intensive university, Australia).


Some of the University’s KPIs are reflected in the league tables, such as student retention, student satisfaction and employability. The University would be monitoring and responding to these anyway, but the league tables reinforce it all (Locke et al., 2008c, p. 3). This approach has also been adopted by the University of Manchester; it has set its main goal of reaching ‘high international standing’ by 2015 using ‘reputable higher education international rankings’ as the basis for its KPIs (Georghiou, 2009a, 2009b).

4. Rankings as measures of success Rankings are used to validate particular strategies or actions: moving from 172 to 139 in five years ‘shows that [the University of Cincinnati is] moving in the right direction’ (Farrell and van der Werf, 2007). Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand (2008, p. 11) claims its strategy can be deemed a success if ‘By 2014, Victoria is in the top 200 Universities on the THES University rankings.’ Other universities are equally pleased with their improved positions: Another step in the right direction … This rise fits into our efforts to be high in the top 100 in 2014 (University of Groningen, 2009) [Netherlands]. League tables can never measure all a university’s qualities …. Yet we are pleased by UCL’s spectacular progression up the tables in recent years, because it does reflect the truly outstanding quality of UCL’s community of academics, and of our students from around the world (University College London, 2009) [UK]. As the President of Chapman University [US] admitted: ‘We probably use (USNWR) more than anything else to give us objective data to see if we are making progress on our strategic goals …. what else is out there?’ (Farrell and van der Werf, 2007).



to raise rank but … to motivate, to improve quality of education’. Similar views were expressed by a pre-1992 UK university:


Rankings are regularly discussed within the Vice-Chancellor or President’s office, within the strategic planning sections of the organization and/or at management fora. Many universities have established special units to accurately collect institutional data, analyse results and what the data says about institutional performance, and monitor the performance of national or international peer institutions. HEIs have variously established task forces or charged an individual with ‘managing some of the key indicators’. A fully-resourced institutional research (IR), strategic planning office or policy unit has become de rigueur. IR refers to the broad range of information gathering and data analysis which underpins strategic planning, recruitment strategies, financial assessment and budgeting, etc.; IR offices have their origins in US Big Ten universities in the 1920s (Saupe, 2005), and are a relatively recent addition elsewhere. Their growth and increasing importance is not only a response to rankings, but to the audit culture more broadly. Today, they play a critical role not only regarding the above mentioned activities but also with respect to public accountability to government and independent agencies, including ranking organizations. Rankings have taken the function of data collection and analysis out of the back-office, and placed it at the centre of strategic decisionmaking and performance measurement. One university referred to its ‘nut cracker group’, comprised of about 25 people from across the university and chaired by the DeputyVice-Chancellor, another said ‘reports and analyses are routinely reported to the Vice Chancellor’s management committee’ (Senior HE leader, public, post-1945 research intensive university, UK), while a modern specialist university in the UK said a visit by a league table compiler had prompted the establishment of a working group. The purpose of the group was to investigate how the tables are compiled, the data submitted to national agencies, the ways in which research scores are calculated and the NSS [national student survey]. It consisted of three pro-vice-chancellors and personnel from academic planning, business intelligence and marketing (Locke et al., 2008c, pp. 12, 38). Because rankings ‘affect the reputation and the quality of the incoming students’, a Korean university established a ‘team to monitor the criteria and our number for each criterion’ (Senior HE leader, private post-1970 research intensive university). In response to CHE-



Institutional research

HochschulRanking, a German university said its annual strategic planning session had regularly discussed rankings and reputation since 2001, while a senior HE leader in Mexico (private post-1945, technological university) said rankings were taken so seriously that the university provided ‘support to specific schools to prepare reports for ranking agencies’. The microscopic interrogation of the data varies, but it is now virtually routine for HEIs to monitor rankings regardless of whether the institution itself features: we ‘must take rankings into account, because others do’ (Corley and Gioia, 2000). Universities are also hosting workshops or seminars with experts, including the people from the major ranking organizations, or hiring consultants to go through the methodological subtleties. Indeed, dialogue between ranking organizations and HEIs is encouraged by the former and eagerly sought by the latter. Is this an exercise in ensuring better understanding, more accurate data collection or attempts to ‘game the system’? The example of Clemson University, South Carolina, US, is one of the most publicized accounts of how a university purposely set out to change its position by revising class sizes and academic salaries, and influencing the reputation survey (Lederman, 2009; van der Werf, 2009), but this experience is not miles away from that of Baylor University, Texas, US. Having set itself the ambitious goal of being in the top tier of institutions, as determined by U.S. News & World Report’s college rankings … [Baylor] hired a strategic-planning director to make sure every department remains on track to achieve that goal, and has already spent $200-million on related improvements’ (Baylor, 2009; Farrell and van der Werf, 2007). This practice is worldwide and transcends mission; two UK universities, a pre-1992 and a research intensive, have both deliberately targeted ‘improvements’ which would have positive knock-on consequences for their position (Locke et al., 2008c, p. 3; Georghiou, 2009b). Because rankings arguably reflect a lack of public trust in institutional-based quality assurance (QA), there is a relationship between the two especially in countries where QA mechanisms are relatively new or weak. In some instances there is an ambiguity as to whether HE actions have been undertaken to improve quality or respond to rankings; for example, HEIs are paying more attention to issues of student satisfaction, the quality of the teaching and learning environment, student





Organizational change Rankings are influencing the internal organization or restructuring of higher education institutions. Compare these different approaches, each of which projects a different and nuanced relationship between rankings and institutional decisionmaking. … our university for a decade or so has concentrated its attention on benchmarking processes and academic competition. In this context, rankings are discussed as one information factor among many others. In this respect, rankings may vicariously have influenced organizational decisions. However, direct impact of rankings, e.g. creating new positions or changing academic structures, did not happen (HE leader, Germany). Yes, we analysed the parameters followed in rankings (THE-QS and Shanghai, of course) and proposed for the new mandate of our rector (2010–2014) to create best conditions for young doctoral and even post-doc researchers (financial, material – orienting university grant agency to these projects of young researchers only, developing new instruments and feed-back from students and post-doc about the student life and conditions, etc.). Hard to say if these measures would occur without rankings – I believe yes, but not so quickly (Senior HE leader, Public pre-1900 research-intensive university, Czech Republic). We respond to the rankings in several ways. The University reviews the rankings and provides analysis to senior management and Academic Board. The rankings are included in (our) performance indicator reports and we have indicators for the overall ranking as well as the discipline ranking. Rankings are included and recognized in the University’s high level planning documents and hence considered in the University’s planning process (Senior HE leader, Public post-1945 research informed university, Australia). Almost regardless of age, position or national context, rankings have ingratiated themselves into the planning and decisionmaking process of universities around the world.



facilities, etc. – which are also indicators used by some rankings. This overlap is reflected in the observation that ‘Our main goal is quality; the institution regards rankings as orientative (sic), but not a decisive factor to carry out major changes’ (Senior HE leader, private post-1945, Spain).

Changes may range from a desire to enhance efficiencies or create greater critical mass in associated disciplines or encourage greater interdisciplinarity. Actions might include merging disciplines which are cognate or compatible but heretofore have existed as distinct departments (e.g. business with economics or sociology, social science with politics or biology with food science), incorporating external organizations within the domain institution (e.g. research centres or institutes, hospitals) or, on the contrary, separating undergraduate and postgraduate activity through the establishment of graduate schools. At the institutional level, whole institutions within the same region or city might merge; this could involve mutually beneficial strategic realignments or the incorporation of a smaller or semi-autonomous organization within a larger university. The objective is better synergies or efficiencies but it is also about professionalizing and improving administration and support services. Fundamentally, it is about creating larger units, with more students and faculty producing higher output and earnings – because size matters (Moriarty, 2009; Georghiou, 2009b; Daly and Laffan, 2010). Facilities are also being upgraded – but again the causal relationship can be read in different ways. Some universities are building what they call ‘world-class’ facilities and investing in ‘image-enhancing facelifts’ to help attract and retain students; this includes new dormitories, student centres, laboratories, fibre optic networks and sports facilities, in addition to reducing faculty/student ratios. In the US, such investments have commonly been part of the higher education landscape; there has been less attention elsewhere until recently. Today, there are increasing reports that ‘added-value’ facilities and scholarships are a critical factor in institutional marketing and strategic development, and national and international recruitment. Would these developments have taken place anyway as part of the normal upgrading and improvement process in a competitive environment or are they a response to rankings? Not all rankings measure expenditure per student or the ‘quality’ of facilities; USNWR does measure average spend on teaching, research and student services but not sports or dormitories (Morse and Flanigan, 2009). Nevertheless there is a correlation between the quality of campus facilities and the ability to attract (international) students. A Polish respondent suggested his university was ‘… expanding library resources, continuous expanding student hostels and didactical area of the university … (In order to score higher places in domestic rankings of universities) (sic)’ (Senior HE leader, private post-1990 university Poland). A UK university had ‘not made deliberate structural changes to the University based on rankings’ but they ‘do correlate highly with





subject rankings’ (Senior HE leader, public post-1945 research intensive university, UK).

HEIs are improving, refocusing or developing admissions policies and procedures, and expanding their marketing and publicity activities into year-round professional offices with rapidly expanding budgets and staff. One of the most noticeable additions has been the International Office. Many US and European HEIs are now heavily involved in attendance at student fairs, such as NAFSA (US Association of International Educators) or EAIE (European Association of International Education), or in key Asian cities, and with extensive advertising. National trade missions routinely include a significant proportion of HEIs. … given the importance of the international market, the university will be spending more time and money on marketing overseas, especially aimed at postgraduate students. They will be sending teams to the various student recruitment fairs in a way which they have not done before (Vice-Chancellor, pre-1900 research intensive university, Australia). Many also spend considerable time and energy sending promotional material to each other to coincide with the peer reviewing exercise undertaken for various rankings. This is arguably done in an attempt to sway those completing the reputation survey in the hope that this might improve their ranking. Almost 50 percent of HE leaders use their rank for publicity purposes, and 65 percent consider rankings helpful for this purpose. Rankings were particularly advantageous for student recruitment according to 74 percent of German and 63 percent of international HEIs. This compares with 35 percent of US university Presidents in an earlier survey (Levin, 2002; see NACAC, 2010, p. 2). In all cases, HE leaders admit highlighting (positive) results on their webpage, in speeches, at new faculty or student orientation or international meetings, or when lobbying government – usually ‘ignor(ing) less favourable ones, unless they put the university ahead of other rival universities’ (Faculty, public post-1945 research intensive university, Australia). Just like restaurant and hotel ratings, ‘rankings and quality issues have become a strong indicator of growing emphasis on marketing, profile building’ (Faculty, public 1940 university, Mexico); universities



Marketing and advertising

use ‘rankings as a helping tool in the marketing, even if they are not 100 percent just’ (sic) (Senior HE leader, private post-1990 university Poland). University home pages are festooned with declarations from various rankings. Some have a section on their ‘home page where one may follow the positions in the rankings of our university’ (Senior HE leader, Denmark). The University of Illinois has an authoritative site devoted to explaining how rankings work, with suitable reference links showing how the university has performed (University of Illinois). The University of Groningen, Netherlands (2009) announces, on its webpage, that it is ‘climbing [the] world ranking list for third time in a row’. Others refer to particular press releases and publications, happy to bask in the reflective glory of partnership arrangements or media articles about their success, but this can be a double-edged sword if one’s rank dis-improves. Even the pages of the rankings websites can play host to a plethora of university advertisements, logos and slogans. THE-QS website hosts an array of universities advertisements. It may be a ‘vicious circle but universities have become more concerned and sophisticated with their public image, branding and merchandizing, which could influence rankings’ (Senior HE leader, public, post-1900 research intensive university; Robertson, 2009b).

Resource allocation Rankings are influencing resource allocation and the discussions that surround it, including performance measurement and resource management. So far we haven’t made any changes in the way we manage the university. Nevertheless we are aware of the growing importance of rankings and in some cases, when it comes to decision making, we will take the outcome of such evaluations into account (Senior HE leader, public, post-1945 research university, Germany). This approach may be ambiguously stated, but the message is clear: rankings may not influence resource allocation directly but successful departments or fields can expect benefits. Resources are not allocated to promote the university’s position in a ranking. What happens is that once a particular school or program obtains a good position in a ranking, it is easier for that entity to





… we will calculate the departmental contribution to the university ranking. In the near future, then, we may distribute the university resources according to their degree of contribution (Senior HE leader, private post-1970 research intensive university, South Korea). Others say that while rankings may not currently inform allocation, ‘it is our intention’ in the future (Senior HE leader Greece b). Baylor University has linked money for new programmes to its strategic plan; ‘any official who wanted money beyond his or her budget for a new project had to fill out a form stating how that project would further the goals of Baylor 2012’ – which was to be in the ‘top tier of institutions, as determined by U.S. News & World Report’s college rankings’ (Farrell and van der Werf, 2007). The practice of linking resource allocation to rankings may arguably seem symptomatic of lower ranked universities, HEIs with strong central leadership or new institutions anxious to make ‘progress’ swiftly. In contrast, older or more traditional universities usually have a stronger institutional culture or academic peer-pressure driving performance. But, the research does not bear out this distinction. Reaction to rankings transcends national context and institutional mission, although it is a factor of the leadership team so neighbouring institutions may adopt very different approaches. In a few instances, the vice-chancellor’s performance – salary, bonus and/or contract – is tied to rankings as a ‘proxy for performance’ (Langbert, 2006, p. 7). Virginia Commonwealth University (US) set its goal to become a Tier 2 university, affirming that strategy by allegedly promising USD 25,000 bonus to President Eugene Trani for every year the university was ranked in USNWR Tier 2 (Levin, 2002). Michael Crow was allegedly promised an additional USD 60,000 if the University of Arizona improved in particular indicators while Stephen Schwartz’s contract allegedly entitled him to AUD 100,000 bonus if Macquarie University (Australia) improved (Jaschik, 2007a, 2007b; Gabrielson, 2007; Alexander and Noonan, 2007). On the other hand, when the University of Malaysia dropped from 89 in 2004 to 169 in 2005 because THE-QS recalculated international students, the vice-chancellor was replaced at the end of his contract. In 2000, ‘Hobart and William Smith College (US) sacked a senior vice president after she failed to submit fresh data to the magazine, an error that caused her college’s rank to tumble’ (Graham and Thompson, 2001). In so far as salaries are agreed by government or state



get access to resources (Senior HE leader, private post-1945, technological university, Mexico).


boards, it can be argued that policymakers themselves are responding to and/or being incentivized by rankings. In other words, rankings are not only a higher education obsession.

The extent to which rankings influence academic decision-making is one of the most contentious issues. Seventy-one percent of respondents to the Thomson Reuters survey said they believed institutions focused on improving their position ‘rather than educating students’ (Adams and Baker, 2010). To illustrate how this might work, an Australian vicechancellor (public pre-1900 research intensive university) suggested that if rankings were the priority, this would require, inter alia, the university to appoint teaching-only faculty to boost the faculty/student ratio or adopt the US model of having undergraduate teaching conducted by teaching assistants; focus more on research and outcomes; reduce expenditure on student services in order to divert funding to research activity; or discontinue programmes which do not positively affect graduation rates. Similar choices concern specialist institutions or programmes, as illustrated by the following comment from a European business school dean: (The rankings) are causing a situation where (weak) deans have abandoned their academic strategy simply to improve their ranking. For example, if I lowered my average age to 23, all female and all US citizens, stopped entrepreneurship and ended my civil servant contract, fixed my advisory council and replaced with only females from Falkland Islands (!), then my ranking would improve by 40 positions (sic) (Quoted in Wedlin, 2004, pp. 127–128). Some universities are doing just this, altering the balance between teaching and research, between undergraduate and postgraduate activity, and between disciplines. Resources are redirected towards fields and units which are likely to be more productive, have faculty who are more prolific especially at the international level, and more likely to trigger (upward) changes in the appropriate indicators. Most universities regularly monitor performance and make efforts to improve quality ‘but (it is) difficult to say if this is a reaction to global rankings’ (Senior HE leader, public pre-1800 research intensive university). An Australian university said it is ‘increasing the resources to research – which will help us with the rankings – but we would have



Priority setting: teaching and research

done this anyway’ (Senior HE leader Australia b). Another confirmed it ‘was making lots of changes to promote research output in high ranking journals and successes in nationally competitive government grants – loads of support for that. All this seems to be working to lift our rank on all KPIs’ (Faculty, post-1970 teaching intensive university, Australia). Regardless of what kind of institution, the message is clear: ‘research matters more now, not more than teaching necessarily but it matters more right now at this point in time’ (Trade Unionist A, Australia). The establishment of research centres and institutes, and graduate schools are some of the most visible manifestations of this trend – albeit the transformation of research from an individual activity to an institutional enterprise, responding to external funding opportunities and pressures, has been happening over several decades. These organizational mechanisms are favoured by universities and governments as the best means to ensure efficient, timely and well managed research. Larger teams are likely to have more research students, produce more peer publications, win more competitive grants, and be more sustainable and visible. Because universities use their ‘position in one of the rankings as our KPI’ (Senior HE leader Australia b), the arts, humanities and social sciences feel especially vulnerable; as one Rector said, the fastest way to improve in the rankings is to ‘kill the humanities’. This is because rankings rely on bibliometric and citation data which favour the biosciences and medicine, as discussed in Chapter 2. This is not a new phenomenon; Trow described extensive changes at the University of California, Berkley, including ‘the means of appointing and promoting faculty members in the university’s biological community, and in the nature of the facilities’ in response to a decline in the rankings of the National Research Council in 1982 (Quoted in Dill and Soo, 2005, pp. 517–518). Faculty in engineering, business and education – disciplines which have not had a strong tradition of peer-reviewed publications – also feel under pressure; similar stories are told about Cornell University in the 1990s (Ehrenberg and Hurst, 1996). Rankings are also influencing disciplinary practice, such as publishing articles in English-language internationally ranked journals. … some of my junior colleagues are influenced by journal rankings (which influence the university rankings) in their decision on where to submit their papers (Faculty, public post-1945 research intensive university, Australia).





Others say the university is urging ‘employees to publish their articles under highly rewarded magazines (ISI Master Journal List) in order to score higher places in domestic rankings of universities’ (Senior HE leader, private post-1990 university Poland). Japanese universities are encouraging ‘staff to write original papers’ and publish in English in international journals in order to improve the university’s rank. In some instances, universities are devising their own list of preferential journals in which faculty should seek to be published. Improving the dissemination and hence impact of research has become a strategic objective; this takes publication beyond the individual to an institutional level. HEIs are taking steps to ensure all publications and presentations carry the university’s correct attribution and nomenclature, and are availing of open source software to create institutional repositories. In a growing number of instances, HEIs are mandating faculty to place all publications and other academic work onto the site, in order to boost visibility as well as contributing to public dissemination of knowledge. Because repositories are web-enabled, they are proving to play a significant role in boosting citations and thus aid ranking performance (Gargouri et al., 2010). Take the aforementioned example of Markerere University in Uganda which established a committee headed by the director of ICT support, to come up with an appropriate solution to improve its presence on the web. ‘It issued a document which proposed immediate (tactical) and intermediate (strategic) measures that will ensure an adequate web presence and subsequent higher ranking’ (Bareebe, 2010). HEIs are also considering the costs associated with remaining in fields and disciplines which are deemed less vital to their profile or perform poorly on comparative indicators, and thus encouraging specialization ‘in particular disciplines where they have strengths’ (Macgregor, 2007). As a result, HE leaders and faculty acknowledge ‘the future structure of the university, over the next five or ten years will be different. There will be faculties weakening and others getting more important and getting more money and getting more visibility’ (Faculty, public post-1945 research informed university, Germany). This may involve direct and indirect actions: using special funds to reward individual faculty, making ‘iconic’ appointments, recruiting ‘star’ scholars to particular units or building



It is recommended to publish in refereed international scientific journals (in some fields in Nature or Science) (Senior HE leader, Finland A).


Yes, publication in highly-ranked journals brings financial rewards for the academic and is likely to lead to reduced teaching load at the departmental level’ (Faculty, public post-1945 research intensive university, Australia). For others, ‘there’s certainly a perception … that teaching is used as a punishment for people who don’t get grants’ (Lecturer in Physical Sciences, public post-1945 research intensive university, Australia). The result is the (relative) strengthening of the bio- and physical sciences by granting some areas special or additional funding while others remain static. A similar effect afflicts teaching, often indirectly; because ‘rankings are primarily based on research, this is driving the strategic planning of the university towards research to the neglect of teaching’ (Faculty, public post-1945 research intensive university, Australia). Others claim university resources are preferentially designated to research initiatives at the expense of teaching: ‘Money has been allocated in large quantities for the building of new hubs of research which is great, but not on teaching space …’ (Faculty, post-1970 teaching intensive university, Australia). In response to University College Dublin’s entry into the top 100 of the THE-QS, a student complained that Smaller subjects, like Film Studies or languages, have had their funding dramatically cut. At the same time, scaffolding for the regeneration of the Science building continues to spring up … (Fitzsimons, 2009). Georghiou (2009a) acknowledges this tension, saying the University of Manchester’s ‘initial push for research gave students the impression of neglect’; the ‘university [has] now launched [a] challenging initiative to re-personalize undergraduate education while gaining efficiency through e-learning and graduate teaching assistants’. Elsewhere, emphasis on graduate completion rates as a proxy for teaching quality has acted as a disincentive to the recruitment of low SES students, as referenced in Chapter 2: ‘we are deliberately pulling back on offering one year feeder courses to other institutions because it is a complete disincentive based on how the universities are assessed’ (Faculty, public post-1970 teaching intensive university, Australia). Other have shifted resources away from general studies towards honours programmes, closed adult-oriented



dedicated labs and other facilities, or rewarding individuals and departments which are especially productive or secure exemplary funding.

programmes and reduced commitment to affirmative action initiatives (Henry, 2005). An alternative perspective of how rankings incentivize behaviour is forthcoming from Poland; because employability is an indicator, the university has strengthened links between education programme and the labour market ‘in order to score higher places in domestic rankings’ (Senior HE leader, private post-1990 university Poland). In countries where English is not the native language, rankings have focused attention upon an institution’s international presence. In Japan, where over 92 percent of foreign students come from Asia, 60 percent of whom are Chinese and 15 percent are Korean, emphasis is on Englishlanguage programmes at the post-graduate level in science and technology fields. One private post-1945 research intensive university aims to have 10–20 percent of all lectures through English, while another post1945 private research informed Japanese university plans to recruit 30 international researchers and turn one of its five postgraduate schools into an English-language only school. Recruitment information for international academics underscores that it is acceptable to only speak English. This approach is not just an Asian one; German HE leaders and faculty acknowledge a similar trend. The rector of a German public post-1945 research-informed regional university decried the myopic vision of a department which insisted on advertising new positions only in German, while faculty at another HEIs said he was hired to teach ‘almost exclusively in English’ (Professor, public post-1970 university of applied sciences, Germany). The University of Olso has also stepped up plans to ‘increase the aggressiveness of our recruitment policy – all job-adverts in English as well as Norwegian’ (Ellingsrud, 2007). From a management viewpoint, rankings have helped accelerate changes in academic work practices. On the one hand, rankings help increase ‘awareness of the importance of publishing high quality research’, making it ‘easier to induce an improvement with a department head whose rankings have been declining’. Where autonomy permits, it has supported the introduction of market-based salaries with merit or performance pay and attractive packages to reward and woo high-achieving scholars. As a KPI, rankings have been used to distinguish between teaching and research-focused faculty; offering financial incentives to faculty who perform consistently well against rankings is not unique although taking the bonus away may be a step-further than some universities have gone. … in many cases we have made some type of agreement saying if you will have gained funding of [EURO]200,000 for the next three





Recruitment strategies target faculty from high-ranked universities (Jaschik, 2010a) and ‘capacity-building professors’ in a deliberate attempt to raise KPIs and improve rank (Faculty, post-1970 teaching intensive university, Australia). The University of Manchester is one of many universities which aim to recruit a number of ‘iconic’ scholars and

Box 3.1

University of Iceland Strategy 2006–2011

‘In order to best serve the Icelandic society the University of Iceland has set itself the long-term goal to become one of the 100 best universities in the world … The aim is that foreign students comprise 30 percent of total number of doctoral students in 2011. Promotional material in English will be improved, the University of Iceland website made more international, and the study programmes of the University of Iceland will be systematically advertised abroad. Number of papers published in international peer-reviewed ISI journals are to increase by 100 percent by year-end 2011. The reward system for research will be revised to give greater weight to such publications. Special recognition will be given for papers published in the world’s leading journals in each field of scholarship, such as Nature and Science. Special recognition will also be given for books published by highly respected international academic publishers. Changes are to take effect in 2007. Increase organised collaboration with universities and university faculties overseas which are in the first rank in the world. • In 2011 the University of Iceland will be collaborating actively on research with at least eight of the world’s leading universities and university faculties. • Collaboration with respected international universities and research bodies are encouraged. Such collaboration will be given greater weight in allocations from the University Research Fund starting in 2007.’ Source: http://www.hi.is/en/strategy/strategy_2006_2011



years we will give [EURO]500 per month, more (Rector, public post1945 research informed university, Germany).

to have three Nobel Laureates on its faculty by 2008 and five by 2015 (Georghiou, 2009b, p. 56). Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (Shahabudin, 2008) has identified four key actions with respect to academic recruitment, including strict selection criteria; better starting salaries and promotion scheme; and special incentives schemes to attract world renowned scholars for ‘Centres of Excellence.’ The University of Iceland’s strategic plan is one of the most comprehensive with respect to identifying steps required to reach the top 100 (see Box 3.1). The correlation between rankings and recruitment strategies was also acknowledged by the Presidents of the University of Hong Kong and the National University of Singapore who said the secret of their success, in rising in the THE QS ranking (2009) to 24th and 30th place, respectively, was to ‘invite top academics from around the world. Now, they are also inviting the best students worldwide’ (Lee, H.S., 2010). Another key aspect is the focus on internationalization. THE QS uses the ratio of international students and faculty as a proxy for reputation and quality. At the same time, gaining a position within global rankings grants international visibility back to the institution – so there are definite perceived benefits. As one senior leader recognized, rankings have led to ‘renewed vigour whereby internationalization is being pursued’. The speed with which these changes are occurring was acknowledged by the President of a Japanese private pre-1900 research intensive university when he said recruitment of new faculty with international publications had been gradual at first, but ‘now [was] very fast …[ a] drastic change from ten years ago.’ In turn, a high rank can be a magnet for international ‘stars’ with HiCi (high citation) rates and international awards (Clarke, 2005, p. 196), while a low rank can be a disincentive: I’m aware that [the university] has been ranked last in some of the rankings and that caused me sort of consternation when I was thinking about moving up here two years ago, but I thought there’s some other good reasons for moving here (Professor of Environmental and Life Sciences, public post-1970 teaching intensive regional university, Australia).

Rankings and the academy Rankings are putting faculty under intense pressure, incentivizing institutions which do not ‘normally move quickly’ to make changes. As a result, faculty believe rankings have cultivated a sense of panic among





I think the university needs to calm down. We’ve had two career panic days; they are like Communist training sessions where everyone has to stand up and say what they are doing to improve their career (Professor of Law, post-1970 public research informed university, Australia). Faculty say they are ‘being pushed into publishing more and more’ (Gender Studies professor, public post-1945 research intensive, Australia), and ‘publishing internationally’ (Dean, private pre-1900 research intensive university, Japan). The research activity is very important … teaching is also important but of all the things we have to do to get high ranking is to make research more active (Professor of Material Science, post-1900, public research intensive university, Japan). Journal impact factors are constantly discussed, but such practices are seen to disproportionately benefit the life sciences and medicine. This presents a double-whammy for faculty in Asian countries, where the pressure is to publish ‘not only [in] journals in Japanese but international journals in English’ (Dean, private pre-1900 research intensive university, Japan). A Professor of Literature at a Japanese public post-1900 researchintensive university had a similar view; ‘pressure is increasing … Research papers written in English or published in international journals are much more highly regarded than Japanese ones’. An academic’s publication record can affect the way resources are distributed within the department. Especially in a tight financial climate, funding to go to conferences or travel overseas is based upon ranking; likewise, faculty may receive a financial reward based on per paper published depending upon the impact of the research (Senior lecturer in information technology, public post-1970 teaching intensive university, Australia). Both actions are raising concerns that post-doctoral fellows, younger scholars and women may be adversely affected. Faculty say rankings affect morale; when the university’s ranking is considered ‘good’, rankings can ‘contribute to a positive aura associated with “pride” and “honour”’. It can enhance reputation and raise profile; faculty feel upbeat about themselves. On the other hand, it



some HE leaders ‘punishing less well performing staff’ by making it ‘clear that they were not very welcome’ (Senior administrator, public post-1970 teaching intensive regional university, Australia).


In my field, in my department, it has had an impact on the allocation of duties by heads of department with emphasis on giving some degree of lesser teaching mode to people who come up in the metrics as high productivity researchers. That’s a potentially contentious issue because some people say, well, they can’t do any research because they happen to spend all of their time teaching and the head says, well, you’re spending all your time teaching because you don’t do any research. So we know you can get trapped (Professor of Business, public post-1945 research intensive university, Australia). Thus, rankings can ‘influence people’s perception of where they are in the system’. Self-esteem in departments which are not rated as ‘excellent’ can be low. ‘Fine professors and programs (sic) are short changed having to read a ranking based on doubtfully relevant indicators’ while good faculty leave because they may be disappointed by results; they wonder what a low ranking says about them. Arts and humanities scholars feel especially vulnerable; they ‘must find a way to connect with the new strategic focus of the institution which is the natural sciences’ (Senior administrator, public pre-1900 research intensive university, Germany). Because of the orientation of bibliometric indicators, ‘scholars of humanities’ were also less likely to discuss rankings, thinking it ‘shallow’ and ‘not the kind of thing we talk about or we worry about’ (Professor of Film, private, pre-1900 research intensive university, Japan). Ultimately, faculty are concerned that rankings are dividing research and education streams, undermining the view that ‘it is perfectly possible that people are very, very fine, excellent researchers and excellent teachers’ (Professor of Gender Studies, public post-1945 research intensive, Australia). But faculty are not innocent victims. There is plenty of evidence to suggest they are quick to use rankings to boost their own professional standing and, as one person stated, are ‘unlikely to consider research partnerships with a lower ranked university unless the person or team was exceptional’ (Professor of Business, pre-1900 public research-intensive university, Australia).

Peer-to-peer interaction and other stakeholders In a globalized higher education world, rankings are a critical assessment tool used by other HEIs, and key stakeholders – especially those seeking information about HEIs in other countries (Figure 3.11). Over



can divide; those who are viewed as good performers are seen to benefit.


Consider Peer Ranking Prior to Discussions (% respondents, N=71)

70 60 50 40 30 10 0

Yes International Academic Colalborations Programmes

Student Exchanges

Research

National Collaborations

Validating Quality of Prospective Faculty

Staff Exchanges

Validating Quality of Prospective Students

Other

No


76 percent of HE leaders say they monitor the performance of peer institutions in their country, and almost 50 percent said they monitor the performance of peers worldwide. Almost 40 percent of HEIs consider an institution’s rank prior to forming strategic partnerships. Relatedly, 57 percent HE leaders said rankings influenced the willingness of other HEIs to partner with them; and 34 percent said rankings influenced the willingness of other HEIs to support their institution’s membership of academic or professional organizations. The latter is especially significant given the importance of membership of international university associations and networks, e.g. LERU: League of European Research Universities (LERU), Coimbra Group, Universitas 21, World University Network (WUN), Cluster Group and the ASEAN University Network and the branding associated with them. The value of such memberships is evidenced by the way in which the logos are regularly displayed on websites, and used and interpreted as a proxy for quality. Rankings affect the way peers assess an institution’s reputation ‘because the rankings and tier placements are so legitimate that they alter the inter assessments of reputation made by college leaders’ (Bastedo and Bowman, 2011). The ‘mere inclusion … (in rankings) bestows reputational benefits.’ Everybody wants to form partnerships with strong and successful organisations. It helps with accreditation and fund raising (President, private, pre-1900 teaching intensive HEI, Germany). This may include visitations by high level delegations or invitations to participate in particular initiatives: ‘since rankings have started, we



20

have been overwhelmed by universities around the world wanting to come and visit the University’ (Pro Vice-Chancellor, public pre-1900 research intensive university, Australia). On the other hand, a poor showing (sometimes only relative to expectation) can have the opposite effect. The rector of a German public pre-1900 technological university claimed that when his university was unsuccessful in the first round of the Exzellenzinitiative, international partners asked ‘are you no longer excellent?’ African universities have a similar tale; they say they have been told ‘usually by universities in Europe or Australia seeking to improve their images internationally – that they cannot work with our institution, because it does not have adequate status in global-university rankings’ (Holm and Malete, 2010). As discussed above, rankings affect the opinions and decisions of key stakeholders, e.g. employers, alumni, philanthropists and benefactors, about higher education (Figures 3.7 and 3.9), producing a ‘chain of causality’. Given the effect on higher education experts ‘who might normally be expected to have relatively stable assessments of reputation over time …’, it is not surprising that other stakeholders are responding similarly. When a US law school dropped in the ranking, the effects were immediate hysteria. I had alumni writing me left and right. I had my board of directors asking me what had suddenly happened that (we) had suddenly (dropped in the rankings) … . It was an irrational response because the people writing mostly actually knew about the school. I had my student body protesting, and they’re here and they know in the course of one year that nothing had happened. But they all essentially were saying, ‘What did you do?’ (Espeland and Sauder, 2007, p. 23). Because rankings act as a register of status, ‘major corporations tend to allocate their scarce recruitment dollars to institutions with academic reputations (tiers 1 and 2), and tend to shun those colleges and universities perceived to be inferior (tiers 3 and 4)’ (Webster, 2001, p. 240). Those companies which sponsor research put more value on international reputation that is also expressed in rankings (Employers Association, Germany). Spiewak (Quoted in van Raan, 2007, p. 94) claims rankings were used by Deutsche Telekom to support their decision for professorial chairs in Germany. Likewise, Boeing says it intends using performance data to influence its ‘choice of partners for academic research and … decisions about which colleges … to share in the [USD]100-million that Boeing spends … on course work and supplemental training’ (Baskin,





Conclusion Sauder and Espeland (2009, p. 68) document the ‘coming of age’ of a Law School Dean, who explained that until she took on this role, she ‘didn’t really understand … the integral nature of the rankings to everything about the law school’s reputation, its admissions policies, how it allocates money, how it budgets’. Universities are fighting hard to attract students, especially ‘good quality’ students, and ‘most of the universities on the research side now are taking a much harder look at what they don’t do well’ (Government policy official, Australia). Even institutions which are not highly ranked are caught up in the glare of rankings. International experience shows that rankings inform strategic thinking and planning, help determine priorities, aid student and academic recruitment strategies and policies, identify potential partners and collaborations, benchmark performance and quality, underpin marketing and branding, build reputation, encourage investment and philanthropy, assure investors and employers – and so on (NACAC, 2010, p. 3). Elsbach and Kramer (1996) suggest that because rankings pose a ‘threat to perceived organizational status’, universities often spend a considerable amount of time querying the data and challenging the results. One University of California, Berkeley, respondent asserted: I look at some of the schools, and I have a hard time believing, from what I know of colleagues and what I know of the schools, that they really belong ahead of us (Elsbach and Kramer, 1996, p. 456). Levin’s (2002, pp. 6–7) aforementioned ‘case study’ of Virginia Commonwealth University illustrated how the institutional research office spent six months gathering data, and a vice-president for institutional outreach was hired and put in charge of admissions, marketing and communications. Nine strategies were adopted including improving academic programmes, developing a marketing plan, enhancing publications and the website, increasing the proportion of faculty with terminal degrees, and increasing the proportion of full-time faculty. Highly ranked universities may use rankings to lobby for additional or special support in response to



2008). Alumni, particularly recent graduates, are especially influenced by institutional prestige (Holmes, 2009), and their contributions are correlated positively with rankings; in other words, when an institution does well, contributions increase (Webster, 2001; Masterson, 2010b; Flynn, 2010b).


We’re the nearest thing you’ve got to it to a world class university. If you give us even more money, we’ve got more chance of getting further up (HE Policy Stakeholder A, Australia). Thus, rankings do more than provide information; they influence how higher education thinks about itself, and how its multiversity activities are valued and prioritized. By changing the dynamic within higher education, rankings have accelerated competition between institutions, nationally and internationally, resulting in significant changes to institutions and systems. In responding to this new environment, is higher education behaving rationally? Because the use (and abuse) of institutional data can be so pivotal to a university’s reputation, status and funding base, it is in higher education’s interest to ‘ensure its statistical returns are accurate so that its position is reliably reflected in both national and international rankings’ (Senior HE leader, public, post-1945 research intensive university, UK). But, at what stage does more accurate data become ‘gaming’? A recent survey found 74 percent of respondents said ‘some institutions manipulate their data to move up in the rankings’ (Adams and Baker, 2010). Rankings are often viewed as a zero sum game; the cycle of benefit to those at the top of world rankings can be quite substantial while a cycle of disadvantage, otherwise referred to as the Mathew Effect, can produce the contrary result. Thus, HE leaders believe it is imperative and rational to engage in actions, even gaming, which will improve their position – a case of ‘everyone else is doing it syndrome’ and if we don’t we will suffer. In adopting such behaviour, HE leaders replicate actions associated with other performancebased funding models: If you go into departments and faculties, they’re well aware they get so much money for example for every PhD student which completes (Pro Vice-Chancellor, public pre-1900 research intensive university, Australia). What is not clear is what happens when the indicators or the weightings change, because after all, they are determined by commercially



their government’s desire to have a world-class university. This was after all the incentive behind the initial establishment of the Shanghai Jiao Tong ranking of world universities. In these cases, essentially they are saying:

or independently driven ranking organizations. There is an implicit assumption that the indicators represent an objective truth, fixed in time, and that university strategies can use them to identify targets say 5–10 years hence. So, if the indicators do change, do university strategies change accordingly? And if this is the situation, who is setting higher education strategy?





I have a colleague who graduated from the University of Columbia and she’s holding a very high position at [my] university. They did not tell me, but I could read their minds that if I am lucky enough to graduate at this [Japanese] university I could not be as highly appreciated as the one who graduated from Columbia University (International student from Vietnam attending private pre-1900 research intensive university, Japan). I was a bit concerned initially because I know that there are other universities that have more international recognition. I did struggle for quite a while as to whether I should go with my gut feeling or go to somewhere that would give me more options because I would like to study postgraduate in America or Europe (Student attending post-1970 teaching intensive university, Australia).

Rising popularity of rankings While rankings have existed for almost 100 years, they have gained international popularity and notoriety only since the 1980s. A large element of their success has been their ability to (appear to) satisfy a ‘public demand for transparency and information that institutions and government have not been able to meet on their own’ (Usher and Savino, 2006, p. 38). Clarke (2007, p. 35) says that the growing demand for rankings has been ‘fuelled by several trends in higher education, including increasing participation rates, higher costs, and the view of students as consumers who expect value for money’. Morse (2010a) makes a similar point; given the substantial costs associated with some private colleges in 121



4

the US – around USD 50,000 per year or USD 200,000 for an undergraduate degree – ‘there is a real need for information to determine the relative merits of schools given their cost’. Over the last decade in particular, the number and type of rankings, users and uses have grown exponentially, and now extend far beyond students and their parents who were envisaged as the initial and primary target group. A 2010 survey of users of rankings found the most favourable view came from students (Adams and Baker, 2010, chart 2). This kind of reaction has stimulated and underpinned a growth in the range of publications marketed under the generic title of university guide, initially published as hardback books but increasingly available on-line, e.g. RealUni.com, the Push Guide, Springboard, the Times Good University Guides, Apply2Uni. USNWR Best Colleges and CHE-HochschulRanking emphasize their value and appeal for students and parents: the former believes ‘students and their families should have as much information as possible about the comparative merits of the education programs at America’s colleges and universities’ (USNWR, 2010a). Its objective is amplified by the headline: ‘Find the Best School for You’ (USNWR, 2010) while the latter asks: Want to navigate better through the extensive range of study opportunities offered by Germany’s universities? Want to know which study programme at which university best suits your wishes and needs? Yes? Then why not use our university ranking! (DAAD, 2010). The usefulness to students is well asserted by the Swedish National Agency for Higher Education which remarked: Students invest both time and money in their education. As a result, it is important for potential students to have access to comprehensive and relevant information about higher education before they choose (HSV, 2009, p. 6). In many cases, rankings were conceived – and continue to be seen – as a guide for students as consumers about the quality and potential private benefits of university attainment, including their lifestyle and occupational/salary premium. Today, rankings are used by a wide range of stakeholders for purposes not originally envisaged (Sauder and Espeland, 2009, p. 68). As we have seen in Chapter 3, HEIs use rankings to benchmark their own performance but also that of their peers; they use rankings to help identify




potential partners for teaching or research initiatives, and to help assess or determine compatibility prior to entering into partnership agreements. Employers often use rankings to identify particular cohorts of graduates and prospective employees or to assess the perceived attributes of particular graduates. The increasing public demand for greater accountability and transparency, and evidence of value-for-money – especially in the aftermath of the GFC – has accentuated government and decisionmaker interest in rankings as a method of measuring performance, defining quality and supporting competitiveness because they are perceived as independent of the sector and the individual institutions. In developing countries, rankings are often used as a substitute for or to underpin accreditation; accountability and transparency are considered essential requirements for earning a place among the top universities in the world (Edukugho, 2010a). The U-Multirank is explicit in its intent to provide better information to ‘help policy-makers at institutional, national and European levels develop future strategies in higher education’ (Europa, 2008). In addition to ‘governments who are directly responsible for allocating funding to public institutions’, other users include alumni who have an interest in higher education and may be potential benefactors, and the voting public. These latter groups have a direct influence on the amount of financial resources allocated to colleges, and their preferences may be reflected in tuition policy, admission criteria, the profile of the faculty, and the campus activities of a college (Zhe Jin and Whalley, 2007, p. 2). The ability of rankings to influence the public sphere can be significant. In addition to being an information provider, rankings are an opinion former. This makes public opinion, influenced by what it hears, reads or sees about rankings and higher education another, and often unaccounted for, audience and user. Public opinion can be represented by and through the media, which is often the producer and/or distributor of rankings, raising questions of conflict-of-interest. As a complex assemblage and aggregate of beliefs held by society at any one time, public opinion can be persuasive but also susceptible to manipulation. Habermas’ (1991) public sphere is a place where rational debate and civil society engage to express the community opinion while Blumer (1948) sees public opinion as a collection of viewpoints at different times. The presence of logos, images of iconic buildings – such as ivy covered brick buildings redolent of Harvard – photographs of international celebrities from the world of politics, foreign policy or the arts being



Rankings, Student Choice and Recruitment 123

awarded honorary degrees or professorships, or the number of times experts from particular universities are heard on the radio or on television can all influence public perception of particular institutions, influencing or reinforcing reputation. Brewer et al. (2001, p. 28) note that ‘certain characteristics of a college or university become associated with good providers even though these characteristics are not directly related to the quality of the output’. Within 72 hours of the release of USNWR Best Colleges in 2007, its website had received 10 million page views compared with a norm of 500,000 views a month. According to the publisher, 80 percent of visitors directly enter the ranking section rather than go through the magazine’s home page suggesting a ‘single-minded pursuit of data’. It continues to receive significant interest; the traffic in 2009 for the Best College Rankings was 15.3 million page views and 1.9 million visitors (Putze, 2010; Morse, 2010a). USNWR’s experience is replicated by other ranking sites. Popularity for the TopUniversity and the ARWU shows a tremendous annual increase, while QS claims that in 2009, 7 million people visited its website, and 13 million visited other sites (Sharma, 2010a). ARWU, THE QS and Webometrics are most popular in the US, China, Namibia, India and the UK; demographically, users tend to be males, 18–24 years old with graduate level education (Alexa, 2010). Although the data is not directly comparable, they give some indication as to the level by which the rankings have increased in popularity from early years of the 21st century, when the total audience for the special hard-back issue of USNWR was approximately 11 million people (Dichev, 2001, p. 237). Similar results appear for other publications; the annual ‘best university’ issue of Asiaweek was its biggest seller while Time magazine estimated in 1998 that ‘prospective college students and their parents spend USD 400 million per year on college-prep products, which includes ranking publications’ (Stella and Woodhouse, 2006, p. 4). Dichev (2001, p. 237) estimated consumers include a wide ‘nonconsumer audience’ who account for sales of 40 percent more than the traditional prospective student cohort market. In contrast, The Sunday Times University Guide is not considered a significant sales driver – CDs and DVDs are better – and any revenue generated from increased sales and advertising is usually offset by actual production costs. Rather, its real value is to help establish a long-term relationship with 16 to 18 year olds interested in college … [as] future purchasers of the paper or users of its





Indeed, as web usage has increased, sales and revenue value has declined. Every August witnesses a huge surge in online searches for rankings-related topics, and thus by directing students and parents to the website, rankings play a considerable long-term role in boosting the paper’s commercial presence. Bowman and Bastedo (2009, p. 18) argue that media reportage of rankings – especially when the results of rankings are placed on the ‘front page’ – can exert a powerful effect on admissions: ‘being labelled as a “top-tier” institution carries substantial weight, much more so than moving up a single spot within the top tier’ (Meredith, 2004). An administrator at an Australian public post-1970 teaching intensive university distinguished between The Good University Guide influencing student recruitment and the more significant role played by the media’s reportage of the results; the latter had a more powerful effect because of its headline issues. An Australian student at a post-1970 teaching intensive university confirmed there was an accepted perception of which university is the best and which is second best and third best and so on. It’s just out there among the community like. Even worldwide people know that Harvard, Oxford and Yale and Cambridge are like the top universities because they see and hear it in movies and all the different culture and media and that really establishes people’s perceptions of them. People automatically see the name of the university in all these little articles and they get it drummed into their head that this university must be at the cutting edge, it must be at the forefront and it is obviously respected by people if it keeps showing up with different things. This can influence both positive and negative messages; an Australian policymaker admitted that students were ‘quite sensitive to publicity’: ‘one university suffered a very steep drop in enrolments internationally and it’s because of bad publicity’ (Government policy official, Australia). The visibility quantum that media coverage can generate can be very powerful.



website. … It is for this reason that many newspapers in Ireland and Britain, like The Times, Guardian, Independent and The Irish Times and Irish Independent, provide significant information for prospective students (Murphy, 2010).

