scholarly journals What Counts as World Class? Global University Rankings and Shifts in Institutional Strategies

Author(s):  
Tero Erkkilä ◽  
Ossi Piironen

AbstractGlobal university rankings have emerged as a benchmark of institutional success, setting standards for higher education policymaking and institutional practices. Nevertheless, only a marginal share of higher education institutions (HEI) are in a realistic position to be ranked as a ‘world-class’ institutions. In the European context, the global rankings have been used to highlight a performance gap between European and North American institutions. Here the focus has been on the HEIs in the top-100 positions, causing concerns over European higher education. This has also become a marker of world-class university. We analyze the strategies of 27 Northern European universities in different tiers to learn how they have adjusted to the reality of ranking. We conclude that the references to global rankings have increased between 2014 and 2018. At the same time, the references to rankings have become more implicit in nature. Nevertheless, we find that the discourse of global comparison and excellence has become more common in the strategies. There are also emerging references to the regional role of universities, which are apparent in the strategies of universities that are clearly outside the top-100 ranked institutions. However, this is also a reflection of the discourse of world-class university.

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 395-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan M. Allen

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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Zoljargal Dembereldorj

This paper discusses the relevant literature on higher education rankings and its impact on higher education institutions across the globe. The literature suggests that global university rankings impact higher education institutions both in advanced economy and developing countries to build competence to race and exist. Universities in an advanced economy are building institutional competitive competence to race in the global university rankings under the umbrella term of ‘World Class University,’ whereas universities in developing countries are building institutional competence by pursuing to build research intensive universities. The essay argues that global university rankings are shaping the field of higher education institutions, and the capacity of resources dictates universities the type of competence to build to exist: institutional competitive competence and institutional competence.   


Author(s):  
Futao Huang

Since the start of the 21st century, the building of world-class universities has been viewed as an important and relevant means to enhance the quality of teaching and research, governance and management arrangements, and further internationalization of higher education in a growing number of countries. It is increasingly conceived as a top priority and the primary foundation for restructuring and reforming various higher education systems, especially in several East Asian countries and societies. Through implementing top-down national strategies featuring a concentration of resources in selected institutions, several East Asian countries, and especially China, have successfully established research-oriented universities and driven the rise of these universities in global university rankings. Despite numerous challenges, in the context of increased international competition in higher education worldwide, development initiatives that seek to form world-class universities are becoming more common, and this is particularly evident in the fierce competition between Asian countries.


Author(s):  
Sharon Rider ◽  
Michael A. Peters ◽  
Mats Hyvönen ◽  
Tina Besley

AbstractThe notion of World Class Universities, and the use of rankings in general, has been an object of study for decades. Perhaps the first major critical work was Ellen Hazelkorn’s Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence (2011). Just as the influence of rankings shows no sign of abating, neither does the impetus to provide practical proposals for how to use them to advantage, or, alternatively, to examine the sources and effects of the practices involved. Recent interventions belonging to the first category are Downing and Ganotice’s World university rankings and the future of higher education (2017), while Stack’s Global university rankings and the mediatization of higher education (2016) and Hazelkorn’s Global rankings and the geopolitics of higher education: Understanding the influence and impact of rankingson higher education, policyand society (2016) are notable examples of the latter. The essays presented in the present volume are intended to contribute to our understanding of the phenomenon, its causes and consequences by filling three functions: (i) to provide an updated analysis of current trends in rankings and an examination of recent data regarding World Class University (WCU) initiatives relevant to the form and content of higher education; (ii) to study these especially with an eye to particular ramifications for work on the shop floor, that is to say, for university teachers and students; (iii) to investigate possible future courses and alternative trajectories.


Author(s):  
Philip G. Altbach ◽  
Rahul Choudaha

India enrolls 35 million students in its large and complex higher education system. In its ambition to enter world-class university rankings, the government has identified six “Institutions of Eminence.” The case of the “greenfield” Jio Institute exemplifies the thorny policy landscape and expectations of building a high-impact research university.


Education ◽  
2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen Hazelkorn

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.”


2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (14) ◽  
pp. 5759
Author(s):  
Manuel Muñoz-Suárez ◽  
Natividad Guadalajara ◽  
José M. Osca

Global University Rankings (GURs) intend to measure the performance of universities worldwide. Other rankings have recently appeared that evaluate the creation of environmental policies in universities, e.g., the Universitas Indonesia (UI) GreenMetric. This work aims to analyze the interaction between the Top 500 of such rankings by considering the geographical location of universities and their typologies. A descriptive analysis and a statistical logistical regression analysis were carried out. The former demonstrated that European and North American universities predominated the Top 500 of GURs, while Asian universities did so in the Top 500 of the UI GreenMetric ranking, followed by European universities. Older universities predominated the Top 500 of GURs, while younger ones did so in the Top 500 of the UI GreenMetric ranking. The second analysis demonstrated that although Latin American universities were barely present in the Top 500 of GURs, the probability of them appearing in the Top 500 of the UI GreenMetric ranking was 5-fold. We conclude that a low association exists between universities’ academic performance and their commitment to the natural environment in the heart of their institutions. It would be advisable for GURs to include environmental indicators to promote sustainability at universities and to contribute to climate change.


2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maruša Hauptman Komotar

Purpose This paper aims to investigate how global university rankings interact with quality and quality assurance in higher education along the two lines of investigation, that is, from the perspective of their relationship with the concept of quality (assurance) and the development of quality assurance policies in higher education, with particular emphasis on accreditation as the prevalent quality assurance approach. Design/methodology/approach The paper firstly conceptualises quality and quality assurance in higher education and critically examines the methodological construction of the four selected world university rankings and their references to “quality”. On this basis, it answers the two “how” questions: How is the concept of quality (assurance) in higher education perceived by world university rankings and how do they interact with quality assurance and accreditation policies in higher education? Answers are provided through the analysis of different documentary sources, such as academic literature, glossaries, international studies, institutional strategies and other documents, with particular focus on official websites of international ranking systems and individual higher education institutions, media announcements, and so on. Findings The paper argues that given their quantitative orientation, it is quite problematic to perceive world university rankings as a means of assessing or assuring the institutional quality. Like (international) accreditations, they may foster vertical differentiation of higher education systems and institutions. Because of their predominant accountability purpose, they cannot encourage improvements in the quality of higher education institutions. Practical implications Research results are beneficial to different higher education stakeholders (e.g. policymakers, institutional leadership, academics and students), as they offer them a comprehensive view on rankings’ ability to assess, assure or improve the quality in higher education. Originality/value The existing research focuses principally either on interactions of global university rankings with the concept of quality or with processes of quality assurance in higher education. The comprehensive and detailed analysis of their relationship with both concepts thus adds value to the prevailing scholarly debates.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document