Wikipedia

Academic Ranking of World Universities

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vantelimus (talk | contribs) at 06:43, 11 August 2010 (Undid revision 378307798 by 70.170.94.134 (talk) revert addition of data that falls outside the definition of the table.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Academic Ranking of World Universities is compiled by Shanghai Jiaotong University.[1] It is one of the two most prominent world university rankings, along with the Times Higher Education World University Rankings.[2][3] The ranking compared 1200 higher education institutions worldwide according to a formula that took into account alumni winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (10 percent), staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (20 percent), highly-cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories (20 percent), articles published in Nature and Science (20 percent), the Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index (20 percent) and the per capita academic performance (on the indicators above) of an institution (10 percent). The methodology is set out in an academic article by its originators, N.C. Liu and Y. Cheng.[4] Liu and Cheng explain that the original purpose of doing the ranking was "to find out the gap between Chinese universities and world-class universities, particularly in terms of academic or research performance."[5] The rankings have been conducted since 2003 and then updated annually.

Commentary

As the first multi-indicator ranking of global universities, ARWU has attracted a great deal of attention from universities, governments and public media worldwide since its publication. A survey on higher education published by The Economist in 2005 commented ARWU as "the most widely used annual ranking of the world's research universities."[6][failed verification] Bollag (2006) wrote on Chronicle of Higher Education that ARWU "is considered the most influential international ranking."[7]

One of the factors in the significant influence of ARWU is that its methodology looks globally sound and transparent. EU Research Headlines reported the ARWU's work on 31st Dec 2003: "The universities were carefully evaluated using several indicators of research performance."[8] Chancellor of Oxford University, Prof. Chris Patten, said "the methodology looks fairly solid ... it looks like a pretty good stab at a fair comparison." Vice-Chancellor of Australian National University, Prof. Ian Chubb, said "The SJTU rankings were reported quickly and widely around the world… (and they) offer an important comparative view of research performance and reputation." Margison (2007) also commented the ARWU ranking that one of the strengths of "the academically rigorous and globally inclusive Jiao Tong approach" is "constantly tuning its rankings and invites open collaboration in that."[9]

The ARWU ranking and its content have been widely cited and applied as a starting point for identifying national strengths and weaknesses as well as facilitating reform and setting new initiatives. Bill Destler (2008), the president of the Rochester Institute of Technology, draw reference to the ARWU ranking to analyze the comparative advantages the Western Europe and US have in terms of intellectual talent and creativity in his publication in the journal Nature.[10] European commissioner of Education, Jan Figel, pointed out in an interview in 2007 that "if you look at the Shanghai index, we are the strongest continent in terms of numbers and potential but we are also shifting into a secondary position in terms of quality and attractiveness. If we don't act we will see an uptake or overtake by Chinese or Indian universities."[11] Also, Enserink (2007) referred to ARWU and argued in his paper published in Science that "France's poor showing in the Shanghai ranking ... helped trigger a national debate about higher education that resulted in a new law... giving universities more freedom."[12] The world leading think tank organisation, Rand Corporation, also used the ARWU ranking as evidence in their consultancy paper to the European Institute of Innovation and Technology.[13]

In two subsequent research papers[14][15] published by Academic Leadership (2009), then in an article [16] published by the Times Higher Education (2009), Paul Z. Jambor of Korea University established the connection between any unfavorable image/reputation universities may develop (and/or their association, by country, to those universities linked to the wrongdoing) to a halt in their climb or even to a drop in their Times Higher Education - QS World University Rankings. This is because 40% and 10% of THE - QS World Methodology is based on Academic Peer Review and Employer Review respectively. In essence, any unfavorable image developed by a group of universities, associated by country, tends to harm their collective rankings. For this reason, universities worldwide should seriously consider adhering to internationally accepted standards so that they do not run the risk of sliding in the ranks on the international front. Consequently, a number of critics consider this aspect of THE - QS World University Rankings unfair and even biased.

Criticism

College and university rankings often stimulate controversy (see Criticism of college and university rankings (North America) and Criticism of college and university rankings (2007 United States)) and the ARWU is no exception. A 2007 paper published in the journal Scientometrics found that the results from the Shanghai rankings could not be reproduced from raw data using the method described by Liu and Cheng.[17]

In a report from April 2009, J-C. Billaut, D. Bouyssou and Ph. Vincke analyze how the ARWU works, using their insights as specialists of Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM). Their main conclusions are that the criteria that are used are not relevant, that the aggregation methodology is plagued by a number of major problems and that the whole exercise suffers from an insufficient attention paid to fundamental structuring issues.[18]

The ARWU researchers themselves, N.C Liu and Y Cheng,[5] think that the quality of universities cannot be precisely measured by mere numbers and any ranking can be controversial. They suggest that university and college rankings should be used with caution and their methodologies must be understood clearly before reporting or using the results.