There is little doubt that a key attraction of rankings is their simple, easy-to-understand format. They provide a fast, short-hand Q-mark, enabling the user to ‘pre-sort’ a group of HEIs prior to more in-depth inquiry (Contreras, 2007), or make quick assessments or comparisons. Yet, do rankings measure what users think they are measuring? Are they measuring what is important? Do they provide the kind of information and indicators which would be most helpful to students and other stakeholders? How are rankings influencing the opinions and choices of students? The evidence from around the world may be limited but trends are apparent. This chapter considers the results of interviews with students in Germany, Australia and Japan about the influence and impact that rankings are having on them. These accounts are supplemented by international evidence, drawn from academic research, sector related studies, and journalistic commentary. It also utilizes the extensive International Graduate Insight Group database (i-Graduate, 2010). This information is brought together to provide a wide-ranging and comprehensive discussion of how rankings are affecting and influencing student choice, recruitment and career opportunities. There are four main sections: 1) an examination of the issues affecting student choice drawing upon interviews and focus groups in Germany, Australia and Japan; 2) a discussion of wider international experience; 3) a review of the interplay between rankings and HE recruitment strategies, and 4) consideration of the relationship between rankings, and employment and career opportunities.

Student choice Studies have identified several key factors influencing how students make choices about college and university, including the role of parents and peers, price and cost, course or programme choice, location, quality of facilities and social life, and academic reputation (Bergerson, 2010). The complexity of the decisionmaking process is often described in terms of stages or phases ‘in which various individual and organizational factors interact to produce outcomes that influence the next stage or phase’ (Kallio, 1995, p. 110; Hossler et al., 1989). While undergraduate students are more likely to be influenced by family and friends (Chapman, 1981, p. 492), graduate students reflect concerns of ‘early adulthood’ and the associated tasks, such as career (Kallio, 1995, p. 120). In recent years, studies have begun to discern stronger consumerist approaches being adopted by students. James et al. (1999, pp. 75–76) concluded that institutional and programme status and prestige are important factors as





value proposition of universities and getting your money’s worth and not wanting to go to a place for five years that costs you AUD50,000, if you don’t come out with strong career prospects and coming from a good leading institution with a good reputation (Student leader, Australia). Students often ‘perceive an institutional hierarchy of some kind, one in which the implicit ranking of institutional prestige is closely associated with entry scores’ but few students are actually willing to forego their course preference regardless of university (James et al., 1999, p. 71). Another Australian study noticed a ‘increased sense of purpose and greater clarity about occupational aspirations’ in students entering university in 2004 compared with ten years earlier (Krause et al., 2005). This trend was confirmed by UK and Spanish studies which found students are attaching greater importance to the labour market and career prospects (Maringe, 2006; Gallifa, 2009). I sat and I thought about what the main worry for students is when they are coming to university and when they are leaving, and I think it’s all about a university’s reputation (Will Bickford Smith, quoted in Gadher, 2010). Aren’t careers the point of University? If the University is failing us in this respect, then what’s the point of being here? (Lee, V., 2010). Similar findings are reported in a major US study of over 1,000 highachieving students; ‘three in four students agreed that where you go to college will play a big role in your social and professional success later in life’ (Hearne, 2009, p. 5), a view supported by USNWR’s own experience. It claims that institutional reputation plays a key role in getting ‘that all-important first job’ or ‘getting into top graduate schools’ (Morse, 2010a). About 52 percent of German students selected a university because of its high reputation (Federkeil, 2009, p. 18). International student mobility has been rising rapidly over the last decades. According to the OECD, almost 3 million students in 2009 were enrolled outside their country of citizenship, of which the majority were studying traditional academic undergraduate programmes. There were some notable exceptions, such as Spain and Switzerland which



students seek to ‘maximise the payoff from their academic results in a largely reputational market’. There is an important

have a very significant proportion of students enrolled in advanced research programmes, 22.3 percent and 26.5 percent, respectively. Other countries with significant concentrations are Canada (11.4%), Finland (13.4%), Japan (10.6%), the UK (11.9%) and the US (15.7%) (OECD, 2009, pp. 320, 332). For these students, deciding to study abroad is a major decision; having reached that conclusion, Mazzarol and Soutar (2002, p. 88; Böhm et al., 2004, p. 21) claim that the choice of a particular country or institution is heavily influenced by an interplay of ‘push-pull’ factors, inter alia, the ‘reputation or profile of the country’ and whether the qualification will be ‘recognised by future employers after graduation’. For Australia, core international students [are] coming out of Malaysia, Singapore; there’s a big legacy factor there. Their parents have gone, grandparents, uncles, aunts, there’s a big family connection and a lot of word of mouth (Government policy official, Australia). But students are not a homogeneous group; ability, ambition and socioeconomic status influence choice. Sixty-two percent of international students in the United States report that they are supported primarily by personal or family funds (IIE, 2008). Spies (1978) argues that aboveaverage students tend to make choices based on non-financial factors, such as reputation. James et al. (1999, p. x) also found that applicants to ‘research’ universities were ‘more strongly influenced by research reputation, institutional image and prestige, and the on-campus social and cultural life than the others’. This section explores these issues paying particular attention to the way in which rankings are influencing student choice. Students have been divided into four broad catchment groups, distinguishing between domestic and international, and undergraduate and postgraduate students; socio-economic, ethnicity and nationality issues are discussed later in the chapter. Domestic undergraduate students Undergraduate students usually attend a local university. Depending upon family or financial circumstances and/or availability of institutional or subject choice, students are likely to choose an HEI within their city, state or geographically proximate. They use a combination of local intelligence including from peers and family, local rankings, college guides or entry scores. US figures suggest that despite growing mobility and allowing for some regional variation about ‘80 percent of college bound high school




graduates stay in their home states for college, attending either the flagship or regional campuses, and more than half who do cross borders attend a private university’ (Marklein, 2006; Mak and Moncur, 2003; Drewes and Micheal, 2006). Similar experiences are told about the target countries. In Australia, one vice-chancellor claimed that only approximately 3 percent of students were mobile, while German students were described as succumbing to the ‘hotel mamma’ philosophy (Kehm, 2010) with over 50 percent of students citing ‘proximity to home’ as a key determinant for higher education (CHE, 2007, p. 6; Federal Ministry of Education and Research, 2010). The following comment is typical of students attending a public post-1945 research regional university in Germany: This university was the nearest and … has in mathematics actually quite a good reputation. You have professors who, if you’re somewhere else and you mention the name of this or that professor people say ‘oh yeah I know him, of course, I’ve read something from him’ or something like that. The CHE-HochschulRanking in Germany, The Good University Guide in Australia or the Ashahi Shimbun University Ranking in Japan are responding to growing student mobility and widening choice, especially where there is more than one HEI in the vicinity. This was acknowledged by an Australian student attending a public post-1945 research intensive who used the Good University Guide because it provided ‘different guidelines for different aspects of the student experience at the university, the teaching, all of those different areas of research’. USNWR was an early mover in the domestic market, responding to the need for more information and greater mobility within the US undergraduate student market. Rankings are now having a similar effect in other countries; they have enabled top universities to ‘attract more interstate students in a country that’s not very mobile normally for student enrolments’ (HE policy stakeholder, Australia). College entry scores, preparatory examinations or secondary school scores have similar capacities to affect reputation and prestige (Sweitzer and Volkwein, 2009); students and parents often assume that higher entry requirements or the level of selectivity into a university or onto a programme of study is equivalent to better academic quality. That reputational characteristics, such as rankings, can influence choice has often been explained as symptomatic of a particular culture but the practice appears widespread. In Australia, new universities are seen to suffer





the same thing because there’s a very strict entry examination and normally people judge the quality of the students by the university he or she graduated from (Faculty, post WW2 public research informed regional university, Japan). Socio-cultural and socio-economic factors facilitate ‘differentiation and rankings in terms of the wealth, reputation and prestige of the university …’ (Student leader, Australia). An Australian student attending a public post-1970 teaching intensive university described how her school’s deputy principal ‘got mad’ when she chose a lower ranked university, believing high achieving students had to go to [University X] because it would give them more opportunities and just because it was seen as the better university they thought that we were wasting our examination grades. The fact that USNWR records reputational attributes, such as student entry scores or academic salaries, illustrates that it is not only students who believe they are proxies for quality (Butler and Murphy, 2009). International undergraduate students Internationally mobile undergraduate students constitute varying proportions of the total student cohort. Of the three countries under review in this study, 96 percent of international students in Australia are studying at undergraduate level (ISCED A and B) compared with 89 percent in Japan (OECD, 2009, pp. 323–333). In contrast, ‘most foreign students come to Germany after having gained academic experience in their home countries, and nearly half of them have already received a degree’ (Federal Ministry of Education and Research, 2005, p. 2). Students undertaking a primary degree tend to make their choice based on family or institutional connections, although ease of residency and future employment and career opportunities are also vital factors, especially where the government views international students as making a strong and positive contribution to the local or national economy (Theil, 2010). Rankings can be a good source of information,



from ‘students’ perceptions about their prestige’ (Long et al., 2006, p. 142), while in Japan ‘high school teachers still use entry scores but parents may look at’ rankings. Essentially, entry scores and rankings are interpreted as meaning

especially for international students. A Chinese student, at a public post-1970 teaching intensive university in Australia, explained that because websites present a good image of a university, it is difficult to fully understand what an institution offers particularly if it is in another country. For students who may spend only a portion of their undergraduate students days abroad, for example as part of the EU Erasmus or US junior-year abroad type programme, decisions are likely to be made on the basis of institutional partnerships, albeit within the choice available; this is where the benefits of university networks can be important as added value. In such circumstances, reputational factors can play a significant role. Domestic graduate students Graduate students are most likely to have become conscious of rankings while at university and to use them to inform their graduate choice, especially if that choice is outside the country. German students expressed an increasing awareness of rankings; those attending a public pre-1900 research intensive university said they were informed of their institution’s ranking successes at their first lesson by the Rector, while others at a teaching intensive university of applied sciences said rankings would definitely inform their choice for graduate studies. This view was endorsed by an Australian student leader who noted that he didn’t ‘need to go and look for international rankings because if universities are doing well in one they will tell you … they will put it in all of their marketing glossy things to attract students …. I’m just aware of that because they publicize it so much’ (Student leader, Australia). Choices are based on several interweaving factors, such as field of specialization and expertise of faculty, but students are keenly attuned to the perceived after-sale value of their qualification. For example, ‘budding PhD students, through their supervisors and their peers, [know about universities] in ways that is not the same as someone leaving high school looking for the university enrolment’ (HE policy stakeholder, Australia). High-achieving graduate students are likely to travel either within their country or to another country – and they are the target group for international scholarships. International experience is highly rated by more and more employers (Wiers-Jenssen, 2010); thus the idea of remaining at the same institution or country – especially in the case of small or developing countries – for both undergraduate and graduate studies, and especially for research, is increasingly frowned-upon.





Graduate students – those seeking a postgraduate diploma or masters qualification, e.g. MA, MSc, MBA, or research degree, e.g. MPhil or PhD – are a growing and strategically important percentage of internationally mobile students worldwide (Guruz, 2008, pp. 161–235). In the US, UK and Australia, they comprise almost half the international students while they constitute approximately one-third of international students in France and Japan (Guruz, 2008, p. 172 and p. 199; DEEWR, 2009; WES, 2007). Traditionally, more than 90 percent of international students have enrolled in institutions in countries belonging to the OECD with the main destinations (US, UK, Germany, France and Australia) recruiting over 70 percent of them, the largest number of whom come from East Asia and the Pacific. Students from China, India and Korea constitute the largest number of internationally mobile students at tertiary level (OECD, 2009; UNESCO, 2008, p. 118; Maslen, 2007). As such, they have become the primary target audience and user of rankings given their career focus, maturity and capacity for mobility. A further distinction should be made between students pursuing postgraduate diploma or Masters-level programmes and those seeking research (PhD) opportunities, as the bulk of the students are in the former category. At the same time, there has been significant growth in the number of programmes now offered in English, even in countries where English is not the native language (Wächter and Maiworm, 2008; Labi, 2007; Labi, 2008d). In Japan, international students are taught through English, and there is no requirement that they should speak Japanese. Even prior to the current drive to internationalize higher education, law, medicine and business routinely recruited internationally. The Bologna Process was initiated to prepare European higher education for greater mobility; the ExcellenceRanking responded to this trend by helping students find the ‘right doctoral or master’s programme as well as [providing] information on more than 2000 research teams’ (CHE, 2010d). International graduate students are the major users of global rankings not least because they have less local intelligence. For a PhD programme – in Australia I guess the rankings wouldn’t be so important because I know the universities, the feel of them at least to some extent … But I might be looking at opportunities in England or the United States and in other places where I knew far less about universities, then I might be looking at the rankings



International graduate students


In addition, because many international students fund their studies from their own/family sources, rankings are perceived to fulfil an important function regarding quality and value-for-money. They are likely to ‘choose the country and subject areas of the study’ based on their calculations regarding the monetary and status reward a foreign degree can bring (Varghese, 2008, p. 22). They ‘might know about Australia, but not where in Australia to go’. Institutional rank transmits social and cultural capital which resonates with family, friends and potential employers. … for those who wanted to go to graduate school outside Indonesia, actually there’s quite a lot of discussion about ranking of universities. If you’re talking about government or a private sector, I think they are quite familiar with this university ranking (Indonesian student attending private post-1970 technological university, Japan). The reputational association of rankings is important. One research student was asked by her employer why she went to Japan rather than an ‘English-speaking country whose education quality is a lot better and who has a lot of high ranking universities rather than Japan’. Such questioning emphasizes the significance that reputation and status have for international students. In such circumstances, it is understandable that when their university was highly ranked, ‘students hung a banner on the gates stating this fact’ and ‘international students, in particular, asked for their photo to be taken with the banner’ (Vicechancellor, public pre-1900 research intensive university, Australia).

International experience of rankings International experience is still coming to terms with how students choose in a globally competitive market. The results can be ambiguous but there is a growing body of research which supports the experiences recounted above. The timing of individual studies or cohorts studied needs to be factored into the analysis; as more publicity and attention is focused on rankings, their impact and influence on student choice seems to be growing. Student reaction in 2010 is discernibly different from reaction in the latter part of 20th or early years of the 21st century when rankings existed principally in the US; McManus-Howard (2002,



on a worldwide basis (Student attending public post-1945 research intensive, Australia).

pp. 114, 107–108) suggests that the ‘availability, accessibility, use and influence [of rankings] have greatly amplified their role in American higher education’. Scott (2006) concurs, arguing that the ‘upsurge in the availability and significance of electronic media and league tables’ has had a big influence on student choice. National context is also important: the extent to which national accreditation or quality agencies help set the parameters of understanding about higher education, whether national and/or global rankings dominate, and whether student mobility either within the country or to study abroad can all be significant factors. In the absence of clarity about quality standards (Stella and Woodhouse, 2006, p. 17), which is remarked upon by various studies, students and parents turn to rankings as a perceived independent source. When accompanied by the imprimatur of an international organization, such as a media company, rankings take on a more meaningful role. Finally, most of the research until recently has been based on the US because of its longer experience of rankings; more research is being conducted elsewhere but this remains a relatively new field of investigation. This may explain some of the discrepancies between studies. Hossler and Foley’s 1995 and McDonough et al.’s 1998 pioneering studies set the initial baseline for understanding the impact and influence of rankings on student choice. They concluded that rankings had little impact on student decision making, serving ‘only as confirmatory devices, helping them to feel comfortable with decisions they have already made’ (Hossler and Foley, 1995, p. 28). McDonough et al. (1998, p. 530; Galotti and Mark, 1994) argued that while 40 percent of US students used news magazine rankings, only 11 percent said rankings were an important factor in their choice. McManus-Howard’s (2002, p. 108) study five years later found stronger support: 56.7 percent of first-time, full-time freshmen said rankings were either very important or somewhat important. A recent 2009 study found 35 percent of high-achieving US students used college rankings when making their application or enrolment decisions, significantly less important than parents or a tour of the campus (Hearne, 2009). US studies (Hossler and Foley, 1995; McDonough et al., 1998; Monks and Ehrenberg, 1999; Ehrenberg, 2005; Griffith and Rask, 2007) have consistently found rankings important for high ability and second generation students, especially those from Asian (or non-US citizens) backgrounds wanting a doctoral, medical, or law degree. Other findings include: • Students who use rankings are more likely to be concerned about a college’s academic reputation than those who do not use rankings




(91 percent vs. 45 percent) and a school’s social reputation (41 percent vs. 21 percent) (McDonough et al., 1998); • Freshmen living at home are less likely to use rankings; as ‘distance increased so did the proportion of students placing weight on rankings: McManus-Howard (2002, p. 111) found that 65.4 percent of students attending a college or university over 500 miles from home were more likely to consider rankings very important or somewhat important compared to 39.5 percent of those who lived at or near home’ (Roberts and Thompson, 2007, p. 18; McDonough et al., 1998); • Students attending private universities are more likely to use rankings. McDonough et al. (1998) found the difference can be three times while McManus-Howard (2002, p. 110) found 62.9 percent of freshmen attending private schools viewed rankings as very important or somewhat important compared with 51 percent attending public institutions; • Freshmen attending ranked schools are more likely to view rankings as very important or somewhat important, 76.8 percent compared with only 31.8 percent of students attending unranked colleges (McManus-Howard, 2002, p. 109). None of these studies discovered any significant gender differences (McManus-Howard, 2002, p. 110; McDonagh et al., 1998, p. 527; Hearne, 2009, p. 8). The ever-increasing usage of rankings is fast becoming a recurring theme around the world. Stella and Woodhouse (2006) examined a number of studies from the UK (1999), US (1999), Chile (2002) and India (2004), concluding that rankings had limited influence; ‘only students from the upper middle-class and upper-class families tend to use these guides.’ Stella’s account of a 2004 survey of Indian students placed rankings last, behind advice from parents, friends, current students or others. Later studies have, however, indicated increasing impact. In 1999 only 3 percent of UK respondents considered electronic media important and none mentioned rankings; in contrast, by 2006, 63 percent of students said they had consulted websites and 52 percent had looked at league tables. Similarly, 61 percent of UK students referred to rankings before making their choice, with 70 percent considering them important or very important (Roberts and Thompson, 2007, pp. 19–20; Rolfe, 2003, pp. 32–33; Galotti and Mark, 1994, p. 606). CHE reported similar results in Germany; 60 percent of prospective students ‘know rankings and use rankings as one source of information among others’ (Federkeil, 2007, p. 357). Students taking professional focused programmes are more




likely to use such information in contrast to students taking a traditional ‘academic’ programme. Like Spies, Clarke (2007) cites UK, German and New Zealand experiences as evidence that high-achieving students are more likely to use rankings to inform choice and, as a consequence, high ranking leads to increased applications. Students who have the financial ability to pay full fees, who are effectively free to choose and are not reliant on government or other grants, are more likely to attend higher ranked colleges (even those ranked higher by just a few places) than grant aided students who appear to be less responsive to rankings. There are also some differences between students enrolling at private vs. public institutions; for the former, ‘reputation trumps costs by a healthy margin’ while for the latter, reputation trumps costs – just barely – and costs trumps location by almost a two-to-one factor’ (Hearne, 2009, p. 26). Low-income and first-in-family students are least likely to consider rankings important, which is not surprising considering ‘US students of low socioeconomic status tend to enrol in community colleges and other non-selective institutions, which are generally not ranked in U.S. News or other systems’ (Clarke, 2007, p. 39). Other research suggests strengthening usage among lower-income groups. McManus-Howard (2002, p. 112) found a significant percentage of lower income (51.5 percent) and middle income (51.7 percent) groups did consider rankings important. US students pursuing engineering, business or science programmes, which are among the most attractive fields of study by international students (IIE, 2007), are more likely to refer to rankings than arts, humanities or social science students: in 2006, 20.2 percent of engineering, 18.3 percent business and 18.1 percent natural science students cited rankings as ‘very important’ compared with 14.9 percent social science, and 13.5 percent arts and humanities students (HERI, 2007). This correlation is replicated in a UK study, which found a ‘positive impact [for] home and particularly overseas’ mechanical engineering students, and weaker and inconsistent links with nursing and architecture. There is some positive correlation between rankings and computer science and chemistry especially ‘when a university rank rises than when it falls’ (Roberts and Thompson, 2007, p. 26). This behaviour is replicated by international students. International student behaviour shows a steady trend in favour of rankings despite some differences in national context, culture and complexity of the decisionmaking process. Roberts and Thompson (2007, p. 4) found that 92 percent of international students considered UK league tables important or very important to inform their choice. Never-




theless, they concluded there was little firm evidence to support the general claim that rankings had a ‘greater impact on international students’. A 2003 study of Thai students studying in Australia similarly found that the family exercised the most significant influence over decisions to study abroad, the choice of country, and the city although not over the choice of academic programme and university (Pimpa, 2003). Other research presents a contrary view. A 2008 UK study found that overseas students, especially engineering students, were interested in quality rankings (Soo and Elliot, 2008, p. 14). Roughly one third of international students to Sweden in 2007 and 2008 used rankings as a vital source of information; rankings were particularly important for Asian and Latin American students (HSV, 2009, p. 39). Students from China, Japan and Korea enrolled on graduate programmes at two large Ontario universities were heavily influenced by Canada’s reputation for high quality education. The findings were particularly significant for engineering and business students who relied heavily on the ranking information to make selection, application, and choice decisions. Students from China, including Hong Kong, and Taiwan, rated the importance of the university and programme ranking higher than students from Japan and Korea. It was found that the ranking information was important not so much for reducing risks, but more for economic and return on investment purposes. In other words, these students perceived that a graduate degree from a top-ranking engineering or business school/programme would improve their future career and job prospects (Chen, 2007, p. 771). Chen (2007, p. 80) suggests that cultural background and educational system may go some way to explain why ‘many East Asian students perceive the reputation, quality, and ranking of the university and programme to be very critical’. An Australian study had similar results; 16.4 percent of international students in the state of Victoria said family and friends were very important determinants of university and/or course choice, but 64 percent said rankings were the key determining factor (see Figure 4.1) (Lawrence, 2009). A survey of over 95,000 students,1 representing over 200 different nationalities who had chosen to attend institutions in the UK, the Netherlands, US, Australia and Germany indicates that of the top five factors influencing student choice, four pertain directly to reputation whilst ‘position in a league table/ranking’ also features highly on their list of priorities (see Table 4.1).2 While regional variations are not significant





University Selection Variables

Provision of on campus accommodation Friends/family at the university

Agent recommendation Close proximity to the city Excellent facilities The university has a recognised pathway University one of the best in the field of study University appears high on rankings 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Source: Published with the permission of the author, R. Lawrence (2009) ‘Economic Impact of International Students in Victorian Universities’, Presentation to the Australian International Education Conference.

in terms of the emphasis placed on reputational factors and rankings, Table 4.2 shows that students from Asia and Africa place most emphasis on rankings and reputation. It is clear that the reputation of the qualification gained is a critical factor. Postgraduate students are more concerned about institutional position than undergraduate students (Table 4.3), but there is no statistically significant difference by gender. Institutional reputation is valuable for career opportunities; 93.8 percent of respondents Table 4.1 Priority 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Top Ten Most Important Factors Influencing Student Choice

Factor Quality of Teaching Reputation (Value in My Career) of a Qualification from this Institution Institution Reputation Quality of Research Department Reputation Personal Safety and Security Cost of Education/Tuition Fees Country Position in League Table/Ranking Specific Course Title

Mean Score 3.74 3.55 3.44 3.42 3.33 3.24 3.21 3.18 3.13 3.09

Source: © International Graduate Insight Group Ltd. (i-graduate), 2010



Offer of better exemptions

Rankings, Student Choice and Recruitment 139 Figure 4.2 Rankings and Reputation, Important/Very Important Factor (% International Students by World Region) 100 90

70 60 50 40 30

Position in Ranking

20

Reputation of Qualification

10

Reputation of Institution

O

ce

an

ia

ica rth

No

La

tin

Am er

ica

/C

ar

ib

Am er

be

ro

an

pe

ia Eu

Af

As

ric

a

0


Figure 4.3

Position in Rankings by Qualification Level (%) 90 80 70 60 50

Undergraduate

40

Postgraduate Taught

30

Postgraduate Research

20 10 0 Unimportant

Important




80

consider the reputation of an academic qualification from a particular institution as being important/very important. When asked which they considered the primary factor, 68 percent of respondents said institutional reputation was more important than country reputation (27 percent) – a finding at variance with some other studies which suggested students identified a country with a high educational reputation first and then decided upon the institution. Finally, rankings play a decisive role for students seeking government sponsorship or a scholarship to study abroad. This is because governments often use rankings, officially or unofficially, as an indicator of quality or value-for-money (Clarke, 2007, p. 43) to assess applications or approve study abroad. For example, Mongolia, Qatar and Kazakhstan restrict scholarships to students admitted only to highly ranked (top 100) universities (Salmi and Saroyan, 2007), while Iran has created the impression among students seeking to study abroad that they may find it difficult to secure employment upon return if they attend less prestigious universities (McMahon, 2010). Other countries have restricted visa or employment opportunities to students who have graduated from top-tier universities. For example, the Netherlands considers skilled migrants those who have graduated from a university in the top 150 of either the ARWU or the THE-QS in 2007, the year the new immigration policy came into force; in other words, ‘only some knowledge workers are eligible to enter the Netherlands’ (Beerkens, 2009). Macedonia recognizes only graduates within the top 500 universities (Farrington, 2008). Academic institutions are not immune from this practice: ‘if we’re looking at potential PhD students … which university in China do they come from, or so, maybe we’re as guilty’ (Faculty, public post-1945 research intensive university, Australia). These instances illustrate the subtle tie-in between official endorsement of rankings and student choice. International students often find themselves balancing their own requirements with the value that others place on that qualification.

Rankings and student recruitment The previous discussion has illustrated, at the macro level, that ‘changes in rank [can] have a significant influence on the applications and enrolment decisions of students …’ (Monks and Ehrenberg, 1999, p. 10; Wedlin, 2006; Roberts and Thompson, 2007). But is it the objective to simply increase student numbers or ‘recruit students who will be “assets” in terms of maintaining and enhancing … [a university’s] position in the rankings’? (Clarke, 2007, p. 38).




Monks and Ehrenberg (1999, p. 10; Ehrenberg, 2001, p. 26) suggest a strong correlation between high ranking and the application rate, particularly among top students. Slight changes can ‘cause perceptible ebbs and flows in the number and quality of applicants’ (Dichev, 2001, p. 238; Sauder and Lancaster, 2006, p. 116), especially international students. Roberts and Thompson (2007, p. 22; Honan, 1995) found that elevation to the top had a consistent but modest impact on domestic market share. For international markets there was weak but positive evidence to show that passing through key barriers such as top 20, top 10, etc., may have a positive impact but the results were not completely consistent. There was evidence that changes in the table had a stronger impact in London (the main UK destination for international students and a highly competitive region), than elsewhere. The University of Melbourne is reported to have been 15 percent below its target for international student enrolments until the 2004 THE-QS ranked the university at 22 in its first world rankings; by the following March, it had comfortably met its target (Roberts and Thompson, 2007, pp. 18–19). Schmalbeck (1998) suggests institutional reputation may be resilient to small or annual changes. This is supported by Gunn and Hill who found a sharp dichotomy between the ranking effect on old and new universities in the UK, using 1992 as the dividing line – but this effect diminishes with time. In other words, The Sunday Times, a prominent UK newspaper, had a significant impact on student application rates, ‘with 96 percent of variance in application rates changes explained’ (Gunn and Hill, 2008, p. 288), when it first appeared in 1998 but less effect thereafter. Overall, research suggests the correlation between rankings and application rate may be less true for well-established universities than newer ones; in other words, ‘the former has a stronger history and hinterland and thus its image is not shifted so much by a change in any one year’ (Roberts and Thompson, 2007, pp. 25–26). There are benefits to such changes. An institution whose rank improves can accept a smaller percentage of its applicants and thereby increase its selectivity, under an indicator used by both USNWR and The Sunday Times (UK). On the contrary, a less favourable rank leads an institution to accept a greater percentage of its applicants, [leading to] a smaller percentage of its admitted





The circle repeats itself, leading to a downward spiral in terms of ranking position. Monks and Ehrenberg (1999, p. 10) suggest, ‘the growing popularity and influence of these rankings may lead institutions to try to influence them’. Because the selectivity index is a key metric in USNWR, institutions have sought to influence the number of applicants it receives through, for example, enhancing its publicity or marketing efforts while still retaining the same number of available places (Corley and Gioia, 2000, pp. 325–326). There are suggestions, and counter suggestions, that US universities are raising ‘their average reported SAT scores of the entering class’ (Robinson and Monks, 2002, pp. 2–3). Others admit students on a probationary or part-time basis so their (relatively) lower entrance scores will not be included in official data returns or discourage others (Ehrenberg, 2001, p. 7). Winston (2000, p. 10) suggests that HEIs may seek to limit class or cohort size because ‘a larger class means dipping further down in a school’s applicant pool and thereby reducing average student quality.’ By lowering student quality, institutions ‘reduce the school’s appeal to students’ which in turn affects student quality. Chapman University is a case in point. In less than 20 years, Chapman has come to top the ‘selectivity rank’ among master’s level institutions in the West, according to U.S. News. The minimum SAT score is now 1050. It has 45 endowed chairs. The endowment has grown from $20-million to $250-million. When U.S. News expanded the universe of colleges it ranks in 1993 by adding regional institutions, Chapman was in the second quartile of all such institutions in the West, and its academic reputation was ranked 90th among its 112 peers. It now [2007] ranks 11th over all among master’s level institutions in the West, and its academic reputation is tied for 14th highest in that group (Farrell and van der Werf, 2007). Another US study found that between 1989 and 2007, the share of entering freshmen with SAT verbal scores above 700 rose from 33 percent to 78 percent at Yale University, from 24 to 67 percent at Stanford University, from 9 to 54 percent at the University of Pennsylvania, and from 18 to 68 percent at the University of



applicants [who] matriculate, and the resulting entering class is of lower quality, as measured by its average SAT [college entry] scores (Monks and Ehrenberg, 1999, p. 10).


Monks and Ehrenberg (1999; Blair, 2000) suggest that movements of say five points on SAT scores can correspond to a 2 percent change in the number of students admitted. Meredith (2004, p. 459) similarly found that ‘moving in or out of the first quartile, and hence the first page of the rankings, had a particularly large impact on admission outcomes’. For these reasons, HEIs may feel compelled to manipulate their matriculation rate and admissions rate data, where it is possible for them to do so (Avery et al., 2005, p. 1). Examples of managing student entry grades and numbers are not confined to the US; such practice is evident even in Europe where equity and open recruitment has tended to be the norm. There can be a strong correlation of 0.8 between rankings and the relative admissions quality of students, to the extent that ‘highly ranked universities get better students.’ Universities which improved their rank by ten or more places were likely to experience a rise in the academic quality of students admitted in the following cycle (Roberts and Thompson, 2007, p. 5). Similar behaviour is found in Australia; the government requires universities to publish minimum cut off data but they insist on publishing ‘a higher minimum cut off’ but agreeing to ‘let other students in on the basis of special equity programmes, so they can still say we’ve helped’ disadvantaged students but to do so in a manner which does not affect their entry scores (Government policy official, Australia). University prestige in Japan is also strongly correlated to student selectivity with 25 percent of all universities using these criteria to achieve ‘top level’ status worldwide, and 73 percent adopting this measure in pursuit of international standards. This is especially true since the introduction of a standardized nation-wide entrance examination for public institutions in the late 1970s (Yonezawa et al., 2009, p. 133; Turner et al., 2000, p. 402). Cases of managing student selectivity is evident even in systems, such as in Ireland, where student admissions processes are effectively ‘blind’ to factors such as family or alumni background. Because the system works on a supply and demand basis, HEIs can attempt to influence the student entry grades by affecting the number of available places on a particular programme. At the graduate level there is less secrecy: HEIs use rankings to assess the suitability of applicants’ undergraduate experience, especially international students. Private or well endowed public institutions are best able to respond to ranking pressure. Given their ability to affect admissions policies



Chicago (Schmidt, 2008; Evans Stake, 2006; Espeland and Sauder, 2007; Sauder and Lancaster, 2006).

and to ‘adjust net tuition in response to changes in USNWR rank’ (Meredith, 2004, p. 460), they are better able to use mechanisms, such as financial aid and investments, to specifically target high achievers – indicators that ‘correlate strongly with socioeconomic status’ (Lovett, 2005; Brewer et al., 2001; Turner et al., 2000). Because of the perceived correlation between high tuition and reputation or status, Bowman and Bastedo (2009, p. 19) claim that ‘colleges have increased tuition substantially in their efforts to become elite institutions’, because ‘lowering one’s tuition relative to one’s competitors may be perceived as signalling lower quality’. The debate in the UK over what is known as ‘top-up’ or differentiated fees was often portrayed and pursued as a way of ensuring their world-class credentials (Sanders et al., 2002). Instead, universities may seek to affect ‘less visible price discounts’, e.g. grants, scholarships or loans, ‘in an attempt to attract additional students from their declining applicant pool’ (Monks and Ehrenberg, 1999, p. 49). Some institutions choose to skew the allocation of financial aid away from students with the greatest need to using merit aid to ‘purchase talent’ (Lovett, 2005). If high rank increases student demand, does low ranking decrease demand? There is some evidence that lower ranked universities do lose students. A Canadian study found that ‘smaller, primarily undergraduate institutions suffer from a low placing in the annual national university rankings but larger universities do not’ (Drewes and Michael, 2006, p. 783). However Roberts and Thompson (2007, p. 5) say other factors, such as relativity, may be at play; for example, the performance of local and direct competitors in league tables may have as great an impact as the wider ranking picture. So, if your rank improves but that of your main rival improves by a greater extent, the net market effect may be negative. In a binary system, with embedded reputational and status characteristics, there is some evidence that rankings may be accelerating social selectivity by sector (see Sauder and Lancaster, 2006, pp. 122–124) because of the correlation between quality, status, reputation and entry scores. Similarly, during the ‘Celtic tiger’ days, Ireland witnessed strong migration out of its institutes of technology (IT, universities of applied sciences) in favour of more traditional universities: according to Fitzgerald (2006; Clancy, 2001, pp. 56–57), there was a perceptible shift from ITs to universities on the part of the newer cohorts of children of manual workers. Between 1998 and 2004 the





On the other hand, Roberts and Thompson (2007, p. 5) suggests a low rank may propel institutions to take action to positively affect their entry level; UK universities which fell by ten places or more ‘managed to increase the grade average of their next intake’ (author’s emphasis). In this context, it is not surprising that competition between countries and HEIs for (top) students is rising. While the US has had lengthier exposure to the marketization of higher education products and rankings, international experience is converging. HEIs use rankings to inform strategic decisionmaking, aid branding and enhance visibility nationally and internationally: Those who are looking at their institution on an international scale are fully aware of the potential of these ratings, rankings, evaluations to attract students, to attract faculty and so on and it is also commented in the newspapers, in comments in the media and so on (Professor of Chemistry, public post-1945 research regional university). While some HEIs vie for high rank, for many others just being mentioned can be beneficial, helping to overcome local bias or tradition. There is a general consensus among all HE leaders surveyed, that rankings contribute to raising profile among international students, recruitment agencies and other HEIs who want to form partnerships. Some record an increasing number of foreign delegations and ‘more students being more willing to come to the campus’ since the university appeared in the rankings (Senior HE administrator, public post-1945 research and teaching intensive university, Germany). HEIs are responding to the growing presence of rankings and specifically the way in which rankings have raised the competitive bar. One Senior Administrator claimed that they were forced to ‘spend money bolstering demand in key overseas markets to counter league tables’ (Public pre-1850 research intensive university, UK). Admissions and international officers confirm that prospective students regularly inquire as to institutional rank, especially international students. Students can and do modify their behaviour in response to rankings, and high rankings do lead to increased applications (Monks and Ehrenberg, 1999; Ehrenberg, 2001, p. 2 and p. 10; Heavin, 2010). High-achievers are more sensitive to rankings and likely to travel to



proportion of such students choosing an IT fell by one-eighth, most of this shift favouring the university sector.

higher ranked universities; in response, universities are beginning to target this group with special packages, following an example that has typified US higher education for many decades. The previous chapter has already outlined how universities are ‘getting involved in recruitment’; whereas they had traditionally been domestically focused, they are almost routinely professionalizing and expanding their recruitment and admissions offices, offering special scholarships and enhancing their dormitory facilities for out-of-town students. The President of a Japanese public post-WW2 national research oriented university admitted there were few occasions when he did not publicize his university’s ranking or made a special point of referencing it at meetings with students; at the same time, academics from a post-1900 public research intensive university said they were ‘only interested in rankings from the perspective of getting good foreign students’. Attendance at select universities and colleges is seen to ‘confer extra economic advantages to students, in the form of higher early career earnings and higher probabilities of being admitted to the best graduate and professional schools’, albeit this may be more for ‘underrepresented minority students and students from low-income families’ (Ehrenberg, 2004). It also confers indirect benefits, such as connections to elites and future decision makers, membership of ‘the right’ social and golf clubs and schools, etc. Accordingly, students are conscious that they can play a role in boosting their university’s position, with some evidence of students having ‘tried to increase the standing of their program in satisfaction based rankings by sending back surprisingly upbeat surveys’ (Clarke, 2007; Coughlan, 2008a). Alumni may respond similarly (Lawrence and Green, 1980).

Rankings, employment and career opportunities There is a widespread perception among students and the higher education community that educational attainment at particular institutions can and does influence career opportunities and life-chances. I can tell you that employers who used to advertise with [the student newspaper] a lot don’t do so anymore–and that’s not just because of the recession (Barham, 2010). An Australian student leader agreed that rankings do influence employers although he had no ‘concrete examples on the tip of my fingers’. There were mixed views in Japan. Large employers were often more inter-




ested in student activity, in other words in the ‘whole person’, rather than the ranking of the institution, but there was an overwhelming view that graduates from high ranked universities had an easier route to employment; they can often ‘go straight to interview [without a test] due to an informal ranking’ (Faculty, post-1900, public research intensive university, Japan) or that ‘graduating from a top ranked university gives a job candidate an edge with employers’ (Faculty, national pre-1900 research technological university, Japan). In contrast, employers say they ‘do not live in a world where rankings are considered to be the ultimate truth by any stakeholder’ and that the ‘qualification of the person that you’re interviewing plays a much bigger role’ (Employer organization, Germany). A similar view was expressed in Australia, where emphasis was placed on the personal qualities of the candidate assessed by the employer through interviews and tests. While larger/international businesses and professional organizations were more ‘systematic’ in their use of rankings, SMEs and local employers are likely to have their own implicit ranking based upon their own experiences which can be self-perpetuating. The latter’s experience can carry positive and negative consequences; on the positive side, personal experience can sometimes override the perception generated by rankings, especially when a company is locally or regionally based. On the other hand, employers may base their views upon their experiences or opinions which may not have changed with time. Clarke (2007, p. 41) claims that graduate success in the job market often reflects ‘traditional status hierarchies’, with evidence that graduates of particular universities do especially well. Hossler et al. (1989) similarly reported decades earlier that ‘students who attended more prestigious institutions appear to accrue more benefits. In other words, employers recognize the advantages of recruitment from specified institutions, restricting ‘universities that they would go to for recruiting in the future’. I know from another perspective that the treasury here have their own equivalent recruiting pool where they would only go to universities where they deemed the economics programmes suitable for their level of excellence as they saw it (HE policy stakeholder, Australia). An Irish journalist asked if ‘it [was] just inertia or snobbery that makes Google hire principally from Trinity, UCC and UCD?’ (Keenan, 2010) A similar experience was recorded in Germany; rankings are said to provide a ‘valuable tool for many companies both in the field of recruiting




and research’ (Employer organization, Germany). This is especially true when employers are faced with candidates of similar ability; then there might be ‘a little bit more sympathy with one type of higher education institution’. US law firms regularly use USNWR to ‘determine the threshold for interviews’ (Espeland and Sauder, 2007, p. 19). A UK study similarly found employers rely strongly on institutional reputation gained via rankings in the THE-QS or implicit knowledge: 25 percent of graduate recruiters interviewed ‘cited league tables as their main source of information about quality and standards’ (HEFCE, 2006, pp. 80 and 87–92; Shepherd, 2005): It tends to be knowledge that we’ve gained over the years but I guess in terms of hard data we use The Times Higher Education. We would look at The Sunday Times league table. And then just, I think, general opinion. Employers often use league tables as a method of pre-selection, targeting graduates of the same top ten or 20 universities: ‘… as long as we keep taking graduates from those universities and those graduates come into the business and perform exceptionally well, there is no reason to change’ (HEFCE, 2006, p. 87). A UK job applicant was told she must ‘hold a degree from a THE-QS top 100 university ranked at number 33 or higher (sic)’. The UK Institute of Directors found that 32 percent of its members ‘avoid employing graduates from “certain establishments”… [referring to] institutions at the bottom of the national league tables’ (Shepherd, 2005). Institutional reputation may be listed only eighth out of ten attributes in a 2006 survey of 500 UK employers (Smith, 2006; University of Portsmouth, 2006; Thakur, M., 2007, p. 90), but its presence as an indicator is nevertheless significant. An Irish graduate survey reached a similar conclusion with employers looking for high academic achievers but also for students from particular universities, a measurement which had increased in importance over recent years (GradIreland, 2009). While all surveys shows that employers consider the institution important, reputation related factors consistently rank among the top ten. A German university explained: We want to educate graduates that are very useful for the companies so the companies are looking at rankings of course. So we are very interested in rankings because the companies are looking at rankings





Companies like Boeing are establishing their own methodology based on evaluation of employee performance in order to identify the best engineering programmes. While Boeing claims it ‘is not a college ranking process’, the outcome will position colleges according to those which Boeing feels have produced the most valuable workers (NACE, 2008; Baskin, 2008). Students seeking employment in some professions e.g. business, medicine and law have long been sensitized to the fact that institutional status and reputation can affect employment opportunities and/or starting salaries (Wedlin, 2006; Sauder and Lancaster, 2006; Berger, 2001; Jeon et al., 2007; AACSB, 2005). The Financial Times, Business Week, The Economist, Forbes, and the Wall Street Journal, etc., have been ranking business programmes, especially MBA programmes, since about 2000. There is also a close correlation between rankings and accreditation, whereby the former uses the latter as a ‘screening mechanism, primarily the American AACSB, the European EQUIS, and the British AMBA accreditation systems’ (Wedlin, 2006, p. 103). The academy is not immune either; post doctoral, lecturing or professorial opportunities are greatly influenced by the reputation of the institution from which the candidate acquired his/her qualification. Both faculty and stakeholders acknowledge that recruitment of new researchers is often based implicitly or explicitly on rankings. Thus, employers of all types use rankings as a short-listing device, which students and graduates interpret as creating a ‘glass ceiling’.

