The Times Higher Education Supplement and Quacquarelli Symonds(THES–QS)World University Rankings: New Developments in Ranking Methodology

2008 ◽  
Vol 33 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 345-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Sowter
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
New Developments ◽  
World University Rankings ◽  
The Times

scholarly journals Highly prestigious international academic awards and their impact on university rankings

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Lokman I. Meho
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
United States ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
World University Rankings ◽  
Ranking Systems ◽  
Shanghai Ranking ◽  
Academic Ranking ◽  
The Times ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Highly Cited

This study uses the checklist method, survey studies, and Highly Cited Researchers to identify 100 highly prestigious international academic awards. The study then examines the impact of using these awards on the Academic Ranking of World Universities (the Shanghai Ranking), the QS World University Rankings, and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. Results show that awards considerably change the rankings and scores of top universities, especially those that receive a large number of awards and those that receive few or no awards. The rankings of all other universities with relatively similar numbers of awards remain intact. If given 20% weight, as was the case in this study, awards help ranking systems set universities further apart from each other, making it easier for users to detect differences in the levels of performance. Adding awards to ranking systems benefits United States universities the most as a result of winning 58% of 1,451 awards given in 2010–2019. Developers of ranking systems should consider adding awards as a variable in assessing the performance of universities. Users of university rankings should pay attention to both ranking positions and scores.

Sustainability university rankings: a comparative analysis of UI green metric and the times higher education world university rankings

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Galleli ◽  
Noah Emanuel Brito Teles ◽  
Joyce Aparecida Ramos dos Santos ◽  
Mateus Santos Freitas-Martins ◽  
Flavio Hourneaux Junior
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
Content Type ◽  
World University Rankings ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Global University ◽  
Methodological Procedures ◽  
The Times

Purpose This study aims to answer the research question: How to evaluate the structure of global university sustainability rankings according to the Berlin Principles (BP) framework. Design/methodology/approach The authors investigated two global sustainability rankings in universities, The UI green metric World University Ranking (WUR) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE-WUR). The authors performed content analysis regarding their evaluation criteria and assessed both rankings using the BP framework. Findings Results show that there is still a gap to be filled regarding the specificity of global university sustainability rankings. Although the THE-WUR had a better performance in this research, there are several items for improvement, especially regarding the methodological procedures. There are structural differences, limitations and points for improvement in both rankings. Besides, it may not be possible to have a unique and more appropriate ranking, but one that can be more suitable for a contextual reality. Practical implications This study can be helpful for university managers when deliberating on the most appropriate ranking for their institutions and better preparing their higher education institutions for participating in sustainability-related rankings. Besides, it suggests possible improvements on the rankings’ criteria. Social implications The authors shed light on challenges for improving the existing university sustainability rankings, besides generating insights for developing new ones. In a provocative but constructive perspective, the authors question their bases and understandings of being “the best university” regarding sustainability. Originality/value This is the first study that provides an in-depth analysis and comparison between two of the most important global university sustainability rankings.

Middle East education gains will not translate to jobs

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Arab World ◽  
Youth Unemployment ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
Content Type ◽  
World University Rankings ◽  
Education And Employment ◽  
The Times ◽  
University Of Bahrain

Subject The state of higher education and employment. Significance The Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2015-16 published in January for the first time a list of the top fifteen universities in the Arab world. The publication has combined with the listing of the first QS World University Rankings on the Arab Region. Most Middle East and North Africa (MENA) governments have high youth unemployment, and quality education is viewed as a crucial step to ease it. Impacts Bahrain's financial crisis is already fuelling concerns that standards at the University of Bahrain are dropping. Yet, even in the richer states, such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia, cheap oil is likely to cut funding for education. Meanwhile, Gulf employment prospects are reducing as the private sector is small and cheap oil is restricting government jobs and spending.

scholarly journals A longitudinal analysis of university rankings

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 1109-1135
Author(s):  
Friso Selten ◽  
Cameron Neylon ◽  
Chun-Kai Huang ◽  
Paul Groth
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Research Performance ◽  
Principal Component ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
Quality Of Higher Education ◽  
World University Rankings ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
Global University ◽  
The Times ◽  
University Performance

Pressured by globalization and demand for public organizations to be accountable, efficient, and transparent, university rankings have become an important tool for assessing the quality of higher education institutions. It is therefore important to assess exactly what these rankings measure. Here, the three major global university rankings—the Academic Ranking of World Universities, the Times Higher Education ranking and the Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings—are studied. After a description of the ranking methodologies, it is shown that university rankings are stable over time but that there is variation between the three rankings. Furthermore, using principal component analysis and exploratory factor analysis, we demonstrate that the variables used to construct the rankings primarily measure two underlying factors: a university’s reputation and its research performance. By correlating these factors and plotting regional aggregates of universities on the two factors, differences between the rankings are made visible. Last, we elaborate how the results from these analysis can be viewed in light of often-voiced critiques of the ranking process. This indicates that the variables used by the rankings might not capture the concepts they claim to measure. The study provides evidence of the ambiguous nature of university rankings quantification of university performance.

