Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Evaluation and Critique of Current Rankings

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Multidimensional Ranking

Part of the book series: Higher Education Dynamics ((HEDY,volume 37))

Abstract

This chapter raises the question of whether university league tables deliver relevant information to one of their key target groups – students. It examines the inherent biases and weaknesses in the methodologies of the major rankings and argues that the concentration on a single indicator of excellence (research) and single function of an institution ignores the diverse needs and motivations of prospective students in choosing a university. It also raises the issue of rankings that proclaim the ‘excellence’ of an entire institution, which may not be an accurate reflection of the performance of individual departments. The authors then present some principles and examples of good practice in ranking and discuss alternative classification systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The THE bases its rankings on the same source, Thomson Reuters, as the ARWU and Leiden Rankings.

  2. 2.

    Cited after the download version: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/norc.html

  3. 3.

    http://www.oecd.org/document/22/0,3746,en_2649_35961291_40624662_1_1_1_1,00.html, last accessed May 19, 2011.

  4. 4.

    http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/analysis-methodology.html

References

  • AACSB. (2005). The business school rankings dilemma. A report from a task force of AACSB International’s Committee on Issues in Management Education. Tampa: AACSB.

    Google Scholar 

  • AUBR Expert Group. (2009). Assessing Europe’s university-based research – Draft. s. l. Brussels: European Commission – DG Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, J., Goedegebuure, L. C. J., Shah, T., Westerheijden, D. F., & Weusthof, P. J. M. (1992). Towards a methodology for comparative quality assessment in European higher education: A pilot study on economics in Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. London/Enschede/Hannover: CNAA/CHEPS/HIS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. (2006). League tables – Do we have to live with them? Perspectives, 10(2), 33–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremonini, L., Westerheijden, D. F., & Enders, J. (2008). Disseminating the right information to the right audience: Cultural determinants in the use (and misuse) of rankings. Higher Education, 55, 373–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher Education, 49, 495–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. S., & Gootman, J. A. (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enserink, M. (2007). Who ranks the university rankers? Science, 317(5841), 1026–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filliatreau, G. & Zitt, M. (s. a.). Big is (made) Beautiful. Some comments about the Shanghai ranking of world-class universities. s. l. Paris: OST.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieb, B. (2009). Cooking the School Books: How U.S. News cheats in picking its ‘best American colleges’. Slate, September 1, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Högskolverket. (2009). Ranking of universities and higher education institutions for student information purposes? (No. 2009:27 R). Stockholm: Högskoleverket.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Ranking Expert Group. (2006). Berlin principles on ranking of higher education institutions. Retrieved June 24, 2006, from http://www.che.de/downloads/Berlin_Principles_IREG_534.pdf

  • IREG Observatory (2011). IREG Ranking Audit Manual. IREG Observatory on Academic Rankings and Excellence, 2011. Available at: http://www.ireg-observatory.org/pdf/ranking_audith_audit.pdf

  • King, R., Locke, W., Puncher, M., Richardson, J., & Verbik, L. (2008). Counting what is measured or measuring what counts? League tables and their impact on higher education institutions in England (No. April 2008/14). s. l. Higher Education Funding Council for England, Bristo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, S. P., & Hamilton, L. (1998). The validity of the U. S. News & World Report ranking of ABA Law Schools. s. l. Association of American Law Schools.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leeuw, F. L. (2002). Evaluating and the ranking of higher education studies. In J. Bevers & M. Hulshof (Eds.), Willems & wetens, liber amicorum voor Jos Willems (pp. 141–154). Nijmegen: IOWO/KUN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S. (2006, September 7–9). Global university rankings: private and public goods. Paper presented at the 19th Annual CHER conference, Kassel, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S. (2008). Global, multiple and engaged: Has the ‘Idea of a University’ changed in the era of the global knowledge economy? Paper presented at the fifth international workshop on Higher Education Reforms ‘The Internationalization of Higher Education and Higher Education Reforms’, Shanghai, China.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S. (2009). University rankings, government and social order: Managing the field of higher education according to the logic of the performative present-as-future. In M. Simons, M. Olssen, & M. Peters (Eds.), Re-reading education policies: Studying the policy agenda of the 21st century. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merisotis, J. P. (2003). On the ranking of higher education institutions. Higher Education in Europe, 27(4), 361–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Böling, D., & Federkeil, G. (2007). The CHE-Ranking of German, Swiss and Austrian Universities. In J. Sadlak & L. N. Cai (Eds.), The world-class university an ranking: Aiming beyond status (pp. 189–203). Bucharest: CEPES.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Opinion Research Center (1997). A review of the methodology for the U.S. news & world report’s rankings of undergraduate colleges and universities. The Washington Monthly Review Online. Retrieved January 23, 2012, from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/norc.html