Conclusion Do students choose a college or university based solely on rankings? Clearly some students do; according to a US student, rankings and competitive mindset permeate through high schools to the point where the first question some of my peers would ask after a prospective school was introduced would be, ‘Well, where is it ranked?’ If it wasn’t high enough for their standards, it was immediately thrown from consideration. I know of parents who didn’t allow their kids to apply to certain schools because they weren’t ranked high enough and they thought that their kids ‘could do better’. An extreme case was a parent who, allegedly, refused to allow her son to apply to any school that was not ranked in the USN&WR (sic) top



(Associate Dean, public post-1970 university of applied sciences, Germany).


Has the influence of rankings on student choice increased or decreased over time or reached a plateau? The evidence points to growing influence in recent years. A US survey saw a 56.2 percent increase since 1995 amongst students who said rankings are ‘very important’ when deciding where to go to college (HERI, 2007; Table 4.2). Increasing influence was registered across almost all institutional types, with students attending private universities most likely to say rankings were ‘very important’ (32 percent in 1995 vs. 43 percent in 2006), but students at public universities were not immune (21 percent in 1995 vs. 24 percent in 2006). All racial and ethnic groups reported increased use of rankings, with the most significant usage among Asian students. And in line with McDonough’s and McManus-Howard’s earlier studies discussed above, high achievers from more affluent backgrounds are most likely to use rankings: 17 percent in 1995 vs. 24 percent in 2006.

Table 4.2 Importance of Following Reasons in Choice of College/University, 1995 and 2006 (% indicating ‘very important’) Item

1995 %

2006 %

% Change 1995–2006

Very good academic reputation

57.2

57.4

0.3

Graduates get good jobs

48.6

49.3

1.4

Size of college

37.8

38.9

2.9

Offered financial assistance

33.5

34.3

2.4

Good reputation for social activities

26.0

32.2

23.8

Grads get into top graduate/professional programs

29.7

30.2

1.7

Wanted to live near home

16.7

18.3

9.6

Rankings in national magazines

10.5

16.4

56.2

Relatives wanted me to come here

8.1

11.6

43.2

High school guidance counsellor advice

6.4

8.6

34.4

Religious affiliation/orientation of the college

6.2

7.3

17.7

Source: Published with Permission. HERI (2007) ‘College Rankings and College Choice. How important are college rankings in students’ college choice process?’ Research Brief, Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA. Emphasis added.



25. The rankings are turning college admissions into a high-stakes, pressure-packed game, in which the goal is to gain bragging rights instead of finding the school that is the best fit (Ziccarelli, 2010).


I don’t know a single person that is not concerned about the university’s ranking. A higher university ranking = greater pride in the institution, higher feelings of self-worth, greater confidence in job seeking! (sic) (Anon, 2010g). Students are especially sensitive to the publicity surrounding rankings, e.g. marketing and advertising. While rankings may not be given primacy they do shape public opinion, and are often the hidden hand shaping perceptions of quality and reputation. The above study also reveals this complex interplay between these two factors: 57.4 percent considered ‘good academic reputation’ as paramount but only 16.4 percent specifically mentioned ‘rankings in national magazines’. The correlation between reputation and rankings is interesting; 44 percent of students in a UK study said institutional reputation was important but the derivation of the concept of reputation is based on tangible status characteristics, e.g. age of the institution and entry scores, and intangible criteria, e.g. ‘the extent to which the name of the institution is publicly recognised’ (Scott, 2006). Students are ‘not just black and white [about] university reputation’; they are aware ‘about different aspects of a university reputation and a university reputation being complex’ (Student leader, Australia). They consider institutional and programme reputation to be pivotal factors influencing their decision. Students use rankings to help select a band of institutions from which to choose or affirm their choice. These factors are especially true for Asian students in the key science and technology disciplines – which are precisely the cohort of students that most governments and universities are seeking to attract. However savvy students think they are about rankings, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that rankings do influence applicant behaviour. The ‘battle for talent’ is also skewing recruitment strategies and decisions. By emphasizing the recruitment of ‘high scorers’, higher education could be accused of ‘ignoring promising minority students with lesser scores [and] increasing the competition for high-scoring minority students’ (Schmidt, 2008) thereby reducing ‘resources available for other activities, including those designed to recruit and retain students from traditionally underrepresented groups’ (Clarke, 2007, p. 38; EvansStake, 2006; Meredith, 2004). There is some evidence that such behaviour is encouraging institutions to abandon those aspects of their activities



Is the US fever/experience extending to other countries? International evidence suggests yes. Students are influenced by a combination of reputational factors and measurements of quality.

or missions – such as access programmes – that are not measured in rankings (Espeland and Sauder, 2007, p. 15). On the other hand, by creating a log-jam of supply and demand for elite institutions, rankings arguably have a democratizing effect ‘creating a new second tier of elite institutions’ which benefit from the ‘overflow’ and obsession with ‘elite’ institutions (Finder, 2007a). According to Samuelson (2004), elite institutions ‘can’t accommodate everyone who’s qualified – it’s a matter of simple demographics. More good students and faculty must go elsewhere’.




5

This is the opportunity for more of our universities to emerge as world-class institutions. More of our universities should aim to be within the top 100 internationally and I would like some of our universities to aspire to the top 10 (Bishop, Federal Education, Science and Training Minister, 2007, Australia). The Ministry would like at least one of its universities to be ranked among the top 100 leading international institutions of higher education, within the next ten years and to have at least one university ranked as number one, within Asia by the next five years (Lu Mu-lin, Vice Minister of Education, 2003, Taiwan).

Pursuit of world-class status The global financial crisis (GFC) of 2008 once again put the spotlight on the competitive importance of higher education’s role in human and knowledge capital development. As governments struggled with problems of bank solvency, credit availability, investor and consumer confidence and steep declines in international trade, on a par with the Great Depression of the 1930s, the OECD pleaded that investment in education was critical for beating the recession, arguing that it provided returns on investment at the individual, societal and governmental levels (Gurria, 2009). Similar pleas were made by other countries and supra-national organizations; the Australian and New Zealand governments warned a meeting of Pacific nations that ‘slowing or stopping reform because of the global recession will mean that countries 153



Rankings and Policy Choices

will be less competitive and slower to benefit from the return to global growth’ (Government of Australia and Government of New Zealand, 2009, p. 21; see also Obama, 2009; Education International, 2009). Levin highlighted the shifting balance of power represented by massive investment in Asia which recognized ‘that overhauling their highereducation systems is required to sustain economic growth in a postindustrial, knowledge-based global economy’ (Levin, 2010). Because of the unevenness of the crisis and different national contexts, UNESCO cautioned that the ‘economic crisis could lead to cutbacks in education budgets and delay the recruitment and payment of teachers, curtail the construction of new classrooms, and restrict the scope for targeted spending on vulnerable groups’ (Matsuura, 2009). The EU adopted a similar emphasis; Europe 2020 (Europa, 2010a, p. 13) linked its strategy for ‘smart growth’ with the modernization of higher education in keeping with earlier policy statements: Smart growth means strengthening knowledge and innovation as drivers of our future growth. This requires improving the quality of our education, strengthening our research performance, promoting innovation and knowledge transfer throughout the Union (Europa, 2010a, p. 9). The Irish government strategy for Building Ireland’s Smart Economy promoted reform and restructuring of higher education, with ‘new organizational mergers and alliances that can advance performance through more effective concentration of expertise and investment’ (Government of Ireland, 2008). Similarly, Latvia proposed major reforms of higher education including merging institutions, as a response to public finance problems arising from the GFC, and the ‘noncompetitive’ status of its universities where ‘not even [one is] in the first 1000 of the world’s best universities’ (Vorotnikov, 2010; Kursisa, 2010). UK universities were advised to either ‘restructure or die’; if they ‘do not fundamentally review their activities during the prevailing economic crisis [some of them] will not exist in the future’ (Eagan, quoted in Baty, 2009c). Yet, even before these events, the structure, performance and financing of (public) higher education had been high on the policy agenda of many countries. Europe’s Bologna Process which kicked off in 2000 anticipated the need for enhanced convergence across national systems to create a coherent system of higher education able to compete internationally




Rankings and Policy Choices 155

Last year the Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s Institute of Education ranked the world’s top 500 universities on academic and research performance. For the European Union, the news is not all that good. The study shows that 35 of the top 50 Universities in the world are American … (Dempsey, 2004). Over the years, similar concerns have been expressed by other governments and senior policymakers (see above and Box 5.1). Worried by France’s overall weak showing in the rankings, which are dominated by American and British institutions, the French Senate issued a report arguing its researchers were disadvantaged in favour of Englishspeaking institutions (Bourdin, 2007–2008; Labi, 2008a), and a conference organized under the auspices of the French Presidency of the European Commission championed a new EU ranking (EU Presidency, 2008). Lambert and Butler (2006), Aghion et al. (2007), and Ritzen (2010) each argued that Europe’s universities stood at a crossroads: ‘… the recent publication of global rankings … has made most policymakers aware of the magnitude of the problem and sparked a public debate on university reform’ (Dewatripont, 2008, p. 6; see also Saisana and D’Hombres, 2008; Baty, 2010a; Costello, 2010; NCM, 2010). As a consequence, many governments have embarked on significant restructuring and reshaping of their higher education and research systems in recent years (Dill, 2009). While rankings have not been the sole driver, it is not stretching the point too much to say that rankings have generated a policy panic in many countries, with policymakers making a simple correlation between rankings, (elite) higher education and global competitiveness. In some instances significant investment has followed or conversely concerns have been expressed about the funding gap. Common policy keywords are international comparability and benchmarking, quality and excellence, transparency and accountability, and (measurable) performance. There are three key policy trends that owe their impetus – albeit not their origin – to rankings: i) accountability and transparency, which has led to the reification of indicators and proxies to measure and compare performance, ii) internationalization and the ‘battle for talent’ which has reinforced the adulation of particular types of academic output, and iii) world-class



(Europa, 2007b) but it was the arrival of global rankings in 2003 that seems to have been a clarion call for urgent reform. The Irish Minister for Education and Science, speaking in his capacity as President of the European Council of Education Ministers, put the issue in context:


Rankings and Global Positioning

‘With National Taiwan University (NTU) now on the list of the world’s top 100 universities in recent rankings by British newspaper the Times, the Ministry of Education’s next goal is to help other universities make the top 100 rankings in different academic fields’ [Ching-chi, Minister for Education, Taiwan, 2009] (Wang, 2009). ‘The task given to them [the universities] was simple. They knew the measurement criteria of the THES rankings. All they had to do was to identify how their existing plans for improving the quality of their institutions matched those criteria’ [Mohamed, Higher Education Minister, Malaysia, 2007] (Chapman, 2007) . ‘Today, no Nigerian university is listed among the top 500 universities in the world as ranked by the 2007 THES-QS World University Rankings … The place of Nigerian universities in the African rankings is more pathetic because they trail universities from Kenya, South Africa, and Ghana, countries endowed with fewer natural resources’ [Chima Ibeneche, Managing Director, Nigeria LNG Ltd] (Isiguzo, 2009; Nworah, 2007). ‘I hope that this event will become an important milestone for the steps towards World-Class University for the universities in Indonesia … World-Class Universities (WCU) is only a proxy, not the main priority of the higher education development in Indonesia. However, we are proud that some universities in Indonesia can achieve a good evaluation results on different world university rankings’ [Sudibyo, Minister of National Education, Indonesia, 2009] (Sudibyo, 2009; Jardine, 2008). ‘The “Shanghai” and “Times Higher Education” benchmarks were among the most authoritative classification systems … [but] no Tunisian university figures among the top tertiary institutions in Africa and in the world’ [Mehrez, Member Chamber of Deputies, Tunisia, 2010] (Anon, 2010c). ‘Europe must act: … According to the Shanghai index, only two European universities are in the world’s top 20’ [European Commission, 2010] (Europa, 2010a).



Box 5.1

excellence, which has led to the fetishization of world-class universities. These trends were in evidence before the GFC, but the latter has accelerated their significance and pace of impact. As some governments invest in higher education and research as a key plank of their economic stimulus package, the gap will further widen between elite research and mass education institutions with implications for their countries (Marginson, 2010b; Jaschik, 2010b). In recent years, in addition to the curriculum and quality assurance changes that accompanied the Bologna process (Europa, 2010b; Sursock and Smidt, 2010), the EU’s focus has been on policies related to research investment, international competitiveness and improving excellence. Several high-level communications have been issued stressing the importance of higher education and university-based research for the achievement of the Lisbon goals. In 2006, it issued a Communication to the Council and the European Parliament titled Delivering on the Modernisation Agenda for Universities: Education, Research and Innovation (Europa, 2006b). The following year, it stated that ‘challenges posed by globalization require that the European Higher Education Area and the European Research Area be fully open to the world and that Europe’s universities aim to become worldwide competitive players’ (Council of the European Union, 2007; CREST, 2009; Europa, 2005a; Europa, 2005b; Europa, 2005c). An underlining theme has been the importance of quality, transparency and comparability; another theme has been capacity and capability building. Thus Framework 6 (FP6) – the EU’s big research programme – encouraged the formation of virtual ‘networks of excellence’; FP7 improved upon the concept, establishing the European Institute for Innovation and Technology (EIT), operating through knowledge-innovation communities (KICs) in select fields with emphasis on the geographic co-location of research in designated nodes. Through these initiatives and others, e.g. the European Research Council (ERC), U-Map: the European Classification of Higher Education Institutions (van Vught, 2009), U-Multirank: a multi-dimensional global university ranking (CHERPA, 2010a, 2010b), and the creation of a new Directorate of Lifelong Learning: Higher Education and International Affairs (Osborn, 2010), the EU has been slowly, quietly and systematically restructuring European higher education and research. The Framework 8 Programme, due in 2014, is likely to see this process of consolidation and concentration strengthened, linking classification and ranking with resource allocation (Maassen and Stensaker, 2010). The United States Commission on the Future of Higher Education, often referred to as the Spellings Commission after the then Secretary





Our year long examination of the challenges facing higher education has brought us to the uneasy conclusion that the sector’s past attainments have led our nation to unwarranted complacency about its future. It is time to be frank. Among the vast and varied institutions that make up U.S. higher education, we have found much to applaud but also much that requires urgent reform (CFHE, 2006). Moreover, it said that rather than relying on ‘reputation or rankings’ which were often derived from ‘inputs such as financial resources rather than outcomes’, it was important that new accountability measures be introduced based on ‘better data about real performance and lifelong working and learning ability’ (CFHE, 2006, p. 14). Recommendations focused on accessibility, cost and affordability, and quality and accountability. Its proposals to move away from a ‘system primarily based on reputation to one based on performance’ through the ‘creation of a consumer-friendly information database on higher education’ and the ‘development of a privacy-protected higher education information system that collects, analyzes and uses student-level data as a vital tool for accountability, policy-making, and consumer choice’ were especially controversial (CFHE, 2006, pp. 21–22; Sponsler, 2009, pp. 6–7). The Commission’s strong support for more federal involvement caused controversy because authority for US higher education rests largely with individual states or individual (for or not-for profit) HEIs (Tierney, 2009). Despite protest, its legacy arguably lives on – the metaphor of winning the battle vs. the war comes to mind. The EU and US responses are not unique; around the world, governments have been implementing changes to their higher education systems either directly or indirectly in response to the perceived challenge posed by rankings and their (re)ordering of national competitiveness and institutional attractiveness. Because size matters, many governments are concerned that their institutions lack critical mass or visibility, either because i) they are too small and rankings emphasize quantification measurements, ii) their research is not included in the calculation because of institutional status, e.g. French grandes écoles or German Fraunhofer or Max Planck institutes, which are not considered universities, iii) the disciplinary range is too specialized, e.g. lack a medical school or focus solely on the social sciences, and thus cannot score high enough against the bibliometric criteria, or iv) a combination of the above.



for the Department of Education, was established in 2005. Its final report made the stark observation:

In these and other instances, some governments have become concerned that they are/have been under-investing vis-à-vis their competitors. These realizations are leading many countries to restructure their higher education and research systems and prioritize some universities. France, Germany, Russia, Spain, China, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Finland, India, Japan, Singapore, Vietnam and Latvia – among many other countries – have all launched initiatives with the primary objective of creating world-class universities, inspired by rankings (Salmi, 2009, pp. 86–91; Vorotnikov, 2010; Anon, 2009a; Morgan, 2010b). While the concept of striving has usually been associated with individual institutions, individual US states have also sought to build or boost flagship universities, elevating them to what is known as Tier One status, a reference to USNWR college rankings; Kentucky and Texas are just two examples (Ludwig and Scharrer, 2009; Lederman, 2005; Arnone, 2003). The following are indicative of how rankings are inspiring/have inspired policy changes, leading to the adoption of what Barrow (1996) calls the politics of ‘selective excellence’ or Moodie (2009) calls the ‘Harvard Here’ syndrome (see Chapter 6): • France introduced legislation promoting greater institutional autonomy to encourage stronger management and planning in 2007; in 2008, it launched Operation Campus following their disappointment with the showing of French universities in the ARWU. The objective is to spend approximately EUR 8 billion establishing ten regional centres of excellence or PRES (poles de recherche et d’enseignement supérieur) joining universities, research organizations and some grandes écoles through mergers and/or regional clustering in order to enhance capacity and hence visibility (Landry, 2010; Marshall, 2010). In 2009, the government announced additional funding to ensure that higher education and research would be ‘the new centrepiece of France’s economic policy’; ‘funds will not be distributed evenly but instead will support the government’s policy of creating bigger, more autonomous universities that focus on excellence, have modernized governance, and are highly productive’ (Enserink, 2009a; Enserink, 2009b). In 2010, the government announced plans to spend EUR 4.4 billion to build the Paris-Saclay super-campus to be in the top ten in the world (Anon, 2010d; Landry, 2010), and eight research, teaching and management institutions are collaborating to create the EURO 500 million ‘Giant’, the Grenoble Innovation for Advanced New Technologies (Prest, 2010). ‘Our aim is quite simple: we want the best universities in the world’ (Davies, 2009).




• China commenced Project 211 in 1995 with the aim of building up 100 top level universities to international competitive level; it was followed in 1998 by Project 985 which had a more focused objective of developing ten to twelve world-class universities able to compete with the best universities in the US and Europe (Brandenburg and Zhu, 2007). Min Weifang, the Party Secretary of Peking University, put the objective in context: [A]mid today’s acute competition on the international scene, universities are a major factor affecting a country’s key competitive ability. Thus creating and running world-class universities should be one of the strategic foci of building up a country’ (Ngok and Guo, 2008, p. 547). Actions include: institutional mergers and resource sharing between institutions; cultivating new talent and recruiting world-class academic leaders; building national science technology innovation platforms and national centres for innovation in humanities and social sciences; and developing competitive academic programmes (Ngok and Guo, 2008, p. 551). As of 2007, the 985 project had received a total of CNY 23.8 billion (EUR 2.6 billion); this represents an average of CNY 700 million (EUR 76 million) for scientific research, with several universities receiving as much as CNY 1.2 billion (EUR 1 million) (Cao, 2009; Ngok and Guo, 2008). The GFC has not dented China’s investment strategy (Anon, 2009b). • Malaysia presented its Action Plan for Higher Education in 2007 with the aim of establishing one or two Apex Universities, which ‘will be given the latitude to put in place the necessary ingredients to achieve worldclass status.’ The universities will have greater management autonomy, and be able to introduce more selective criteria and procedures for the recruitment of faculty and students. The action plan specifically identified achieving at least one university in the top 100 ranking by 2010 (Government of Malaysia 2007, pp. 35, 36). Universities given Apex status have the ‘greatest potential among Malaysian universities to be world-class, and as such, would be given additional assistance to compete with top-ranked global institutions’ (Higher Education Minister quoted in Chapman and Kaur, 2008). Special status amounts to approximately MYR 153 million (EUR 38.46 million) each (USM, 2010). Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) which has requested an additional MYR 830 million (EUR 208.66 million) will be expected to ‘move up the World University Rankings with a target of top 200 in




•

•

•

•

five years and top 100, if not top 50, by 2020’ (Anon, 2008; Chapman and Kaur, 2008; Chapman, 2007). Taiwan introduced a targeted initiative in 2005 to provide annual funding of TWD 10 billion (EUR 237m) for five consecutive years to the nation’s top universities. The aim is to ‘help universities improve their global standing’ and has seen the bulk of the funding go to National Taiwan University; a second stage of the project is planned to begin in 2011. The aim is to have universities specialize in particular fields where they can excel in order to increase Taiwan’s presence in the world’s top 100 (Wang, 2009). The Danish government aims to have ‘at least’ one university among the top ten in Europe by 2020, as measured by the THE-QS ranking. At present (2010), Copenhagen is 15th in Europe while Aarhus is 20th. Globalisation Funds, 2006–2012, may exceed DKK 39 billion (EUR 5.24 billion) or 0.5 percent GNP; in addition the government has dedicated DKK 100 million (EUR 13.44 million) for Centres of Excellence (annually from 2011), and DKK 100 million (EUR 13.44 million) in New Matching Fund (annually from 2011) (The Danish Government, 2010; Anon, 2010e; Myklebust, 2009). Finland’s Aalto University is a merger between the Helsinki School of Economics, Helsinki University of Technology and the University of Art and Design Helsinki. It has received an injection of EUR 500 million plus its normal allocation to help with the creation of a ‘world-class university’ (Aarrevaara et al., 2009). Brain 21 Korea aims to reduce the number of institutions through mergers, reduction in the number of students entering national universities by raising entry standards, and targeting investment, with the aim of establishing 15 ‘world-class’ universities. The South Korean government spent KRW 1.34 trillion (EUR 885 million) during the 1st Stage (1999–2005) of BK21, and has ear-marked KRW 2.03 trillion (EUR 1.34 billion) for the 2nd Stage (2006–2012); in addition, the WCU Project (2008–2012) which covers personnel fees (annual salaries), direct costs, indirect costs and additional expenses will cost EUR 681.69 million (Government of Korea, 2002, 2008).

The examples are endless. Even countries with fewer national resources are caught up in the maelstrom (see Icamina, 2010; Anon, 2010c; Isiguzo, 2009; Sudibyo, 2009). Nigeria’s Universities Commission (NUC) ordered a study to identify why the country ‘continued to feature very poorly in global ranking of universities, despite improvements in the development




of physical structures, facilities and other parameters as reflected by the commission’s programme accreditation results’ (Olatunji, 2009; Oni, 2010; Edukugho, 2010b). A quality-assurance system is being established to help ‘drive up standards and boost the Nigerian university sector’s global standing’ with the aim of having ‘at least two institutions among the top 200 universities in the world rankings by 2020 – the so-called 2/200/2020 vision’ (Baty, 2009a; Okebukola, 2010). In 2008, the government announced a new NGN 42 billion (EUR 230 million) Special Intervention Fund, ‘under which six universities, three polytechnics, three colleges of education and the Nigerian Defence Academy will receive funding to improve their infrastructure’ (Baty, 2009a) in addition to World Bank funding (NUC, 2010; see also Davie, 2007). Sri Lanka is alarmed that it’s ‘universities have gone down in the “University Rankings”… far below when compared to Malaysian and Indian Universities’ (Abeyratne, 2007). As part of a wider reform package, Vietnam announced plans to rank its own universities as of 2007–2008 ‘to encourage schools to improve their performance because a low ranking may hurt a school’s reputation’ (Nhan, 2007). And Ireland is concerned that ‘No Irish thirdlevel institution has broken into the top 200 worldwide in the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU)’ (Donnelly, 2009; Flynn, 2010b). Rankings are affecting policy decisions in other ways. For example, a report by the National Bureau of Economic Research claimed a strong correlation between USNWR rankings and public funding per student; state funding increased by an average of 58 percent from 1987–1995 for colleges that first appeared in the rankings by 1990. In comparison, funding increased only 49 percent for colleges that were never ranked and 48 percent for those already on the list. Zhe Jin and Whalley (2007) attribute an increase in state expenditure of 6.5 percent per student to USNWR exposure. In February 2008, Macedonia introduced Article 159 of the Law on Higher Education (no. 35/2008) which automatically recognizes degrees from the top 500 universities listed in the THE-QS or ARWU or USNWR without going through the otherwise complex recognition process (Farrington, 2008). As reported in chapter 4 above, Mongolia, Qatar and Kazakhstan restrict scholarships to students admitted only to highly ranked (top 100) universities (Salmi and Saroyan, 2007) while Dutch immigration law (2008) targets ‘foreigners that are relatively young and received their Bachelor, Master or PhD degree … from a university … in the top 150’ of ARWU or THE-QS (Beerkens, 2009), and the Danish government has raised entry requirements to people with a qualification from the world’s top 20 universities, a change from the top 400 previously (Danish Immigration Service, 2010; Henriksen and Jessen,




2010). Singapore has introduced the status of Foreign Specialist Institute which only allows ‘high quality’ institutions, unofficially spoken of as universities ranked in the top 100 of the THE-QS, permission to collaborate with local universities or polytechnics; the strictness of the criteria is illustrated by the fact that a prominent UK university reportedly missed out by a few points (Ministry of Education, 2008, p. 28). In the US, some state Governing Boards have benchmarked presidential salaries against improvements in rankings (e.g. Florida and Arizona) or have sought to increase the presence or number of their flagship universities. Other US states have ‘folded-in’ rankings into their own performance measurement systems; Minnesota, Indiana and Texas use rankings in state assessment reports as a way of evaluating success or failure vis-à-vis a policy goal (Sponsler, 2009, pp. 10–13; see also Anon, 2010i). These examples illustrate the multifaceted way in which rankings are influencing public policy decisionmaking and public discourse around the globe. Asia, including Austral-Asia and Europe appear most affected, but Africa is not an innocent bystander; South America on the other hand has remained relatively immune from the policy hysteria (Morgan, 2010a). The US presents a more complicated picture because of its federal system. There is evidence of states vying with each other regarding the status of flagship universities, arguably the US version of world-class, with southern and western states challenging the north-east (Selingo, 2002). This suggests the battle for world-class excellence operates primarily at the nation-state or supranational level – between the main power blocks of the US/North America, Europe and Asia. There is plenty of evidence of governments using rankings to accelerate strategies to restructure higher education, especially in the aftermath of the GFC, and to publicize the virtues of their particular region for investment and high skilled talent (Creative Dublin Alliance, 2009, p. 8). Regardless of the merits of the particular proposals, policymakers have looked to rankings to provide the appropriate evidence, the rationale or set of indicators by which to benchmark higher education institutions, and, where necessary, make changes to bring their systems and/or institutions into line. This includes introducing differential funding models or linking resource allocation to performance, often measured by rankings, in order to drive change. The next section of this chapter presents three short vignettes to understand how rankings are impacting on higher education policy in Germany, Japan and Australia, drawing on interviews conducted in these countries. This is not to argue there are no other policy drivers, but rather to concentrate on the rankings factor. The final section proposes a framework through which these policy changes can be viewed.





Until recently, higher education in developed and developing countries placed importance on the massification or the democratization of education. The focus was on getting more people into education by widening access. Especially in public systems, there was often little discrimination between universities by either the public or the government. Systems modelled on California’s master plan or the European binary imposed differentiation according to a distinction between academic and professional programmes and qualification level. Over time, many of these historic boundaries have blurred. Boundaries between classical and professional disciplines have become less important as knowledge became more complex and the knowledge economy more demanding. Today, the emphasis is on the pursuit of world-class excellence; there is greater focus on the selection of talent rather than simply the recruitment of faculty and students. Some countries and institutions even talk of having too many students attending university; by admitting ‘inadequately qualified science students’ universities argue they are in danger of ‘mission drift’ as they cease to be elite institutions (RIA, 2009, p. 9). Many governments are turning away from using regulatory mechanisms in favour of more opaque steerage through mission-based contracts or compacts and performance-based funding, and using competition to foster steeper vertical or hierarchical stratification and differentiation between institutions and their students, as the cost of massification increases and the battle for world-class excellence intensifies. Because higher education has come to be seen as a major driver of global competitiveness, many argue that world-class universities are ‘the launching pads for our entry into the knowledge economy’ (Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister India quoted in Rahman, 2009), while others say helping to ‘raise the profile of single universities or research institutes … will do little to improve the system as a whole’ (Muchie, 2010). These trends and debates are apparent, in differing degrees, in the three target countries in which interviews were conducted. Japan and Germany have quite complex and substantially larger higher education systems than Australia: 752, 410 and 37 HEIs, respectively. While Australia and Germany are predominantly public systems, Japan has a substantial private HE sector equivalent to 76.2 percent of all HEIs, some of which are highlyranked. Australia has a unified national system as per the Dawkins reforms of 1989 while Germany retains a binary system (universities and Fachhochschulen/Universities of Applied Sciences). All three countries face regional and competitive pressures which challenge their presumptive global pos-



Responding to rankings


ition at a time of fiscal challenges, demographic pressures and the rising costs of investment in higher education and research. They also have national rankings, and have been significantly affected and influenced by global rankings since their inception (Hazelkorn, 2009c).

What are the universities people talk about internationally – Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford – but no German universities…We look back decades and people came to German universities; today they go to US universities (Rector, public pre-1900 technological university, Germany). The Federal Republic of Germany is comprised of 16 Länder, each of which has its own constitution and government, and responsibility for education. The higher education system is usually described as a binary system, with the main division between universities – which offer traditional academic or technological programmes of study – and Fachhochschulen. The latter were established in 1970 to provide professionally-oriented programmes initially pre-BA level, and since 1992, applied research and development. Recently, in response to competitive pressures and boundary blurring which has occurred under the Bologna process, many Fachhochschulen have adopted the nomenclature of University of Applied Sciences; many offer BA and MA degrees. In 2009/2010, there were 203 Fachhochschulen, 105 universities and the remaining a mix of colleges of education, theology, art and music, and public administration (Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland, 2010). There has been a national ranking, the HochschulRanking since 1998; it is produced by CHE (Centre for Higher Education Development), established in 1994 by the Bertelsmann Foundation and the German Rectors’ Conference as a non-profit limited company. It uses web-enabled technologies to provide a discipline-specific, multidimensional system aimed at providing information for prospective students. It is essentially a student information system (SIS) providing a range of information from teaching to student life. The results of the ARWU and THE-QS rankings, first published in 2003 and 2004, respectively, challenged the perceived wisdom that German universities were amongst world’s best (see Table 5.1). The Ministry of Education and Research put the situation in context: We have a lot of very good universities across the board in Germany, a high average standard, but what we lack are really top



Germany

Number of Universities in Top 100, 2003–2010 Australia QS

Germany THE-TR

ARWU

THE-QS

QS

n/a

5

n/a

n/a

n/a

7

5

n/a

Japan

ARWU

THE-QS

THE-TR

ARWU

THE-QS

QS

THE-TR

2003

2

n/a

n/a

2004

2

11

n/a

n/a

5

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

5

4

n/a

n/a

2005

2

12

n/a

n/a

5

2

n/a

n/a

5

3

n/a

n/a

2006

2

7

n/a

n/a

5

3

n/a

n/a

6

3

n/a

n/a

2007

2

8

n/a

n/a

6

3

n/a

n/a

6

4

n/a

n/a

2008

3

7

n/a

n/a

6

3

n/a

n/a

4

4

n/a

n/a

2009

3

8

n/a

n/a

5

4

n/a

n/a

5

6

n/a

n/a

2010

3

n/a

7

5

5

n/a

5

3

5

n/a

5

2



166

Table 5.1


A year later, June 2005, the government launched the Exzellenzinitiative (Initiative for Excellence). The Exzellenzinitiative was the result of the fact that German universities did not appear among the top 20 or 50 of the rankings. This is for two reasons: 1) we have not concentrated funding on a few universities. Rather the policy has been to have many good universities but not many excellent ones; 2) much research is not conducted in universities, but in research institutes. As a result, the Excellence Initiative is pushing co-operation between universities and independent research institutes (Government policy official, Germany). The aim is to unashamedly create a German Ivy League, focusing on internationally renowned publications/research activities, in an effort to reclaim Germany’s historic leadership position in research (Chambers, 2007). The initiative marked a significant shift from traditional emphasis on egalitarianism or ‘having good universities across Germany’ towards competition and hierarchical stratification. A total of EUR 1.9 billion was earmarked from 2006 to 2011 for three initiatives, open only to universities: Graduate schools (maximum EUR 1 million annually) and Excellence Clusters (maximum EUR 6.5 million annually). For universities which were successful in both of the former competitions, they could additionally be awarded Institutional Strategic Development funds (maximum EUR 13 million annually). The ten winners, from the first and second rounds, came to be identified as ‘elite’ universities: Berlin, Göttingen, Aachen, Konstanz, Karlsruhe, Freiburg, Heidelberg, Stuttgart, München and München Technical University. A second phase is to begin in 2012 for another five years, with a funding of EURO 2.7 billion (Federal Ministry of Education and Research, n.d.). The most surprising outcome was how the initiative provoked such a huge response from the universities, jockeying for position, for a relatively small amount of money. Heretofore the national CHE rankings had informed government opinion, but it was not linked to funding; this is changing because of the way the policy objectives were so readily endorsed and by the way the results ‘help[ed] our top-class universities become better known across the world’ (Schavan, Federal



universities … The latest ranking table clearly shows why it is that Germany needs top universities (Dufner, 2004).

Minister for Education and Research, quoted in Shin-Who, 2007). University leaders concur with the claim that the Exzellenzinitiative boosted Germany’s international visibility, giving ‘a little more glamour to Germany’; there is also increased interest from international students and faculty who found it ‘not as easy as … before to get a visa to the US [under the Bush administration]’, and from employers and industrial partners. Whether intentional or not, the Exzellenzinitiative has been perceived (and used) both inside and outside Germany as a government ranking. Together, rankings and the Exzellenzinitiative have encouraged a major societal rethink about egalitarianism with a renewed emphasis on elite institutions (Kehm, 2009), provoking an ‘outcry among most of the relevant stakeholders in German higher education and … [breaking] a longstanding social democratic taboo – by supporting and promoting elite institutions’ (Kehm, 2006). When the Social Democrats were replaced by the Christian Democrats in 2005, the latter immediately embraced the principles of the Exzellenzinitiative. Like similar policy approaches elsewhere in Europe, higher education in Germany was seen as a public good; resources were distributed fairly equitably across all universities and students were entitled to admission once they had passed the appropriate examinations. Universities did not have authority to select student or charge fees. Researchers were organized into dedicated institutes usually separate from higher education. According to Levin (2010), this policy effectively ‘destroyed the worldwide distinction Germany’s best universities once held’ while Fallon (2008, p. 16) says the ‘lack of differentiation of mission among institutions seems [the] paramount’ reason why German universities underperformed in the late 20th century. Whatever the merits of this explanation, global rankings presented a compelling case for new thinking. Because rankings only measure university-based research, the work within the Max Planck and Fraunhofer institutes was undocumented. Thus, another strand of the Exzellenzinitiative was to actively encourage the restructuring and realignment of the system and institutions, specifically to force closer links and/or mergers between research institutes and universities in order to maximize their visibility and heighten the performance of universities. A lot of our research is conducted at non-university research institutions, such as the Max Planck Society or the Helmholtz Association. We aim to concentrate the research potential of the German science





This effectively has meant more closely aligning the higher education system to criteria favoured by rankings. Traditional fault-lines have been exposed. Universities associated with the south and southwest of the former West Germany did well in the competition, while those in the poorer north and east did not perform as well, with the exception of Berlin. Students and faculty at universities in the former East Germany are especially concerned about the ability of their university to respond adequately to this accelerating competition: ‘Some departments and programmes may get left behind as a result of increased focus on and funding of the best programmes’ (Student leaders, public post-1990 teaching intensive university); the government acknowledges the gap, and says it is ‘trying to move students from west to east but it is difficult’ (Government policy official). Critics have argued that giving money ‘to the few would degrade the others and take much-needed funding away from them’ (Kehm, 2006). The Exzellenzinitiative and rankings are also affecting the relationship between universities and Fachhochschulen, potentially contradicting the harmonizing tendencies of the Bologna Process. The latter aims to create a common higher education system across Europe via three major initiatives: introduction of a 3-cycle system (bachelor/master/doctorate), quality assurance and the recognition of qualifications and periods of study. A by-product of this process is the likely withering-away of traditional distinctions between universities and Fachhochschulen. In ‘many cases, Fachhochschulen are doing different or even better research … [and] in the case of engineering where both universities and Fachhochschulen are involved in research there needs to be more co-operation.’ The remaining ‘differences will disappear over the next 10 plus years, but the government is trying to accelerate this process. Then we will only have universities with different missions and profiles’ (Government policy official, Germany). Instead of the current binary, the future system is likely to be hierarchically differentiated, with a small ‘elite group’, a larger middle group of ‘solid research universities … [with] a slight opportunity to move into the top group’ and a larger group comprised of Fachhochschulen and some universities primarily providing undergraduate/BA qualifications and a little research in selected fields of expertise (Kehm, 2006).



system at our universities. We want to turn them into international centers of top-class research and raise their international profile (Shin-Who, 2007).

Parallel legislative changes have granted greater autonomy with accountability to higher education management, in line with international trends, but this is also to prepare them for competition. Historically, the combination of political guidance and academic selfregulation has had particular implications for governance, with some universities being considered as part of public administration. Each Länd decided on organizational issues, including recruitment, the establishment or elimination of departments, and other internal decisions, and faculty (particularly professors, who have lifetime appointments) operated semi-autonomously, and could decide on most academic matters (De Boer et al., 2008). Today, a more professional approach to management, strategic planning and decisionmaking is being encouraged. This has been accompanied by changes to the funding system, including the right to charge fees. Changes are also affecting the academic profession and work practices, with the introduction of new recruitment practices, and human resources management; the introduction of performance related pay and merit pay/salary for faculty challenges the traditional ‘power’ of the professoriate and individual professors. The latter two issues used to be outside the university’s spread of command but it is now a management issue and a topic of discussion within the university. Ambitious universities have adopted an aggressive approach to recruitment, using attractive salary and benefits packages to head-hunt international scholars, and ‘systematically’ identify potential employees. Already, some universities are focusing more resources and time on recruitment, and partnership formation. This includes using assessment criteria which closely mirrors rankings. There is some reluctance to admit the scale of likely changes but no institution, department or discipline is immune. Rankings are also playing a role in the transformation of internationalization from a student or cultural exchange experience to one of strategic positioning and recruitment. A recent report on student mobility noted that Over the past decade, the original humanitarian goals of university mobility programs have had to take a back seat to a heated debate on Germany’s economic competitiveness in the world. Strengthening Germany’s role as a center for scientific research is increasingly seen as a means of boosting the country’s share of global





Attracting international talent is a key plank of government policy, especially in the face of significant demographic challenges; not only is there the realization that Germany needs to actively headhunt top faculty/researchers and PhD students, but there is a concern that after 2015 the population will begin shrinking from today’s 82.5 million to 75 million by 2050. This will lead to a ‘shortage’ of domestic students, intensifying competition for high-achievers (Brandbenburg et al., 2008, pp. 12–16). Better placement in international rankings could help avert some problems. There is also evidence that rankings are impacting on perceptions of quality; the choice of indicators used by national and global rankings essentially define quality. This has helped the credibility and expansion of CHE which now produces four different rankings including a cross-border variant (CHE, 2010c). They are also being used and have taken on a quality assurance function, in an environment in which formal QA processes are still relatively immature. Both national and global rankings are generally viewed as a positive and beneficial aide to improving German higher education – presenting ‘an image of the reality and giving real information’. There are concerns however about the choice of indicators because they do not adequately or fairly measure Germany’s strong presence in engineering and other technological fields. Given EU policies and Germany’s geographic position, there is a strong push for greater inter-institutional collaboration, however, there is also a realization such collaboration may not be restricted to national boundaries. In other words, institutions may find that their best collaborator is within a cross-national region. Hence, there is a view that national boundaries may become less important; the EIT and ERC are bringing the European dimension to the fore (HE policy stakeholder, Germany). This process may be further strengthened as institutions use rankings or similar indicators to identify appropriate peers with whom to form ‘networks of excellence’ and through which they conduct an increasing amount of business, e.g. benchmarking, research, programme development, and student/academic exchanges. As universities form regional and



markets. The brain gain of attracting scientists from abroad is viewed as a bonus for the host country, whereas the associated brain drain for foreign countries is seen as a necessary side effect of competition (Federal Ministry for Education and Research, 2005, p. 4; Labi, 2008c).

global networks, their relationship to the state is likely to take on a different hue. Finally, there is a strong belief that rankings will become more important in the future, however this is not considered a task that for the government. Rankings ‘cannot be perfect and governments are expected to be perfect. Therefore they should be done by private people and organisations.’ Nevertheless, rankings are ‘having a positive influence, but one needs to be careful – and not just look at the ranking but read different ones’ (Government policy official). There is strong support for pursuing excellence yet there are concerns about having ‘good quality universities all across Germany’. Despite these misgivings, the Exzellenzinitiative has been viewed overall as a success (Gardner, Mi, 2008).

