We evaluate a wide array of entities, from the top eateries in the vicinity to the most desirable travel destinations and must-watch films. Assessing the credibility of these rankings necessitates an understanding of the entities behind the assessments and the criteria they employ.
This same scrutiny is applicable when examining the global rankings of universities. The practice of ranking universities emerged a few decades back and has since gained widespread acceptance and significance. Particularly esteemed institutions take these rankings seriously, with some even dedicating staff resources to compile the requisite data for rankers. University benefactors, media outlets, and parents alike consider these rankings in decision-making processes.
Various ranking systems exist, with some being more prominent than others. Among the most renowned are Quacquarelli Symonds (QS), Times Higher Education (THE), Shanghai Ranking Consultancy, and US News & World Report.
Recently, a panel of experts, including myself, convened to scrutinize these ranking methodologies under the auspices of the United Nations University International Institute for Global Health. Our assessment revealed fundamental issues with the concept of rankings, highlighting the impracticality of categorizing all institutions uniformly.
Moreover, we found that the methodologies employed are often ambiguous and, in some cases, invalid. The experts emphasized the disproportionate emphasis placed on rankings, which perpetuates global, regional, and national disparities while impeding comprehensive analysis of education systems.
The entities responsible for these rankings are typically private, for-profit organizations. They generate revenue through various means, including data collection from universities, advertising, consultancy services, and conferences. Each ranking entity adopts a distinct approach to data analysis, culminating in an index or score. However, the opacity surrounding the scoring mechanisms raises questions about the validity and bias inherent in these assessments.
It is crucial to recognize that universities fulfill multifaceted societal roles, with substantial public funding allocated to these institutions. While high rankings may denote prestige, they do not necessarily correlate with societal impact or the fulfillment of essential functions such as producing competent professionals or influencing public policy positively.
Singular ranking systems do not serve the public interest effectively. Overreliance on rankings can detract universities from their core missions and essential societal contributions. Instead of fixating on rankings, it is imperative to prioritize critical questions about the higher education landscape, such as the alignment of tertiary institutions, research quality, and the production of skilled graduates.
To mitigate the adverse effects of rankings, transparency and critical evaluation of these systems are paramount. Understanding the inherent biases and profit motives driving ranking entities can help recalibrate the perception of these assessments. By reframing the discourse and challenging the dominance of Western-centric value systems, we can foster a more equitable and holistic approach to evaluating educational institutions. Ultimately, the existence and influence of rankings are not immutable and should be subject to reevaluation and reform.