Rankings

2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009

The table below contains the overall rankings from 2003 to 2009 for all universities that ranked at least 100 in one of the years.[1] The ranking is omitted for years in which the school did not land within the top 100. Note, the full ranking contains over 500 universities. If a university is not listed in this table, it fell below 100 in all seven years.

University 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
  Aarhus University 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 93 97
  Arizona State University 1000 1000 1000 100 96 93 94
  Australian National University 49 53 53 54 57 59 59
  Boston University 54 86 86 81 83 83 74
  Brown University 49 82 82 85 70 71 69
  California Institute of Technology 3 6 6 6 6 6 6
  Carnegie Mellon University 61 62 62 56 60 62 59
  Case Western Reserve University 51 65 65 70 78 83 87
  Columbia University 10 9 9 7 7 7 7
  Cornell University 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
  Duke University 33 31 31 31 32 33 31
  Emory University 99 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 100
  Free University of Berlin 95 1000 1000 99 83 1000 1000
  Harvard University 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
  Hebrew University of Jerusalem 94 90 90 60 64 65 64
  Humboldt University of Berlin 1000 95 95 1000 1000 1000 1000
  Imperial College London 17 23 23 23 23 27 26
  Indiana University - Bloomington 1000 1000 1000 77 70 72 73
  Johns Hopkins University 24 22 22 20 19 20 19
  Karolinska Institutet 39 46 46 48 53 51 50
  King's College London 75 77 77 83 83 81 65
  Kyoto University 30 21 21 22 22 23 24
  Lund University 93 92 92 90 97 97 1000
  Massachusetts Institute of Technology 6 5 5 5 5 5 5
  McGill University 79 61 61 62 63 60 65
  McMaster University 86 88 88 90 87 89 91
  Michigan State University 87 80 80 80 80 83 86
  Moscow State University 1000 66 66 70 76 70 77
  Nagoya University 68 97 97 98 94 1000 82
  New York University 55 32 32 29 30 31 32
  North Carolina State University 99 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
  Northwestern University 29 30 30 33 29 30 30
  Ohio State University 81 73 73 66 61 62 62
  Osaka University 53 54 54 61 67 68 71
  Pennsylvania State University 40 43 43 42 43 42 45
  Princeton University 7 7 7 8 8 8 8
  Purdue University 80 71 71 73 68 65 65
  Rice University 61 75 75 87 87 97 99
  Rockefeller University 28 29 29 30 30 32 32
  Rutgers University 38 44 44 46 47 54 55
  Stanford University 2 2 2 3 2 2 2
  Stockholm University 1000 97 97 84 86 86 88
  ETH Zurich 25 27 27 27 27 24 23
  Technical University of Munich 60 45 45 54 56 57 57
  Texas A&M University 70 1000 1000 88 91 88 88
  Tohoku University 64 69 69 76 76 79 84
  Tokyo Institute of Technology 1000 1000 1000 89 99 1000 1000
  University of Tokyo 19 14 14 19 20 19 20
  Tufts University 83 99 99 1000 1000 1000 1000
  University of Arizona 55 76 76 76 74 77 77
  University of Basel 96 91 91 81 82 87 85
  University of Birmingham 1000 93 93 90 92 91 94
  University of Bonn 1000 99 99 1000 99 97 98
  University of Bristol 55 60 60 62 62 61 61
  University of British Columbia 35 36 36 36 36 35 36
  University of California, Berkeley 4 4 4 4 3 3 3
  University of California, Davis 36 42 42 42 43 48 49
  University of California, Irvine 44 55 55 44 45 46 46
  University of California, Los Angeles 15 16 16 14 13 13 13
  University of California, Riverside 88 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
  University of California, San Diego 14 13 13 13 14 14 14
  University of California, San Francisco 13 17 17 18 18 18 18
  University of California, Santa Barbara 26 35 35 35 35 36 35
  University of Cambridge 5 3 3 2 4 4 4
  University of Chicago 11 10 10 8 9 9 8
  University College London 20 25 25 26 25 22 21
  University of Colorado 31 34 34 34 34 34 34
  University of Copenhagen 65 59 59 56 46 45 43
  University of Edinburgh 43 47 47 52 53 55 53
  University of Florida 75 67 67 53 51 58 58
  University of Freiburg 1000 88 88 93 94 96 1000
  University of Ghent 99 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
  University of Göttingen 91 79 79 85 87 90 90
  University of Groningen 84 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
  University of Heidelberg 58 64 64 66 65 67 63
  University of Helsinki 74 72 72 74 73 68 72
  University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 45 25 25 25 26 26 25
  University of Illinois at Chicago 96 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
  University of Iowa 90 1000 1000 95 97 1000 1000
  University of Leiden 78 63 63 72 71 76 72
  University of Manchester 89 78 53 50 48 40 41
  University of Maryland, College Park 75 57 57 37 37 37 37
  University of Melbourne 92 82 82 78 79 73 75
  University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 21 19 19 21 21 21 22
  University of Minnesota, Twin Cities 37 33 33 32 33 28 28
  University of Munich 48 51 51 51 53 55 55
  University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 52 56 56 59 58 38 39
  University of Nottingham 1000 80 80 79 81 82 83
  University of Oslo 63 68 68 68 69 64 65
  University of Oxford 9 8 8 10 10 10 10
  University of Paris 6 (Pierre and Marie Curie University) 65 41 41 45 39 42 40
  University of Paris 11 (Paris-Sud 11 University) 72 48 48 64 52 49 43
  University of Pennsylvania 18 15 15 15 15 15 15
  University of Pittsburgh 53 48 48 48 49 52 50
  Sapienza University of Rome 70 93 97 100 1000 1000 1000
  University of Rochester 72 52 52 74 75 73 77
  University of Sheffield 68 69 69 69 72 77 81
  University of Southern California 40 48 48 47 50 50 46
  University of Strasbourg I (Louis Pasteur University) 1000 82 82 96 99 1000 1000
  University of Sydney 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 97 94
  University of Texas at Austin 47 40 40 39 38 39 38
  University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas 34 36 36 38 39 41 48
  University of Toronto 23 24 24 24 23 24 27
  University of Utah 81 95 95 94 93 79 80
  University of Utrecht 40 39 39 40 42 47 52
  University of Vienna 84 86 86 1000 1000 1000 1000
  University of Virginia 67 1000 1000 1000 1000 95 91
  University of Washington 16 20 20 17 16 16 16
  University of Wisconsin–Madison 27 18 18 16 17 17 17
  University of Zurich 45 57 57 58 58 53 54
  Uppsala University 59 74 74 65 66 71 76
  Vanderbilt University 32 38 38 41 41 42 41
  Washington University in St. Louis 22 28 28 28 28 29 29
  Yale University 8 11 11 11 11 11 11