Japan The government wants a first class university for international prestige … Rankings are becoming important to present Japan attractively and getting good students and good workers as the population declines. That’s the government’s motivation (Government policy researcher). Japan ‘has maintained a rather self-sustained, national language-based higher education model with a stratification mechanism to select and produce future leaders and professionals’ (Ishikawa, 2009, p. 2). It is characterized by its dual structure that includes a limited public sector controlled by national and local governments and a very large market-driven private sector. There are a total of 752 universities (2008) divided into three different groups: 86 national universities, controlled by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT); 75 public universities run by local or regional governments and 591 private universities. Of the over three million students (2008), 76 percent attend a private university (MEXT, 2008). The seven imperial universities (Tokyo, Kyoto, Tohuku, Kyushu, Hokkaido, Osaka and Nagoya), despite being integrated into the university system, still retain a special status with a preferential budget. Accordingly, many HE leaders in Japan believe the government will do ‘what’s necessary’ to protect the status of, at least, Tokyo and Kyoto from other (Asian) competitors. The most popular ranking is produced by Asahi Shimbun, one of the leading newspapers in Japan. It began publishing the Daigaku




[University] Ranking in 1994 in order to provide broader information about Japanese universities to students preparing for entrance examinations. In contrast to many other rankings, Asahi Shimbun uses as many indicators for which it can find information and does not aggregate the results into a single comprehensive rank. It currently collects over 70 indicators for various aspects of performance annually. Because high achievers already know which university to choose, the audience is other students (Media stakeholder A). Rankings through Student Surveys are produced as university guidebooks by Recruit Ltd., in addition to its magazine, College Management; they are distributed among people interested in higher education management (Yonezawa et al., 2002). A new ranking was launched in 2008 by Yomiuri, the largest newspaper company in Japan, in response to the government’s attention to quality assurance and development issues. Under the title ‘Real performance of universities’, Yomiuri aims to create a source of information about various aspects of universities rather than entrance test scores which traditionally has been the key factor influencing student choice. It focuses on teaching and learning, retention rates, etc., and highlights education oriented universities and colleges. Information is gathered by questionnaires to the presidents of four-year universities (both public and private), but results are not aggregated or weighted (Yonezawa, 2010). Like many countries, Japan is facing increasing competitive and demographic pressures, the latter brought about by declining numbers of prospective higher education students and increasing numbers of older people (Fukue, 2010). Stiff competition is coming especially from neighbouring China, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan, all of whom are investing heavily in higher education with the objective of establishing world-class universities. Previously protected by geography, Japan’s universities are under considerable pressure and urgency to reform and modernize. According to the ARWU and THE-QS rankings, Japan’s world standing has been variable since 2004 (see Table 5.1). Using 2007 THE-QS data, Japan ranked 5th in the world; however, if the data is recalibrated according to population size or GDP, then Japan falls to 18th or 19th position, respectively (Beerkens, 2007). Reform of Japanese higher education has coincided with the emergence of global rankings. The 1998 University Council’s recommendation, ‘A Vision of Universities in the 21st Century and Reform Measures: to be distinctive universities in a competitive environment’, urged immediate action regarding university performance and quality




(Oba, 2008). In the following years, a series of legislative and policy initiatives were introduced aimed at increasing institutional autonomy and management capabilities, enhancing evaluation and emphasizing quality, and developing internationally-competitive research (JSPS, 2010; Oba, 2007). In April 2004, independent corporation status was granted to the national universities; the intention was to transform the way public universities are governed and managed, and encourage universities to adopt private sector type characteristics. While universities are still part of the public sector, faculty are no longer civil servants. Universities are also able to set their own tuition fee levels, but this may not exceed 110 percent of the standard tuition fee set by the Ministries of Education and Finance. Some of these changes were introduced because the private sector had argued against what it viewed as unfair competition; thus in 2006, the government began decreasing funding for national universities by 1 percent annually. The government hopes these factors will bring about structural transformation of the higher education system, replacing traditional public/private distinctions with differentiation based on market-sensitive profiles, emphasizing teaching, research and/or community service along international, national and regional lines. These reforms reflect Japan’s ambitions to establish world-class universities. Oba says that while there is no consensus on the definition of a world-class university in Japan, judgement about the world-class status of universities seems to be made based on criteria widely used, … also taking different university rankings into consideration (Oba, 2008, p. 635). Helping set the direction for this more strident strategy was the 2005 Central Council for Education, The Future of Higher Education in Japan report, which recommended that ‘each university should be functionally specialized according to its strategy (Oba, 2008, p. 631). In 2007, the government introduced its 21st Century COE Programme with targeted funding for a limited number of Centres of Excellence and Global Centres of Excellence, and Graduate Schools. The Flagship University Project aims to select a few universities to be allocated additional funding (Mok, 2008). Internationalization is a critical part of this strategy, and is now a priority for both government and universities because it is seen as an indicator of international competitiveness (Yonezawa et al., 2009; Szu-yu and Kao, 2010). In 2008, the government announced plans to increase the number of international students from the current 100,000 to 300,000 by 2020




but this strategy is not without its challenges. The following year, it launched the ‘Global 30’ Project for Establishing Core Universities for Internationalization which aims to designate about 30 top universities to function as core schools for receiving and educating international students (Yonezawa, 2007); 13 universities were selected in 2009 (MEXT, 2010). These universities will receive additional funding to help establish an international strategy and strengthen support systems for foreign researchers and students. At first glance, the Global 30 project would seem to be an example of Japan’s ‘opening up.’ Certainly, the falling birth rate means Japanese universities need to attract more international students if they are to survive. The emphasis on lectures taught in English – the ‘global standard’ – is consistent with the goal of turning Japanese higher education institutions into international centers of learning that can compete with universities in other countries for students (Burgess, 2010). But, readying Japanese higher education for an influx of international students means upgrading campuses, and transforming selective postgraduate/PhD programmes and activities in the sciences into English – even though over 92 percent of foreign students come from Asia, of which 60 percent are Chinese and 15 percent Korean (JASSO, 2009). Because rankings have the capacity to make an institution better-known both nationally and internationally, rankings have acquired increasing significance. Arguably, the government’s internationalization strategy deliberately aims at improving Japan’s performance vis-à-vis this indicator which is used by THE-QS and has been the weakest for Japanese universities (Klaphake, 2010; Yonezawa et al., 2009). Most universities are focusing on post-graduate activities, usually in science and technology. Institutional flexibility allowed under ‘incorporation’ (introduced 1 April 2004) permits universities to offer distinctive tenure arrangements and salary packages to entice internationallycompetitive scholars. At one university, exceptional scholars can earn up to twice their baseline salary based on performance; others are introducing similar initiatives. Knowledge of Japanese is not required because these scholars will teach at the postgraduate level, with international or internationally-minded students, but new facilities are necessary. There are other challenges. In a comparison of competitive advantages of different countries, the Observatory on Borderless Higher Education indicated Japan has only the advantage of low tuition. There are restrictions




on student visas, the cost of living is high, and there are no preparatory lessons prior to the start of class (Jaschik, 2007c). Policymakers see the transition to English language programmes as a positive development, but there is little reflection on the longer term sociocultural implications of transforming key sections of the higher education system into English (Ishikawa, 2009, p. 7). Huang (2009, p. 155) suggests an inherent contradiction between ‘importing English language products to enhance the quality of learning and research in Japan’ and exporting ‘educational programs with distinctive characteristics’. Japanese universities are becoming more strategic, identifying research strengths and niche competences, reviewing resource allocation, and recruiting international scholars, and adapting the curriculum accordingly. There are some differences between the older Imperial and newer regional universities. The latter have some experience operating and recruiting on the world stage while the latter have been largely passive, waiting for locally captive students to come to them. But, there is also a realization that no university is immune. Most higher education leaders realize the situation is no longer tenable but the academic age profile may not be conducive to radical or immediate changes. A major challenge is the extent to which Japanese universities can change fast enough to compete. This is not simply a question of the level of investment, albeit the level of funding required to get into the very top of global rankings is a major challenge. Rather, it is a question of making the changes from a traditional authoritarian or government regulated system and institutions into more autonomous, strategic, competitive and distinctive universities. Yonezawa (2007, pp. 497–498) says ‘a wider policy vision needs to be shared and fostered among institutional leaders as well as policymakers and administrators’. While civil servants carefully distinguish between paying attention to global rankings and believing their accuracy, politicians appear to be influenced by rankings (Government official). This has facilitated an important policy shift. Given Japanese culture, history and the country’s current global position, especially in the context of the GFC, national status and prestige conferred by rankings is seen as important. Pursuit of world-class status for universities represents a rejection of the move towards egalitarianism in the post-WW2 era and a return to elitism. This may account for the fact that the government’s desire to identify and promote thirty worldclass universities has not been loudly contested publicly. It has however escalated inter-institutional competition for traditional and international students and research funding leading to the





There is growing fear that the failure to do well on global rankings may negatively affect their future in the face of growing competition among universities while the nation’s population rapidly ages and college age population continues to decline (Ishikawa, 2009, p. 10). Ultimately, in order to ‘fund research intensive universities to compete internationally, there will be impacts on the funding of other universities’ (Media stakeholder B; Kitigawa and Oba, 2010, pp. 515–516). Others say ‘in order for Japanese higher education to compete globally, the government will close down some regional and private universities and direct money to the major universities’ and some institutions will become teaching only. The ‘traditional view, that teaching should be informed by research, is changing’ (Government policy researcher). Australia … the government is very keen for Australia’s export image to be seen to have these high class universities and then … say to the world look we have high class universities in Australia, come and study here. You don’t only have to go to the US or the UK (HE Policy Stakeholder A, Australia). Australian higher education has operated in a competitive environment, nationally and globally – especially given its geographic position – for decades. The Dawkins revolution of 1989 ended the binary and introduced a unitary system, segmenting it into five historically and mission determined groupings: six old sandstone universities, three post-WW2 redbrick universities, ten post-1960 Gumtree universities, five vocational and industry-oriented Unitechs, and 13 heterogeneous new universities (Marginson and Considine, 2000, pp. 188–196). In subsequent years, additional big changes included a ‘more emphatic leadership’, enhanced executive strategies, ‘the declining salience of the academic disciplines in research organisation’, and greater flexibility and continuous organizational re-engineering (Marginson and Considine, 2000, p. 234). These changes coupled with fiscal incentives and other neo-liberal policies introduced a strong competitive element and compelled the universities to earn an increasing proportion of their income from tuition fees, performancebased funding and international students. Governments of all persuasions



demise of a number of small rural private universities (Obara, 2009, pp. 17–18).

‘have since the end of the 1980s given firm signals about the market and about strong accountability for public funding at the same time as they expanded public funding’ (Trade Unionist B). The latter has made Australia the major student-importing country; it has 7 percent of the international student market, which represents 19.5 percent of all tertiary students in Australia (OECD, 2009, pp. 313–315). In some universities and faculties, international students comprise over 50 percent of total students. In 2007/2008, education was the 3rd largest export sector in Australia, contributing AUD 13.7 billion, behind coal and iron ore, and ahead of tourism (IDP, 2008). This situation is both a cause of celebration but it also reveals an over-dependence on international students at a time when student-exporting countries, such as Singapore, China and Malaysia, are rapidly expanding their own higher education systems. Asian countries account for about 76.6 percent of Australia’s international student population. This weakness was recently exposed when figures suggested that changes to Australia visa regulations may have contributed to a dramatic 40 percent reduction in the number of international student applications (Healy, 2010). In addition a recent spate of attacks on Indian students has sparked panic across the higher education sector. This is in stark contrast to the average annual increase of 46 percent since between 2003 and 2009 (Perry, 2009; Australia Bureau of Statistics, 2009). The imbalance between undergraduate and postgraduate students is also a cause of concern, because PhD students are seen, by all governments, as an indicator for economic development and innovation. In the current financial environment, it is unlikely that the government or the universities can identify suitable alternative income sources; the value of international education to the Australian economy was AUD 16.6 billion in 2008–2009. Traditionally students have tended to use The Good Universities Guide even though there is little national mobility at undergraduate level. It is not a ranking but a rating system, using a five-point scale to rate institutions on 17 characteristics. While neither the results of the Australian Research Council (ARC) or the Learning and Teaching Performance Fund (LTPF) are published as rankings, they have quickly become seen and used as one. The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economics and Social Research at the University of Melbourne developed its own annual Index of the International Standing of Australian Universities. Global rankings penetrated the public discourse in Australia immediately upon inception, and have become increasingly influential on policymakers, higher education students – especially international students – and other stakeholders. One explanation is the international dimension: ‘Australians always like to see




themselves mentioned in terms of world comparisons’ says a Government policy official, while a trade unionist acknowledged ‘the international market is very important to Australian institutions particularly given our location in the region that we live in … [accordingly], we were in the international market very early’ (Trade Unionist A). Global rankings have highlighted the intensity of global competition, the challenges for Australia and the requirements for survival in such an environment. Several Australian universities have always featured among the top 100 universities in both the ARWU and THE-QS (see Table 5.1). This has been greeted positively by those who welcome enhanced visibility for ‘brand Australia’ (HE policy stakeholder B, Australia) and critically by those who say Australia lacks ‘truly stellar research universities’ (Marginson, 2008b). According to one higher education policy stakeholder, ‘international rankings just blew everything out of the water’ inducing politicians to say ‘we don’t have a university in the top 40 in the world and we must have a university in the top.’ The then Liberal Party government was particularly enthusiastic about improving Australian performance as measured by the rankings, and challenging the universality of a university education (Fullerton, 2005). The change to a Labour government in 2007 brought a different emphasis; ‘we should be funding universities to do what they’re best at and they should aim at excellence in something even if they can’t be good across the board’ (Government policy official, Australia). Prominence was placed on the ‘creation of a diverse set of high performing, globally-focused institutions, each with its own clear, distinctive mission’ (Gillard, 2008). These responses reflect differing positions within the higher education and policy community which fed into the Review of Australian Higher Education and its aftermath (Bradley et al., 2008). They can be roughly characterized by those within the more elite ‘Group of Eight’ (Go8) sandstone universities, who have used rankings as ammunition to argue for abandoning egalitarian policies and preferentially funding a small number of top-tier competitive universities in order to get more Australian universities higher ranked, to attract more international students and in general to better compete (Chubb, 2008; Gallagher, 2009), and almost everyone else who has urged the creation of a ‘top ten system’ and ‘making the structure world-class’ (Gardner, Ma, 2008; Reid, 2008). The Vice-chancellor of a public post-1970 teaching intensive regional university expressed concern that if the government agrees to fund universities trying to get into international ranking positions, the institutions catering to lower socio





Ultimately, the Review of Australian Higher Education – which never mentioned the word ‘rankings’ anywhere in its 300+ pages – embraced the need to ‘create an outstanding, internationally competitive tertiary education system’. Arguably there is also a political pragmatism behind this approach because many of the regional universities which the government wants to be a ‘strong player for the local communities … are all [in] marginal seats’ (Student leader). Rankings have ratcheted-up the level of competition between institutions, introducing a new dynamic into the system. It has also generated a debate about the role and funding of mass higher education, and reawakened arguments about the Dawkins’ reforms: how can Australia meet the investment needs required to compete at the highest level internationally while funding all universities at the same level? Are there too many universities with similar missions? And if teaching is differentiated from research, what happens to regionally-focused research? The 2007 government change from liberal to social-democratic government affected the nuances around this debate. One HE leader wryly acknowledged that it could be ‘a disadvantage to be ranked too highly’ (Senior HE leader, public pre-1900 research intensive university) because the government may look to spend funding elsewhere; this was ‘certainly more the attitude of the new government … [because] their backgrounds are more egalitarian …’ (Student leader). Australia was a relatively early mover in the use of performancebased funding. I suspect the … coalition government was very much driven by the notion that if they come up with rankings or performance indicators on certain aspects of university performance and could tie funding to that, that that was sort of seen as some objective assessment and started rewarding institutions for performance (Trade Unionists B). Global rankings have simply increased the importance of measuring and benchmarking performance and focused attention on methodology: the Australian government takes ‘international comparisons seriously and up until now it has tended to take the view they show the Australian system needs improving. So I think that’s the view that they would take of these ranking systems’ (Government policy official). In fact, benchmarking



economic students will suffer and the development of Australia will be threatened.

performance against peer institutions worldwide, using a basket of indicators, is another legacy of rankings not just in Australia (Go8, 2010). The debate over research assessment should be seen in this context. The Research Quality Framework (RQF) was developed between 2005 and 2007, taking its cue from the UK’s Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). It was aborted by the new Labour government on the basis that its design was cumbersome and lacked transparency, the implementation cost was too high, and it was not supported by influential groupings within the higher education sector. Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) began on 1 June 2010. The influence of rankings is apparent not only in the principle but in the construction and objectives of research assessment; in others words, it is likely that the ERA will attach funding to outcomes, and that some or all of the university block grants, currently based on performance-based indicators, and for infrastructure, research training and research will be determined by ERA outcomes. There are incentives for publication in influential, high-impact, international journals and other publication ‘outlets’. To inform this process, a comprehensive, 4-tier journal ranking index was compiled, ranking 17,000 journals across 100 disciplines. The likely effect – or intention –, over the years, will be to further concentrate research funding and activity in universities that are ‘research intensive’, thereby boosting the capacity of the larger, older universities with strength in natural sciences and medicine. This is likely to increase differentiation between faculty, in terms of salaries and work-load, in other words between teaching and research (Europa, 2010c, pp. 84–87). Moodie (2010) suggests that this ‘will intensify universities’ selective allocation of research resources internally’. The government has been ‘trying to get some diversifications so [that higher education is] not too dependent on particular markets … obviously we try and encourage them to go up the quality range … into masters and postgraduate education’ (Government policy official, Australia). This has included growing attention on domestic undergraduate students, especially high achievers, who are likely to become more mobile; nevertheless, the ‘international student market has become increasingly valuable’. As competition accelerates, international rankings have become a key driver as ‘countries are keen to market a tertiary education sector which is internationally competitive to attract these students and one of the only benchmarks are the world rankings’ (HE leader, public post-1945 research informed university). Because every university is exposed to the international student market, there is a necessity, some argue, for policy to continue to emphasize the world-class system approach. There is a




general view that any change in the standing of Australian universities could affect its attractiveness to international students, upon which the universities and the government rely for significant income (Ross, 2009; Marginson, 2008a). There is some tension around both the government’s intentions with respect to institutional diversity and the mechanism to achieve it. On the one hand, the government is keen to ‘facilitate diversification of the higher education system, wider student choice and the continuation of university functions of wider community benefit that would otherwise be lost in a purely market-driven system’ (Macklin, 2006, p. 10). It suggests using mission-based compacts to affect this outcome. On the other hand, according to one policy stakeholder, the governments says access is wonderful, we want lots of people going to universities; but then the Shanghai comes out with ANU at fortieth and Melbourne University at fiftieth and [they all] bow down to ANU and Melbourne. Poor old Charles Sturt University that is diverse, giving other courses, providing access to New South Wales students, forget it. So it totally skews the mindset about what the government claims its wants from the university sector (HE Policy Stakeholder A). As a result, support for ‘research-driven universities’ has been substantial (Gallagher, 2010; Slattery, 2010). Changes to THE, now partnered with Thomson Reuters, reduction in international student applications, and the aftermath of the GFC could individually or combined pose a threat to the standing of Australian universities as defined by global rankings (Thomson, V., 2010; Trounson, 2010b; Lane, 2010). This could affect how the government responds. Although the government says that rankings have not influenced policy making, its finger-prints are all over the discourse of higher education policy: ‘The language they are using is worldclass universities … [it is] the catch phrase that Minister Gillard uses all the time in all of her speeches and public’ statements (Student Leader).

Policy options and strategic choices Global rankings have provoked a wide-ranging debate about the contribution of higher education to a nation’s global competitiveness. It has prompted, especially in the aftermath of the GFC, considerable policy discussion about the balance between societal values and requirements for human capital development through universal higher education, and the




ability of a nation to compete in world science. The Australian government (2008) posed the question succinctly: should research and research training investment be concentrated ‘through much more focused funding of research infrastructure in [one or two] high performing institutions’ or ‘support an unspecified number of high performing research intensive universities’ or ‘support excellent performance, wherever its institutional setting’? (DEEWR, 2008, p. 50). Because nations increasingly compete on the basis of their knowledge and innovation systems, higher education has acquired enhanced policy significance, requiring investment in ‘academic capital’ (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997) which is ‘fundamentally stored in human brains’ (Castells, 1996). But even before the GFC, the ‘reputation race’ and its costs were accelerating. Global rankings have linked the investment attractiveness of nations to the talent-catching and knowledge-producing capacity of higher education placing both under international scrutiny, and generating a policy panic in the post GFC environment. Like credit rating agencies, e.g. Moody’s and Standard and Poors, rankings have the ability to value and de-value particular regions and institutions (Blumenstyk, 2009) – which is why national and regional governments often refer to rankings to publicize their attractiveness to mobile talent and corporate investment. Accordingly, the emphasis has shifted to selective resource allocation and greater concentration of research with steeper vertical stratification between higher education institutions. Despite comments to the contrary, mounting evidence, from around the world, points to the fact that governments and policymakers are responding to the macromessage, if not the micro-details, of global rankings. Most are making simple correlations between rankings and higher education performance and quality, while some are integrating the actual indicators within their own processes and/or employing them to inform concrete decisions. The incursion of rankings into policy and decisionmaking goes beyond simple benchmarking or the choice of specific indicators, e.g. research productivity and output, fields of science, and faculty and research student recruitment. Rankings underpin government exhortations about being more competitive and responsive to the marketplace and customers, defining a distinctive mission, being more efficient or productive, and becoming world-class (St. Aubyn et al., 2009, pp. 9, 29–31, 76). But, rankings are not just an outcome or manifestation of global competition, they are also driving the competition, accelerating the marketization of higher education in the belief that free markets and competition are best. They are informing the structure and shape of the higher education system. This is despite the fact that rankings




(over)emphasize research at the expense of teaching and learning or the full bandwidth of higher education endeavour. As one stakeholder put it, this is because global competitiveness is essentially seen as ‘a reputation race/game, and in this – research is sexy. Reputation, unfortunately, is always based on research, … and research attracts the best talent’ (HE policy stakeholder C, Australia). Germany and Japan want a small number of world-class universities focusing on research performance via competitions for Centres of Excellence and Graduate Schools. The German strategy of designating a small group of elite universities means replacing long-standing egalitarian principles concerning access to education and little differentiation between higher education institutions, with a hierarchical and openly-competitive system. The term ‘elite’ causes some tension, provoking memories of recent German history. Japan’s post-WW2 efforts to move away from elitism have been rescinded in favour of and in the face of competition. In contrast, Australia has sought – at least publicly – to shun such suggestions, and to emphasize horizontal (functional) differentiation rather than vertical (reputational) hierarchies. There are implications in this model for regional institutions and embracing institutional diversity with parity of esteem; a strategy of ‘selective excellence’ inevitably provokes accusations of the ‘Matthew Effect’ (Germany, Australia) because they are based on zero-sum assumptions about funding – unless, of course, more resources can be put into the system. Ideological and political differences have emerged primarily between, but also within, political parties in both Germany and Australia about how to balance excellence initiatives with support for ‘good quality universities’ across the country. These differences are best illustrated by adjustments to policy emphasis, if not in content, since the recent change of government in Australia. Thus far, Japan’s pursuit of world-class university has provoked little evidence of public discordance. All three countries share the view that more differentiation between institutions is ideal because it best meets educational and labour market needs (Birnbaum, 1983). They have been critical of all higher education institutions wanting to excel in the same way in research. In Germany, partially because of the Bologna Process, traditional differences have been withering away, while Australia adopted a unitary system in 1989. Many governments have been content to publicly criticize or condemn the role that rankings play in accelerating a reputation race while quietly condoning or applauding its role in driving differentiation. Germany and Japan have specifically targeted some universities for preferential funding, while Australia has used national assessment processes (e.g. Learning and




Teaching Fund or research funding) to effect greater differentiation. Another strategy is to link rankings or performance indicators to quality assurance criteria or accreditation. In these cases, rankings act as a quasi market or resource allocation instrument. Based on the countries under review and drawing on the international experience, two main strategic positions are discernible. The policy choice is best framed as one between world-class universities vs. world-class systems. i) The neo-liberal model aims to create elite world-class universities by fostering greater vertical or reputational differentiation in order to compete globally. Germany and Japan (plus France, Russia, China, Korea, etc.) prefer a small number of world-class universities (10 and 30, respectively), focusing on research performance via competitions for Centres of Excellence and Graduate Schools. Rankings act as a freemarket mechanism, introducing competition into the system in a way which either the government or public might otherwise find disdainful. In the circumstance, rankings are used as a powerful policy instrument. This model favours concentrating research in a few universities which would conduct ‘world-class’ research across all disciplines; the remaining institutions would concentrate on undergraduate or professional teaching with only limited locally relevant applied research. This model tends to reinforce classical forms of disciplinary knowledge or Mode 1 knowledge production (Gibbons et al., 1994; see Chapter 6). Two forms emerge from the vignettes: Version A which jettisons traditional equity values (Germany) and Version B which reasserts traditional status and hierarchical values (Japan). ii) The social-democratic model aims to build a world-class system comprised of a portfolio of diverse high performing HEIs with a global focus. Australia (plus Norway, Ireland, etc) seeks to balance excellence with support for ‘good quality universities’ across the country, with a close correlation between teaching and research. In this model, teaching and research excellence are spread geographically, with universities acting as the main proximity knowledge providers driven to specialize because of their relevance and competences (Gibbons, 1998). This model equates with Mode 2 knowledge production, which emphasizes collaborative and interdisciplinary work with external partners including the wider community (Gibbons et al., 1994). In these circumstances, rankings are an important informer of policy, but governments have for a variety of reasons, e.g. social and/or political values, geographic spread of




institutions or historic state of the country’s development, deliberately shunned using rankings in an intrusive way. The emphasis is on fairness and equity, and supporting excellence wherever it occurs. The battle for world-class excellence has fused national and institutional priorities, and transformed global rankings from a benchmarking tool into a strategic instrument. No doubt the connection between higher education and the capacity of a country to participate in world science and the knowledge economy has been beneficial to particular universities, and has helped catapult higher education to the top of the policy agenda. While many of these issues were already on that agenda, rankings have accelerated their importance. Dill (2009, p. 100) argues that rankings have had the ‘canary in the coal mine’ effect, sending a ‘clear message to policymakers in the developed countries’ and beyond, and quickening the pace of reform. Governments, if they needed to be reminded, understand higher education’s strategic importance vis-à-vis the new world order. But, by valuing some higher education attributes more than others, are rankings driving a reputation race that only some countries and institutions can win?




6

Hospitals, banks, airlines and other public and private institutions serving the public are compared and ranked, why not universities? (Egron-Polak, 2007) Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts (Sign hanging in Einstein’s office at Princeton).

From student information to commercial product Modern day rankings emerged because of what was perceived to be a lack of publicly available information about the quality and performance of higher education. National rankings, such as USNWR or Maclean’s University Rankings, are often a commercial product providing consumer-type information for undergraduate students and their parents. Similar college guides or league tables have been developed in other countries, produced in the main by media companies. The appearance of global rankings in 2003 had a revolutionizing affect. ARWU, followed quickly by THE-QS and Webometrics and then many others, coincided with and exploited fundamental shifts in the global economy and, in particular, the fact that human and knowledge capital formation had become the key barometer of global competitiveness. Higher education is an important form of investment in human capital. In fact, it can be regarded as a high level or a specialized form of human capital, the contribution of which to economic growth is very significant. It is rightly regarded as ‘the engine of development in the new world economy’ (Castells, 1994b, p. 14). The intensification of competition between nations for a piece of the global marketplace has, especially in the post GFC world, increased 187




pressure on higher education to meet more societal and economic needs – some with fewer but others with much enhanced resources. This is producing tectonic shifts in the world order and the international division of knowledge, between attractive and less attractive nations and institutions, between selective and recruiting (or more accessible) institutions, and between research-intensive universities – branded as world-class – and the rest (Baty, 2010e; Marginson, 2008b). Few countries or HEIs have been left unaffected by this juggernaut. The global obsession with rankings has led to the publication of thousands of peer-reviewed articles, news articles and commentary, and policy initiatives and legislative changes. Firms like Thomson Reuters and Elsevier have become global players, providing bibliometric data used by the major ranking organizations. The former has since identified another opportunity – collecting institutional profile information and then monetarizing it by selling it back to the institutions themselves for strategic planning purposes or on to third-parties, e.g. governments, the European Commission or research agencies, to underpin policy and decisionmaking or classification systems (see GIPP, 2009; Thomson Reuters, 2010; Olds, 2010a, 2010b), similar to the way in which financial data was commodified by Bloomberg. Times Higher Education (THE) has transformed itself from a purveyor of (objective) information about the sector to a promoter of global rankings. Organizations and consultancies have developed new products and services to help universities at or striving to be at the top of global rankings, e.g. World 100 Reputation Network,1 and simulation models and iPhone applications (Baty, 2010f). And, in response to widespread concern about the quality of the data and transparency of the methodology, new formats and rankings are being developed, albeit there is some cynicism attached to these developments. While improvements are certainly to be applauded, they are grim consolation for those presidents, students, faculty and others whose careers have been tarnished by the vagaries of rankings. In anticipation of the effect that methodological changes associated with the new QS or THE-TR rankings and/or the GFC might have on their status and attractiveness, HEIs began early to prepare their audiences for the likely changes to their rank (Kearns, 2010; Trounson, 2010b; Lane, 2010). Over the years, the target user group has grown considerably. Users of rankings now extend beyond students and parents, and include, inter alia, policymakers, employers, foundations and benefactors, potential collaborators and partners, alumni, other HEIs and many other stakeholders. Rankings have also caught the imagination of the public. Public opinion has been greatly informed by rankings’ simple and simplistic message,




and in turn has been its loudest promoter. The language of rankings has insinuated itself into public discourse at almost every level of decisionmaking and public commentary around the world. What started as a small-scale nationally-focused guide for students and parents has been transformed into a rapidly expanding global intelligence information business – impacting, influencing, and incentivizing higher education, and its stakeholders inside and outside the academy. Drawing on the evidence presented throughout the book, this chapter argues that rankings are helping to reshape higher education and higher education systems, and to reconstruct our understanding of knowledge, and who and which institutions can contribute. The international evidence might still be patchy, but at a macro level, nationally and globally, states locked into strategies for national competitive advantage have been to the fore in introducing policy changes that meet the (changing) norms of global rankings. This has heightened attention on the importance of higher education if nations are to successfully compete. In some instances, this has drawn attention to the inadequacy of existing funding regimes while others have chosen to shift resources to areas that shape prestige, resulting in a negative effect on social equity. At the same time, the focus on quality has helped drive up institutional performance, providing some degree of public accountability and transparency. In addition, rankings have prompted a wide-ranging debate about how the value and contribution of higher education to society and the economy can be better and more fairly assessed, measured and made more visible. At the institutional and individual level, striving for status and reputation has been accompanied by the accelerated transformation of institutional culture and academic behaviour. Because of correlations between rankings and the status system, students, faculty and stakeholders have all been active consumers and advocates of ranking products. Thus, the overall impact is varied and multifaceted, positive and perverse.

Reshaping higher education institutions Higher education institutions are busy devising various strategies to consolidate their regional, national and/or global position as knowledge businesses, which includes structural change and institutional transformation. Rankings form an important element of the plan, and HEIs are responding in three ways. They are learning to 1) reap the benefits of their position or visibility within the rankings, 2) restructuring their organization, strategy, recruitment policy, pedagogy, etc. in order to improve their position and hence reap the benefits or 3) trying to ignore



Reshaping Higher Education 189


When rankings were introduced most administrators dismissed them … Over time, law schools learned that rankings were fateful, that people made important decisions using rankings, and schools began to invest heavily in improving rankings. This reinforced rankings’ impact and legitimacy … (Espeland and Sauder, 2007, pp. 23–24). The discussion in chapters 3 and 4 outlined a wide range of measures taken by universities ‘at all places in the selectivity game’ to protect their position and reputation and/or influence their rank (Ehrenberg, 2001, p. 4). Because of the circle of benefit which rankings are perceived to bring, they are driving and incentivizing institutional decisionmaking and academic behaviour; 74 percent of respondents to an international survey said they believed institutions were manipulating their data to move up in rankings (Adams and Baker, 2010, p. 7). This may take a variety of forms, including correcting their data in a way that leads to an improvement in their ranking, or devoting resources to activities related to improving their rank but do not directly enhance educational quality. The reason RIU has moved up the tables is that it is better at submitting data, having previously suffered from academics not giving their full institutional affiliation when publishing articles. The corporate rebranding has had a benefit, too, although league tables were not the motivator for that. It has made sure that all Nobel Prize winners are appropriately ascribed to RIU. These are games, but we are all clever in universities and we must make sure we are playing within the rules of the game and as well as we can (Locke et al., 2008c, p. 40). Senior HE ‘administrators consider rankings when they define goals, assess progress, evaluate peers, admit students, recruit faculty, distribute scholarships, conduct placement surveys, adopt new programs and create budget’ (Espeland and Sauder, 2007, p. 11; Goodall, 2010). … the [university] is transforming its educational model and its research model as well, in such way that they could include international items integrated as key points of their nature. That is how our university is



all the fuss. Usually, HE leaders experience all three forms of ‘reactivity’, often in reverse order.


Others speak of the need to ensure the ‘trade off between indicators’ is managed so as not to tilt the balance too much in favour of research over teaching (Georghiou, 2009a). A memorandum to the board of a US highly-ranked doctoral university detailed particular strategies to be adopted to achieve single digit ranking: these include spending more money per student, doubling the annual private fund-raising, increasing public funding and increasing the endowment. According to Levin (2002, p. 14), US university presidents have identified specific indicators, inter alia: 88 percent identified retention rates; 84 percent alumni-giving; 75 percent graduation rates; 71 percent entry scores; 63 percent faculty compensation; and 31 percent facultystudent ratio. More than 25 percent of presidents sought to improve educational expenditure, by effecting greater selectivity, increasing faculty salaries, creating new and better programmes, improving funding and use of resources, changing the hiring or promotional procedures and improving marketing. While only 7 percent mentioned improving research capacity, others recorded a shift in resources from teaching to research, marketing or merit scholarships (Espeland and Sauder, 2007, pp. 25–27). A more recent survey found that two-thirds of institutions had developed strategies designed to support ‘strong/robust/higher’ positions in global rankings, and that the remaining third had set clear targets to improve their rankings (Anon, 2010h). These results confirm the view that rankings have ‘changed the behavior, even the strategy, of institutions, not to become more effective, but to perform well against arbitrary ranking criteria’ (Adams and Baker, 2010). It is arguable if all of the actions described throughout this book or summarized in Table 6.1 can be attributed directly to rankings as distinct from responding to the normal competitive environment, professionalizing the organization or enhancing quality. Indeed, adjusting higher education to meet new societal challenges and needs, and taking action to improve teaching and research quality and performance are positive developments; after all, no organization or business can continue to function in the same way throughout the decades. However, because there is a strong correlation between the various actions and specific indicators, a suspicion hangs over institutional actions. The main argument here is that whichever actions HE leaders choose, ‘rankings are always in the back of everybody’s head’ (Espeland and Sauder, 2007, p. 11).



responding to the ranking of universities (Faculty, public 1940 university, Mexico).

192 Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education Indicative Mapping of Institutional Actions against Rankings Examples of Actions Taken by HEIs in Response to Rankings

Approximate Weighting

Research

• Increase output, quality and citations • Reward faculty for publications in highly-cited journals • Publish in English-language journals • Set individual targets for faculty and departments

ARWU = 100% THE-QS = 20% HEEACT = 100% THE-TR = 65% QS = 20% SCImago = 100% USNWR = 20%

Organization

• Merge with another institution, or bring together discipline complementary departments • Incorporate autonomous institutes into host HEI • Establish Centres-of-Excellence & Graduate Schools • Develop/expand English-language facilities, international student facilities, laboratories, dormitories • Establish Institutional Research capability • Embed rankings indicators as a performance indicator or as a contract between the presidency and departments. • Form task group to review and report on rankings.

ARWU = 10%; Research related indicators as above

Curriculum

• Harmonise with EU/US models • Favour science/bio-science disciplines • Discontinue programmes/activities which negatively affect performance • Grow postgraduate activity relative to undergraduate • Positively affect faculty/student ratio • Improve teaching quality • Incorporate results in development of new study programmes and degrees

ARWU = 10% THE-QS = 20% THE-TR = 15% USNWR = 20%

Students

• Target recruitment of high-achieving students, esp. PhD • Offer attractive merit scholarships and other benefits • More international activities and exchange programmes • Open International Office and professionalise recruitment

ARWU = 15% THE-TR = 9.5% QS = 5% USNWR = 15%



Table 6.1

Reshaping Higher Education 193 Indicative Mapping of Institutional Actions against Rankings –

Examples of Actions Taken by HEIs in Response to Rankings

Approximate Weighting

Faculty

• Recruit/head-hunt international high-achieving/HiCi scholars • Create new contract/tenure arrangements • Set market-based or performance/ meritbased salaries • Reward high-achievers • Identify weak performers • Enable best researchers to concentrate on research/relieve them of teaching

ARWU = 40% THE-QS = 25% HEEACT = 30% THE-TR = 2.25% QS = 20%

Public Image/ Marketing

• Reputational factors • Professionalise Admissions, Marketing and Public Relations • Ensure common brand used on all publications • Advertisements in Nature and Science and other high focus journals • Expand internationalisation alliances and membership of global networks

ARWU = 40% THE-QS = 40% QS = 40% THE-TR = 34.5% USNWR = 40%

Webometrics = 60%

Source: Updated, Hazelkorn, 2009c

The most logical response to rankings is to identify those indicators which are easiest to influence, and to set targets for different units and levels of the organization. The simplest and most cost-neutral actions are those that affect brand and institutional data, and choice of publication or language. Thus, most universities are instructing all faculty to use the same institutional name or title on all academic publications, presentations or public statements while many non-native Englishspeaking HEIs are busy encouraging their academics to publish in highly cited/international journals in the English language. This might appear a minor issue, but it has emerged as a common problem across higher education that individual institutions may be referred to differently by different individuals or sections of the institution. This may arise because of mergers, where each unit previously carried a separate identity or logo, or due to the lack of a co-ordinated institutional brand which may result in undercounting publications and citations. Accurate data collection – whether the focus is research output or international student numbers – is essential. The aim is to ensure that all activity is



Table 6.1 continued

correctly captured by the ranking organizations and government agencies, and accredited to the institution [indicators, e.g.: research output; international faculty/students]. After this, the costs attached to trying to boost an institution’s position in the rankings rises exponentially. Because rankings reward (older and) larger comprehensive institutions – by aggregating outputs – size does matter; accordingly, institutional restructuring, particularly the reorganization of research through the creation of research institutes and graduate schools, often with special or targeted investment, is pervasive across HE [indicators, e.g.: research output, research quality/citation index]. As discussed in Chapter 2, bibliometric methodologies favour the bio-medical sciences because their research activity is best captured in internationally, publicly-available and verifiable data bases by either Thomson Reuters or Elsevier. Accordingly, these disciplines tend to be favoured [indicators, e.g.: research output, research quality/citation index]. Many HEIs are developing or expanding Englishlanguage facilities and capacity through the recruitment of international scholars and students [indicators, e.g.: research output, quality of faculty and international faculty/students]; improving marketing and hence peer knowledge of the institution through expensive and extensive advertisement features, e.g. in Nature and Science, glossy brochures or marketing tours [indicators, e.g.: peer appraisal, academic quality], rewarding faculty and PhD students who publish in highly-cited journals [indicators, e.g.: research output], and seeking to positively affect the faculty-student ratio [indicators, e.g.: teaching quality]. Institutions everywhere are preoccupied with recruiting more high-achieving students, preferably at PhD level, who like international scholars will be assets in the reputation race – a variation of the adage: ‘excellence in, excellence out’ [indicators, e.g.: quality of faculty, international faculty/students, research output, research quality/citation index, peer appraisal, graduate employability]. Undoubtedly, attention to quality and performance, internationalization and productivity are arguably positive developments. The aggregation of these different actions suggests, however, that rankings are having a profound effect on the shape of higher education institutions, their strategic priorities and academic behaviour.

Reshaping higher education systems Policymakers reacted quickly to the publication of global rankings in 2003. Since then, many have remained sceptical, others have been content to let rankings drive change and accelerate competition at the system level, while a third group has embedded rankings directly into




decisionmaking. Whichever public stance is adopted, there is little doubt that in most parts of the world, the language of rankings – if not the indicators themselves – have been openly or discretely incorporated into the discourse of policy (Europa, 2010e). Arguably many of the system level changes were happening or likely to happen anyway, but rankings have introduced a sense of urgency into the debate, accelerating the rate of change. Higher education may be one of the last remaining sectors of the economy to be restructured (Duderstadt quoted in Fischer and Wilhelm, 2010). There are three key trends. Accountability and transparency Rankings have sharpened discussion around assessment and the measurement of higher education performance at both the institutional and individual academic level; this has led to increased public interest and scrutiny around issues of quality and productivity. President Sarkozy declared France’s poor performance in global rankings was ‘above all, the consequence of the absence of continuous evaluation, which encourages sloth’ (Cousin and Lamont, 2009, p. 34). International comparisons are not a new phenomena, but their proliferation is certainly an inevitable outcome of globalization and global mobility (Robertson, 2009a; Henry et al., 2001, pp. 83–105). Rankings were initially a user-friendly tool for students and parents; they are now an indelible instrument for benchmarking and global positioning, and as such, they are unlikely to disappear anytime soon. They are regularly used to link resource allocation and funding to performance, at the institutional and individual researcher level, and in the aftermath of the GFC, they have led to a proliferation of accountability or transparency strategies and instruments by which to measure return-on-investment and valuefor-money. Rankings have encouraged and underpinned the trend towards policymaking by numbers (Hazelkorn, 2010c). In many instances governments have directly adopted or ‘folded-in’ the indicators used by rankings into their own performance measurements or used rankings to set targets for system restructuring. This has effectively transformed rankings into a form of discipline, as per Foucault, imposing a process of normalization which celebrates a narrow type of higher education performance and quality. The quantification of performance has become a powerful tool because it gives the ‘appearance of scientific objectivity’ (Ehrenberg, 2001, p. 1) which can be difficult to dislodge, and thus its influence extends beyond the actual activity itself. Indicators are often chosen and decisions made without fully understanding the methodological shortcomings or





the limitations of the data. And, because rankings act as other performance instruments and incentivize behaviour, governments risk perverting public policy imperatives to meet criteria set by the vagaries of ranking organizations.

Recognition that human capital is a prerequisite for success in the global economy has coincided with significant demographic changes in many countries. The battle for talent is now on a par with other geopolitical struggles for natural resources; internationalization is no longer simply an instrument of cultural exchange but an indicator of the attractiveness of nations and institutions. Countries such as China, Korea, Singapore and India are investing heavily in the expansion of their HE systems to meet domestic demand, and construct their own world-class universities to act as beacons for mobile investment and talent. This emphasis on talent has encouraged the adulation of and over-emphasis on particular types of academic performance which are most easily collected and measured in bibliometric and citation databases. As the ‘demand for status increases, rankings are leading to the creation of more elite institutions’ (Samuelson, 2004) and the ‘devaluing of hundreds of institutions [and their faculty] … that do not meet criteria to be included in rankings’ (Lovett, 2005). While faculty are affected by these policies, they are not innocent victims. The literature on the process of professionalization identifies ways in which faculty ‘develop new strategies to protect and enhance professional privileges at the level of the institution and the discipline’ (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997) while Becher and Trowler (2001) refer to academic ‘pecking orders’ and ‘gatekeepers’ to describe the way in which faculty seek to ‘confer status and self-esteem’. Because ‘most faculty in postsecondary institutions teach and usually engage in public service, research is the activity that differentiates among institutions [and individual faculty], conferring high status and prestige’ (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997, p. 117); rankings have the ‘capacity to shap[e] academic careers at the point of hiring and promotion’ (Marginson, 2008b, p. 17). Calhoun (2006, p. 31) has similarly said ‘rewards for research are deeply tied up with the production of academic hierarchy … and the relative standing of institutions’. Those who rise to the top of the academic league table have a vested interest in retaining ‘research power’ and the rewards that come with it. The debate as to whether one particular ranking has more ‘plausible’ indicators than its competitor should be seen within this



Internationalization and the battle for talent


context – as part of the same power struggle about who should participate in world science (see discussion below).

Rankings are accused of norming higher education by proselytizing a single form of excellence based on the US private research university experience (Tierney, 2009). Thus, France’s President Sarkozy declared, on a visit to Columbia University, New York, his intention to ‘reform French universities based on the model that you have here’ (Anon, 2010f). According to Mohrman et al. (2008, p. 21), an emerging global model (EGM) is being created by governments and institutions seeking to adopt or ape the characteristics of the top 20, 50 or 100 universities. The EGM is characterized by i) mission transcending boundaries of nation-state; ii) increasing intensification of knowledge production; iii) changes in academic roles, productivity and performance systems; iv) diversified funding beyond government support and student contributions; v) state is facilitator for partnership between HE and private sector; vi) worldwide recruitment; vii) increasingly complex organizational model with semiautonomous centres and institutes; and viii) global collaboration via networked nodes. Ironically, at the time when society is more dependent upon higher education, the trans-national EGM is increasingly unfettered by the nation state, and arguably unresponsive, as it diversifies and privatizes its funding base, recruits talent internationally and engages globally – an unintentional consequence of government deleveraging. For many governments, the world-class university has become the panacea for ensuring success in the global economy (Birnbaum, 2007; Salmi, 2009; Huisman ed., 2008; Mok and Wei eds., 2008; Deem et al., 2009; Lao, 2010; Smolentseva, 2010). They aim to (re)create the ‘Harvard here’ model (Figure 6.1) whereby a few institutions dominate within a hierarchically differentiated system. There are many national versions of the German Exzellenzinitiative as chapter 5 described, but meeting the fiscal requirements of a world-class university – estimated at USD 1.5 to 2 billion per year [EUR 1.3 to 1.7 billion] (Usher, 2006; Sadlak and Liu, 2007b) – goes far beyond many national budgets. According to Sheil (2009), Harvard, Princeton, Yale and Stanford provide approximately USD 149,000 to 227,000 [EUR 124,450 to 189,603] per enrolment. In comparison, approximate figures for Finland’s new world-class Aalto University is USD 30,000 [EUR 25,000] (Aarrevaara et al., 2009, p. 99) while rough estimates for Ireland’s highest ranked Trinity College/ University of Dublin, based on published accounts 2007–2008, would be



World-class excellence

198 Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education Harvard-Here Model Field 1 PhDs and research intensive Masters and some research Baccalaureates and scholarship

Diplomas and extension services

Field 2

Field 3

Field …

Institution A1 Institution B1 Institution B2 Institution C1 Institution C2 Institution C3 Institution C4 Institution D1 Institution D2 Institution D3 Institution D4 Institution D5

Source: Published with the permission of the author, G. Moodie, 2009

USD 26,458 (EUR 22,092). Oblivious to the huge resources gap between HE systems, and between public and private HEIs, many governments are using competitive or performance-based funding instruments, based on indicators which mimic those developed by rankings, to drive greater hierarchical differentiation in an effort to achieve world-class status. Linking resource allocation to institutional profiling or classification tools may be a less aggressive mechanism to reach a similar outcome. This type of restructuring was initially thought desirable in order to create ‘Silicon somewheres’ (Florida, 2002) but has now been shown to have many disadvantages, and may not be either feasible or desirable for smaller (and less wealthy) countries (Moodie, 2009). Concentrating resources and research activity in a few places is at best counterproductive and at worst could undermine national economic capacity (Evidence Ltd, 2003, pp. 28, 31; Lambert, 2003; Adams and Smith, 2004; Adams and Gurney, 2010). Moreover, there is no evidence that more concentrated national systems generate higher citation impact than those in which output is more evenly distributed, because concentration is most relevant in only four disciplines of ‘big science’: biological sciences, clinical medicine, molecular biology/biochemistry, and physics (Moed, 2006). For most countries, it is a zero-sum game. Currie refers to this as the ‘Sheriff of Nottingham’ model, because by diverting ‘limited’ funding to a few institutions, it effectively ‘robs from the poor to pay the rich’ (Currie, 2009a, p. 1198; Currie, 2009b). According to Moodie (2009) and Hazelkorn (2009b), an alternative model would emphasize horizontal differentiation linked to field specialization, with different institutions as proximate knowledge producers aligned to their expertise and regional/national capacity (Figure 6.2). Such a model would draw upon the lessons learned from successful global cities and mega-regions,



Figure 6.1

Reshaping Higher Education 199 Figure 6.2

World-Class System Model according to Field Specialization Field 1

Field 2

Field 3

Field 4

Field 5

Field 6

Field 7

Field 8

Field 9

Field 10

Institution 5

Institution 4

Institution 3

Institution 2

Baccalaureates and scholarship

Institution 1

Masters and some research

Diplomas and extension services

Source: Published with the permission of the author, G. Moodie, 2009

innovation clusters, Mode 2 research networks, and biodiversity (Hazelkorn, 2011). This model is in keeping with the Australian example while the former is promulgated by Germany and Japan (see Chapter 5). To meet the challenges of widening access and funding excellence in an era of fiscal constraint and global competition, many governments are choosing to hierarchically differentiate between types of institutions serving different needs and populations. However, greater economic stratification and inequality between elite research and mass teaching institutions and their students could have uncertain implications for social and national solidarity and development. This is because a strategy of selective excellence requires a consistent policy of high level investment over the long term which will result in beggaring other policy objectives. An early assessment of Germany’s Exzellenzinitiative demonstrates that achieving an improvement in global rankings is neither immediate nor automatic (Sondermann et al., 2008, p. 112; Kehm and Pasternack, 2008). At the global level, pursuit of world-class status is leading to a widening gap between knowledge-rich and knowledge-poor nations but the consequences may not be self-evident. Even developed countries are finding it difficult to maintain their competitive position in the world order in the face of very significant increases in investment from neighbouring and emerging economies (Cookson, 2010).