scholarly journals DIVULGAÇÃO DA RESPONSABILIDADE SOCIAL E DESEMPENHO DE UNIVERSIDADES BRASILEIRAS

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 70
Author(s):  
Rafael Fernandes de Mesquita ◽  
Daniele Intravaia ◽  
Johannes de Oliveira Lima Júnior ◽  
Jannielton de Sousa Santos ◽  
Fátima Regina Ney Matos
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Social Responsibility ◽  
Research Problem ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
Communication Performance ◽  
World University Rankings ◽  
The Social ◽  
Statistical Support ◽  
The Times ◽  
The Relationship

O contexto de debate da Responsabilidade Social (RS), apesar de bastante conhecido, apresenta vieses pouco abordados ou que emergem como suas ramificações, tal como a comunicação da RS. No que tange às universidades, a relação entre a divulgação das ações de responsabilidade social e o seu desempenho pode ainda não estar evidente. Desta forma, o problema de pesquisa que norteia este trabalho é: qual a relação entre a divulgação da responsabilidade social das universidades e o seu desempenho? Assim, objetivou-se analisar a relação entre o desempenho de universidades brasileiras e a divulgação da responsabilidade social em seus sítios eletrônicos. Para isso, foram selecionadas 17 universidades brasileiras presentes no World University Rankings 2015-2016 da Times Higher Education, e os dados foram coletados de seus websites utilizando os sete indicadores CSRIDOW, analisados a partir do coeficiente de correlação de Pearson. Como resultados, não houve significância na relação testada e não há suporte estatístico para apoiar a correlação entre o desempenho das universidades brasileiras e a divulgação de suas ações de responsabilidade social, corroborando estudos prévios. Palavras-chave: Universidades; Responsabilidade Social; Comunicação; Desempenho.ABSTRACTThe context of Social Responsibility (SR) debate, although well known, presents biases that are little addressed or emerge as its ramifications, such as the disclosure of the SR. With regard to universities, the relationship between disclosure of social responsibility actions and their performance may not yet be evident. Thus, the research problem that guides this work is: what is the relationship between the disclosure of the social responsibility of universities and their performance? Thus, the objective was to analyze the relationship between the performance of Brazilian universities and the disclosure of social responsibility on their websites. For this, 17 Brazilian universities were selected from the Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2015-2016, and data were collected from their websites using the seven CSRIDOW indicators, analyzed from Pearson’s correlation coefficient. As a result, there was no significance in the relationship tested and there is no statistical support to support the correlation between the performance of Brazilian universities and the disclosure of their social responsibility actions, corroborating previous studies.Keywords: Universities; Social responsability; Communication; Performance.

scholarly journals The Most Sustainable Niche Principles of Social Media Education in A Higher Education Contracting Era

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ming Yuan Hsieh
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Social Media ◽  
Technology Acceptance ◽  
Media Education ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
The Sustainable Development ◽  
World University Rankings ◽  
Network Process ◽  
The Times ◽  
Explosive Forming

In view of recent higher education contracting because of a declining birth rate and an explosive forming of technology, this research systematically cross-employed a technology acceptance model (TAM) and rational decision-making model (RDM) methodology to discuss from an interdisciplinary perspective the co-relationships between the assessed criteria and evaluated weights of four famous and accredited World University Rankings, the most promising features of massive open online courses (MOOCs), and the sustainable development goals (SDGs) of university social responsibility (USR) principles based on students’, faculties’ and government officers’ interviewee appraised perspectives. Statistically, the weight-questionnaires of random students and professional experts were cross-measured by a factor analysis (FA) of quantitative analysis and an analytical network process (ANP) method of qualitative analysis. As a result, the aggregation technology function (ATF) is the most sustainable niche principle of social media education, not only fulfilling the Making Education More Equitable (MEME), Diminishing Poverty (DP), and Making Gender More Equality (MGME) initiatives of the institution’s USR principles but also increasing the Industry Income (II) of the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings in order to attract, trigger, and drive the students to make a decision to sincerely register in institutions in a higher education contracting era.

scholarly journals Size, Internationalization, and University Rankings: Evaluating and Predicting Times Higher Education (THE) Data for Japan

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 1366
Author(s):  
Michael McAleer ◽  
Tamotsu Nakamura ◽  
Clinton Watkins
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Practical Interest ◽  
Full Time ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
Full Time Equivalent ◽  
World University Rankings ◽  
Institutions Of Higher Learning ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
The Times

International and domestic rankings of academics, academic departments, faculties, schools and colleges, institutions of higher learning, states, regions, and countries are of academic and practical interest and importance to students, parents, academics, and private and public institutions. International and domestic rankings are typically based on arbitrary methodologies and criteria. Evaluating how the rankings might be sensitive to different factors, as well as forecasting how they might change over time, requires a statistical analysis of the factors that affect the rankings. Accurate data on rankings and the associated factors are essential for a valid statistical analysis. In this respect, the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings represent one of the three leading and most influential annual sources of international university rankings. Using recently released data for a single country, namely Japan, the paper evaluates the effects of size (specifically, the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) students, or FTE (Size)) and internationalization (specifically, the percentage of international students, or IntStud) on academic rankings using THE data for 2017 and 2018 on 258 national, public (that is, prefectural or city), and private universities. The results show that both size and internationalization are statistically significant in explaining rankings for all universities, as well as separately for private and non-private (that is, national and public) universities, in Japan for 2017 and 2018.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document