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Shanghai Jiao Tong University (2007). "Academic Ranking of World Universities". Graduate School of Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Retrieved Feb 19 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  2. ^ http://euobserver.com/881/29189
  3. ^ http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1741-7015-5-30.pdf
  4. ^ N.C. Liu and Y Cheng 2005 “Academic ranking of world universities - methodologies and problems”, Higher Education in Europe, Vol. 30, No 2., and earlier in the proceedings of Meeting of the International Rankings Expert Group 2004.
  5. ^ a b N.C. Liu and Y Cheng 2008 “Academic ranking of world universities: FAQ”[1], retrieved Jun 2009
  6. ^ The brains business, The Economist, Sep 8th 2005
  7. ^ Bollag, B. 2006 International group endorses principles for ranking of higher education institutions. Chronicle of Higher Education, June 1st[2]
  8. ^ European Research Headlines 2003 Chinese study ranks world's top 500 universities[3]
  9. ^ Marginson, S. 2007 Global university comparisons: the second stage. Paper presented at the Symposium on International Trends in University Ranking and Classifications. Feb 12, 2007, Griffith University, Australia[4]
  10. ^ Destler, B. 2008 A new relationship. Nature, 453, 853-854, Dec 2008
  11. ^ Figel, A. 2007 Asia threatens to knock British universities off the top table, The Times [5]
  12. ^ Enserink, M. 2007 Who ranks the university rankers? Science vol317(5841), pp.1026-1028{http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5841/1026}.
  13. ^ Galama, T. et al. 2006 The Pursuit of Excellence. A European Institute of Technology. [6]
  14. ^ Jambor, Paul Z. 'Why South Korean Universities Have Low International Rankings', Academic Leadership: Volume 7 - Issue 1, February 20, 2009
  15. ^ Jambor, Paul Z. 'Why South Korean Universities Have Low International Rankings - Part II: The Student Side of the Equation', Academic Leadership: Volume 7 - Issue 3, August 10, 2009
  16. ^ Jambor, Paul Z., 'Slide and prejudice', Times Higher Education, December 10, 2009
  17. ^ Răzvan V. Florian (2007). "Irreproducibility of the results of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities". Scientometrics. 72 (1): 25–32. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1712-1. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  18. ^ Jean-Charles Billaut, Denis Bouyssou et Philippe Vincke (2009). "Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking ?". Internal report LI Tours. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Academic_Ranking_of_World_Universities&oldid=378318750"