Reshaping knowledge The progression from simple to complex knowledge has, over the decades, been reflected in the emergence of new disciplines, methodologies and ways of thinking, transforming economies and the way in which



PhDs and research intensive

knowledge is created. Whereas traditional knowledge production, often referred to as Mode 1, was disciplinary or ‘curiosity-oriented’ usually conducted by individuals in secluded/semi-secluded environments – pejoratively described as ‘ivory towers’ – , ‘socially robust’ or Mode 2 knowledge is created within the context of being useful. No longer confined to the university, it is interdisciplinary and conducted in active engagement and collaboration with society – the wider community, civil society, industry, and the region (Gibbons et al., 1994; Nowotny et al., 2001). Critically for this discussion, Mode 1 research achieves accountability and quality control via peer-review process, while Mode 2 achieves accountability and quality control via social accountability and reflexivity. Whereas Mode 1 relies upon a traditional elite model of knowledge creation, the latter democratizes knowledge production, application and exchange. It is within this context that there is a growing realization that the world’s ‘grand challenges’ require interdisciplinary teams, collaborative solutions and inter-locking innovation systems (CFIR, 2004, pp. 2, 188). Rankings, however, reassert the hierarchy of traditional knowledge production. Two examples will suffice (Hazelkorn, 2009a). • Focus on narrow definition of knowledge and scientific disciplines. Rankings, and similar forms of cross national comparisons, rely as aforementioned, primarily upon the bibliometric data bases. As discussed in Chapter 2, this has led to an over-emphasis on the bio-sciences and traditional academic outputs, e.g. peer-reviewed journal articles, because this is the most easily collected and available data. Open source, and web enabled institutional repositories, which have the potential to challenge orthodoxy and democratize knowledge, remain outside these two power brokers. While some rankings have attempted to control for size and age of institution and disciplinary practice, over-emphasis on quantification values some disciplines and research over other forms of inquiry, and leads to the distortion and ‘mismeasurement of science’ (Lawrence, 2007). In addition, bibliometric and citation practices privilege researchers in developed countries writing in English, and in journals produced in those countries. Emphasis on global impact undermines excellent and significant nationally relevant knowledge, and ignores the importance of interdisciplinarity and collaborative problem-solving. Thus, rankings fetishize a narrow definition of research, undermine the value of the arts, humanities and social sciences, and fail to give adequate recognition to the breadth of knowledge’s contribution to society and the economy. By hierarchically ordering or stratifying knowledge – for example, through the




practice of ranking journals –, rankings reinforce the status of elite institutions and particular countries as the primary knowledge producers and generators of intellectual property. • Focus on traditional outputs and impact. A major lacuna for rankings – and their underpinning databases – lies in their inability to accurately and adequately reflect the ways in which different disciplines produce and disseminate knowledge, and reflect impact beyond the academy. By quantifying research activity and impact solely in terms of peer-publication and citations, rankings narrowly define impact as something which occurs only between academic peers. Nowadays, policy attention has shifted to embracing the ‘the whole innovation chain from education to economic impact’ (Schuurmans, 2009), what the European Commission calls the ‘knowledge triangle’ of education, research and innovation (Europa, 2010d) or the Government of Ireland (2008) calls the ‘research, innovation and commercialization ecosystem’. Translational research, traditionally associated with biomedical research’s concept ‘from bench-to-bedside’, is now broadly associated with closing the ‘science-policy gap’ (WHO, 2009, pp. 12–13) or encouraging progression from ‘ideas to income’ (NDRC). While society requires higher education to meet a wider range of needs, governments, unwittingly in many instances, are relying on indicators which measure contrary objectives. In other words, policy is beginning to reflect Mode 2 realities, shifting focus away from simply measuring inputs (e.g. human, physical and financial resources) to looking at outcomes (the level of performance or achievement including the contribution research makes to the advancement of scientific-scholarly knowledge) and impact and benefits (e.g. the contribution of research outcomes for society, culture, the environment and/or the economy) (Europa, 2010c, pp. 36–37). Rankings however do the opposite. They are fixated on measuring inputs and outputs, and concentrate on only one end of the research spectrum as the only ‘plausible’ measurement of knowledge. In so doing, they misrepresent and pervert the research/innovation process by reinforcing a simplistic science-push view of innovation (Rothwell, 1994). Because the fundamental end of the spectrum is dominated by the bio-sciences, rankings ignore the contribution, for example, of the creative/cultural industries to innovation or the way in which social innovation brings about fundamental change to the social economy via new forms of mutual action, new ways in which economies can be managed, new forms of consumption, and the organization and financing of government (Hazelkorn, 2010a).





Rankings have created a storm which has blown around the world; the evidence presented throughout the book illustrates that few regions of the world or institutions have been exempt. Coinciding with the intensification of globalization, rankings have catapulted higher education to the top of the policy agenda, drawing attention to the strengths and weakness of institutions and systems. In so doing, they are used to order global knowledge and knowledge producers, determine global competitiveness and gauge national success in the new world order. In the post GFC world, they have come to symbolize the push for greater public accountability and transparency, providing the scientific evidence underpinning the modernization agenda and the adoption of new public management practices, and supporting calls for value-for-money and return-on-investment. By fostering competition, rankings challenge complacency. While one might question the appropriateness of the indicators, at best they do identify some of the key factors that ‘determine a university’s reputation on the part of key stakeholders’ (Cyrenne and Grant, 2009, p. 247). In response, higher education has become more professionally and strategically managed and organized; there is greater focus on quality and performance, and producing the evidence to support claims of excellence; less self-declaration and more external-verification. Higher education, policymakers, students and almost all other stakeholders have responded – both rationally and irrationally – to the perceived benefits that status brings. Ultimately, rankings have changed the way we think about higher education, and the many characteristics of excellence. There has been an explosion in the number of groups and initiatives, around the world, discussing indicators and other forms of measurement, seeking to improve or supplant existing rankings. A three-pronged set of relationships has emerged: rankings as an extension of benchmarking and quality assurance, rankings as a management tool, and rankings as a policy instrument. These developments have not been without controversy. By elevating rankings and their indicators to god-like status, rankings and their many cheerleaders threaten to undermine the breadth of higher education’s contribution and benefit to society and the economy. They perversely ask which HEI is better, without also asking for whom and for what? There is plenty of evidence that rankings, or more precisely, doing well and being seen to do well, is now a significant factor driving institutional and government policy with priorities and resources aligned to indicators. HEIs



Where to from Here? Challenges for Higher Education and Policy

stand accused of gaming their results, manipulating the data or reconfiguring the underlying factors, e.g. student recruitment, to ensure a better statistical performance. Rather than embracing the teachingresearch nexus, ‘research may now be emerging as the enemy of higher education rather than its complement’ (Boulton, 2010, p. 6). This has resulted in refocusing higher education away from research-informed teaching towards research in its narrowest sense; at a time when society requires interdisciplinary solutions to global challenges, rankings reward ivory tower Mode 1 knowledge. And, because competing in the global reputation race is costly, many governments are aggressively restructuring their systems. Some of these efforts pre-date the arrival of the GFC, but rankings have injected a moral panic into the policy debate encouraging simple and simplistic correlations between rankings and global competitiveness. The public policy imperative has been lost in the (self-interested) belief that elite research universities have a bigger impact on society and the economy, or have higher quality. These experiences provide important lessons for both institutions and governments, as well as other stakeholders. Some people have responded to rankings and their ilk by ignoring them or pretending they don’t exist. Rankings per se may be a phenomenon of the moment, but cross-national comparisons are likely to be a feature of life, and not just higher education, for years to come. The world is becoming flatter, and communication flows quicker. Social networking tools and their successors will facilitate immediate comparisons and information sharing. There are likely to be more not fewer tools. Recent years have shown both the adaptability and resilience of rankings; the Berlin Principles (IREG, 2006) have established guidelines and best practice for the rankings industry (Stolz et al., 2010). New rankings and ranking partnerships have emerged, while others have undergone major methodological modification often in liaison with the higher education community. The OECD’s AHELO (Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes) and the EU’s U-Multirank, to name just two supra-national initiatives, have sought to redefine the terrain on which higher education comparisons are made. Other initiatives have shifted ‘the focus from individual universities to the overall system’ to ensure society has the ‘scale allied to the quality to meet its future needs’ (Gardner, Ma, 2008). New system-based rankings and those emphasizing aspects other than research, e.g. environmentalism and engagement, are welcome responses to the cacophony of criticism and commentary. By asking questions about higher education and what we expect it to deliver, the underlying message is that ‘a university system has a much broader




mandate than producing hordes of Nobel laureates or cabals of tenure and patent bearing professors’ (Ederer, Schuller and Willms, 2008, p. 6). Each of these developments in their own way will help eliminate some of the worst aspects of existing ranking systems but the absence of meaningful internationally comparable information will render any new system problematic and open to allegations that the data is driving global and national comparisons rather than the other way round. Some argue this is inevitable and that these problems will dissipate overtime – but this assumes that rankings are having a neutral impact on the landscape. Yet, the evidence shows that too many decisions and opinions are being formed on the basis of crude input/output indicators, and inadequate and very imperfect data. The choice of indicators and purpose is critical, and needs to be considered in tandem with their intended and unintended consequences – not as a post-evaluation process but embedded in the design phase. It is not simply a problem of measuring and comparing apples and oranges; the bigger question, as Chapter 2 illustrated, is deciding what is important to measure and why. The current battle for ranking supremacy masks these serious dangers. The history of rankings highlights the fact that there is no single and obvious way to assess and measure quality and performance across diverse public and private HEIs in different social, economic and national contexts. Using rankings or other imperfect indicators to inform policy carries many risks. Without resolving these problems, these new rankings will ultimately fall back on measuring the narrowest set of criteria because that is the only data available, with all the problems that have been already exposed. Einstein’s statement, quoted at the beginning of this chapter, is even more relevant today. Any alternative method should embrace a system-focused methodology, using an agreed set of sophisticated accountability and transparency instruments which 1) highlight and accord parity of esteem to diverse institutional profiles in order to facilitate public comparability, democratic decisionmaking and institutional benchmarking, 2) identify what matters and assess those aspects of higher education, including improvements in performance not just absolute performance (Grillo et al., 2010, p. 19), and 3) enable diverse users and stakeholders to design fit-forpurpose indicators and scenarios customized to individual requirements – but without the capacity to engineer hierarchical ordinal rankings. Comparability is not the same as rankings; and while rankings might be the favoured system today, they are not the optimum format. Annualized rankings are driven by commercial criteria because HEIs do not change dramatically from year-to-year; to be meaningful any comparison should




be conducted at, say, five year intervals. Moreover, assessment and evaluation processes must embed methodologies which recognize, incentivize and reward the full spectrum of higher education’s endeavours across teaching, research and engagement. This is key. While political and institutional leaders favour collaborative interdisciplinary research which aims to solve global challenges or encourage third-mission and regional engagement, tenure, promotion and prestige continues to value traditional academic outputs. This applies to incentives for Vice-Chancellors/Presidents, who are often hired and rewarded on the basis of making their institutions more elite. Finally, experience to date suggests that the collection and control of the data and verification of the methodological processes should not be the remit of private/commercial providers or self-appointed auditors. According to the 2006 international survey, HE respondents favoured this role being taken up by independent research organizations, accreditation agencies or non-governmental or international organizations but not private organizations. Some respondents suggested HEIs should do this exercise themselves (Hazelkorn, 2007). The growing trend for open access, institutional repositories, interactive peer-review and web search-engines provides one of the best ways to challenge rankings while democratizing HE information and research results, and benefiting stakeholders, public policy and institutional and academic profiling. Higher education must respond in a constructive manner to the debate about quality and performance, and identify smarter ways to assess and demonstrate impact and benefit. Comparable information on teaching and research makes it easier for students and faculty to make informed choices on where and what to study or work. Improved datacollection provides the basis for autonomous strategic leadership and evidence-based decisionmaking, and underpins quality assurance and discussions about what constitutes success. Benchmarking enables HEIs to identify peer institutions and programmes, and share good practice. Ultimately, political and societal support for higher education, for systems dependent upon public funding and on tuition fees, can only be maintained by quality profiling, performance enhancement and valuefor-money which provides (public) investor confidence (Sponsler, 2009; Callan et al., 2007; Brink, 2009; Carey, 2006b). At the national level, the stakes are even higher. Aligning systems to indicators set by others for commercial or other purposes threatens the very foundations of national sovereignty and society. It pits equity and excellence against each other, and favours elite models rather than worldclass systems. Because there are direct correlations between societal value




systems and policy choices, what matters is how governments prioritize their objectives of a skilled labour force, equity, regional growth, better citizens, future Einsteins and global competitiveness, and translate them into policy. This means ensuring the system is characterized by: open and competitive education, offering the widest chance to the broadest number of students; coherent portfolio of horizontally differentiated high performing and actively engaged institutions – providing a breadth of educational, research and student experiences; developing knowledge and skills that citizens need to contribute to society throughout their lives, while attracting international talent; graduates able to succeed in the labour market, fuel and sustain personal, social and economic development, and underpin civil society; and operating successfully in the global market, international in perspective and responsive to change. Rather than ranking institutions, governments should focus on benchmarking systems (Salmi, 2010), using a sophisticated combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies which embrace the full spectrum of teaching/learning, research/discovery and innovation/engagement: world-class systems rather than world-class universities. This offers the best strategy for understanding and developing systems of (higher) education which provide the maximum opportunities and societal benefits for all citizens and future generations.




The study uses a grounded theory approach drawing on the material from the interviews to illustrate the phenomenon of rankings, and triangulating the results of the questionnaires, with extensive interviews and focus groups, the international literature and other international data. This method was important in order to understand the extent to which higher education’s perceptions mapped against other realities. The research was undertaken in compliance with best practice in research ethics, and was approved by the DIT Research Ethics Committee. Informed consent of all participants was obtained, and the anonymity of all participants has been protected. Data has been securely stored. There were three phases to the research: Phase 1: International questionnaire, 2006; Phase 2: Institutional and stakeholder interviews in Germany, Australia and Japan, 2008; Phase 3: Follow-up questionnaire, 2009. 1. International questionnaire, 2006 Phase 1 was undertaken in collaboration with the OECD Programme for Institutional Management of Higher Education (IMHE) and the International Association of Universities (IAU). An on-line questionnaire was developed, supported by SurveyMonkey software, and distributed between June–September 2006 to 639 persons. The names were drawn from the membership lists of the respective organizations. Responses were received from 202 institutions from 41 countries, representing a 31.6 percent response rate. Sixty-seven percent of respondents were European; 32 percent were German due to some unquantifiable snowballing effect because of the enthusiasm of participants to get other institutions involved in the study – see discussion below. Of the remaining respondents, ten percent were from Asia, 7 percent from Australia, 5 percent each from South/Central America and the Middle East, 4 percent from North America and 2 percent from Africa. The results were analysed using SPSS. The variability in population size responding to each of the questions is explained by the fact that certain sections of the questionnaire were not applicable to some respondents, e.g. whether national league tables or ranking systems are operative in their country. All results have been calculated on the basis of respondents to whom the question was applicable and those who replied within the applicable populations. Missing data was excluded from calculations in all cases. The population on which percentage responses have been calculated are displayed throughout. The large German response has been analysed – and has been shown to have not unduly influenced the result. The Pearson chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test was used to test for differences between the responses of Germany and those not from Germany. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups except regarding questions about institutional type and the influence of rankings on funding agencies. 207



Appendix: Methodology

208 Appendix: Methodology

• • • •

Overview of rankings in each country Importance of ranking on institutional decisionmaking Influence of ranking on key stakeholders Influence of ranking on higher education

Because of the possible correlation between age, size and mission of institution – and attitude and response to ranking – the survey sought institutional profiling information. By age, responding institutions were evenly divided into three groups: 36 percent were established post-1970, 24 percent were established between 1945 and 1969 (referred to henceforth as post-WW2), and 40 percent were established pre-1945. Eighty-three percent of institutional respondents are publicly funded, with the remainder being either wholly or primarily privately funded. Respondent institutions are evenly divided between those that classify themselves as teachingintensive (30.4 percent) and research-intensive (29.2 percent) institutions; 19.3 percent described themselves as research informed, with the remainder being research-only, specialist or other self-designated institutions. 2. Institutional and stakeholder interviews, 2008 Phase 2 was undertaken in collaboration with the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP), with funding from the Lumina Foundation, US. It aimed to learn more about how rankings were impacting on the everyday life of higher education, by examining the practices of colleges and universities in Australia, Germany and Japan. Interviews were conducted during 2008 with higher education leaders, senior administrators, students, faculty, the business community, trade unions, and policymakers. This work was also supported by IMHE and IAU. IHEP published their report, Impact of College Rankings on Institutional Decision Making: Four Country Case Studies, in May 2008, which is available at http://www.ihep.org/publications/ publications-detail.cfm?id=126. Germany, Australia and Japan were chosen for detailed examination because they share some common characteristics and experiences: i) presence of a national ranking system: CHE-HochschulRanking in Germany, Melbourne Institute International Standing of Australian Universities and Good University Guide in Australia, and the Asahi Shimbun, Recruit Ltd., Diamond, and Kawai-juku rankings in Japan (Yonezawa et al., 2002), ii) competitive challenges to the historic and presumptive global position of each country, iii) government policy has sought to reform/ restructure higher education in response to escalating competition, e.g. national competitions and benchmarking, excellence initiatives, and internationalization, and iv) internationalization has been identified as a prime goal. Four institutions were selected per country to indicatively represent different institutional missions and geographic spread. In total, 29 organizations (including HEIs and stakeholders) were visited, and 75 interviews (including focus groups) were conducted. In addition, two universities, from South Africa and Denmark, contributed a self-study, which closely followed the interview format. Interviews were recorded and fully transcribed for coding and analysis. The data was analysed using NVivo 7, the industry-standard qualitative data analysis package.



The questionnaire was divided into four sections; it sought views of higher education leaders about the role and influence of rankings on a wide range of issues affecting their institutions and higher education in their country.

3. Follow-up questionnaire, 2009 Phase 3 involved a short questionnaire to participants in Phases 1 and 2. This was intended to identify any new or emerging issues, or significant changes that had occurred in the interim. Questionnaires were sent to a composite list of people involved in Phase 1 and 2. This was not meant as a scientific exercise, but simply to provide an update. Approximately 770 email questionnaires were sent out with 49 respondents. The small response rate (6.3 percent) is most likely due to fact that the questions only sought new and additional information.



Appendix: Methodology 209

Chapter 1


1 The IAU World Higher Education Database (WHED) provides information on 15,400 university-level institutions (institutions offering at least a post-graduate degree or a professional diploma in four years or more) in 180 countries. Region Africa Asia Caribbean Europe Latin America Middle East North America Oceania

No. Countries

No. Institutions

51 31 11 49 20 14 3 9

1006 4479 114 3736 1947 348 3685 85

2 CHE – Centre for Higher Education (Germany); AQA – Agency for Quality Assurance (Austria); CIEES – Comités Interinstitucionales para la Evaluación de la Educación Superior, A.C (Mexico) The Inter-Institutional Committee for the Evaluation of Higher Education; CACEI – Consejo de Acreditación de la Enseñanza de la Ingeniería, A.C (Mexico) Counsel of the Accreditation of the Teaching of Engineering; CENEVAL – Centro Nacional de Evaluación para la Educación Superior – CENEVAL (Mexico); CNEIP – Consejo Nacional de Enseñanza e Investigación en Psicología (Mexico) National counsel of Teaching and Investigation in Psychology; NAAC – National Assessment and Accreditation Council (India); NBA – National Board of Accreditation (India); TUBITAK – The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey.

Chapter 2


1 This issue is reflected in the high ranking of the University of Alexandria, Egypt in the THE-TR 2010, whereby a cluster of highly cited papers in theoretical physics and mathematics by a single author in one journal accounted for the high score. See Holmes, 2010 and Baty, 2010g.

Chapter 4


1 The data has been collected and published with the permission of International Graduate Insight Ltd. (i-graduate), which is an independent benchmarking and consultancy service. The International Student Barometer (ISB) tracks decision210



Notes

making, perceptions, expectations and experiences of students studying outside their home country. 2 The top ten factors were calculated using mean scores. Respondents were asked to rate the various factors in terms of importance on a scale from 1–4, (1) very unimportant, (2) unimportant, (3) important and (4) very important. These scores were added and divided by the number of respondents answering the question to find the mean. The factors with the highest mean scores were thus deemed to be the most important. Here the entire sample (92,226 respondents) was used, 58.5 percent of which are students studying in the UK. It is important to note the structure of the questionnaire meant that only a subsample of students who had commenced their course of study within the past 4 months were asked to rate the various importance factors. Questionnaires were distributed to students through their affiliated HEI. Due to the highly correlated nature of the non-response the method chosen for handling this was the listwise deletion of cases, following this the sample was reduced to 29,281 respondents from which the percentage figures were derived using frequency analytics and cross-tabulation. Because the question pertaining to ‘Position in a League Table/Ranking’ was not asked in Australia, this means that all students who were studying in Australia were effectively removed from the sample for this part of the analysis.

Chapter 6


1 The World 100 Reputation Network is designed for senior staff in World 100 universities responsible for managing reputation through communications and relationships with international stakeholders – including HE partners, government and NGO agencies, alumni, faculty and scholar communities, and the media. Membership is exclusive to universities which have been ranked within the top 100 of the ARWU or THE for any of the three previous years. The aim is to actively extend the membership to other continental areas both in and beyond Europe, the US and Asia. Accessed 2 July 2010, from http://www. theworld100.com/join/. See also http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story. asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=411697&c=1



Notes 211

AACSB (2005) The Business School Rankings Dilemma. A Report from a Task Force of AACSB International’s Committee on Issues in Management Education, Accessed 8 October 2010, from http://www.aacsb.edu/publications/thoughtleadership/rankings.pdf Aarrevaara, T., I.R. Dobson and C. Elander (2009) ‘Brave New World: Higher Education Reform in Finland’, Higher Education Management and Policy, 21(2): 98–99. Abeyratne, D.S. (2007) ‘Lankan Universities Below Par, says Minister’, Daily News, 10 July, Accessed 27 May 2010, from http://www.dailynews.lk/2007/07/10/ news19.asp Adams, J. and K. Baker (2010) Global Opinion Survey – New Outlooks on Institutional Profiles, Thomson Reuters, Accessed 27 March 2010, from http://science.thomsonreuters.com/m/pdfs/Global_Opinion_Survey.pdf Adams, J. and K. Gurney (2010) Funding Selectivity, Concentration and Excellence – How Good is the UK’s Research? Higher Education Policy Institute, London, Accessed 7 June 2010, from http://www.hepi.ac.uk/455-1793/Funding-selectivity,concentration-and-excellence—how-good-is-the-UK’s-research.html Adams, J. and D. Smith (2004) Research and Regions: An Overview of the Distribution of Research in UK Regions, Regional Research Capacity and Links Between Strategic Research Partners, Higher Education Policy Institute, Oxford, Accessed 1 July 2010 from http://www.hepi.ac.uk/466-1094/Research-and-regions–An-overview-ofthe-distribution-of-research-in-UK-regions,-regional-research-capacity-and-linksbetween-strategic-research-partners.html Adelman, C. (2009) The Spaces Between Numbers: Getting International Data on Higher Education Straight, Institute of Higher Education Policy, US. http://www.ihep. org/assets/files/publications/s-z/(Report)_The_Spaces_Between_NumbersGetting_International_Data_on_Higher_Education_Straight.pdf Adler, R. and A.W. Harzing (2009) ‘When Knowledge Wins: Transcending the Sense and Nonsense of Academic Rankings’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(1). Adler, R., J. Ewing and P. Taylor (2008) Citation Statistics: A Report from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) in Co-operation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS), Accessed 27 March 2010, from http://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/IMU/Report/CitationStatistics.pdf AEPL, Access Economics Pty Limited (2009) The Australian Education Sector and the Economic Contribution of International Students, Australian Council for Private Education and Training, Australia, Accessed 30 April 2010, from http://www. pieronline.org/_Upload/Files/TheAustralianEducationSectorandtheEconomicCon tributionofInternationalStudents-246.pdf Aghion, P., M. Dewatripont, C. Hoxby, A. Mas-Colell and A. Sapir (2007) ‘Why Reform Europe’s Universities?’ Bruegel Policy Brief, September (4), Accessed 30 April 2010, from http://www.bruegel.org/uploads/tx_btbbreugel/pbf_040907_ universities.pdf 212



References

Alberts, H.R., M. Noer and D.M. Ewalt (2008) ‘America’s Best Colleges’, 13 August, Accessed 20 June 2010, from http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/13/best-collegesratings-oped-college08-cx_ha_mn_de_0813best_land.html Alderman, G. (2008) ‘A Climate of Trepidation’, Times Higher Education, 21 February, Accessed 2 April 2010, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp? sectioncode=26&storycode=400670 Alexander, H. and G. Noonan (2007) ‘Macquarie Uni Falls in List’, Sydney Morning Herald, 9 November, Accessed 12 May from http://www.smh.com.au/news/ national/macquarie-uni-falls-in-list/2007/11/08/1194329413250.html Altbach, P.G. (2008) ‘The Complex Roles of Universities in the Period of Globalization’, in Global University Network for Innovation (GUNI) (ed.) Higher Education in the World. Vol. 3: Higher Education: New Challenges and Emerging Roles for Human and Social Development, Palgrave Macmillan, 5–14. Altbach, P.G. (2000a) ‘The Deterioration of the Academic Estate: International Patterns of Academic Work’, in P.G. Altbach (ed.) The Changing Academic Workplace: Comparative Perspectives, Centre for International Higher Education, Lynch School of Education, Boston College, Massachusetts. Altbach, P.G. (ed.) (2000b) The Changing Academic Workplace: Comparative Perspectives, Centre for International Higher Education, Lynch School of Education, Boston College, Massachusetts. Altbach, P.G. (2003) ‘The Costs and Benefits of World-Class Universities’, International Higher Education, 33. Altbach, P.G. (2006) ‘The Dilemmas of Ranking’, International Higher Education, 42, Accessed 4 April 2010, from http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/ Number42/p2_Altbach.htm Altbach, P.G. and L.S. Lewis (1996) ‘The Academic Profession in International Perspective’, in P.G. Altbach (ed.) The International Academic Profession. Portraits of Fourteen Countries, Princeton, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Altbach, P.G., L. Reisberg and L.E. Rumbley (2010) ‘Tracking a Global Academic Revolution’, Change, March/April, 30–39. Anon (2008) ‘V-C: Great Birthday Gift for University’, The Star-online, 4 September, Accessed 13 June 2010, from http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp? file=/2008/9/4/nation/22237641&sec=nation Anon (2009a) ‘12 Russian Universities Will Receive a Status of National Research Universities’, Ministry of Education and Science, 7 October, Accessed 28 May 2010, from http://eng.mon.gov.ru/press/news/4183/ Anon (2009b) ‘China: Spending on Universities Rises During Recession’, University World News, 11 October, Accessed 13 June 2010, from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20091009222457749 Anon (2010a) ‘Beijing to Recruit 10,000 More International Students in 2010’, Global Times, 2 May, Accessed 2 May 2010, from http://www.globaltimes.cn/ www/english/metro-beijing/update/society/2010-04/523990.html Anon (2010b) ‘Graduate Salaries Plummet to a Dismal €400 a Week’, Irish Independent, Accessed 5 April 2010, from http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ graduate-salaries-plummet-to-a-dismal-euro400-a-week-2124158.html Anon (2010c) ‘Tunisia: Round Table Examines Ways of Promoting Quality in Higher Education’, Tunisia Online News, 6 April, Accessed 28 May 2010, from http://www.tunisiaonlinenews.com/?p=36578



References 213

Anon (2010d) ‘France to Build £3.8bn Super University’, The Daily Telegraph, 4 May, Accessed 28 May 2010, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7677337/France-to-build-3.8bn-super-university.html Anon (2010e) ‘2020 Vision for Denmark’s Future’, The Copenhagen Post, 4 March, Accessed 13 June 2010, from http://www.cphpost.dk/component/content/ 48417.html?task=view Anon (2010f) ‘French Super-University Wants to be Among the Top 10’, Agence France Press, 4 May, Accessed 6 June 2010, from http://www.fecalincontinenceinfo.com/article/French%20super-university%20wants%20to%20be %20among%20the%20top%2010/?k=j83s12y12h94s27k02 Anon (2010g) Comment: ‘Education, Education, Education’, Impact, 6 March, University of Nottingham, Accessed 9 March 2010, from http://www.impactnottingham.com/2010/03/education-education-education/ Anon (2010h) ‘Higher and Higher: Lofty Positions, Beneficial Outcomes’, Times Higher Education, 1 July, Accessed 1 July 2010, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=412246&c=1 Anon (2010i) ‘Bulgarian University Financing Will Be Pegged to New Ranking System’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 4 November, Accessed 5 November 2010, from http://chronicle.com/blogs/global/bulgarian-university-financing-willbe-pegged-to-new-ranking-system/27902 Arnoldy, B. (2007) ‘College Presidents Plan “U.S. News’ Rankings Boycott”’, The Christian Science Monitor, 12 April, Accessed 24 June, from http://www.csmonitor. com/2007/0412/p01s02-legn.html Arnone, M. (2003) ‘The Wannabes’, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 3 January, A18–20. Asmar, C. (2005) ‘Internationalising Students: Reassessing Diasporic and Local Student Difference’, Studies in Higher Education, 30(3): 291–309. Australia Bureau of Statistics (2009) ‘Expanding Links with China and India’, Accessed 3 June 2010, from http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber. nsf/LookupAttach/4102.0Publication24.09.092/$File/41020_ChinaIndia.pdf Avery, C., M. Glickman, C. Hoxby and A. Metrick (2005) ‘A Revealed Preference Ranking of U.S. Colleges and Universities’, NBER Working Paper No. 10803, December. Badescu, M. (2010) Measuring Investment Efficiency in Education, EU DirectorateGeneral Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, Accessed 10 April 2010, from http://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Publications/ CRELL%20Research%20Papers/EUR%2022304_Measuring%20Investment%20Ef ficiency%20in%20Education.pdf Bareebe, G. (2010) ‘How Makerere Captured Lofty Place in Rankings’, Daily Monitor, 22 February, Accessed 12 March 2010, from http://www.monitor.co.ug/ News/-/688324/866008/-/c85riu/-/ Barham, R. (2010) Comment, Impact, University of Nottingham, Accessed 9 March 2010, from http://www.impactnottingham.com/2010/03/education-educationeducation/ Barker, J.R. and G. Cheney (1994) ‘The Concept and the Practices of Discipline in Contemporary Organizational Life’, Communication Monographs, 61, March. Barrow, C.W. (1996) ‘The Strategy of Selective Excellence: Redesigning Higher Education for Global Competition in a Postindustrial Society’, Higher Education, 41: 447–469.



214 References

Baskin, P. (2008) ‘Boeing to Rank Colleges by Measuring Graduates’ Job Success’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 19 September, Accessed 22 June 2010, from http:// chronicle.com/article/Boeing-to-Rank-Colleges-by/9954 Bastedo, M.N. and N.A. Bowman (2010) ‘The U.S. News and World Report College Rankings: Modeling Institutional Effects on Organizational Reputation’, American Journal of Education, 116(2): 163–183. Bastedo, M.N. and N.A. Bowman (2011) ‘College Rankings as an Interorganizational Dependency: Establishing the Foundation for Strategic and Institutional Accounts’, Research in Higher Education, 52 (forthcoming). Baty, P. (2006) ‘Uplift “Cheapens Degrees” Claim’, Times Higher Education, 22 December, Accessed 11 April 2010, from http://www.timeshighereducation. co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=207234§ioncode=26 Baty, P. (2009a) ‘The “Giant of Africa” Awakens from Its Slumber’, Times Higher Education, 7 May, Accessed 28 May 2010, from http://www.timeshighereducation. co.uk/story.asp?storycode=406413 Baty, P. (2009b) ‘Rankings ‘09 Talking Points’, Times Higher Education, 8 October, Accessed 20 July 2010, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp? storycode=408562 Baty, P. (2009c) ‘Restructure or Die, Funding Chief Tells Cash-Hit Universities’, Times Higher Education, 19 July. Baty, P. (2010a) ‘Crouching Tigers Ready to Pounce’, Times Higher Education, 4 February, Accessed 5 May 2010, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/ story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=410266&c=1 Baty, P. (2010b) ‘Back to Square One on the Rankings Front’, The Australian, 17 February, Accessed 9 July 2010, from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/ higher-education/opinion-analysis/back-to-square-one-on-the-rankingsfront/story-e6frgcko-1225831101658 Baty, P. (2010c) ‘THE World University Rankings’, Times Higher Education, 25 February, Accessed 26 March 2010, from http://www.timeshighereducation. co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=410547&c=1 Baty, P. (2010d) ‘Rankings Partner Focuses on Matters of Reputation’, Times Higher Education, 11 March, Accessed 10 April 2010, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=410709&c=1 Baty, P. (2010e) ‘Global Reputations at the Tipping Point’, Times Higher Education, 1 July, Accessed 1 July 2010, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story. asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=412245&c=1 Baty, P. (2010f) ‘Simulation Software Claimed to Predict Effect of Management Choices on Ranking Position’, Times Higher Education, 7 November, Accessed 7 November 2010, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp? sectioncode=26&storycode=414131&c=1 Baty, P. (2010g) ‘New Weights and Measures Throw Up a Few Surprises’, Times Higher Education, 16 September, Accessed 30 December 2010, from http://www. timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=413528 Baylor University (2009) ‘Baylor and Vision 2012: An Introduction to the January 2009 Assessment of the Twelve Imperatives’, Accessed 11 June 2010, from http://www.baylor.edu/ie/index.php?id=48257 Beatty, A., M.R.C. Greenwood and R.L. Linn (eds) (1999) Myths and Tradeoffs: The Role of Tests in Undergraduate Admissions, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.



References 215

Becher, T. and P.R. Trowler (2001) Academic Tribes and Territories, 2nd ed. SRHE/ Open University Press, Buckingham, UK. Becker, G.S. (1993) ‘Nobel Lecture: The Economic Way of Looking at Behaviour’, Journal of Political Economy, 101(3): 402, Accessed 1 May 2010, from http:// faculty.smu.edu/millimet/classes/eco4361/readings/quantity%20section/becker. pdf Beerkens, E. (2007) ‘THES Ranking 2007 by Country’, Beerkens’ Blog: Higher Education, Science and Innovation from a Global Perspective, Accessed 4 June 2010, from http://blog.beerkens.info/index.php/2007/11/thes-ranking-2007-by-country/ #more-273 Beerkens, E. (2008) ‘THE Ranking 2008 by Country (Again)’, Beerkens’ Blog: Higher Education, Science and Innovation from a Global Perspective, 9 October, Accessed 2 May 2010, from http://blog.beerkens.info/index.php/tags/topic/ranking/ Beerkens, E. (2009) ‘What if I Graduated from Amherst or ENS de Lyon …’, Beerkens’ Blog: Higher Education, Science and Innovation from a Global Perspective, 6 January, Accessed 4 June 2010, from http://blog.beerkens.info/index.php/ 2009/01/what-if-i-graduated-from-amherst-or-ens-de-lyon/ Berger, M. (2001) ‘Why the USNWR Law School Rankings are Both Useful and Important’, Journal of Legal Education, 51(4): 487–502. Berger, N. (2009) ‘Are Too Many Students Going to College?’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 8 November, Accessed 30 April 2010, from http://chronicle.com/ article/Are-Too-Many-Students-Going-to/49039/ Bergerson, A.A. (2010) ‘College Choice and Access to College: Moving Policy, Research and Practice to the 21st Century’, ASHE Higher Education Report, 35(4). Berghoff, S. and G. Federkeil (2006) ‘Reputation Indicators and Research Performance’, Presentation to International Ranking Expert Group (IREG) 2 Conference, Berlin. Bilal, F. (2007) ‘Elevating 20 Universities from the Islamic World to the Rank of the Top 500 World Universities’, IAU Horizons, May, 13(2–3): 13. Billaut, J.-C., D. Bouyssou and P. Vincke (2009) ‘Should You Believe in the Shanghai Ranking? An MCDM View’, Cahier du LAMSADE, 283, Accessed 1 July 2010, from http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00388319/en/ Birnbaum, R. (1983) Maintaining Diversity in Higher Education, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Birnbaum, R. (2007) ‘No World-Class University Left Behind’, International Higher Education, 47. Bishop, J., Federal Minister for Education, Science and Training (2007) Speech at L.H. Martin Institute for Higher Education Management and Leadership, University of Melbourne, 30 August, Accessed 27 May 2010, from http://www. mihelm.unimelb.edu.au/news/mihelm_speech_30_august_07.pdf Blair, J. (2000) ‘Study: College Rankings Affect Aid Packages’, Education Week, 19(19): 6–7. Blumenstyk, G. (2009) ‘Moody’s Outlines Factors for Ratings Downgrades’, 15 May, Chronicle of Higher Education, Accessed 31 December 2010, from http://chronicle. com/article/Moodys-Outlines-Factors-fo/44338/ Blumer, H. (1948) ‘Public Opinion and Public Opinion Polling’, American Sociological Review, 13: 542–549, Accessed 23 June 2010, from http://www.brocku.ca/ MeadProject/Blumer/Blumer_1948.html Böhm, A., M. Follari, A. Hewett, S. Jones, N. Kemp, D. Meares, D. Pearce and K. van Cauter (2004) Vision 2020. Forecasting International Student Mobility. A



216 References

UK Perspective, British Council, Universities UK and IDP, Accessed 22 January 2010, from http://www.britishcouncil.org/eumd_-_vision_2020.pdf Bok, D. (2003) Universities in the Marketplace. The Commercialization of Higher Education, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Bologna Process (2007) ‘Towards the European Higher Education Area: Responding to Challenges in a Globalised World’, Accessed 4 July 2010, from http://www. ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/MDC/London_Commu nique18May2007.pdf Boulton, G. (2010) University Rankings: Diversity, Excellence and the European Initiative. Advice Paper, 3, League of European Research Universities (LERU), Accessed 16 June 2010, from http://www.leru.org/files/publications/LERU_ AP3_2010_Ranking.pdf Boulton, G. and C. Lucas (2008) What Are Universities For?, League of European Research Universities (LERU), Accessed 5 May 2010, from http://www.leru.org/ ?cGFnZT00 Bourdieu, P. (1986) ‘The Forms of Capital’, in J. Richardson (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New York, Greenwood, 241–258, Accessed 1 May 2010, from http://www.marxists.org/reference/ subject/philosophy/works/fr/bourdieu-forms-capital.htm Bourdin, J. (2007–2008) Enseignement Supérieur le Défi des Classements, Les Rapports du Sénat, 442, France. Bowden, R. (2000) ‘Fantasy Education; University and College League Tables’, Quality in Higher Education, 6(1): 41–60. Bowman, N.A. and M.N. Bastedo (in press) ‘Anchoring Effects in World University Rankings: Exploring Biases in Institutional Reputation’, Higher Education. Bowman, N.A. and M.N. Bastedo (2009) ‘Getting on the Front Page: Organisational Reputation, Status Signals and the Impact of U.S. News and World Report on Student Decisions’, Research in Higher Education, 50(5). Bradley, D., P. Noonan, H. Nugent and B. Scales (2008) Review of Australian Higher Education. Final Report, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Australia, Accessed 30 May 2010, from http://www. deewr.gov.au/he_review_finalreport Brandenburg, U. and J. Zhu (2007) ‘Higher Education in China: In the Light of Massification and Demographic Change’, Arbeitspapier Nr. 97, Center for Higher Education, Accessed 28 May 2010, from http://www.che.de/downloads/Higher_ Education_in_China_AP97.pdf Brandenburg, U., D. Carr, S. Donauer and C. Berthold (2008) ‘Analysing the Future Market; Target Countries for German HEIs’, CHE, Gutersloh, Germany. Bremner, J., C. Haub, M. Lee, M. Mather and E. Zuehlke (2009) World Population Prospects: Key Findings from PRB’s 2009 World Population Data Sheet, Population Reference Bureau, United Nations Washington, DC, Accessed 26 April 2010, from http://www.prb.org/pdf09/64.3highlights.pdf Brewer, D.J., C.A. Gates and S.M. Goldman (2001) In Pursuit of Prestige; Strategy and Competition in U.S. Higher Education, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, N.J. Brink, C. (2009) ‘On Quality and Standards’, Keynote Address at the Australian Universities Quality Forum, Alice Springs. Brinkley, I. (2008) The Knowledge Economy: How Knowledge is Reshaping the Economic Life of Nations, The Work Foundation, London, Accessed 3 January 2009, from http://www.workfoundation.com/assets/docs/publications/41_KE_ life_of_nations.pdf



References 217

Brooks, R.L. (2005) ‘Measuring University Quality’, The Review of Higher Education, 29(1): 1–21, Fall. Burgess, C. (2010) ‘Higher Education: Opening Up or Closing In?’, The Japan Times, 23 March, Accessed 3 June 2010, from http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ fl20100323zg.html Butler, D. (2007) ‘Academics Strike Back at Spurious Rankings’, Nature, 447: 514–515. Butler, K. and C. Murphy (2009) ‘The Top 400 Secondary Schools in Ireland’, The Sunday Times, Accessed 29 June 2010, from http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/ mainppireland.pdf Calhoun, C. (2006) ‘The University and the Public Good’, Theses Eleven, 87: 7–43. Callan, P., P.T. Ewell, J.E. Finney and D.P. Jones (2007) Good Policy, Good Practice. Improving Outcomes and Productivity in Higher Education: A Guide for Policymakers, National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education and the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, US, Accessed 2 July 2010, from http://www.highereducation.org/reports/Policy_Practice/GPGP.pdf Cao, C. (2009) ‘Are Chinese Universities on Par with the World?’, UPI Asia.com, 6 October, Accessed 13 June 2010, from http://www.upiasia.com/Society_ Culture/2009/10/06/are_chinese_universities_on_par_with_the_world/7400 Carey, K. (2006a) ‘Is Our Students Learning?’, Washington Monthly, September, Accessed 27 March 2010, from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/ 2006/0609.carey.html Carey, K. (2006b) College Rankings Reformed; The Case for a New Order in Higher Education, Education Sector Reports, September. Carey, K. (2010) ‘Race to the Top’, 7 March, Chronicle of Higher Education, Accessed 1 July 2010, from http://chronicle.com/article/A-Race-to-the-Top-/ 64520/ Carr, K. (2009) Speech by Federal Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research to Universities Australia Higher Education Conference, Australia, Accessed 30 March 2009, from http://minister.innovation.gov.au/Carr/Pages/ UNIVERSITIESAUSTRALIAHIGHEREDUCATIONCONFERENCE2009.aspx Casper, G. President of Stanford University (1996) Letter to James Fallows, editor of U.S. News and World Report, 23 September. Castells, M. (1994a) Technopoles of the World: The Making of 21st Century Industrial Complexes, Routledge, London. Castells, M. (1994b) ‘The University System: Engine of Development in the New World Economy’, in J. Salmi and A.M. Vespoor (eds) Revitalizing Higher Education, Pergamon, Oxford, 14–40. Castells, M. (1996) Rise of the Network Society, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Blackwell Publishers, Massachusetts. Cemmell, J. and B. Bekhradnia (2008) The Bologna Process and the UK’s International Student Market, Higher Education Policy Institute, UK, Accessed 30 April 2010, from http://www.hepi.ac.uk/466-1338/The-Bologna-process-and-the-UKs-international-student-market.html CERI (2009) Higher Education to 2030, v. 2. Globalisation, OECD, Paris. CFHE (2006) A Test of Leadership. Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education, Commission on the Future of Higher Education, Report of the Commission appointed by Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education, Department of Education, USA, Accessed 6 June 2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/final-report.pdf