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators. Paris, OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadlak, J., & Liu, N. C. (2007). The world-class university and ranking: Aiming beyond status. Bucharest, Romania/ Shanghai, China/ Cluj-Napoca, Romania: UNESCO-CEPES.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saisana, M., & D’Hombres, B. (2008). Higher education rankings: Robustness issues and critical assessment. How much confidence can we have in higher education rankings? Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmi, J. (2009). The challenge of establishing world-class universities. Washington, D. C.: World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • SCImago Research Group. (2009). SCImago Institutions Rankings (SIR): 2009 World Report. Retrieved November 11, 2009, from http://www.scimagoir.com/pdf/sir_2009_world_report.pdf

  • Stigler, G. J. (1961). The economics of information. Journal of Political Economy, LXIX, 213–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaud, A. (2009). Vers quel classement européen des universités? Etude comparative du classement de Shanghai et des autres classements internationaux (No. Note de Benchmarking 4). Brussels/Paris: Institut Thomas More.

    Google Scholar 

  • Usher, A., & Savino, M. (2006). A world of difference: A global survey of university league tables. Toronto: Educational Policy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Wende, M. (2008). Rankings and classifications in higher education. A European perspective. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 23). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Wende, M., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2009). Rankings and classifications: The need for a multidimensional approach. In F. A. van Vught (Ed.), Mapping the higher education landscape: Towards a European classification of higher education (pp. 71–86). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dyke, N. (2005). Twenty years of university report cards. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 103–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62(1), 133–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Vught, F. A. (2008). Mission diversity and reputation in higher education. Higher Education Policy, 21(2), 151–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Vught, F. A. (Ed.). (2009). Mapping the higher education landscape: Towards a European classification of higher education. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vedder, R., & Ewalt, D. M. (2009). America’s best colleges. Forbes, August 5, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visser, M. S., & Moed, H. F. (2008). Comparing web of science and scopus on a paper-by-paper basis. Paper presented at the 10th international conference on Science & Technology Indicators, Vienna.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westerheijden, D. F. (2009). Information of quality and quality of information to match students and programme. In J. Newton & R. Brown (Eds.), The future of quality assurance. Amsterdam: EAIR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westerheijden, D. F., Beerkens, E., Cremonini, L., Huisman, J., Kehm, B., Kovac, A., et al. (2010). The first decade of working on the European Higher Education Area: The Bologna Process Independent Assessment – Executive summary, overview and conclusions. s. l. Vienna: European Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yorke, M. (1998). The Times’ league table of universities, 1997: A statistical appraisal. Quality Assurance in Education, 6(1), 58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Higher Education (CHE), Gütersloh, Germany

    Gero Federkeil

  2. Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Frans A. van Vught & Don F. Westerheijden

Authors
  1. Gero Federkeil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frans A. van Vught
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Don F. Westerheijden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Helmerstraat 201, Enschede, 7546 PD, Netherlands

    Frans A. van Vught

  2. Osnabrück, Germany

    Frank Ziegele

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Federkeil, G., van Vught, F.A., Westerheijden, D.F. (2012). An Evaluation and Critique of Current Rankings. In: van Vught, F., Ziegele, F. (eds) Multidimensional Ranking. Higher Education Dynamics, vol 37. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3005-2_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation