Globalisation and New Developments in Global University Rankings

2016 ◽  
pp. 39-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Val Rust ◽  
Stephanie Kim
Keyword(s):  
University Rankings ◽  
New Developments ◽  
Global University

How Rankings Produce Competition: The Case of Global University Rankings

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 270-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jelena Brankovic ◽  
Leopold Ringel ◽  
Tobias Werron
Keyword(s):  
University Rankings ◽  
Global University

ZusammenfassungDer Zusammenhang zwischen Rankings und Konkurrenz wird häufig unterstellt, aber selten genauer untersucht. Der vorliegende Aufsatz geht ihm am Beispiel globaler Universitätsrankings nach. Ausgehend von einem soziologischen Verständnis von Konkurrenz bestimmen wir „Ranken“ als eine soziale Operation, die vier Teiloperationen miteinander kombiniert: Vergleich von Leistungen, Quantifizierung, Visualisierung, und wiederholte Publikation. Visualisierung und Publikation stehen für die in der Literatur bisher kaum berücksichtigte performative Dimension von Rankings, die für die Analyse des Zusammenhangs zwischen Rankings und Konkurrenz von zentraler Bedeutung ist. Auf dieser Grundlage zeigen wir, wie globale Universitätsrankings zur Konstruktion von Konkurrenz beitragen: durch (a) Globalisierung eines spezifischen Exzellenzdiskurses; (b) Verknappung von Reputation; (c) Transformation einer stabilen in eine dynamische Statusordnung. Wir schließen mit einer Diskussion von Implikationen dieser Analyse für die soziologische Erforschung von Konkurrenz und ihrer gesellschaftlichen Effekte.

The Impact of Scale and Scope on Global University Rankings

2017 ◽  
pp. 140-160
Author(s):  
Liang-Cheng Zhang ◽  
Andrew C. Worthington
Keyword(s):  
Economies Of Scale ◽  
Research Performance ◽  
Private Universities ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Global University ◽  
Teaching Programs ◽  
Institutional Reputation ◽  
The Impact ◽  
And Training

Economies of scale and scope are increasingly critical for universities operating in globally competitive higher education teaching, research and training markets. This is because the associated cost advantages could enable some institutions to increase their university rankings relatively easier. This chapter investigates the relationships between economies of scale (measured by the number of enrollments) and scope (measured by the number of teaching programs), research performance, and institutional reputation (measured by the ARWU and QS ranking scores). The results show that larger and more diverse institutions tend to have higher scores. However, when separated into public and private universities, the scale and scope effects are not so obvious between private universities and the ARWU ranking scores. Nevertheless, the chapter does identify a significant scope effect in the QS rankings for private institutions, implying that expanding research, teaching, and training programs may benefit these scores.

Global University Rankings From Afar

2016 ◽  
pp. 38-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrés Bernasconi ◽  
Daniela Véliz
Keyword(s):  
University Rankings ◽  
Global University

A Comparison of China’s “Ivy League” to Other Peer Groupings Through Global University Rankings

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 395-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan M. Allen
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
The United States ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
Education Policies ◽  
Ivy League ◽  
Chinese Universities ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Higher Education Policies ◽  
Global University ◽  
World Class

This article analyzes the People’s Republic of China’s elite-making higher education policies that began in the early 1990s, notably with the 211 Project and then 985 Project, which led to the formation of the C9 League, a group of nine leading institution’s dubbed China’s “Ivy League.” This elite grouping is compared with other Chinese universities in terms of global rankings from 2003 to 2015 to ascertain the separation by these top tiered institutions. Furthermore, the C9 League will be compared with other global elite coalitions in the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom over the same period. University rankings, despite considerable criticism, have provided the Chinese leadership with key benchmarks for their vision of world-class higher education. This article finds that the C9 League has made some separation from other Chinese universities and has also caught up with its Western peers (notably passing Canada’s U15) in terms of international rankings.

Global University Rankings

Education ◽  
2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen Hazelkorn
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Global Economy ◽  
Higher Education Institutions ◽  
The United States ◽  
Consumer Information ◽  
Significant Feature ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
Early 19Th Century ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Global University

Global university rankings have become a significant feature of international higher education and are commonly interpreted as an indicator of success in the global economy. They came to prominence in 2003 with the publication of the Shanghai Jiao Tong Academic Rankings of World Universities (ARWU). Today, there are ten global rankings of varying degrees of popularity, reliability, and trustworthiness. National rankings have existed since the early 19th century, primarily in the United States, but they now exist in many countries around the world. It is the ability of global rankings to provide a simple, easily understood method by which to compare higher education internationally that has made them a phenomenon. Thus, rankings are viewed as a measure of “world-class excellence.” The performance and quality of higher education is a vital sign of a country’s capacity to participate successfully in the global economy. This follows from studies that continue to highlight strong correlations between investment in education and research and economic growth. While this has highlighted the importance of higher education in creating competitive advantage, it has also brought increased public scrutiny to how higher education is governed and managed, and about value-for-money. This is now the subject of policy debate and public discourse at both the national and the supranational levels. Rankings are also a response to growing pressure from students and parents for more consumer information. As students look for the “best” universities and colleges, rankings appear to provide information about educational quality and, correspondingly, about career prospects. Because rankings are seen as independent of the higher education sector and individual institutions, they are perceived as a more reliable source of information for employers, policymakers, and the public. But rankings are also controversial. Studies raise many questions about their methodology and choice of indicators, which are widely seen as promoting a narrow definition of excellence, and thus as favoring a small subset of the world’s 18,000 higher education institutions. Nonetheless, international research shows that the influence of global rankings on the choices and decisions taken by governments, higher education institutions, students, employers, and others continues to grow. Today’s debates have moved beyond discussing the advantages and disadvantages of global rankings to examining their impact and influence, alternative accountability and transparency instruments, and what global rankings are telling us about the changing shape or the geopolitics of higher education internationally. For further information on a related topic, see the separate Oxford Bibliographies in Education article “Value of Higher Education for Students and Other Stakeholders.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document