218 References

Chambers, M. (2007) ‘Germany Aims to Rebuild Research Strength’, International Herald Tribune, 22 November, Accessed 19 April 2008, from http://www.iht.com/ articles/2007/11/22/business/gbrain.php Chang, G.C. and J.R. Osborn (2005) ‘Spectacular Colleges and Spectacular Rankings: The U.S. News Rankings of “Best Colleges”’, Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(3): 338–364. Chapman, D.W. (1981) ‘A Model of Student College Choice’, Journal of Higher Education, 51(5): 490–505. Chapman, D.W. (2008) ‘Hitting the Rankings Jackpot’, Change, November/ December, 14–16. Chapman, K. (2007) ‘A Closer Look at Rankings’, The Malaysia Star Online, 22 July, Accessed 27 May 2010, from http://thestar.com.my/education/story.asp?file=/ 2007/7/22/education/18346507&sec=education Chapman, K. and S. Kaur (2008) ‘USM Gets Apex Status’, The Malaysia Star Online, 4 September, Accessed 28 May 2010, from http://thestar.com.my/news/story. asp?file=/2008/9/4/nation/22236521&sec=nation Cheese, P., R.J. Thomas and E. Craig (2007) The Talent Powered Organization. Strategies for Globalization, Talent Management and High Performance, Kogan Page, London, Accessed 5 January 2009, from http://www.accenture.com/ NR/rdonlyres/9ADBFE69-938C-4388-833C-CC8502305C85/0/TPOChapterOne. pdf Chellaraj, G., K.E. Maskus and A. Mattoo (2005) ‘The Contribution of Skilled Immigration and International Graduate Students to U.S. Innovation’, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3588, Accessed 30 April 2010, from http:// www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2005/05/ 15/000090341_20050515125129/Rendered/PDF/wps3588.pdf CHERPA_Network (2010a) U-Multirank Interim Progress Report. Design Phase of the Project: Design and Testing the Feasibility of a Multi-dimensional Global University Ranking, Accessed 13 July 2010, from http://www.u-multirank.eu/UMR_IR_ 0110.pdf CHERPA_Network (2010b) U-Multirank Interim Progress Report: Testing Phase, Unpublished. Chen, L.H. (2007) ‘Choosing Canadian Graduate Schools From Afar: East Asian Students’ Perspectives’, Higher Education, 54(5): 759–780. Chubb, I. (2008) ‘Investing Wisely for Australia’s Future’, speech at the National Press Club of Australia, Accessed 31 May 2010, from http://www.go8.edu.au/ storage/news/speeches/Go8/2008/investing_wisely_for_australia.pdf Clancy, P. (2001) College Entry in Focus. A Fourth National Survey of Access to Higher Education, Higher Education Authority, Ireland, 56–57, Table 17. Clarke, M. (2004) ‘Weighing Things Up: A Closer Look at U.S. News and World Report’s Ranking Formulas’, College and University, 79(3): 3–9. Clarke, M. (2005) ‘Quality Assessment Lessons from Australia and New Zealand’, Higher Education in Europe, 30(2): 183–197. Clarke, M. (2007) ‘The Impact of Higher Education Rankings on Student Access, Choice, and Opportunity’, College and University Ranking Systems – Global Perspectives American Challenges, Institute of Higher Education Policy, Washington, DC, 35–49. Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research (CFIR) (2004) Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of



References 219

Engineering, Institute of Medicine, Accessed 2 February 2009, from http:// www.nap.edu/catalog/11153.html Contreras, A. (2007) ‘The Cult of Speed’, Inside Higher Ed., 31 July, Accessed 23 June, from http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/07/31/ contreras Cookson, C. (2010) ‘China Set for Global Lead in Scientific Research’, The Financial Times, 26 January, Accessed 5 May 2010, from http://www.ft.com/cms/ s/0/3d0c1606-0a19-11df-8b23-00144feabdc0.html Corbyn, Z. (2010) ‘Nervous Hefce “Edging Out” of REF Citations’, Times Higher Education, 1 April, Accessed 4 April 2010, from http://www.timeshighereducation. co.uk/story.asp?storycode=411056 Corley, K.G. and D.A. Gioia (2000) ‘The Rankings Game: Managing Business School Reputation’, Corporate Reputation Review, 3(4): 319–333. Costello, B. (2010) ‘The Fall of American Universities’, The Korea Times, 23 February, Accessed 5 May 2010, from http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/culture/2010-02/26/c_13188783.htm Coughlan, S. (2008a) ‘University Staff Faking Survey’, BBC News Online, 13 May, Accessed 1 June 2010, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/ 7397979.stm Coughlan, S. (2008b) ‘Faculty in League Table Expulsion’, BBC News Online, 25 July, Accessed 5 January 2009, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/ education/7526061.stm?TB_iframe=true&height=650&width=850 Council of the European Union (2007) Council Resolution on Modernising Universities for Europe’s Competitiveness in a Global Knowledge Economy, 16096/1/07 REV 1, Accessed 26 July 2009, from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/ docs/pressData/en/intm/97237.pdf Cousin, B. and M. Lamont (2009) ‘The French Disconnection’, Times Higher Education, 3 December. Creative Dublin Alliance (2009) Economic Development Action Plan for the Dublin City Region, Accessed 6 June 2010, from http://www.dublincity.ie/YourCouncil/ CouncilPublications/Documents/Dublin_Region_Economic_Action_Plan_-_Lo_ Res.pdf CREST (2009) ‘Mutual Learning on Approaches to Improve the Excellence of Research in Universities’, OMC Working Group, Executive Summary. Cronin, M. (2006) ‘Research in Ireland: The Way Forward’, Advancing Research in Ireland Conference, Dublin City University, 5 May, Accessed 12 June 2008, from http://www.dcu.ie/qpu/iuqb/presentations.shtml Currie, D. (2009a) ‘Funding on “Sheriff of Nottingham” Model Would Cut Productivity’, Correspondence, Nature, 461, 1198, 29 October, Accessed 6 June 2010, from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7268/full/4611198b. html Currie, D. (2009b) ‘The Wrong Way to Fund University Research’, University Affairs, 7 December, Accessed 7 June 2010, from http://www.universityaffairs. ca/the-wrong-way-to-fund-university-research.aspx Cyrenne, P. and H. Grant (2009) ‘University Decision Making and Prestige: An Empirical Study’, Economics of Education Review, 28: 237–248. Daly, M. and B. Laffan (2010) ‘UCD Reforms Meet Needs of Students and Society’, The Irish Times, 6 May, Accessed 30 December 2010, from http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0506/1224269791606.html#



220 References

The Danish Government (2010) Denmark 2020. Knowledge, Growth, Prosperity, Welfare, Accessed 20 November 2010, from http://www.stm.dk/publikationer/ arbprog_10_uk/Denmark_2020_knowledge_growth_prosperity_welfare.pdf Davenport, E. and H. Synder (1995) ‘Who Cites Women? Whom Do Women Cite?: An Exploration of Gender and Scholarly Citation in Sociology’, Journal of Documentation, 51(4): 407–408. Davie, L. (2007) ‘Wits Strives for Top 100 by 2022’, Joberg, 20 December, Accessed 14 July 2010, from http://www.joburg.org.za/content/view/2017/199/ Davies, L. (2009) ‘Sarkozy Unveils €35bn “Big Loan” Boost for French Universities and Museums’, The Guardian, 14 December; Accessed 28 May 2010, from http:// www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/14/spending-boost-for-french-universities De Boer, H.F., J. Enders and U. Schimank (2008) ‘On the Way Towards New Public Management? The Governance of University Systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany’, Accessed 30 May 2010, from http://www.fernunihagen.de/imperia/md/content/imperia/soziologieii/preprints/i_deboer_schimank _enders.pdf De Vise, D. (2010) ‘Some Colleges are Opting Out of Magazine’s Annual Survey’, The Washington Post, 3 May, Accessed 24 June 2010, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/02/AR2010050203229.html Dean, S. (2000) ‘The Rankings Game’, Continuum: The Magazine of the University of Utah, 10(3), Winter. Deem, R. (2001) ‘Globalisation, New Managerialism, Academic Capitalism and Entrepreneurialism in Universities: Is the Local Dimension Still Important?’, Comparative Education, 37(1): 7–20. Deem, R., L. Lucas and K.H. Mok (2009) ‘The “World-Class” University in Europe and East Asia: Dynamics and Consequences of Global Higher Education Reform’, in B.M. Kehm and B. Stensaker (eds) University Rankings, Diversity, and the New Landscape of Higher Education, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, 117–134. DEEWR (2008) Review of Australian Higher Education Discussion Paper, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Australia, Accessed 6 June 2010, from http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/06C65431-8791-4816-ACB9-6F1FF9CA3042/22465/08_222_Review_AusHEd_Internals_100pp_FINAL_WEB.pdf DEEWR (2009) AEI Monthly Statistical Summary Report Year-to-Date November, for Years 2005–2009. An Analysis of Enrolments and Commencements by International Students Studying in Australia on a Student Visa, Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Australia. Dempsey, N., Minister for Education and Science (2004) Address at the Europe of Knowledge 2020 Conference, 24 April, Liege, Belgium. Denny, K. (2010) ‘What Did Abolishing University Fees in Ireland Do?’, Geary Institute Discussion Paper Series, University College Dublin, Ireland, Accessed 12 June 2010, from http://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/publications/workingpapers/gearywp201026.pdf Dewatripont, M. (2008) ‘Reforming Europe’s Universities’, BEPA [Bureau of European Policy Advisers] Monthly Brief, 14. Dichev, I. (2001) ‘News or Noise? Estimating the Noise in the U.S. News University Rankings’, Research in Higher Education, 42(3): 237–266. Dill, D.D. and M. Soo (2005) ‘Academic Quality, League Tables and Public Policy: A Cross-National Analysis of University Ranking Systems’, Higher Education, 49(4): 495–537.



References 221

Dill, D.D. (2009) ‘Convergence and Diversity: The Role and Influence of University Rankings’, in B.M. Kehm and B. Stensaker (eds) University Rankings, Diversity, and the New Landscape of Higher Education, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, 97–116. Dobelle, E.S. (2009) Saviors of Our Cities: 2009 Survey of College and University Civic Partnerships, Accessed 26 March 2010, from http://www.wsc.ma.edu/ Announcements/SOOC%20Survey%20Overview.pdf and http://www.wsc.mass. edu/Announcements/PRtop25.pdf Donnelly, K. (2009) ‘Irish Universities Lagging Behind in Global Rankings’, The Independent, 7 November, Accessed 5 May 2010, from http://www.independent. ie/education/latest-news/irish-universities-lagging-behind-in-global-rankings1936573.html Drewes, T. and M. Michael (2006) ‘How Do Students Choose a University? An Analysis of Applications to Universities in Ontario’, Canada Research in Higher Education, 47(7). Dufner, B. (2004) ‘Educating the Elite’, Ministry of Education and Research, DW-World. DE, 12 November, Accessed 29 May 2010, from http://www.dwworld.de/dw/article/0,,1393321,00.html Ederer, P., P. Schuller and S. Willms (2008) University Systems Ranking: Citizens and Society in the Age of the Knowledge, Accessed 27 March 2010, from http://www. lisboncouncil.net/publication/publication/38-university-systems-rankingcitizens-and-society-in-the-age-of-knowledge.html Editors WM (2009) ‘Introduction: A Different Kind of College Ranking’, Washington Monthly, September/October, Access 26 March 2010, from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/feature/introduction_a_different_kind_1.php EdMal (2005) Education in Malaysia, 30 October, Accessed 26 April 2010, from http://educationmalaysia.blogspot.com/2005/10/ums-fall-denial-ignoranceand.html Education International (2009) ‘Investment in Education is Key to Solving Economic Crisis in Europe’, Accessed 23 May 2010, from http://www.ei-ie.org/en/ news/show.php?id=1135&theme=policy&country=global Edukugho, E. (2010a) ‘Okebukola Seeks Accountability, Transparency for Nigerian Varsities’, Vanguard, 10 March, Accessed 14 March 2010, from http://www.vanguardngr.com/2010/03/10/okebukola-seeks-accountability-transparency-fornigerian-varsities Edukugho, E. (2010b) ‘Odugbemi – How Varsities Can Make Top Global Ranking’, All Africa, 17 March, Accessed 5 May 2010, from http://allafrica.com/stories/ 201003171217.html Egron-Polak, E. (2007) ‘Editorial’, IAU Horizons, May. Ehrenberg, R.G. (2001) ‘Reaching for the Brass Ring: How the U.S. News & World Report Rankings Shape the Competitive Environment in U.S. Higher Education’, The Review of Higher Education, 226(2). Ehrenberg, R.G. (2004) ‘Econometric Studies of Higher Education’, Journal of Econometrics, 121: 19–37. Ehrenberg, R.G. (2005) ‘Method or Madness? Inside the U.S. News & World Report College Rankings’, Fall, Journal of College Admission. Ehrenberg, R.G. and P.J. Hurst (1996) ‘A Hedonic Model’, Change, 28(3): 46–51. Ellingsrud, G., Rector of the University of Oslo (2007) ‘Focus on Quality. Better Research Leads to Better Ranking Results’, Presentation, EUA conference, November, Wroclaw, Poland.



222 References

Elsbach, K.D. and R.M. Kramer (1996) ‘Members’ Responses to Organizational Identity Threats: Encountering and Countering the Business Week Rankings’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 442–476. Enserink, M. (2009a) ‘Research Set to Win Big in France’s Stimulus Plan’, Science Insider, 20 November, Accessed 28 May 2010, from http://news.sciencemag.org/ scienceinsider/2009/11/research-set-to.html Enserink, M. (2009b) ‘Sarkozy to French Universities: “We’re Going to Invest Massively”’, Science Insider, 9 December, Accessed 28 May 2010, from http:// news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/12/sarkozy-to-fren.html Espeland, W.N. and M. Sauder (2007) ‘Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds’, American Journal of Sociology, 113(1): 1–40. EUA, European University Association (2004) 10 Year Anniversary. Institutional Evaluation Programme, Brussels, Accessed 2 November 2010, from http://www. eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/IEP_anniversary_brochure.1086687063630.pdf EU Presidency, European Union (2008) ‘International Comparison of Education Systems: A European Model?’, Conference of Paris: 13–14 November, Accessed 6 June 2010, from http://www.eu2008.fr/PFUE/lang/en/accueil/PFUE-11_2008/ PFUE-13.11.2008/comparaison_internationale_des_systemes_educatifs__un_ modele_europeen.html Europa (2000) ‘Presidency Conclusions’, Lisbon European Council, 23–24 March, Accessed 3 May 2010, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en. htm or http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/research_and_development_en.htm Europa (2004) ‘European Universities. Enhancing Europe’s Research Base, European Commission’, 2004 Forum on University-based Research DG Research, Brussels, Accessed 26 May 2010, from http://ec.europa.eu/research/conferences/ 2004/univ/pdf/enhancing_europeresearchbase_en.pdf Europa (2005a) European Universities. Enhancing Europe’s Research Base, Report by the Forum on University-based Research, DG Research, European Commission, Brussels, Accessed 26 July 2009, from http://ec.europa.eu/research/conferences/ 2004/univ/pdf/enhancing_europeresearchbase_en.pdf Europa (2005b) Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme. More Research and Innovation: Investing for Growth and Employment; A Common Approach, COM (2005) 488 final, European Commission, Brussels, Accessed 30 December 2010, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0488en01.pdf Europa (2005c) Working Together for Growth and Jobs: A New Start for the Lisbon Strategy, Communication from President Barroso, COM(2005) 24 final, European Commission, Brussels, Accessed 26 July 2009, from http://www.clubofrome.at/ events/2006/brussels/files/lisbon-strategy-2005-cc.pdf Europa (2006a) Eurobarometer: Europeans and Mobility. First Results of a EU-wide Survey on Geographic and Labour Market Mobility, European Commission, Brussels, Accessed 3 January 2009, from http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/workersmobility_2006/uploaded_files/documents/FIRST%20RESULTS_Web%20version_ 06.02.06.pdf Europa (2006b) Delivering on the Modernisation Agenda for Universities: Education, Research and Innovation, Communication to the Council and the European Parliament, (COM) 2006 208 final, European Commission, Brussels, Accessed 11 August 2009, from http://www.madrimasd.org/proyectoseuropeos/documentos/ doc/education_research_and_innovation.pdf



References 223

Europa (2007a) ‘Council Resolution on Modernising Universities for Europe’s Competitiveness in a Global Knowledge Economy’, 2007/CXXX/YY, Council of the European Union, Brussels, Accessed 26 April 2010, from www.consilium. europa.eu/ueDocs/newsWord/en/intm/97237.doc Europa (2007b) Perceptions of Higher Education Reform. Survey among Teaching Professionals in Higher Education Institutions, in the 27 Member States, and Croatia, Iceland, Norway and Turkey, Flash Eurobarometer 192, European Commission, Brussels, Accessed 23 May 2010, from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/ fl198_sum_en.pdf;http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/bologna/ bologna. pdf Europa (2008) ‘Ranking Europe’s Universities’, European Commission Press Release, Brussels, 11, Accessed 23 June 2010, from http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1942&format=HTML&aged=0& language=EN&guiLanguage=en Europa (2010a) EUROPE 2020 A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, COM (2010) 2020, European Commission, Brussels, Accessed 3 May 2010, from http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%2000 7%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf Europa (2010b) ‘Open method of coordination’, European Commission, Brussels, Accessed 14 June 2010, from http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/coordination/ coordination01_en.htm Europa (2010c) Assessing Europe’s University Based Research, Expert Group on the Assessment of University-based Research, European Commission, Brussels, Accessed 4 April 2010, from http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/assessing-europe-university-based-research_en.pdf Europa (2010d) ‘ERA in the Knowledge Triangle’, European Commission, Brussels, Accessed 14 July 2010, from http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/understanding/ what/era_in_the_knowledge_triangle_en.htm Europa (2010e) ‘Multidimensional Transparency Tools’, Presented at a meeting of the Directors General for Higher Education organized under the auspices of the Belgian Presidency, Namur, Belgium, 13 September. Evans-Stake, J. (2006) ‘Symposium; The Next Generation of Law School Rankings; Ranking Methodologies – The Interplay Between Law School Rankings, Reputations, and Resource Allocation: Ways Rankings Mislead’, Indiana Law Journal, 3. Evidence Ltd (2003) Funding Research Diversity, Universities UK, London. Fallon, D. (2008) ‘Germany’s “Excellence Initiative”’, International Higher Education, 52, summer, Accessed 30 May 2010, from http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/ cihe/newsletter/ihe_pdf/ihe52.pdf Farnham, D. (1999) ‘Managing Universities and Regulating Academic Labor Markets’, in D. Farnham (ed.) Managing Academic Staff in Changing University Systems: International Trends and Comparisons. Society for Research into Higher Education, Buckingham, UK, 15–43. Farrell, E. and M. van der Werf (2007) ‘Playing the Rankings Game’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 25 May, Accessed 1 June 2010, from http://chronicle.com/ article/Playing-the-Rankings-Game/4451 Farrington, D., President, Foundation Board, South East Europe University (SEE) Macedonia (2008) Correspondence, 1 September. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (2005) Internationalization of Higher Education. Foreign Students in Germany. German Students Abroad, Bonn,



224 References

Accessed 19 April 2010, from http://www.bmbf.de/pub/internationalization_ of_higher_education_2005.pdf Federal Ministry of Education and Research (2010) Die wirtschaftliche und soziale Lage der Studierenden in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 2009, no. 19. Sozalerhebung des Deutschen Studentenwerks durchgefuhrt durch HIS HoschschulInformations-System, Bonn and Berlin. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (n.d.) ‘Initiative for Excellence’, Bonn and Berlin, Accessed 19 June 2010, from http://www.bmbf.de/en/1321. php Federkeil, G. (2007) ‘Rankings and Quality Assurance in Higher Education’, Proceedings of 3rd Meeting of the International Ranking Expert Group (IREG-3), Shanghai. Federkeil, G. (2009) ‘Reputation Indicators in Rankings of Higher Education Institutions’, in B.M. Kehm and B. Stensaker (eds) University Rankings, Diversity, and the New Landscape of Higher Education, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, 19–34. Finder, A. (2007a) ‘Ivy League Crunch Brings New Cachet to Next Tier’, New York Times, 16 May, Accessed 1 July 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/ 16 education/16admissions.html?th&emc=th Finder, A. (2007b) ‘College Ratings Race Roars On Despite Concerns’, New York Times, 17 August, Accessed 1 June 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/ 08/17/education/17rankings.html?_r=2&oref=slogin Fischer, K. and I. Wilhelm (2010) ‘Experts Ponder the Future of the American University’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 21 June, Accessed 1 July 2010, from http://chronicle.com/article/Experts-Ponder-the-Future-of/66011/ FitzGerald, G. (2006) ‘ITs Suffer from Change in Student Social Base’, The Irish Times, 11 March, Accessed 15 April 2010, from http://0-www.irishtimes.com. ditlib.dit.ie/newspaper/opinion/2006/0311/1141298106181.html Fitzsimons, B. (2009) ‘Top 100 – At What Cost?’, The University Observer, 13 October, Accessed 10 January 2010, from http://www.universityobserver.ie/ 2009/10/13/top-100-%e2%80%93-at-what-cost/ Florida, R. (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life, Basic Books, New York. Flynn, S. (2008) ‘Trinity and UCD Rise in Top University Rankings’, The Irish Times, 9 October, Accessed 6 April 2010, from http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ ireland/2008/1009/1223445617983.html Flynn, S. (2010a) ‘Sutherland says Number of Universities Must Be Cut’, The Irish Times, 23 January, Accessed 30 April 2010, from http://www.irishtimes.com/ newspaper/ireland/2010/0123/1224262926822.html Flynn, S. (2010b) ‘Why Irish Universities Should Take World Rankings Seriously’, The Irish Times, 11 September, Accessed 28 December 2010, from http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2010/0911/1224278612951.html Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the Prison, Penguin Books, London. Fowler, R.J.H and D.W. Aksnes (2007) ‘Does Self-Citation Pay?’, Scientometrics, 3(3): 427–437. Frank, R.H. and P.J. Cook (2003) ‘Winner-Take-All Markets’, in D. Conley (ed.) Wealth and Poverty in America. A Reader, Blackwell Publishers, Malden and Oxford. Frank, R.H. (2001) ‘Higher Education: The Ultimate Winner-Take-All Market?’, in M. Devlin and J. Meyerson (eds) Forum Futures. Exploring the Future of Higher Education. 2000 Papers, Forum Strategy Series, 3, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 3–12.



References 225

Freid, L. (2005) Reputation and Prestige in American Research Universities: An Exploration of the History of Rankings and the Increasing Importance of Student Selectivity in Perceptions of Quality in Higher Education, Dissertation in Higher Education Management, University of Pennsylvania. Friedman, J. (1995) ‘Where We Stand: A Decade of World City Research’, in P.L. Knox and P.J. Taylor (eds) World Cities in a World-System, University Press, Cambridge. Friedman, T.L. (2007) The World is Flat. A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century, 2nd Revised Edition, Penguin, London. Fukue, N. (2010) ‘Looming Challenges – Universities Must Look Abroad to Reverse Japan’s Brain Drain’, The Japan Times, 4 January, Accessed 5 May 2010, from http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20100104f1.html Fullerton, T. (2005) ‘The Degree Factories’, Four Corner, Broadcast, 27 June, Accessed 3 June 2010, from http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1399343.htm Gabrielson, R. (2007) ‘Magazine Ranking Key Item in ASU Chief’s Bonus’, East Valley Tribune, 18 March. Gadher, D. (2010) ‘Education, Education, Education!’, Impact, University of Nottingham, 6 March, Accessed 9 March 2010, from http://www.impactnottingham.com/2010/03/education-education-education/ Gallagher, M. (2009) ‘Australia’s Research Universities and Their Position in the World’, Address to the Financial Review Higher Education Conference, Sydney, Accessed 31 May 2010, from http://www.go8.edu.au/storage/go8statements/ 2009/AFR_HE_Conference_2009.pdf Gallagher, M. (2010) ‘Concentrate on High-End Research’, The Australian, 17 March, Accessed 3 June 2010, from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/ higher-education/opinion-analysis/concentrate-on-high-end-research/storye6frgcko-1225841552758 Gallifa, J. (2009) ‘An Approach to Find Out Students’ Motives and Influences on Their Selection of Studies and Universities: Results from Six Years of Continuous Institutional Research in a Multi-Campus System in Spain’, Tertiary Education and Management, 15(2): 173–191. Galotti, K.M. and M.C. Mark (1994) ‘How do High-School Students Structure an Important Life Decision? A Short-Term Longitudinal Study of the College Decision-Making Process’, Research in Higher Education, 35(5). Gardner, Ma. (2008) ‘A Top 10 University System for Australia’, Accessed 31 May 2010, from http://www.atn.edu.au/newsroom/Docs/A%20Top%2010 %20University%20System%20for%20Australia%20-%20Speech.pdf Gardner, Mi. (2008) ‘Germany: Excellence Initiative Gets Strong Backing’, World University News, 3 August, Accessed 30 May 2010, from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20080731153656990 Garfield, E. (1955) ‘Citation Indexes to Science: A New Dimension in Documentation Through Association of Ideas’, Science, 122(3159): 108–111. Garfield, E. (2005) ‘The Agony and the Ecstasy: The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factors’, Paper to International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, Chicago. Gargouri, Y., C. Hajjem, V. Larivière, Y. Gingras, L. Carr, T. Brody and S. Harnad (2010) ‘Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research’, Accessed 13 February, from http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/ arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.0361v2.pdf



226 References

Garner, R. (2008) ‘Lecturers Pressed to Boost Degree Results’, The Independent, 17 June, Accessed 1 July 2010, from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ education/education-news/lecturers-pressed-to-boost-degree-results848481.html Gater, D.S. (2002) ‘A Review of Measured Used in U.S. News &World Report’s “America’s Best colleges”’, Occasional Paper, Lombardi Program on Measuring University Performance, Summer. Georghiou, L. (2009a) ‘Responding to Rankings and Evaluations’, Presentation to 3rd International Symposium on University Rankings, University of Leiden, Accessed 11 June 2010, from http://www.mediabank.leidenuniv.nl/ppt/ics/ 2009/responding-to-rankings-and-evaluations-georghiou-university-strategy.ppt Georghiou, L. (2009b) ‘Strategy to Join the Elite: Merger and the 2015 Agenda at the University of Manchester’, in M. McKelvey and M. Holmén (eds) Learning to Compete in European Universities. From Social Institution to Knowledge Business, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 48–64. Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow (1994) The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, Sage Publications Ltd, London. Gibbons, M. (1998) ‘Higher Education Relevance in the 21st Century’, Contribution to UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education, Paris, World Bank. Gill, J. (2008) ‘Buckle Up for a Rough Ride, UUK Tells Sector’, Times Higher Education, 10 July. Gillard, J., Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, and Social Inclusion (2008) Speech to Australian Financial Review Higher Education Conference, Sydney, Accessed 31 May 2010, from http://mediacentre.dewr.gov.au/mediacentre/gillard/releases/ahighereducationrevolutioncreatingaproductiveprosperousmodernaustralia.htm González-Pereiraa, B., V.P. Guerrero-Boteb and F. Moya-Anegónc (2009) ‘The SJR Indicator: A New Indicator of Journals’ Scientific Prestige’, SCImago Research Group, Spain, Accessed 27 March 2010, from http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/ 0912/0912.4141.pdf Goodall, A. (2010) ‘Raise Your Game’, Times Higher Education, 18 February, Accessed 2 July 2010, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp? storycode=410392 Government of Australia and Government of New Zealand (2009) Surviving the Global Recession: Strengthening Economic Growth and Resilience in the Pacific, Commonwealth of Australia and the New Zealand Government, Accessed 23 May 2010, from http://www.nzaid.govt.nz/library/docs/gec-report-09009aust-nz-gr-aug09.pdf Government of Ireland (2008) Building Ireland’s Smart Economy. A Framework for Sustainable Economic Renewal, Department of the Taoiseach, Dublin, Ireland, Accessed 3 May 2010, from http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Building_Ireland’s_ Smart_Economy/ Government of Korea (2002) Brain Korea 21: A Project for Nurturing Highly Qualified Human Resources for the 21 Century Knowledge-Based Society, Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development, Accessed 14 June from, http://unpan1.un. org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan015416.pdf Government of Korea (2008) National Project Towards Building World Class Universities 2008–2012, Ministry for Education, Science and Technology, Accessed



References 227

13 June 2010, from http://www.kosef.re.kr/english_new/image/WCU%20full %20text%20version.pdf Government of Malaysia (2007) National Higher Education Action Plan 2007–2010, Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), Putrajaya, Accessed 28 May 2010, from http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Malaysia/Malaysia%20Higher %20education %20action%20plan%202007-2010.pdf GradIreland (2009) Graduate Salary and Graduate Recruitment Trends Survey 2009, Accessed 14 March 2010, from http://www.wit.ie/CareersCentre/FindingAJobResources/EmployerInformation/SalaryInformation/WS%20gradireland %20Salary%20Survey%20094.pdf Graham, A. and N. Thompson (2001) ‘Broken Ranks’, Washington Monthly, September, Accessed 2 April 2010, from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ features/2001/0109.graham. thompson.html Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, in Q. Hoare and G.N. Smith (eds and trans.), Lawrence and Wishart, London. Green, M.F. and K. Koch (2010) ‘The Future of International Postsecondary Student Enrollments’, International Higher Education, 58, Winter, 9–10. Grewal, R., J.A. Dearden and G.L. Lilien (2008) ‘The University Rankings Game: Modeling the Competition Among Universities for Ranking’, The American Statisician, 62(3): 232–237. Griffith, A. and K. Rask (2007) ‘The Influence of the US News and World Report Collegiate Rankings on the Matriculation Decision of High-Ability Students: 1995–2004’, Economics of Education Review, 26: 244–255. Grillo, F., O. Pasquali, G. Emma, P. Garibaldi, A. Vercellino and J. Hickey (2010) Universities within the Innovation Global Market. Rankings and Internationalization as Triggers of Change, Vision Think-Tank, Turin. Gulbrandsen, M. (1997) ‘Universities and Industrial Competitive Advantage’, in H. Etzkowitz and L. Leydesdorff (eds) Universities and Global Knowledge Economy, Continuum Studies in Higher Education, London and New York, 124–131. Gumport, P.J. (2000) ‘Learning Academic Labor’, in R. Kalleberg, F. Engelstad, G. Brochmann, A. Leira and L. Mjøset (eds) Comparative Perspectives on Universities, JAI Press Inc., Stanford. Gunn, R. and S. Hill (2008) ‘The Impact of League Tables on Application Rates’, Higher Education Quarterly, 62(3): 273–296. Gurria, A. (2008) ‘Quality Education for All: Much More than a Financial Challenge’, OECD, Paris, Accessed 14 July 2010, from http://www.oecd.org/ document/15/0,3343,en_2649_34487_41280002_1_1_1_1,00.html Gurria, A. (2009) ‘Invest in Education to Beat Recession, Boost Earnings’, OECD, Paris, Accessed 4 June 2010, from http://www.oecd.org/document/43/0,3343, en_2649_37455_43626864_1_1_1_1,00.html Guruz, K. (2008) Higher Education and International Student Mobility in the Global Knowledge Economy, SUNY Press, Albany. Habermas, J. (1991) Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Translated by Thomas Burger, MIT Press, Cambridge. Hacettepe University (2007) Hacettepe University Strategic Plan (2007–2011), Accessed 2 June 2010, from http://www.hacettepe.edu.tr/english/duyuru/rekduy/ HU_Strategic_310507.pdf Hall, P. (2006) ‘The Metropolitan Explosion’, in N. Brenner and R. Keil (eds) The Global Cities Reader, Routledge, London and New York.



228 References

Hall, S., C. Critcher, T. Jefferson, J.N. Clarke and B. Roberts (1978) Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State and Law and Order, Macmillan Press, London. Hannibalsson, I. (2008) ‘From Top 1000 to Top 100. A New Strategy for the University of Iceland’, Presentation to OECD conference: Does Size Matter? Marketing Strategies Higher Education in a Small Country, June, Accessed 14 July 2010, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/52/49/41058074.pdf Hattie, J. and H.W. Marsh (1996) ‘The Relationship Between Research and Teaching: A Meta-Analysis’, Review of Educational Research, 66(4): 507–542. Hauptman, A.M. (2009) ‘Taking a Closer Look at the OECD Tertiary Statistics’, International Higher Education, 55, Accessed 2 July 2010, from http://www.bc.edu/ bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/Number55/p19_Hauptman.htm Hawkins, D. (2008) ‘Commentary: Don’t Use SATs to Rank College Quality’, CNN, Accessed 27 March 2010, from http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/10/17/hawkins. tests/index.html Hazelkorn, E. (2007) ‘The Impact of League Tables and Rankings Systems on Higher Education Decision-Making’, Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(2): 87–110. Hazelkorn, E. (2008a) ‘Learning to Live with League Tables and Ranking: The Experience of Institutional Leaders’, Higher Education Policy, 21(2): 195–215. Hazelkorn, E. (2008b) ‘Rankings and the Global “Battle for Talent”’, in R. Bhandari and S. Laughlin (eds) Higher Education on the Move: New Developments in Global Mobility, Institute of International Education, New York, 79–94. Hazelkorn, E. (2009a) ‘The Impact of Global Rankings on Higher Education Research and the Production of Knowledge’, UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge Occasional Paper N°16, Accessed 3 May 2010, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001816/181653e.pdf Hazelkorn, E. (2009b) ‘Global Positioning of Irish Higher Education: The Way Forward’, Presentation to National Strategy for Higher Education, Department of Education and Science/Higher Education Authority, Dublin. Hazelkorn, E. (2009c) ‘Rankings and the Battle for World Class Excellence: Institutional Strategies and Policy Choices’, Higher Education Management and Policy, 21(1): 55–76. Hazelkorn, E. (2010a) ‘Community Engagement as Social Innovation’, in L. Weber and J. Duderstadt (eds) The Role of the Research University in an InnovationDriven Global Society. London and Genève, Economica, 63–76. Hazelkorn, E. (2010b) ‘Pros and Cons of Research Assessment: Lessons from Rankings’, World Social Science Report, 2010. Knowledge Divides, 255–258, Accessed 14 July 2010, from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/ resources/reports/world-social-science-report Hazelkorn, E. (2010c) ‘Policymaking by Numbers?’, Education Today, OECD, Accessed 8 September 2010, from https://community.oecd.org/community/ educationtoday/blog/2010/09/08/policymaking-by-numbers Hazelkorn, E. (2011) ‘World Class University or World Class Higher Education System Driving Regional Growth?’, in OECD, Higher Education in Cities and Regions – For Stronger, Clearer and Fairer Regions, OECD, Paris, forthcoming. Hazelkorn, E. and A. Moynihan (2010) ‘Transforming Academic Practice: Human Resources Challenges’, in S. Kyvik and B. Lepori (eds) The Research Mission of Higher Education Institutes Outside the University Sector, Springer, Dordrecht, 77–96.



References 229

Healy, G. (2010) ‘Overseas Students Down 40pc’, The Australian, 12 May, Accessed 1 June 2010, from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/overseasstudents-down-40pc/story-e6frg6nf-1225865219176 Hearne, L. (2009) Five Great Colleges Want Her. How Will She Decide? Report on High-Achieving Seniors and the College Decision, Accessed 21 January 2010, from http://www.lipmanhearne.com/Libraries/Resources%20Documents/Lipman% 20Hearne%20High-Achieving%20Seniors%20Study%202009.sflb HEA-UK (2007) Comparative Review of National Surveys of Undergraduate Students, Accessed 30 March 2010, from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/ ourwork/nss/NSS_comparative_review_resource Heavin, J. (2010) ‘Ranking Rankles Students: Law Dean Tries to Calm Fears’, The Columbia Daily Tribune, 20 April, Accessed 22 June 2010, from http://www. columbiatribune.com/news/2010/apr/20/ranking-rankles-students/ HEFCE (2006) ‘Needs of Employers and Related Organisations for Information about Quality and Standards of Higher Education’, Higher Education Funding Council of England, UK, Accessed 1 July 2010, from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/ pubs/rdreports/2006/rd20_06/ Hendel, D.D. and I. Stolz (2008) ‘A Comparative Analysis of Higher Education Ranking Systems in Europe’, Tertiary Education and Management, 14, 173–189. Henriksen, M. and C.K. Jessen (2010) ‘Vko I Ny Strid Om Pointsystem’, Berlingske, Accessed 20 November 2010, from http://www.berlingske.dk/politik/ vko-i-ny-strid-om-pointsystem Henry, M., B. Lingard, F. Rizvi and S. Taylor (2001) The OECD, Globalisation and Education Policy, Pergamon, Oxford. Henry, S. (2005) ‘Cuts Lead to Focus on Elite Rankings’, Times Higher Education, 8 July, Accessed 24 June 2010, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/ story.asp?storyCode=197138§ioncode=26 HERI (2007) ‘College Rankings and College Choice. How Important are College Rankings in Students’ College Choice Process?’, Research Brief, Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA, Accessed 14 July 2010, from http://www.heri.ucla.edu/ PDFs/pubs/briefs/brief-081707-CollegeRankings.pdf Higgins, D. (2002) ‘How an Irish Biochemist became the Most Cited Computer Scientist’, Accessed 4 April 2010, from http://www.idaireland.com/news-media/ publications/flashes-of-brilliance-pub/how-an-irish-biochemist-b/index.xml Hirsch, F. (1997) The Social Limits to Growth, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Holm, J.D. and L. Malete (2010) ‘Nine Problems that Hinder Partnerships in Africa’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 13 June, Accessed 20 June 2010, from http://chronicle.com/article/Nine-Problems-That-Hinder/65892/ Holmes, J. (2009) ‘Prestige, Charitable Deductions and Other Determinants of Alumni Giving: Evidence from a Highly Selective Liberal Arts College’, Economics of Education Review, 28: 18–28. Holmes, R. (2010) ‘The Citations Indicator in the THE World University Rankings’, University Ranking Watch, Accessed 27 December 2010, from http://rankingwatch.blogspot.com/2010/09/citations-indicator-in-the-world.html Honan, J.P. (1995) ‘Monitoring Institutional Performance’, Priorities, Fall, Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, Washington, DC. Hoover, E. (2007) ‘Presidents of 19 Top-Ranked Liberal-Arts Colleges Warn of “Inevitable Biases” in Rankings’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 10 September. Hossler, D. and E.M. Foley (1995) ‘Reducing the Noise in the College Choice Process: The Use of College Guidebooks and Ratings’, in R.D. Walleri and



230 References

M.K. Moss (eds) Evaluating and Responding to College Guidebooks and Rankings, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 21–30. Hossler, D.J., J. Braxton and G. Coopersmith (1989) ‘Understanding Student College Choice’, in J.C. Smart (ed.) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 5, Agathon Press, New York, 234–248. Howard, J. (2008) ‘New Ratings of Humanities Journals Do More Than Rank – They Rankle’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 10 October. HSV (2009) Ranking of Universities and Higher Education Institutions for Student Information Purposes, Högskoleverket – the Swedish National Agency for Higher Education, Accessed 23 June 2010, from http://www.hsv.se/aboutus/publications/ reports/reports/2009/rankingofuniversitiesandhighereducationinstitutionsforstudentinformationpurposes.5.3127d9ec12496ad89237ffe1255.html Huang, F. (2009) ‘The Internationalization of the Academic Profession in Japan. A Quantitative Perspective’, Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), Summer. Huisman, J. (ed.) (2008) ‘World Class Universities’, Higher Education Policy. Hunter, B. (1995) ‘College Guidebooks: Background and Development’, in R.D. Walleri and M.K. Moss (eds) Evaluating and Responding to College Guidebooks and Rankings, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 5–12. Hussain, I., S. McNally and S. Telhaj (2009) ‘University Quality and Graduate Wages in the UK’, Centre for the Economics of Education, London School of Economics, Accessed 2 April 2010, from http://cee.lse.ac.uk/cee%20dps/ceedp99.pdf Hutton, W. (2006) ‘Building Successful Cities in the Knowledge Economy: The Role of “Soft Policy” Instruments’, OECD, Accessed 8 January 2009, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/22/40077480.pdf Hvistendahl, M. (2008) ‘China Entices Its Scholars to Come Home’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 19 December, Accessed 7 May 2010, from http://chronicle. com/article/China-Entices-Its-Scholars-to/13539 Icamina, P. (2010) ‘RP Schools Lag in R&D in Asia’, Malaya Business Insight, 29 January, Accessed 5 May 2010, from http://www.malaya.com.ph/01292010/ busi6.html IDP (2008) ‘Education Export Statistics’, IDP Education Pty Ltd, Accessed 6 June 2010, from http://www.idp.com/research/statistics/education_export_statistics.aspx IIE (2007) ‘Table 16: International Students by Field of Study, 2005/06 and 2006/ 07’, Open Doors. Report on International Education Exchange, Institute of International Education, New York, Accessed 13 April 2010, from http://opendoors. iienetwork.org/?p=113124 IIE (2008) ‘International Students on U.S. Campuses at All-Time High’, Open Doors 2008 Report, Institute of International Education, New York, Accessed 12 April 2010, from http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=131590 Ioannidis, J.P.A., N.A. Patsopoulos, F.K. Kawoura, A. Tatsioni, E. Evangelou, I. Kouri, D. Contopoulos-Ioannidis and G. Liberopoulos (2007) ‘International Ranking Systems for Universities and Institutions: A Critical Appraisal’, BMC Medical, 5:30, http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1741-7015-5-30.pdf IREG (2006) Berlin Principles on Ranking of Higher Education Institutions, Accessed 2 July 2010, from http://www.che.de/downloads/Berlin_Principles_IREG_534.pdf Ishikawa, M. (2009) ‘University Rankings, Global Models, and Emerging Hegemony, Critical Analysis from Japan’, Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2): 159–173.



References 231

Isiguzo, I. (2009) ‘Can South South Ever Catch Up?’, allAfrica.com, 26 April, Accessed 28 May 2010, from http://allafrica.com/stories/200904270899.html James, R., R. Baldwin and C. McInnis (1999) Which University? The Factors Influencing the Choices of Prospective Undergraduates, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Australia, Accessed 20 January 2010, from http:// www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/99-3/whichuni.pdf Jardine, D. (2008) ‘Indonesia: Universities’ Poor World Ranking Probed’, University World News, 43, Accessed 28 May 2010, from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20080904153507452f Jaschik, S. (2007a) ‘Should U.S. News Make Presidents Rich?’, Inside Higher Ed, 19 March, Accessed 16 June 2010, from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/ 2007/03/19/usnews Jaschik, S. (2007b) ‘Quick Takes: Crow Vows Limited Use of Rankings in Contract’, Inside Higher Ed, 20 March, Accessed 16 June 2010, from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/03/20/qt Jaschik, S. (2007c) ‘The Mobile International Student’, Inside Higher Ed, 10 October, Accessed 14 July 2010, from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/10/10/ mobile Jaschik, S. (2007d) ‘Refusing to Rank’, Inside Higher Ed, 17 August 2007, Accessed 14 July 2010, from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/08/17/usnews Jaschik, S. (2009a) ‘Calculation that Doesn’t Add Up’, Inside Higher Ed., 14 September, Accessed 4 April 2010, from http://www.insidehighered.com/ news/2009/09/14/usnews Jaschik, S. (2009b) ‘More Rankings Rigging’, Inside Higher Ed., 8 June, Accessed 4 April 2010, from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/08/usc Jaschik, S. (2009c) ‘Rankings Frenzy ‘09’, Inside Higher Ed., 20 August, Accessed 29 June 2010, from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/20/rankings Jaschik, S. (2010a) ‘Rank Hiring’, Inside Higher Ed., 12 October, Accessed 12 October 2010, from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/10/12/cnu Jaschik, S. (2010b) ‘The Global Auction’, Inside Higher Ed., Accessed 11 January 2011, from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/12/21/book_challenges_view_ that_more_college_produces_better_economic_outcomes JASSO (2009) ‘International Students in Japan 2009’, International Students Statistics, Japan Student Services Organisation, Accessed 4 June 2010, from http://www.jasso.go.jp/statistics/intl_student/data09_e.html Jeon, Y., S.M. Millery and C.R. Subhash (2007) ‘MBA Program Reputation and Quantitative Rankings: New Information for Students, Employers, and Program Administrators’, Economics Working Paper, University of Connecticut, Accessed 21 February 2010, from http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=1192&context=econ_wpapers Jobbins, D. (2010) ‘Global Rankings: Thousands Respond to THE Survey’, World University News, 20 June, Accessed 20 June 2010, from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20100617192654650 Jones, D.A. (2009) ‘Are Graduation and Retention Rates the Right Measures?’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 21 August, Accessed 30 March 2010, from http:// chronicle.com/blogPost/Are-GraduationRetention/7774/ JSPS (2010) ‘Targeted Support for Creating World-standard Research and Education Bases (Centers of Excellence)’, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Accessed 4 June 2010, from http://www.jsps.go.jp/english/e-21coe/index. html



232 References

Kallio, R.E. (1995) ‘Factors Influencing the College Choice Decisions of Graduate Students’, Research in Higher Education, 36(1): 109–124. Karabel, J. (2005) The Chosen. The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale and Princeton, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston and New York. Kearns, M. (2010) ‘TCD: Research Cuts Will Cost 1,000 Jobs’, The Sunday Business Post, 27 June, Accessed 2 July 2010, from http://www.sbpost.ie/news/ireland/tcdresearch-cuts-will-cost-1000-jobs-50150.html Keenan, B. (2010) ‘We Must Be Sure Students Really Make the Grade’, Belfast Telegraph, 9 March, Accessed 27 March 2010, from http://www.belfasttelegraph.co. uk/business/opinion/view-from-dublin/we-must-be-sure-students-really-makethe-grade-14711937.html#ixzz0iNMisw5X Kehm, B.M. (2006) ‘The German “Initiative for Excellence”’, International Higher Education, 44: 20–22. Kehm, B.M. (2009) ‘Germany: The Quest for World-Class Universities’, International Higher Education, 57: 18–21. Kehm, B.M. (2010) Correspondence, 19 April. Kehm, B.M. and P. Pasternack (2008) ‘The German “Excellence Initiative” and Its Role in Restructuring the National Higher Education Landscape’, in D. Palfreyman and T. Tapper (eds) Structuring Mass Higher Education: The Role of Elite Institutions, Routledge, New York and London, 113–127. Keller, T. (2007) ‘Truth, Lies and Rankings’, Inside Higher Education, 12 April. Kenber, B. and M. Taylor (2010) ‘Universities Pressured Students to Inflate League Table’, The Guardian, 26 April, Accessed 20 June 2010, from http://www.guardian. co.uk/global/2010/apr/26/universities-student-survey-rankings-investigation Kitigawa, F. and J. Oba (2010) ‘Managing Differentiation of Higher Education System in Japan: Connecting Excellence and Diversity’, Higher Education, 59(4): 507–524. Klaphake, J. (2010) ‘A Foreigner-Friendly Field of Dreams? International Faculty, Students Must be Valued, Not Treated as Visitors’, The Japan Times, 30 March, Accessed 3 June 2010, from http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20100330zg. html Krause, K.L., R. Hartley, R. James and C. McInnis (2005) The First Year Experience in Australian Universities: Findings from a Decade of National Studies, Report for Department of Education, Science and Training, Australia by the Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne, Accessed 22 January 2010, from http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/pdfs/FYEReport05KLK.pdf Kuh, G.D. (2003) ‘What We’re Learning about Student Engagement from NSSE’, Change, March/April, 26–27. Kuh, G.D. (2008) High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter, Association of American Colleges and Universities, Washington, DC. Kuh, G.D. and E.T. Pascarella (2004) ‘What does Institution Selectivity Tell Us about Educational Quality?’, Change, September/October, 52–58. Kuh, G.D., J. Kinzie, J.H. Schuh and E.J. Whitt (2006) Student Success in College: Assessing the Conditions for Educational Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco. Kursisa, G. (2010) ‘Education Ministry Begins Long-Term Task of Reform’, Baltic Times, 21 April. Labi, A. (2007) ‘Europe Challenges U.S. for Foreign Students’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 27 September, Accessed 9 July 2010, from http://chronicle.com/ article/Europe-Challenges-US-for/7166



References 233

Labi, A. (2008a) ‘American Universities Maintain Dominance in Latest Shanghai Rankings’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 7 August, Accessed 28 May 2010, from http://chronicle.com/article/American-Universities-Maint/41427/ Labi, A. (2008b) ‘Obsession with Rankings Goes Global’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 17 October, Accessed, 2 June 2010, from http://chronicle.com/article/ Obsession-With-Rankings-Goes/33040 Labi, A. (2008c) ‘Germany’s Share of Foreign-Student Market Begins to Stagnate’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 1 May, Accessed 6 June 2010, from http://chronicle.com/article/Germany-s-Share-of/40907 Labi, A. (2008d) ‘English-Language University Programs Triple in Europe’s NonEnglish-Speaking Nations’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 11 March, Accessed 9 July 2010, from http://chronicle.com/article/English-Language-University/ 40620/ Lambert, R. (2003) Review of Business-University Collaboration, Final Report, HMSO, London, Accessed 6 June 2010, from http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/ lambert_review_final_450.pdf Lambert, R. and N. Butler (2006) Future of European Universities. Renaissance or Decay? Centre for European Reform, Accessed 30 April 2010, from http://www. cer.org.uk/pdf/p_67x_universities_decay_3.pdf Landry, C. (2010) ‘French Super-University Wants to be Among the Top 10’, Yahoo News, 4 May, Accessed 26 May 2010, from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ afp/20100504/lf_afp/francepoliticseducation_20100504074528 Lane, B. (2010) ‘Funding Gap to Hit ANU’s Global University Ranking’, The Australian, 5 June, Accessed 14 July 2010, from http://www.theaustralian.com. au/news/nation/funding-gap-to-hit-anus-global-university-ranking/storye6frg6nf-1225875703351 Langbert, M. (2006) ‘How Universities Pay Their Presidents’, Academic Questions, 19(2), Spring. Lao, R. (2010) ‘Hiking the Rankings; The Quest to Establish World-Class Universities’, The Nation, 15 February, Accessed 13 June 2010, from http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2010/02/15/opinion/opinion_30122579.php Lawrence, J.K. and K.C. Green (1980) A Question of Quality: The Higher Education Ratings Game, Report No. 5, American Association of Higher Education, Washington, DC. Lawrence, P. (2007) ‘The Mismeasurement of Science’, Current Biology, 17(15), R583–585, Accessed 1 July 2010, from http://www.labri.fr/perso/gimbert/ lawrence-current-biology-2007.pdf Lawrence, R. (2009) ‘Economic Impact of International Students in Victorian Universities’, Presentation to the Australian International Education Conference, Accessed 15 July 2010, from http://www.aiec.idp.com/pdf/2009_Lawrence_ Wed_1350_B103.pdf Lederman, D. (2005) ‘Angling for the Top 20’, Inside Higher Ed, 6 December, Accessed 24 June 2010, from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/12/06/ kentucky Lederman, D. (2009) ‘Rankings Rancor at Clemson’, Inside Higher Ed, 4 June, Accessed 11 June, from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/04/ clemson Lee, H.S. (2010) ‘How Diversity Took 2 Asian Universities to the Top’, The Chosun Ibo, 18 January, Accessed 22 June 2010, from http://english.chosun.com/site/ data/html_dir/2010/01/18/2010011800889.html



234 References

Lee, S. (2009) ‘Reputation Without Rigour’, Inside Higher Ed, 19 August, Accessed 4 April 2010, from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/19/rankings Lee, V. (2010) ‘York “Graduate Level” Employability 11% Less than UK’s Other Top Ten Universities’, Nouse, 23 February, Accessed 14 July 2010, from http:// www.nouse.co.uk/2010/02/23/york-graduate-level-employability-11-less-thanuks-other-top-ten-universities/ Levin, D.J. (2002) ‘Uses and Abuses of the U.S. News Rankings’, Priorities, Fall, Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, Washington, DC. Levin, R.C. (2010) ‘Top of the Class: The Rise of Asia’s Universities’, Foreign Affairs, May/June, Accessed 30 May 2010, from http://0-web.ebscohost.com.ditlib.dit.ie/ ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=104&sid=fd1858fd-c90a-423f-8eff-51f25a1699d2%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph& AN=49154216 Levitt, S.D. and S.J. Dubner (2009) Freakonomics, Harper, New York. Limm, D. (2009) ‘Measuring Student Achievement at Postsecondary Institutions’, Issue Brief, National Governors Association Centre for Best Practice, Accessed 2 April 2010, from http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0911measuringachievement.pdf Lindsey, D. (1989) ‘Using Citation Counts as a Measure of Quality in Science, Measuring What’s Measurable Rather Than What’s Valid’, Scientometrics, 15(3–4): 189–203. Liu, N.C. (2009) ‘The Story of Academic Ranking of World Universities’, International Higher Education, 54: 2–3, Accessed 21 May 2010, from http://www.bc. edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/ihe_pdf/ihe54.pdf Liu, N.C. and Y. Cheng (2005) ‘The Academic Ranking of World Universities’, Higher Education in Europe, 30: 127–136. Locke, W.D., L. Verbik, J.T.E. Richardson and R. King (2008a) Counting What is Measured or Measuring What Counts? League Tables and the Impact on Higher Education Institutions in England, Report to HEFCE by the Centre for Higher Education Research and Information (CHERI), Open University and Hobsons Research, UK, Accessed 11 June 2010, from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/ HEFCE/2008/08_14/ Locke, W.D., L. Verbik, J.T.E. Richardson and R. King (2008b) ‘Appendix A. Research Methodologies’, Counting What is Measured or Measuring What Counts? League Tables and the Impact on Higher Education Institutions in England, Report to HEFCE by the Centre for Higher Education Research and Information (CHERI), Open University, and Hobsons Research, UK, Accessed 11 June 2010, from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/HEFCE/2008/08_14/ Locke, W.D., L. Verbik, J.T.E. Richardson and R. King (2008c) ‘Appendix E: Detailed Findings from the Institutional Case Studies’, Counting What is Measured or Measuring What Counts? League Tables and Their Impact on Higher Education Institutions in England, Report to HEFCE by the Centre for Higher Education Research and Information (CHERI), Open University and Hobsons Research, UK, Accessed 11 June 2010, from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/HEFCE/2008/08_14/ Long, M., F. Ferrier and M. Heagney (2006) ‘Stay, Play or Give It Away? Students Continuing, Changing or Leaving University Study in First Year’, Centre for the Economics of Education and Training, Monash University, Melbourne, Accessed 14 July 2010, from http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/678FF9193AD5-46C7-9F57-739841698A85/14398/final.pdf



References 235

Lovett, C. (2005) ‘Point of View: The Perils of Pursuing Prestige’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 21 January. Ludwig, M. and G. Scharrer (2009) ‘Universities Look for Boost to Top Tier’, San Antonio Express News, 31 August, Accessed 29 May 2010, from http://www.chron. com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6594481.html Lutz, D. (2010) ‘Engineering Professor Xia Named One of Top 10 Chemists in the World’, Washington University in St. Louis, Newsroom, 26 January, Accessed 27 March 2010, from http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/20142.aspx Maassen, P. and B. Stensaker (2010) ‘The Knowledge Triangle, European Higher Education Policy Logics and Policy Implications’, Higher Education, 1–13. McCormick, A.C. and C.M. Zhao (2005) ‘Rethinking and Reframing the Carnegie Classification’, Change, September/October. McDermott, A.B. (2008) ‘Surviving Without the SAT’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 25 September, Accessed 27 March 2010, from http://chronicle.com/article/ Surviving-Without-the-SAT/18874/ McDonough, P.M., A.L. Antonio, M. Walpole and L.X. Perez (1998) ‘College Rankings: Democratized College Knowledge for Whom?’, Research in Higher Education, 39(5): 513–537. Macgregor, K. (2007) ‘Universities Set Priorities for Research’, University World News, 11 November, Accessed 20 November 2010, from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20071108145540742 Macklin, J. (2006) Australia’s Universities: Building our Future in the World, A White Paper on Higher Education, Research and Innovation, Australian Labour Party, Accessed 3 June 2010, from http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/ library/partypol/1LBK6/upload_binary/1lbk65.pdf;fileType%3Dapplication%2Fpdf McMahon, F., Director, Academic Affairs, Dublin Institute of Technology (2010) Conversation, January. McManus-Howard, M. (2002) Student Use Of Rankings in National Magazines in the College Decision-Making Process, EdD Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. McNeill, D. (2008) ‘Facing Enrolment Crisis, Japanese Universities Fight to Attract Students’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 11 July. MacRoberts, M.H. and B.R. MacRoberts (1996) ‘Problems of Citation Analysis’, Scientometrics, 36: 435–444. Mak, J. and J.E.T. Moncur (2003) ‘Interstate Migration of College Freshmen’, The Annals of Regional Science, 37: 4. Marginson, S. (2006) ‘Rankings Ripe for Misleading’, The Australian, 6 December, Accessed 16 June 2010, from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/ rankings-ripe-for-misleading/story-e6frgcjx-1111112637978 Marginson, S. (2007a) ‘Going Global: Trends in Higher Education and Research in the APEC Region’, Presentation to APEC HRDWG Symposium on Education Policy Challenges, Brisbane, 17 April, Accessed 3 May 2010, from http://www.cshe. unimelb.edu.au/people/staff_pages/Marginson/APEC_HRDWG_Symposium_1704 07.pdf Marginson, S. (2007b) ‘Global University Rankings: Where to from Here?’ Accessed 3 April 2010, from http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/people/staff_ pages/marginson/apaie_090307_marginson.pdf Marginson, S. (2008a) ‘Rankings and Internationalisation. Sustainability and Risks of internationalisation’, Paper to The Australian Financial Review Higher



236 References

Education conference, Sydney, 13–14 March, Accessed 8 October 2010, from http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/people/staff_pages/Marginson/Financial%20 Review%20conference%20140308.pdf Marginson, S. (2008b) ‘The Knowledge Economy and the Potentials of the Global Public Sphere’, Paper to the Beijing Forum, 7–9 November, Accessed 8 October 2010, from http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/people/ staff_pages/Marginson/Beijing%20Forum%202008%20Simon%20 Marginson.pdf Marginson, S. (2010a) ‘University Rankings, Government and Social Order: Managing the Field of Higher Education According to the Logic of the Performance Present-as Future’, in M. Simons, M. Olssen and M. Peters (eds) Re-reading Education Policies: Studying the Policy Agenda of the 21 Century, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam. Marginson, S. (2010b) ‘The Rise of the Global University: 5 New Tensions’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 30 May. Marginson, S. and M. Considine (2000) The Enterprise University. Power, Governance and Reinvention in Australia, University Press, Cambridge. Marginson, S. and M. van der Wende (2007a) ‘Globalisation and Higher Education’, OECD Education Working Papers No. 8, OECD, Paris. Marginson, S. and M. van der Wende (2007b) ‘To Rank or To Be Ranked; The Impact of Global University Rankings’, Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4): 313–318. Maringe, F. (2006) ‘University and Course Choice: Implications for Positioning, Recruitment and Marketing’, International Journal of Educational Management, 20(6): 466–479. Marklein, M.B. (2006) ‘Are Out-of-State Students Crowding Out In-Staters?’, USA Today, 31 August, Accessed 14 July 2010, from http://www.usatoday. com/news/education/2006-08-30-state-universities-cover_x.htm Marshall, J. (2010) ‘How Sarkozy is Forcing Reform on a Reluctant Establishment’, The Independent, 1July, Accessed 1 July 2010, from http://www.independent. co.uk/news/education/schools/how-sarkozy-is-forcing-reform-on-a-reluctantestablishment-2014821.html Martin, L. (2008) ‘“Too Many Universities” says New Higher Education Minister’, The Journal, 12, 26 October, Accessed 30 April 2010, from http://www.journalonline.co.uk/article/3358-too-many-universities-says-new-higher-educationminister Marx, K. (1948) The Communist Manifesto, with appreciation by Harold J. Laski, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, London. Maslen, G. (2007) ‘Chinese Students to Dominate World Market’, University World News, 4 November, Accessed 29 June 2010, from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20071101150549773 Masterson, K. (2010a) ‘Private Giving to Colleges Dropped Sharply in 2009’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 3 February, Accessed 4 May 2010, from http:// chronicle.com/article/Private-Giving-to-Colleges-/63879/and http://chronicle. com/article/ Charts-Giving-to-Colleges-and/63865/ Masterson, K. (2010b) ‘Northwestern Makes a Case for Giving: To Improve College Rankings’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 12 September, Accessed 30 December 2010, from http://chronicle.com/article/Northwestern-Makes-aCase-for/124377/? sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en



References 237

Matsumoto, A. and K. Ono (2008) ‘The Scramble for Students’, The Daily Yomiuri, 31 May, Accessed 20 November 2010, from http://www.debito.org/? p=1697 Matsuura, K. (2009) ‘The Director-General Urges G8 Leaders to Increase Investment in Education’, UNESCO, Accessed 23 May 2010, from http://www.unesco.org/ en/ education/dynamic-content-single-view/news/the_director_general_urges_ g8_leaders_to_increase_investment_in_education/browse/9/back/9195/cHash/ 679b23cd4f/ Mazzarol, T. and G.N. Soutar (2002) ‘“Push-Pull” Factors Influencing International Student Destination Choice’, International Journal of Educational Management, 16(2): 82–90. Meredith, M. (2004) ‘Why Do Universities Compete in the Ratings Game? An Empirical Analysis of the Effects of the U.S. News & World Report College Rankings’, Research in Higher Education, 45(5): 443–461. MEXT (2008) Higher Education in Japan, Higher Education Bureau Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Accessed 6 June 2010, from http://www.mext.go.jp/english/koutou/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2009/12/ 03/1287370_1_1.pdf MEXT (2010) ‘Global 30 Project for Establishing Core Universities for Internationalization’, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Accessed 4 June 2010, from http://www.mext.go.jp/english/news/ 1283454.htm Ministry of Education (2008) Report of the Committee on the Expansion of the University Sector Greater Choice, More Room to Excel. Final Report, Singapore, Accessed 23 June 2010, from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/files/2008/08/ ceus-final-report-and-exec-summary.pdf Moed, H.F. (2006) Bibliometric Rankings of World Universities, CWTS, University of Leiden. Moed, H.F. (2009) ‘New Developments in the Use of Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation’, Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis (Warsawa), 57: 3–18. Mohrman, K., W. Ma and D. Baker (2008) ‘The Research University in Transition: The Emerging Global Model’, Higher Education Policy, 21(1): 29–48. Mok, K.H. (2008) ‘University Restructuring Experiences in Asia: Myth and Reality’, Policy Futures in Education, 6(5), Accessed 4 June 2010, from http:// www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=pfie&vol=6&issue=5&year=2008& article=1_Introduction_PFIE_6_5_web Mok, K.H. and I.P. Wei (eds) (2008) Thematic Issue: ‘Realizing the Global University: Comparative Perspectives and Critical Reflections’, Higher Education Policy, 21(4). Moltz, D. (2010) ‘Evaluting Community College Rankings’, Inside HigherEd, 24 August, Accessed 21 September 2010, from http://www.insidehighered. com/news/2010/08/24/rankings Monks, J. and R.G. Ehrenberg (1999) ‘The Impact of U.S. News and World Report College Rankings on Admissions Outcomes and Pricing Policies at Selective Private Institutions’, Working Paper Series, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge. Moodie, G. (2009) Correspondence, 7 June.



238 References

Moodie, G. (2010) ‘Resources Lost in Time and Space’, The Australian, 14 April, Accessed 21 November 2010, from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/highereducation/opinion-analysis/resources-lost-in-time-and-space/story-e6frgcko1225853332609 Morgan, J. (2010a) ‘Europeans the Most Keen to Make Rankings Noise’, Times Higher Education, 3 June, Accessed 6 June 2010, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=411874&c=1 Morgan, J. (2010b) ‘Appetite for Education’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 9 December, Accessed 31 December 2010, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=414509 Moriarty, G. (2009) ‘Queen’s University to Shed 100 Jobs in Cost-Cutting Plan’, The Irish Times, 24 June, Accessed 24 June 2010, from http://www.irishtimes. com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0624/1224249414851.html Morse, R.J. (1995) ‘U.S. News & World Report’s Philosophy Behind “America’s Best Colleges”’, in R.D. Walleri and M.K. Moss (eds) Evaluating and Responding to College Guidebooks and Rankings, New Directions for Institutional Research, 88, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco. Morse, R.J. (2010a) ‘The Future of Ranking Systems. The US News Experience and Its Impact on Colleges’, Presentation to CHEA International Seminar, Washington, DC. Morse, R.J. (2010b) ‘Group Tries to Start Boycott of U.S. News Law School Rankings’, U.S. News & World Report, 27 May, Accessed 24 June 2010, from http://www.usnews.com/blogs/college-rankings-blog/2010/05/27/group-triesto-start-boycott-of-us-news-law-school-rankings.html Morse, R.J. and S. Flanigan (2009) ‘How We Calculate the College Rankings’, U.S. News & World Report, 19 August, Accessed 11 June 2010, from http:// www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-colleges/2009/08/19/how-wecalculate-the-college-rankings.html?PageNr=3 Muchie, M. (2010) ‘Africa: Networks Needed to Improve Higher Education’, University World News, 21 March, 116, Accessed 29 May 2010, from http:// www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20100319092507175 Mu-lin, L., Vice Minister of Education (2003) ‘The Making of World Class Research Universities in an Age of Globalization – Components and Challenges’, Accessed 5 June 2010, from http://english.moe.gov.tw/content.asp? cuItem=292&mp=2 Murphy, C. (2009) ‘More Students Given Top Grades at Universities’, The Sunday Times, 20 September. Murphy, C., Editor, Sunday Times University Guide, Irish edition (2010) Correspondence, 15 January. Myklebust, J.P. (2009) ‘Denmark: Quest for World-Class Universities’, World University News, 13 December, Accessed 7 June 2010, from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20091211083831760 NACAC, National Association for College Admissions Counseling (2010) How NACAC Members Use U.S. News & World Report Rankings, Accessed 27 December 2010, from http://www.nacacnet.org/AboutNACAC/Governance/Comm/Documents/USNewsSecondReport.pdf NACE, National Association of Colleges and Employers (2008) ‘Using Employee Performance to Measure Effectiveness of Schools in Work Force Preparation’, 10 December, Accessed 14 February 2010, from http://nace.naceweb.org/spotlightonline/121008e/Using_Employee_Performance/



References 239

Ngok, K. and W. Guo (2008) ‘The Quest for World Class Universities in China: Critical Reflections’, Policy Futures in Education, 6(5), Accessed 28 May 2010, from http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=pfie&vol=6&issue=5&year=2008 &article=3_Ngok_PFIE_6_5_web Nhan, N.T., Minister for Education (2007) ‘2007–2008 School Year: Universities will be Ranked’, Vietnam.net, 12 January, Accessed 28 May 2010, from http:// english.vietnamnet.vn/education/2007/01/653246/ Nowotny, H., P. Scott and M. Gibbons (2001) Re-Thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. NUC (2010) ‘Nigeria Mourns Yar’Adua’, National Universities Commission, 5(19), Accessed 13 June 2010, from http://www.nuc.edu.ng/nucsite/File/Monday %20Bulletin/10th%20May,%202010%20Final.pdf Oba, J. (2007) ‘Incorporation of National Universities in Japan’, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 27(3): 291–303. Oba, J. (2008) ‘Creating World-Class Universities in Japan: Policy and Initiatives’, Policy Futures in Education, 6(5). Obama, B. (2009) ‘Prepared for Delivery Address to Joint Session of Congress’, 24 February, Accessed 23 May 2010, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_ office/Remarks-of-President-Barack-Obama-Address-to-Joint-Session-of-Congress/ Obara, Y. (2009) ‘Japanese Higher Education: The “Haves” are Gaining and the “Have-nots” are Losing’, International Higher Education, 57. OECD (2009) Education at a Glance, Paris. OECD (2010a) ‘Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)’, Paris, Accessed 1 June 2010, from http://www.pisa.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_ 32252351_ 32235731_1_1_1_1_1,00.html OECD (2010b) ‘Feasibility Study for the Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO)’, Paris, Accessed 1 June 2010, from http://www.oecd.org/ document/22/0,3343,en_2649_35961291_40624662_1_1_1_1,00.html Okebukola, P. (2010) ‘Trends in Academic Rankings in the Nigerian University System’, Paper to International Rankings Expert Group (IREG) 5 Conference, Berlin. Olatunji, B. (2009) ‘Why Government Must Combine Programme, Institutional Accreditation’, AllAfrica.com, 12 May, Accessed 28 May 2010, from http:// allafrica.com/stories/200905130107.html Olds, K. (2010a) ‘Bibliometrics, Global Rankings, and Transparency’, Global Higher Ed., 23 June, Accessed 29 June 2010, from http://globalhighered.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/bibliometrics-global-rankings-and-transparency/ Olds, K. (2010b) ‘Are We Witnessing the Denationalization of the Higher Education Media?’, Global Higher Ed.,14 July, Accessed 17 July 2010, from http:// globalhighered.wordpress.com/ O’Meara, K. (2010) ‘Ranking Systems in Higher Education: How They Work and Why They Matter (EDHI 788W)’, College of Education, University of Maryland. O’Meara, K. (2007) ‘Striving for What? Exploring the Pursuit of Prestige’, Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, XXII: 123–124. Oni, A. (2010) ‘Why Nigerian Universities Fall Short of Global Ranking’, The Punch, 22 February, Accessed 14 July 2010, from http://www.punchng.com/Articl.aspx? theartic=Art2010022215594146 Osborn, A. (2010) ‘EUROPE: New Higher Education Directorate’, University World News, 20 June, Accessed 20 June 2010, from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20100617192247158



240 References

Pace, C.R. (1982) ‘Achievement and the Quality of Student Effort’, National Commission for Excellence in Education, Washington, DC. Pagell, R.A. (2009) ‘University Research Rankings: From Page Counting to Academic Accountability’, [Higher Education Accreditation], June, 3(1): 33–63. Pascarella, E.T. (1985) ‘College Environmental Influences on Learning and Cognitive Development: A Critical Review and Synthesis’, in J. Smart (ed.) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 1: 1–64, Agathon, New York. Pascarella, E.T. and P.T. Terenzini (2005) How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Perry, M. (2009) ‘Indian Students to Shun Australia Due to Attacks’, The Wall Street Journal, 30 December, Accessed 3 June 2010, from http://www.livemint. com/2009/12/30100052/Indian-students-to-shun-Austra.html Pimpa, N. (2003) ‘The Influence of Family on Thai Students’ Choices of International Education’, International Journal of Educational Management, 17(5): 211–219, Accessed 22 January 2010, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/ Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/Emerald FullTextArticle/Articles/0600170504.html Prest, M. (2010) ‘A Technological Powerhouse to Rival MIT and Oxbridge; The French are Waking the Sleeping Giant’, The Independent, 19 January, Accessed 5 May 2010, from http://www.independent.co.uk/student/postgraduate/ mbas-guide/a-technological-powerhouse-to-rival-mit-and-oxbridge1880852.html Primack, P. (2008) ‘Doesn’t Anybody Get a C Anymore?’, The Boston Globe, 5 October, Accessed 10 April 2010, from http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2008/10/05/doesnt_anybody_get_a_c_anymore/ Prospects (2010) ‘First Degrees: Overview – The Economic Slowdown and What do Graduates Do? Accessed 2 April 2010, from http://www.prospects.ac.uk/cms/ ShowPage/Home_page/What_do_graduates_do_/First_degrees__overview/p!emlllec Provan, D. and K. Abercromby (2000) ‘University League Tables and Rankings: A Critical Analysis’, Commonwealth Higher Education Management Service, 30. Putze, E., Public Affairs Office, US News (2010) Correspondence, 19 February. Rahman, S. (2009) ‘The Prime Minister Wants World Class Universities but the Implementing Agencies Can’t Agree on How to Do It’, India Today, 2 February, Accessed 28 May 2010, from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-19809891. html Reichert, S. (2006) The Rise of Knowledge Regions: Emerging Opportunities and Challenges for Universities, European University Association, Brussels, Accessed 2 May 2010, from http://www.eua.be/uploads/media/The_Rise_of_Knowledge_ Regions.pdf Reid, J. (2008) ‘Make the Structure World-Class’, The Australian, 12 November, Accessed 31 May 2010, from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/ opinion-analysis/make-the-structure-world-class/story-e6frgcko1111118007445 Rhoades, G. (1998) Managed Professionals. Unionized Faculty and Restructuring Academic Labor, State University of New York, Albany. RIA, Royal Irish Academy (2009) Making the Best of Third-level Science, Dublin, Accessed 3 June 2010, from http://www.ria.ie/getmedia/d2daadc3-7ff1-4f47-9af07dcf349faac2/web-version-making-the-best-of-third-level-science.pdf.aspx



References 241

Ridley, D. and C.E. Berina (1999) ‘Transitions between Tiers in U.S. News & World Report Rankings of Nationally-Ranked Liberal Arts Colleges’, Accessed 20 June 2010, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini. jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED439664&ERICExtSearch_ SearchType_0=no&accno=ED439664 Ritzen, J. (2010) A Chance for European Universities Or: Avoiding the Looming University Crisis in Europe, University Press, Amsterdam. RMIT (2005) RMIT Vision 2010: Designing the Future. Strategic Plan for the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Accessed 11 June 2010, from http://mams. rmit.edu.au/wkxbw15ps86fz.pdf Roberts, D. and L. Thompson (2007) University League Tables and the Impact on Student Recruitment; Reputation Management for Universities, Working Paper Series 2, The Knowledge Partnership, Leeds, Cambridge and Brisbane. Robertson, D. (1998) ‘The Emerging Political Economy of Higher Education’, Studies in Higher Education, 23(2). Robertson, S.L. (2008) ‘Producing Knowledge Economies: The World Bank, the KAM, Education and Development’, Centre for Globalisation, Education and Societies, University of Bristol, Accessed 14 July 2010, from http://www.bris. ac.uk/education/people/academicStaff/edslr/publications/19slr/ Robertson, S.L. (2009a) ‘“Producing” the Global Knowledge Economy’, in M. Simons, M. Olssen, and M.A. Peters (eds) Re-Reading Education Policies. A Handbook Studying the Policy Agenda of the 21 Century, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, 234–256. Robertson, S.L. (2009b) ‘QS.com Asian University Rankings: Niches Within Niches … Within …’, Global Higher Ed. 12 May, Accessed 16 June 2010, from http://globalhighered.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/qs-com-asian-universityrankings-niches-within-niches-within/ Robinson, M. and J. Monks (2002) ‘Making SAT Scores Optional in Selective College Admissions: A Case Study’, Paper to National Bureau of Economic Research Higher Education Working Group. Rolfe, H. (2003) ‘University Strategy in an Age of Uncertainty: The Effect of Higher Education Funding on Old and New Universities’, Higher Education Quarterly, 57(1): 24–47. Rosovsky, H. and M. Hartley (2002) Evaluation and the Academy: Are We Doing the Right Thing?, Occasional Paper, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Boston, Accessed 10 April 2010, from http://www.amacad.org/publications/evaluation.aspx Ross, J. (2009) ‘International Losses Could Jeopardise Australian Rankings’, Campus Review, 12 October; Accessed 5 May 2010, from http://www.campusreview.com.au/pages/section/article.php?s=News&idArticle=13200 Rothwell, R. (1994) ‘Towards the Fifth-generation Innovation Process’, International Marketing Review, 11(1): 7–31. Rüdiger, K. (2008) Towards a Global Labour Market? Globalisation and the Knowledge Economy, The Work Foundation, London, Accessed 8 January 2009, from http:// www.workfoundation.com/assets/docs/publications/30_globalisation.pdf Sadlak, J. and N.C. Liu (eds) (2007a) The World-Class University and Ranking: Aiming Beyond Status, Cluj University Press, Bucharest. Sadlak, J. and N.C. Liu (2007b) ‘Introduction to the Topic: Expectations and Realities of World-Class University Status and Ranking Practices’, in J. Sadlak and N.C. Liu (eds) The World-Class University and Ranking: Aiming Beyond Status, Cluj University Press, Bucharest, 17–24.



242 References

Saisana, M. and B. D’Hombres (2008) ‘Higher Education Rankings: Robustness Issues and Critical Assessment. How Much Confidence Can We Have in Higher Education Rankings?’, Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning (CRELL), European Communities, Luxembourg, Accessed 20 November 2010, from http:// crell. jrc.ec.europa.eu/Publications/CRELL%20Research%20Papers/EUR23487. pdf Salmi, J. (2009) The Challenge of Establishing World-Class Universities, The World Bank, Washington, DC. Salmi, J. (2010) ‘If Ranking is the Disease, is Benchmarking the Cure?’, Paper to International Rankings Expert Group (IREG) 5 Conference, Berlin. Salmi, J. and A. Saroyan (2007) ‘League Tables as Policy Instruments: Uses and Misuses’, Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(2): 31–68. Samuelson, R.J. (2004) ‘In Praise of Rankings. Demographics and Fierce Competition Have Created a New Class of Elite Schools. That Turns Out to be a Good Thing’, Newsweek, 1 August, Accessed 15 July 2010, from http://www.newsweek.com/id/ 54641 Sanders, C., A. Goddard and C. Davis (2002) ‘Top-up Fees Trigger Russell Rift’, Times Higher Education, 1 November, Accessed 13 April 2010, from http://www. timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=172662§ioncode=26 Santiago, P., K. Tremblay, E. Basri and E. Arnal (2008) Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society, 2, OECD, Paris. Sassen, S. (2001) The Global City, 2nd edition, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Sauder, M. (2006) ‘Third Parties and Status Position: How the Characteristics of Status Systems Matter’, Theory and Society, 35(3). Sauder, M. and W.N. Espeland (2009) ‘The Discipline of Rankings: Tight Coupling and Organizational Change’, American Sociological Review, 74(1): 63–82. Sauder, M. and R. Lancaster (2006) ‘Do Rankings Matter? The Effects of U.S. News and World Report Rankings on the Admissions Process of Law Schools’, Law and Society Review, 40(1): 105–134. Saupe, J.L. (2005) ‘How Old is Institutional Research and How Did It Develop?’, Remarks at Annual MidAIR Conference, 10 November, Accessed 24 November 2009, from http://www.mid-air.org/images/How%20Old%20is%20Institutional %20Research%20and%20How%20Did%20It%20Develop.pdf Schmalbeck, R. (1998) ‘The Durability of Law School Reputation’, Journal of Legal Education, 48(4): 568–590. Schmidt, P. (2008) ‘Elite Colleges’ Scramble to Enrol High SAT Scorers May Undermine Diversity’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 25 March. Schuurmans, M. (2009) ‘The EIT: Sustainable Growth and Competitiveness through Innovation’, presentation, Accessed 15 July 2010, from ec.europa.eu/eit/doc/ sustainable-growth-and-competitiveness%20_en.pps Scott, J. (2000) ‘Rational Choice Theory’, in G.K. Browning, A. Halcli, and F. Webster (eds) Understanding Contemporary Society: Theories of the Present, Sage Publications, London. Scott, J. (2006) ‘Why am I Here? Student Choice in the Biosciences’, BioScience Education, BEE-j 7, May, Accessed 12 April 2010, from http://www.bioscience. heacademy.ac. uk/journal/vol7/beej-7-4.aspx Selingo, J. (2002) ‘New England Loses Its Edge in Higher Education’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 15 February. Shahabudin, S.H. (2008) ‘Responses to Global Ranking (THES) in Malaysia’, Presentation to UNESCO Global Forum, Paris.



References 243

Sharma, Y. (2010a) ‘Governments Should Ignore Rankings: Quacquarelli’, World University News, 16 May, Accessed 21 May 2010, from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20100514204441858 Sharma, Y. (2010b) ‘Asia: Development Ratings vs. Status Rankings’, World University News, 16 May, Accessed 20 June 2010, from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20100514210333172 Sheil, T. (2009) ‘Moving Beyond University Rankings: Developing World Class University Systems’, Presentation to 3rd International Symposium on University Rankings, University of Leiden, February. Shepherd, J. (2005) ‘Poor Rankings Stymie Graduate Work Prospects’, Times Higher Education, 4 November, Accessed 24 June 2010, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=199501§ioncode=26 Shin-Who, K. (2007) ‘Germany Targets Korea for Higher Education’, The Korea Times, 3 October, Accessed 14 June, from http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/ news/nation/2007/10/113_11233.html Slattery, L. (2010) ‘Australian National University to Get Extra $111m Funding’, The Australian, 12 May, Accessed 3 June 2010, from http://www.theaustralian. com.au/higher-education/australian-national-university-to-get-extra-111mfunding/story-e6frgcjx-1225865192613 Slaughter, S. and L. Leslie (1997) Academic Capitalism. Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Slaughter, S. and G. Rhoades (2004) Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State, and Higher Education, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Smith, A. (2006) ‘Experience, Not Degree, Comes First for Employers’, Education Guardian, 4 August 2006, Accessed 21 February 2010, from http://www.guardian. co.uk/education/2006/aug/04/highereducation.workandcareers Smith, J., A. McKnight and R. Naylor (2000) ‘Graduate Employability: Policy and Performance in Higher Education in the UK’, The Economic Journal, 110, Accessed 2 April 2010, from http://0-web.ebscohost.com.ditlib.dit.ie/ehost/pdf? vid=4&hid=13&sid=c3e82cc9-9901-40b0-a535-271a7b35dc94%40sessionmgr10 Smolentseva, A. (2010) ‘In Search for World-Class Universities: The Case of Russia’, International Higher Education, 58, Accessed 28 May 2010, from http://www.bc. edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/Number58/p20_Smolentseva.htm Sondermann, M., D. Simon, A. Scholz and S. Hornbostel (2008) ‘Die Exzellenzinitiative: Beobachtungen Aus Der Implementierungsphase’, iFQ-Working Paper No. 5, iFQ – Institut für Forschungsinformation und Qualitätssicherung, Bonn, Accessed 14 July 2010, from http://www.forschungsinfo.de/Publikationen/ Download/working_paper_5_2008.pdf Soo, K.T. and C. Elliott (2008) ‘Does Price Matter? Overseas Students in UK Higher Education’, Lancaster University Management School Working Paper 2008/ 017, Accessed 27 March 2010, from http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/27912/1/ 005738. pdf Sowter, B. (2009) ‘Domestic Rankings Slow to Reveal Their Past’, QS Intelligence Unit, 23 April, Accessed 26 March 2010, from http://iu.qs.com/2009/04/23/ domestic-rankings-slow-to-reveal-their-past/ Spaapen, J., H. Dijstelbloem and F. Wamelink (2007) Evaluating Research in Context. A Method for Comprehensive Assessment, 2nd edition, Consultative Committee of Sector Councils for Research and Development (COS), The Netherlands.



244 References

Spies, R.R. (1978) The Effect of Rising Costs on College Choice. A Study of the Application Decisions of High-Ability Students, College Board Publication Orders, Princeton. Sponsler, B.J. (2009) Issue Brief; the Role and Relevance of Rankings in Higher Education Decision-Making, Institute of Higher Education Policy, Washington DC. St. Aubyn, M., F. Garcia and J. Pais (2009) European Economy. Study on the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Public Spending on Tertiary Education, Economic Papers 3901, November. Directorate-General Economic and Financial Affairs, European Communities, Brussels. Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland (2010) ‘Higher Education’, Accessed 6 June 2010, from http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/ EN/Navigation/Statistics/BildungForschungKultur/Hochschulen/Hochschulen. psml;jsessionid=2ABFE87CB059B5E930A28E2330BAE8E1 Steinberg, J. (2009) ‘Does the U.S. Have Too Many Big Research Universities’, 26 June, The Choice, Accessed 30 April 2010, from http://thechoice.blogs. nytimes.com/2009/06/26/research/ Stella, A. and D. Woodhouse (2006) ‘Ranking of Higher Education Institutions’, Australian Universities Quality Agency, Melbourne, Accessed 29 June 2010, from http://www.auqa.edu.au/files/publications/ranking_of_higher_education_ institutions_final.pdf Stolz, I., D.D. Hendel and A.S. Horn (2010) ‘Ranking of Rankings: Benchmarking Twenty-Five Higher Education Ranking Systems in Europe’, Higher Education, 60: 507–528. Sudibyo, B. (2009) Opening Address by the Minister of National Education, International Conference on World University Rankings and Quality of Education, 16 April, Accessed 28 May 2010, from wur2009.ui.ac.id/downloads/Openingaddress.doc Sursock, A. and A. Smidt (2010) Trends 2010: A Decade of Change in European Higher Education, European University Association, Brussels. Swan, A. (2010) ‘The Open Access Citation Advantage: Studies and Results to Date. Technical Report’, University of Southampton, Accessed 27 March 2010, from http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18516/ Sweitzer, K. and J.F. Volkwein (2009) ‘Prestige among Graduate and Professional Schools: Comparing the US News’ Graduate School Reputation Ratings between Disciplines’, Research in Higher Education, 50(813). Szu-yu, L. and Y.L. Kao (2010) ‘Meiji University Looks to Taiwan for Top Students’, Focus Taiwan, 16 April, Accessed 6 June 2010, from http://focustaiwan.tw/ShowNews/WebNews_Detail.aspx?Type=aALL&ID=201004160042 Tapper, T. and O. Filippakou (2009) ‘The World-Class League Tables and Sustaining of International Reputations in Higher Education’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 31(1). Taylor, J. and J. Jones (1989) ‘An Evaluation of Performance Indicators Based Upon the First Destination of University Graduates’, Studies in Higher Education, 14(2), Accessed 2 April 2010, from http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/932533_ 729902149_ 718868650.pdf Taylor, P. and R. Braddock (2007) ‘International University Ranking Systems and the Idea of University Excellence’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(3): 245–260.



References 245

TCD (2009) ‘Trinity College Dublin Strategic Plan 2009–2014’, Accessed 11 June 2010, from http://www.tcd.ie/about/content/pdf/tcd-strategic-plan-2009-2014english.pdf Terenzini, P.T., H.K. Ro and A.C. Yin (2010) ‘Between-College Effects on Students Reconsidered’, Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education conference, Indianapolis, US. Tetley, D. (2006) ‘Boycotting Universities Refuse to Meet Maclean’s Requests’, Calgary Herald, 27 October, Accessed 24 June 2010, from http://www2.canada. com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=8dc65cf9-5156-45d1-b9f8-9d164caca946 Thacker, L. (2007) ‘The Presidents’ Letter’, Education Conservancy, Accessed 24 June 2010, from http://www.educationconservancy.org/presidents_letter.html Thakur, M. (2007) ‘The Impact of Ranking Systems on Higher Education and Its Stakeholders’, Journal of Institutional Research, 13(1), Accessed 21 February 2010, from http://www.aair.org.au/jir/Nov07/Ranking.pdf THE (2009) ‘Average Citation Rates by Field 1998–2008’, Times Higher Education, 12 March, Accessed 27 March 2010, from http://www.timeshighereducation. co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=405789§ioncode=26 Theil, S. (2010) ‘The Incredible Shrinking Continent’, Newsweek, 19 February, Accessed 12 April 2010, from http://www.newsweek.com/id/233842 Thomson Reuters (1994) ‘The Thomson Reuters Impact Factor’, Accessed 14 June 2010, from http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/ impact_factor/ Thomson Reuters (2010) ‘Academic Reputation Survey Stage 2 Methodology’, Global Institutional Profiles Project, Accessed 23 June 2010, from http://science. thomsonreuters.com/m/pdfs/GIPP_AcamRep_methodology.pdf Thomson, V. (2010) ‘Build 1000 Centres’, The Australian, 17 February, Accessed 13 June 2010, from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/letters/ build-1000-centres/story-e6frgcox-1225831101537 Tierney, W.G. (2009) ‘Globalization, International Rankings, and the American Model: A Reassessment’, Higher Education Forum, 6. Tight, M. (2000) ‘Do League Tables Contribute to the Development of a Quality Culture?’, Higher Education Quarterly, 54(1): 22–42. Trounson, A. (2010a) ‘Rivals Vie for Academic Viewpoint’, The Australian, 7 April, Accessed 10 April 2010, from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/highereducation/rivals-vie-for-academic-viewpoint/story-e6frgcjx-1225850633551 Trounson, A. (2010b) ‘Science Bias Will Affect Local Rankings’, The Australian, 9 June, Accessed 13 June 2010, from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/highereducation/science-bias-will-affect-local-rankings/story-e6frgcjx-1225877209849 Trowler, P. and T. Wareham (2007) ‘Re-conceptualising the “Teaching-Research Nexus”’, Accessed 2 April 2010, from http://portal-live.solent.ac.uk/university/ rtconference/2007/resources/paul_trowler.pdf Turner, D. (2005) ‘Benchmarking in Universities: League Tables Revisited’, Oxford Review of Education, 31(3): 353–371. Turner, D., B. Masateru and S. Koji (2000) ‘Setting Tuition Fees in Institutions of Higher Education: Supporting a Public Service or Charging What the Market Will Pay?’, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 24(3), Accessed 13 April 2010, from http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/540496_731206609_713677092.pdf Tyler, R.W. (1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.



246 References

Tysome, T. and A. Goddard (1999) ‘Work Experience Gets a Cash Carrot’, Times Higher Education, 19 March, Accessed 2 April 2010, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=145502§ioncode=26 UCD (2005) ‘Mission and Values’, University College Dublin Strategic Plan 2005– 2008, Accessed 11 June 2010, from http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/02_ucd_strategic_ plan_web_mission_vision_values%205.pdf UNESCO (2008) Global Education Digest. Comparing Education Statistics across the World, Institute of Statistics, Paris, http://www.uis.unesco.org/template/pdf/ ged/2008/GED%202008_EN.pdf Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (2008) From International Relations to Internationalisation, International Policy Plan, 2008–2015, Accessed 8 January 2009, from https://www.upc.edu/sri/strategy/ University College London (2009) ‘UCL Fourth in New University World Rankings’, News Archive, 8 October, Accessed 11 June 2010, from http://www.ucl.ac. uk/news/news-articles/0910/09100803 University of Botswana (2007) Benchmarking Strategy, Institutional Planning Department, Accessed 11 June 2010, from http://www.ub.bw/ip/documents/ BenchmarkingStrategy.pdf University of Groningen (2009) ‘University of Groningen Climbing World Ranking List for Third Time in a Row’, News Archive, 8 October, Accessed 11 June 2010, from http://www.rug.nl/prospectiveStudents/newsAndEvents/ newsAndActivities/news2009/thesRanking2009 University of Oslo (2005) ‘Strategic Plan for the University of Oslo 2005–2009’, quoted in Geir Ellingsrud (2007) ‘Focus on Quality. Better Research Leads to Better Ranking Results’, presentation to EUA conference, Budapest. University of Portsmouth (2006) ‘Being “Work Ready” Tops Employers’ Wish List’, 4 August, Accessed 1 July 2010, from http://www.port.ac.uk/lookup/departments/facultyoftechnology/facultyservices/studentplacements/downloads/fileto download,90130,en.doc USAS, University Self-Assessment System For ASEAN/Southeast Asia – A Pilot Project (2010), Report on 2nd Workshop, unpublished. Usher, A. (2006) ‘Can Our Schools Become World-Class’, The Globe and Mail, 30 October, Accessed 11 October 2009, from http://www.theglobeandmail. com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061030.URCworldclassp28/BNStory/univreport06/home Usher, A. (2010) Correspondence, 21 May. Usher, A. and P. Jarvey (2010) ‘Let the Sun Shine In: The Use of University Rankings in Low- and Middle-Income Countries’, Paper to International Rankings Expert Group (IREG) 5 Conference, Berlin. Usher, A. and J. Medow (2009) ‘A Global Survey of University Rankings and League Tables’, in B.M. Kehm and B. Stensaker (eds) University Rankings, Diversity, and the New Landscape of Higher Education, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam. Usher, A. and M. Savino (2006) A World of Difference: A Global Survey of University League Tables, Educational Policy Institute, Toronto, Accessed 19 January 2009, from http://www.educationalpolicy.org/pdf/world-of-difference-200602162.pdf Usher, A. and M. Savino (2007) ‘A Global Survey of Rankings and League Tables’, College and University Ranking Systems – Global Perspectives American Challenges, Institute of Higher Education Policy, Washington, DC.



References 247

van der Werf, M. (2009) ‘Researcher Offers Unusually Candid Description of University’s Effort to Rise in Rankings’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 3 June, Accessed 29 June 2010, from http://chronicle.com/article/Researcher-OffersUnusually/47290 van Noorden, R. (2010) ‘Metrics: A Profusion of Measures’, Nature, 465: 864–866, Accessed 24 June 2010, from http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100616/full/ 465864a.html#a van Raan, A.F.J. (2007) ‘Challenges in the Ranking of Universities’, in J. Sadlak and N.C. Liu (eds) The World-Class University and Ranking: Aiming Beyond Status, Cluj University Press, Bucharest, 87–122. van Vught, F. (2008) ‘Mission Diversity and Reputation in Higher Education’, Higher Education Policy, 21(2): 151–174. van Vught, F. (ed.) (2009) Mapping the Higher Education Landscape. Towards a European Classification of Higher Education, Springer, Dordrecht. van Vught, F., M. van der Wende and D. Westerheijden (2002) ‘Globalisation and Internationalisation: Policy Agendas Compared’, in J. Enders and O. Fulton, (eds) Higher Education in a Globalising World. International Trends and Mutual Observations. A Festschrift in Honours of Ulrich Teichler, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 103–120. Varghese, N.V (2008) Globalization of Higher Education and Cross-Border Student Mobility, International Institute for Educational Planning, UNESCO, Paris. Vedder, R. (2010) ‘The Administrator-Student Disconnect’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 1 July, Accessed 31 December 2010, from http://chronicle.com/blogs/ innovations/the-administrator-student-disconnect/25256 Vedder, R., J. Robe, L. Myers and J. Leirer (2009) ‘The Forbes/CCAP 2009 Best College Rankings’, Center for College Affordability and Productivity, University of Ohio, Accessed 20 June 2010, from http://collegeaffordability.blogspot.com/ 2009/08/forbesccap-2009-best-college-rankings.html Venkatraman, A. (2010) ‘The Politics of Science’, Personal Computer World, Accessed 27 March 2010, from http://www.pcw.co.uk/information-worldreview/analysis/2259081/politics-science Victoria University (2008) ‘Victoria University of Wellington Strategic Plan 2009–2014’, Accessed 11 June 2010, from http://www.victoria.ac.nz/home/ about/newspubs/publications/StrategicPlanA5booklet.pdf Vincent-Lancrin, S. and K. Kärkkäinen (2009) ‘Globalisation and Higher Education: What Might The Future Bring?’, IMHE Info, OECD, Paris, Accessed 30 April 2010, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/39/44302672.pdf Volkwein, J.F. and K.V. Sweitzer (2006) ‘Institutional Prestige and Reputation at Research Universities and Liberal Arts Colleges’, Research in Higher Education, 47(2): 129–148. Vorotnikov, E. (2010) ‘Latvia: Massive Higher Education Reform’, University World News, 21 March, Accessed 28 May 2010, from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20100319093444855 Wächter, B. and F. Maiworm (2008) English-Taught Programmes in European Higher Education. The Picture in 2007, Academic Co-operation Association and Lemmens Medien GmbH, Bonn. Walter, G., S. Bloch and K. Fisher (2003) ‘Counting Citations: A Flawed Way to Measure Quality’, The Medical Journal of Australia, 178: 280–281, Accessed 28 March 2010 from https://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/178_06_170303/ wal10537_fm.pdf



248 References

Wang, F. (2009) ‘Ministry to Help Universities Make Top 100’, Taipei Times, 13 October, Accessed 27 May 2010, from http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/ taiwan/archives/2009/10/13/2003455819/wiki Webster, D.S. (1992) ‘Are They Any Good’, Change, March/April, 2: 18–31. Webster, D.S.A. (1986) Academic Quality Rankings of American Colleges and Universities, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield. Webster, T.J. (2001) ‘A Principal Component Analysis of the U.S. News & World Report Tier Rankings of Colleges and Universities’, Economics of Education Review, 20. Wedlin, L. (2004) Ranking Business Schools: Forming Fields, Identities and Boundaries in International Management Education, PhD. Wedlin, L. (2006) Ranking Business Schools: Forming Fields, Identities and Boundaries in International Management Education, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham Glos. Wellman, J. (2007) Apples and Oranges in the Flat World: A Layperson’s Guide to International Comparisons of Postsecondary Education, American Council of Education, Washington, DC. Whitman, D. (2002) ‘Doing the Right Thing’, Newsletter of the Association of American Law Schools, 1–4 (April). WHO, World Health Organisation (2009) ‘Third High-Level Preparatory Meeting’, Bonn, Germany, 27–29 April 2009. Towards the Fifth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health, Italy 2010’, Accessed 14 July 2010, from http://www. euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/105160/3rd_prep_mtg_bonn.pdf Wildavsky, B. (2010) The Great Brain Race. How Global Universities are Reshaping the World, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Wiers-Jenssen, J. (2010) ‘Selected to Succeed? Background and Employability of Mobile vs. Non-Mobile Students’, Paper to the EAIR Forum, 2010. Winston, G.C. (2000) ‘The Positional Arms Race in Higher Education’, Discussion Paper 54, Williams Project on the Economics of Higher Education, Williams College, Massachusetts, Accessed 15 July 2010, from http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/ wilwilehe/54.htm Winter, G. (2003) ‘A Mighty Fund-Raising Effort Helps Lift a College’s Ranking’, The New York Times, 22 December, Accessed 12 June 2008, from http://query. nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9506E0DD103FF931A15751C1A9659C8B63 &sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print Wooldridge, A. (2006) ‘The Battle for Brainpower’, The Economist, 5 October, Accessed 15 May 2008, from http://www.amrop.pl/ahgr/PHP/APP/eng/directors/ i/p5.pdf Yonezawa, A. (2007) ‘Japanese Flagship Universities at a Crossroads’, Higher Education, 54: 483–499. Yonezawa, A. (2010) Correspondence, 13 July. Yonezawa, A., I. Nakatsui and T. Kobayashi (2002) ‘University Rankings in Japan’, Higher Education in Europe, XXVII(4): 373–382. Yonezawa, A., H. Akiba and D. Hirouchi (2009) ‘Japanese University Leaders’ Perceptions of Internationalization: The Role of Government in Review and Support’, Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2). Zhe Jin, G. and A. Whalley (2007) ‘The Power of Information; How Do U.S. News Rankings Affect the Financial Resources of Public Colleges’, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, Cambridge. Ziccarelli, A. (2010) ‘Culture of College Rankings Becoming Toxic’, The Observer, 10 February, Accessed 9 July 2010, from http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/ culture-of-college-rankings-becoming-toxic-1.1122071



References 249

250 References

AACSB, Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, Accessed 31 May 2010, from http://www.aacsb.edu/# ACBSP, Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs, Accessed 2 November 2010, from http://www.acbsp.org/p/st/ld/&sid=s1_001 Alexa, Web Information Company (2010) Accessed 24 June 2010, from http:// www.alexa.com/siteinfo/arwu.org ARWU, Academic Ranking of World Universities (2010a) Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Accessed 31 May 2010, from http://www.arwu.org/ ARWU (2010b) ‘About ARWU’, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Accessed 4 April 2010, from http://www.arwu.org/aboutARWU.jsp ASEAN University Network (2010) Association of South-East Asian Nations, Accessed 2 June 2010, from http://www.aseansec.org/4961.htm AUSSE, Australian Survey of Student Engagement (2010) Accessed 31 May 2010, from http://ausse.acer.edu.au/ Best Value HE (2010) ‘Criticisms of the DLHE Survey’, Accessed 2 April 2010, from http://www.bestvaluehe.org.uk/dlhecrit.html Biblos, ‘Matthew 25:29’, Accessed 21 May 2010, from http://bible.cc/matthew/ 25-29.htm CAE, Council for Aid to Education (2009) ‘Voluntary Support of Education Survey’, Accessed 4 May 2010, from http://www.cae.org/content/pro_data_trends.htm CFATL, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning, Accessed 21 September 2010, from http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/ CHE (2007) Indikator im Blickpunkt: Kriterien der Hochschulwahl und RankingNutzung, Accessed 19 June 2010, from http://www.che.de/downloads/IIB_ Hochschulwahl_und_Rankingnutzung.pdf CHE, CHE-HochschulRanking (2010a) Accessed 1 July 2010, from http://www.cheranking.de/cms/?getObject=50&getLang=de; http://ranking.zeit.de/che10/CHE_ en? module=Show&tmpl=p511_methodik CHE (2010b) The Berlin Principles of Ranking of Higher Education Institutions, Accessed 10 April 2010, from http://www.che.de/downloads/Berlin_Principles_ IREG_ 534.pdf CHE (2010c) ‘Rankings’, Accessed 6 June 2010, from http://www.che-ranking. de/cms/?getObject=614&getLang=en CHE (2010d) ‘34 UK Universities Reached Excellence Group Status’, Press Release, Accessed 29 June 2010, from http://www.che-ranking.de/cms/?getObject= 723&getLang=en Cluster, Leading Universities of Science and Technology, Accessed 2 June 2010, from http://www.cluster.org/index.php?id=1 Coimbra Group of Universities, Accessed 2 June 2010, from http://www.coimbragroup.eu/ DAAD, Deutscher Akademischer Austauch Dienst (2010) ‘CHE University Ranking 2009–2010’, Accessed 23 June 2010, from Http://Www.Daad.De/Deutschland/ Hochschulen/Hochschulranking/06543.En.html Danish Immigration Service (2010) ‘The Greencard Scheme’, Accessed 20 November 2010, from http://www.nyidanmark.dk/en-us/coming_to_dk/ work/greencard-scheme/greencard-scheme.htm Editors WM (2005) The Washington Monthly College Guide, Accessed 26 March 2010, from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.collegeguide.html



Webography

EIT, European Institute of Innovation and Technology (2010), Accessed 6 June 2010, from http://eit.europa.eu/home.html EMPT (2008) Professional Ranking of World Universities, Ecole des Mines de Paris Tech, Accessed 2 April 2010, from http://www.ensmp.fr/Actualites/PR/Archives/ 2008/EMP-ranking.pdf Equis, The European Quality Improvement System (2010a) Accessed 31 May 2010, from http://www.efmd.org/index.php/accreditation-/equis Equis, The European Quality Improvement System (2010b) Accessed 21st March 2010, from http://www.efmd.org/index.php/accreditation-/equis/what-is-equis ESF, European Science Foundation (2010) ‘European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH)’, Accessed 1 June 2010, from http://www.esf.org/researchareas/humanities/erih-european-reference-index-for-the-humanities.html Ethnologue list of most-spoken languages, Accessed 15 July 2010, from http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnologue_list_of_most-spoken_languages ERA, Excellence in Research for Australia, Australia Research Council, Accessed 19 June 2010, from http://www.arc.gov.au/era/default.htm GIPP, Global Institutional Profiles Project (2009) Thompson Reuters, Accessed 20 September 2010, from http://science.thomsonreuters.com/globalprofilesproject/ Go8, Group of Eight (2010) ‘Benchmarking and Statistics: Go8 Executive Dashboard’, Accessed 3 June 2010, from http://www.go8.edu.au/government-abusiness/benchmarking-a-stats Government of Abu Dhabi (2008) ‘The Abu Dhabi Economic Vision 2030’, Accessed 20 November 2010, from http://dpeportal.adeconomy.ae/portal/page?_ pageid=53,5378272&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL Government of India (2009) National Knowledge Commission, Accessed 5 May 2010, from http://www.knowledgecommission.gov.in/ Government of Malaysia (1991) Vision 2020, Accessed 5 May 2010, from http:// www.wawasan2020.com/vision/ HEEACT, Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan, Accessed 8 October 2010, from http://www.heeact.edu.tw/mp.asp?mp=4 How2UK (2009) ‘The Guardian Ranking of UK Universities 2009’, British Universities Website, Accessed 19 June 2010, from http://www.how2uk.com/university.ratings.4/the-guardian-2009-british-university-rankings.html ICREA, Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies, Accessed 26 April 2010, from http://www.icrea.cat/web/home.aspx i-Graduate, International Graduate Insight Group, Accessed 23 June 2010, from http://www.i-graduate.org/ Korean Research Council (1999) Brain 21, Accessed 5 May 2010, from http:// bnc.krf.or.kr/home/eng/bk21/aboutbk21.jsp LERU, League of European Research Universities (2010) Accessed 2 June 2010, from http://www.leru.org/index.php/public/home/ NCM, Nordic Council of Ministers (2010) Sammanfattande rapport från konferensen: Profilering av nordisk högre utbildning och forskning Klassificering och ranking på nordisk dagordning (Report of the Conference: Promotion of Nordic Higher Education and Research-Classification and Ranking in the Nordic Agenda), Copenhagen, Accessed 30 December 2010, from http://www.norden.org/en/news-andevents/news/uddannelse-og-forskning-i-skarp-global-konkurrence NDRC, National Digital Research Centre, Accessed 14 July 2010, from http://www. ndrc.ie/



References 251

NSSE, National Survey of Student Engagement, Accessed 31 May 2010, from http://nsse.iub.edu/index.cfm PSU (2010) ‘Where We Stand: Current Rankings’, Penn State University, Accessed 11 June 2010, from http://www.psu.edu/ur/rankings/ QS (2010a) ‘THE QS Top Universities: National System Strength Rankings’, Accessed 10 April 2010, from http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/worlduniversity-rankings/methodology/safe QS (2010b) ‘THE QS Top Universities: Methodology – Student Faculty’, Accessed 31 May, from http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/worlduniversity-rankings/methodology/student-faculty QS (2010c) ‘QS Rankings and Global Higher Education Trends’, April and June. QS World University Rankings, 2010, Accessed 21 September 2010, from http:// www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/ home THE-TR, Times Higher Education Thomson Reuters World University Rankings, 2010, Accessed 21 September 2010, from http://www.timeshighereducation. co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/oceania.html U-Map, European Classification of Higher Education Institutions, Accessed 6 June 2010, from http://www.u-map.eu/ U-Multirank, Multi-Dimensional Global Ranking of Universities; A Feasibility Project, Accessed 6 June 2010, from http://www.u-multirank.eu/ Universitas Indonesia, Green Metric Ranking of World Universities, Accessed 9 October 2010, from http://greenmetric.ui.ac.id Universitas 21, Accessed 15 July 2010, from http://www.universitas21.com/ University of Cincinnati, ‘About UC: UC Facts’, Accessed 11 June 2010, from http://www.uc.edu/about/ucfactsheet.html University of Glasgow, Rankings and Honours: THES World University Ranking, Accessed 11 June 2010, from http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/management/ aboutus/rankingsandhonours/ University of Iceland (2006) Strategy 2006–2011, Accessed 13 January 2010, from http://www.hi.is/en/strategy/strategy_2006_2011 University of Illinois (2009) College and University Rankings: Introduction, Accessed 11 June 2010, from http://www.library.illinois.edu/edx/rankings/ USNWR (2010a) ‘Frequently Asked Questions: College Rankings. Why Rank Colleges’, 17 August, Accessed 20 November 2010, from http://www.usnews.com/ articles/education/best-colleges/2010/08/17/frequently-asked-questions-collegerankings.html#1 USNWR, U.S. News and World Report, Best Colleges (2010b) Accessed 23 June 2010, from http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/search USM, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Accessed 13 June 2010, from http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Department_of_Neurosciences_Universiti_Sains_Malaysia_(USM) WMCC, Washington Monthly Community College Rankings (2010), Accessed 20 September 2010, from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/ rankings_2010/community_colleges.php WES, World Education Services (2007) International Student Mobility: Patterns and Trends, Accessed 29 June 2010, from www.wes.org WUN, Worldwide Universities Network, Accessed 2 June 2010, from http://www. wun.ac.uk/



252 References

AACSB, 41, 149 Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), 1, 2, 5, 10, 22, 25, 31, 32, 40, 44, 49, 51, 53, 59, 64, 71, 74, 79, 81, 124, 140, 159, 162, 165, 166, 173, 179, 187, 192, 193, 211 see also Shanghai Jiao Tong University academic profession, 170 academics, 34, 37, 99, 111, 113, 146, 164, 168, 170, 171, 174, 181, 188, 189, 190, 193, 194, 196 academy, 113–115, 149, 189, 201 access to education, 46–47, 164, 182, 184, 199 accountability, 4, 10, 13, 16, 22, 40, 42, 85, 94, 95, 100, 123, 155, 158, 170, 178, 189, 195, 200, 202, 204 accreditation, 21, 40–42, 64, 74, 116, 123, 134, 149, 162, 185, 205 accreditation agencies, 5 accreditation system, 20 achievement, 19, 70, 74, 201 actors, 11, 15, 16 see also stakeholders Adams, J., 70, 82, 84, 107, 119, 122, 190, 191, 198, 212 administrators, 2, 10, 16, 37, 82, 83, 85, 176, 190, 208 admissions, 3, 60, 61, 104, 118, 125, 143, 146, 150, 225 Africa, 24, 25, 26, 81, 85, 138, 139, 156, 163, 207, 208, 210, 215, 222, 230, 239 agencies, 5, 13, 27, 40, 42, 71, 91, 92, 100, 101, 134, 145, 183, 188, 194, 205, 207, 211 Aghion, P., 22, 64, 155, 212 Altbach, P.G., 5, 9, 24, 27, 63, 72, 73, 213

alumni, 49, 74, 83, 117, 123, 143, 188, 191, 211 Argentina, 26 Arizona, 163 Asia, 24, 25, 44, 45, 47, 53, 88, 111, 132, 138, 139, 153, 154, 163, 175, 207, 210, 211 AsiaWeek, 43, 44, 45, 53, 84, 124 assessment, 41, 42, 74–75, 85, 115, 170, 184, 205 attitudes to rankings, 85–95 attractiveness, 28, 47, 182, 183, 188, 196 see also institutional attractiveness Australia, 1, 3, 5, 8, 23, 25, 26, 44, 45, 49, 53, 66, 68, 76, 85, 88, 92, 93, 97, 98, 102, 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 121, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 137, 140, 143, 147, 151, 153, 154, 163, 164, 166, 177–182, 184, 185, 207, 208, 211 Bachelor (qualification), 162, 169 Baker, K., 70, 82, 84, 107, 119, 122, 190, 191 Bastedo, M.N., 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 75, 77, 80, 81, 96, 116, 125, 144 Becher, T., 20, 76, 196 Beerkens, E., 23, 26, 140, 162, 173 Belgium, 1, 26 benchmarking, 9, 41–42, 83, 85, 102, 155, 171, 180, 183, 186, 195, 202, 204–205, 206, 208, 210 Berger, M., 20, 27, 149 Berlin, 43, 167, 169, 203 Birnbaum, R., 27, 184, 197 Bologna initiative/process, 8, 68, 96, 132, 154, 157, 165, 169, 184 Bourdieu, P., 18 Bowman, N.A., 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 75, 77, 80, 81, 96, 116, 125, 144

253



Index

Brazil, 7, 26 Brewer, D.J., 20, 21, 64, 124, 144 Britain, 125 see also UK CACEI (Consejo de Acreditación de la Enseñanza de la Ingeniería, A.C (Mexico) Counsel of the Accreditation of the Teaching of Engineering), 5, 210 California, 52, 57, 108, 118, 164 Cambridge University, 58, 125, 165 campus life, 9 Canada, 5, 26, 45, 53, 57, 84, 95, 128, 137 capital cultural, 18, 133 economic, 18 human, 10, 11, 13, 28, 67, 68, 78, 153, 182, 187, 206 social, 11, 18–22, 133 Caribbean, 210 Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, 43 Catalunya, Universitat Politècnica de, 22 Centre for College Affordability and Productivity (CCAP), 46 Chapman, D.W., 46, 126, 156, 160, 161 Centre for Higher Education Development (CHE), 5, 31, 43, 45, 129, 132, 135, 165, 167, 171, 208, 210 CHE-HochschulRanking, 30, 31, 39, 44, 49, 75, 78, 79, 94, 100, 122, 129, 167, 208 CHERPA, 31, 157 see also U-Multirank Chicago, University of, 143 Chile, 135 China, 7, 8, 25, 26, 32, 44, 45, 53, 55, 124, 132, 137, 140, 159, 160, 173, 178, 185, 196 CIEES (Comités Interinstitucionales para la Evaluación de la Educación Superior, A.C (Mexico) The Inter-Institutional

Committee for the Evaluation of Higher Education), 5, 210 Cincinnati, University of, 99 Clarke, M., 42, 52, 84, 113, 121, 136, 140, 146, 147, 151 classification system, 41, 43, 156, 188 CNEIP (Consejo Nacional de Enseñanza e Investigación en Psicología (Mexico) National Counsel of Teaching and Investigation in Psychology), 5, 210 college guide, 30, 40, 41, 46, 138, 187 commonwealth, 76, 77 competitiveness, 12, 13, 84, 98, 113, 157, 158, 171, 174 global, 4, 12, 13, 25, 28, 78, 155, 164, 181, 184, 187, 202, 203, 204 CONEVET, 5 consumer, 9, 10, 20, 43, 121, 122, 124, 153, 158, 187, 189 curriculum, 157, 176, 192 CWTS, University of Leiden, 31, 33, 34 Denmark, 23, 26, 82, 89, 105, 208 Der Spiegel, 5 Doctorate (qualification), 169 Dublin, 52, 57, 58, 98, 110, 197 EAIE (European Association of International Education), 104 economy, 8, 18, 20, 47, 73, 78, 130, 154, 178, 198, 201, 203 global, 5, 12, 154, 187, 196, 197 knowledge, 6, 14, 20, 23, 154, 164, 186 efficiency, 6, 8, 62, 65, 110, 214, 245 Ehrenberg, R.G., 21, 61, 63, 64, 65, 84, 108, 134, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 190, 195 emerging global model (EGM), 27, 28, 197 employability, 9, 35, 37, 38, 51, 60, 68, 69, 99, 101 employment, 9, 32, 51, 69, 95, 126, 130, 140, 146–149 entrepreneurship, 13, 78, 107



254 Index

Equis, 41, 42, 149 European Research Council (ERC), 157, 172 Espeland, W.N., 15, 16, 17, 83, 117, 118, 122, 143, 148, 152, 190, 191 EU (European Union), 6, 8, 9, 11, 31, 39, 56, 62, 64, 96, 131, 154, 155, 157, 158, 171, 192, 203 EUA see European University Association Europe, 1, 6, 7, 25, 54, 56, 64, 88, 117, 121, 139, 143, 154, 155, 156, 157, 160, 161, 163, 168, 169, 210, 211 European Institute for Innovation and Technology (EIT), 157, 171 European University Association, 42 excellence, academic, 46 battle for, 4, 81 centres of, 113, 159, 161, 167, 174, 184, 185, 192 define, 52, 79 networks of, 157, 172 research, 33, 71, 73, 89, 92, 171, 185 world-class, 163, 186, 197–199 Fachhochschulen, 49, 164, 165, 169 faculty, 28, 29–30, 32, 34, 35, 38, 40, 41, 60, 61–62, 62–64, 82, 85, 90, 94, 98, 104, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113–115, 116, 130, 170–171, 191, 193, 196–197 see also academic profession see also academics see also academy Farrell, E., 77, 99, 101, 106, 142 fetishization, 26, 157 Financial Times, 40, 44, 53, 149 Finland, 26, 109, 128, 159, 161, 197 Forbes, 44, 46, 149 Foucault, M., 15, 16, 17, 195 France, 25, 26, 44, 54, 132, 155, 159, 185, 195, 197 GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services), 8 GDP, 6, 23, 26, 64, 173

Georghiou, L., 97, 99, 101, 103, 110, 113, 191 Germany, 1, 2, 3, 5, 25, 26, 44, 56, 58, 66, 74, 76, 89, 92, 93, 95, 96, 102, 105, 109, 111, 112, 115, 116, 117, 122, 126, 129, 130, 132, 135, 137, 145, 147, 148, 149, 159, 163, 164, 165–172, 184, 185, 199, 207, 208, 210 Ghana, 156 Gibbons, M., 185, 200 Global Financial Crisis, 2008 (GFC), 14, 23, 69, 70, 80, 123, 153, 154, 157, 160, 163, 176, 182, 183, 187, 188, 195, 202, 203 globalization, 4–9 Global University Rankings (RatER), 31, 32, 44 governance, 15, 22, 41, 159, 170 government, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 22, 31, 40, 49, 50, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 100, 104, 106, 108, 118, 119, 121, 123, 125, 130, 133, 136, 140, 143, 154, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 167, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 194, 197, 201, 202, 208, 211 GradIreland, 148 graduates, 32, 46, 51, 52, 61, 69, 70, 95, 118, 123, 129, 140, 147, 148, 149 Greece, 26, 106 Guardian, The, 43, 44, 51, 53, 125, 211 Guruz, K., 7, 8, 132 Harvard University, 59, 61, 78, 123, 125, 159, 165, 197, 198 Hazelkorn, E., 7, 9, 71, 85, 92, 165, 193, 195, 198, 199, 200, 201, 205 Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT) Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for Research Universities, Taiwan, 5, 31, 33, 40, 44, 51, 53, 192, 193 Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), 73, 148



Index 255

HEI, 22, 41, 49, 50, 62, 64, 68, 69, 83, 86, 94, 95, 116, 128, 129, 192, 202, 211 Hearne, L., 127, 134, 135, 136 Hong Kong, 23, 26, 76, 113, 137 Hossler, D., 126, 134, 147 Ibero-America, 43, 45, 54 see also South America International Association of Universities (IAU), 2, 3, 207, 208, 210 Iceland, 85, 112, 113 Illinois, 105 Institutional Management of Higher Education (IMHE, OECD), 2, 3, 207, 208 India, 5, 7, 8, 26, 44, 76, 124, 132, 135, 159, 164, 196, 210 indicators, 10, 23, 29, 31–39, 48–59, 60, 77–81 innovation, 8, 12, 13, 154, 157, 183, 201, 211 institutional attractiveness, 21, 67, 158, 182 see also attractiveness institutional diversity, 94, 182, 184 institutional position, 80, 83, 85–95 internationalization, 5, 7, 22, 37, 96, 113, 155, 170, 174, 175, 194, 196, 208 Ireland, 1, 5, 6, 25, 26, 45, 54, 57, 58, 125, 143, 144, 154, 162, 185, 197, 201 Israel, 23, 25, 26 Italy, 26, 44, 53, 56 Japan, 1, 3, 8, 24, 25, 26, 57, 74, 96, 98, 111, 114, 115, 121, 126, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 137, 143, 146, 147, 159, 163, 164, 166, 172–177, 184, 185, 199, 207, 208 Jaschik, S., 63, 77, 82, 106, 112, 176 Kazakhstan, 43, 45, 53, 140, 162 Kehm, B.M., 3, 55, 129, 168, 169, 199 Kentucky, 159

Kenya, 24, 156 knowledge economy, 6, 14, 20, 23, 154, 164, 186 exchange, 39, 81 producers, 198, 201, 202 reshaping, 199–201 triangle, 78, 201 Korea, 6, 8, 24, 26, 57, 106, 132, 137, 159, 161, 173, 185, 196 Kyoto University, 172, 173 Lambert, R., 2, 155, 198 Lancaster, R., 16, 141, 143, 144, 149 Latin America, 25, 137, 139, 210 see also South America Latvia, 98, 154, 159 learning environment, 60, 65–67 learning inputs staff, 62–64 resources, 64–65 learning outputs, 67–68 Lisbon Agenda, 6, 157 Lisbon Council, 47 London, 52, 58, 68, 79, 99, 141 Macedonia, 140, 162 Macleans, 5, 43, 45, 78, 84 management, 2, 3, 8, 13, 18, 28, 41, 42, 44, 53, 56, 84, 96, 97, 98, 100, 102, 105, 111, 159, 160, 170, 173, 174, 202, 207 Manchester, University of, 99, 110, 112 Marginson, S., 3, 5, 13, 14, 23, 27, 47, 48, 62, 71, 75, 81, 157, 177, 179, 182, 196 marketing, 83, 93–95, 100, 103–105, 18, 193, 194 marketization, 145, 183 Marx, K., 6 massification, 20, 27, 164 master, 109, 132, 162, 198, 199 ‘Matthew effect’, 19, 93, 184 MBA (qualification), 44, 45, 132, 149, 232 McDonough, P.M., 134, 135, 150 McManus-Howard, M., 133, 134, 135, 136, 150



256 Index

measurement, 16, 51, 62, 64, 100, 105, 148, 156, 163, 195, 201, 202 Melbourne Institute of Applied Economics and Social Research, 45, 53, 178, 208 Melbourne, University of, 3, 141, 178, 182 methodology, 10, 13, 46, 51, 65, 79, 88, 149, 180, 207–209 Mexico, 5, 26, 83, 93, 96, 101, 104, 106, 191, 210 MIT, 24, 58 Mongolia, 140, 162 Moodie, G., 3, 159, 181, 198, 199 morale, 16, 93, 94, 114 Multi-Dimensional Global Ranking of Universities (U-Multirank), 31, 39, 43, 44, 79, 123, 157, 203 see also CHERPA Murphy, C., 67, 125, 130 neo-liberalism, 13, 177 neo-liberal model, 185 Netherlands, 26, 33, 42, 44, 57, 85, 99, 105, 137, 140 networks of power, 11, 12 new public management, 8, 13, 202 New Zealand, 23, 25, 26, 99, 136, 153, 154 Newsweek, 44 Nigeria, 43, 156, 161 Norway, 26, 57, 185 NMP see new public management OECD, 2, 3, 27, 42, 47, 64, 66, 67, 68, 127, 128, 130, 132, 153, 178, 203 organizational behaviour, 11, 14–18 organizational change, 102–103 Oxbridge, 24, 76 Oxford University, 125, 165 Pacific, region and nations, 25, 132, 153 Pakistan, 43 Paris, 3, 70, 159 Pennsylvania, 30, 142 Philippines, 5 Poland, 45, 54, 56, 82, 103, 105, 109, 111

policy, 182–186, 202–206 policymakers, 1, 2, 40, 68, 79, 86, 95, 96, 155, 163, 176, 178, 183, 186, 188, 202, 208 popularity of rankings, 29–48 positional goods, 11, 18–22, 28 postgraduate, 40, 56, 83, 103, 104, 107, 111, 121, 128, 132, 175, 178, 181, 192 President (government), 155, 195, 197 President (university) see Vice-chancellor/President prestige, 12, 20, 21, 28, 35, 71, 86, 92, 118, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 143, 172, 176, 189, 196, 205 Princeton University, 45, 59, 75, 187, 197 productivity, 6, 8, 9, 32, 41, 46, 50, 70, 115, 183, 194, 195, 197 see also efficiency public policy, 22, 78, 163, 196, 203 qualification, 9, 18, 40, 41, 63, 128, 131, 132, 138, 139, 140, 147, 149, 162, 164, 169 quality, 30, 32, 58, 89, 95, 116, 138, 181, 210 QS (Quacquarelli Symonds), 10, 25, 31, 34, 47, 62, 79, 81, 83, 124, 166, 188, 192–193 RAE (research assessment exercise, UK), 31, 42, 181 recession, 69, 146, 153 recruitment, 3, 23, 62, 83, 92, 93, 94, 100, 103, 104, 110, 111, 112, 113, 117, 118, 121, 123, 125, 126, 127, 129, 131, 133, 135, 137, 140, 141, 143, 145, 146, 147, 149, 151, 154, 160, 164, 170, 183, 189, 192, 194, 197, 203, 210 Rector see Vice-chancellor/President reform, 14, 97, 153, 154, 155, 158, 162, 173, 186, 197, 208 Reforma, 5 reputation, 74–77 reputational value, 18 research, 70–74, 107–113 institutional, 100–102



Index 257

retention, 49, 61, 67, 99, 173, 191 Russia, 7, 25, 26, 32, 44, 159, 185 salaries, 9, 21, 60, 63, 64, 69, 70, 80, 101, 106, 111, 113, 12, 130, 149, 161, 163, 170, 175, 181, 191, 193 Salmi, J., 3, 27, 31, 40, 140, 159, 162, 197, 206 Saroyan, A., 31, 40, 140, 162 SAT (Reasoning Test, formerly Scholastic Aptitude Test), 48, 61, 142, 143 Sauder, M., 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 83, 117, 118, 122, 141, 143, 144, 148, 149, 152, 190, 191 Savino, M., 47, 52, 79, 121 scholars, 64, 73, 75, 76, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 170, 175, 176, 193, 194 scholarships, 103, 131, 140, 144, 146, 162, 190, 191, 192 SCImago, Journal and Country Rank, 31, 34–35, 44, 54, 71, 92 Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 1, 2, 5, 31, 32, 44, 53, 98, 119, 155, 250 see also ARWU Singapore, 8, 25, 26, 58, 113, 128, 159, 163, 173, 178, 196 Slovakia, 56 social capital, 11, 18–22, 133 social-democratic model, 185–186 social dimension see access to education social equity, 28, 189 social expenditure, 8 social mobility, 46 South America, 81, 88, 163 see also Ibero-America see also Latin America Spain, 26, 34, 38, 44, 54, 55, 102, 127, 159 stakeholders, 2, 10, 11, 39, 16, 28, 29, 50, 60, 68, 69, 70, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 85, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 115–118, 122, 126, 129, 131, 147, 149, 168, 172, 173, 176, 177, 178, 179, 182, 184, 188, 189, 202, 203, 204, 207, 208, 211 Stensaker, B., 55, 157

Stolz, I., 48, 56, 203 strategic planning, 78, 93, 96–101, 110, 170, 188 student(s) achievement, 59 choice, 84, 126–128, 133–134, 137–138, 140, 150, 173, 182 graduate, 1, 8, 40, 63, 65, 80, 104, 126, 128, 131–133, 138, 178 see also postgraduates international, 3, 7, 8, 10, 28, 34, 35, 38, 45, 60, 61, 62, 96, 103, 106, 113, 121, 127, 128, 130–133, 136–140, 141, 143, 145,168, 174–175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181–182, 192, 193, 210 recruitment, 140–146 satisfaction surveys, 9, 50, 66 undergraduate, 41, 52, 56, 128–131, 140–141, 148, 181, 187 see also graduates supranational organizations, 11 Sunday Times, The, 5, 43, 45, 54, 124, 141, 148 Sursock, A., 3, 96, 157 Sweden, 25, 26, 29, 44, 45, 56, 137 Switzerland, 23, 25, 26, 56, 57, 127 Taiwan, 5, 26, 31, 33, 40, 44, 53, 137, 153, 156, 159, 161, 173 talent, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 22, 28, 78, 134, 151, 155, 160, 163, 164, 171, 183, 184, 196–197 teaching and learning, 42, 51, 62, 63, 65, 66, 81, 89, 101, 173, 184 technology transfer, 6, 50, 71, 78 Texas, 101, 159, 163 Thailand, 26, 45 THE-QS (Times Higher Education Quacquarelli Symonds), 2, 25, 31, 35, 38, 44, 51, 52, 54, 57, 58, 63, 74, 75, 76, 77, 81, 105, 106, 110, 140, 141, 148, 159, 161, 162, 163, 165, 166, 173, 175, 179, 187, 192 THE-TR (Times Higher Education Thompson Reuters), 25, 31, 36, 5, 54, 75, 81, 166, 188, 192, 193 Times Higher Education (THE), 5, 24, 98



258 Index

Tokyo, 172, 173 Thomson Reuters, 31, 36, 37, 48, 52, 54, 70, 72, 73, 77, 79, 83, 84, 107, 182, 188, 194 TCD, Trinity College Dublin, 98 tuition fees, 9, 62, 64, 138, 177, 205 Tunisia, 156 Turkey, 5, 29, 85, 210 Uganda, 85, 109 UK, 3, 5, 8, 24, 25, 31, 35, 36, 40, 42, 44, 45, 51, 53, 54, 56, 58, 66, 69, 73, 74, 76, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 119, 124, 127, 128, 132, 135, 136, 137, 141, 144, 145, 148, 151, 154, 163, 177, 181, 211 Ukraine, 45, 55 U-Multirank see Multi-Dimensional Global Ranking of Universities UNESCO, 132, 154 US, 4, 8, 23, 24, 25, 30, 38, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 55, 57, 58, 61, 64, 65, 68, 73, 75, 77, 81, 84, 96, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 106, 107, 117, 122, 124, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 142, 143, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 158, 159, 160, 163, 165, 168, 177, 191, 192, 197, 208, 211

Usher, A, 3, 31, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49–50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 59, 78, 79, 80, 121, 197 USNWR (U.S. News and World Report Best Colleges), 10, 30, 31, 34, 43, 45, 48, 52, 55, 59, 63, 65, 67, 77, 78, 81, 83, 84, 99, 103, 106, 122, 124, 129, 130, 141, 142, 144, 148, 159, 162, 187, 192, 193 value-for-money, 18, 123, 133, 140, 202, 205 Vice Chancellor/President, 1, 2, 23, 30 62, 74, 77, 83, 84, 85, 92, 93, 95–98, 99, 100, 104, 106, 108, 112, 113, 116, 119, 129, 131, 136, 163, 165, 173, 179, 188, 191 Virginia, 106, 118 Wales, 182 Webometrics, 5, 31, 38, 44, 55, 124, 187, 193 WHO (World Health Organisation), 201, 249 World-class excellence, 163, 186, 197–199 World-class system, 181, 185, 199, 206



Index 259

Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: The Battle for World-Class Excellence

Reshaping the University (Society for Research Into Higher Education)

Habits of Mind: Fostering Access and Excellence in Higher Education

Habits of Mind: Fostering Access and Excellence in Higher Education

The Law of Higher Education

The Mobile Academy: MLearning for Higher Education

The Pursuit of Excellence Through Education

ADHD and Higher Education

Researching Higher Education (Society for Research Into Higher Education)

Beyond Mass Higher Education (Society for Research Into Higher Education)

Flexible Higher Education (Society for Research Into Higher Education)

Entrepreneurship and higher education

Higher Education

Higher Education

Higher Education

Higher Education

The Meanings of Mass Higher Education (Society for Research into Higher Education)

The Future of Baptist Higher Education

Probing the Boundaries of Higher Education

The Routledge International Handbook of Higher Education

Higher Education and the New Society

Nursing Education: Foundations for Practice Excellence

The Marketisation of Higher Education and the Student as Consumer

University Rankings: Theoretical Basis, Methodology and Impacts on Global Higher Education

Engaging the Curriculum in Higher Education (Society for Research Into Higher Education)

Reshaping the Future: Education and Post-Conflict Reconstruction

The Emerging Markets and Higher Education: Development and Sustainability (Routledgefalmer Studies in Higher Education)

The Excellence of Play

Encyclopedia of Law and Higher Education

Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: The Battle for World-Class Excellence

Reshaping the University (Society for Research Into Higher Education)

Habits of Mind: Fostering Access and Excellence in Higher Education

Habits of Mind: Fostering Access and Excellence in Higher Education

The Law of Higher Education

The Mobile Academy: MLearning for Higher Education

The Pursuit of Excellence Through Education

ADHD and Higher Education

Researching Higher Education (Society for Research Into Higher Education)

Beyond Mass Higher Education (Society for Research Into Higher Education)

Flexible Higher Education (Society for Research Into Higher Education)

Entrepreneurship and higher education

Higher Education

Higher Education

Higher Education

Higher Education

The Meanings of Mass Higher Education (Society for Research into Higher Education)

The Future of Baptist Higher Education

Probing the Boundaries of Higher Education

The Routledge International Handbook of Higher Education

Higher Education and the New Society

Nursing Education: Foundations for Practice Excellence

The Marketisation of Higher Education and the Student as Consumer

University Rankings: Theoretical Basis, Methodology and Impacts on Global Higher Education

Engaging the Curriculum in Higher Education (Society for Research Into Higher Education)

Reshaping the Future: Education and Post-Conflict Reconstruction

The Emerging Markets and Higher Education: Development and Sustainability (Routledgefalmer Studies in Higher Education)

The Excellence of Play

Encyclopedia of Law and Higher Education

Recommend Documents