Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems

Abstract

The global expansion of access to higher education has increased demand for information on academic quality and has led to the development of university ranking systems or league tables in many countries of the world. A recent UNESCO/CEPES conference on higher education indicators concluded that cross-national research on these ranking systems could make an important contribution to improving the international market for higher education. The comparison and analysis of national university ranking systems can help address a number of important policy questions. First, is there an emerging international consensus on the measurement of academic quality as reflected in these ranking systems? Second, what impact are the different ranking systems having on university and academic behavior in their respective countries? Finally, are there important public interests that are thus far not reflected in these rankings? If so, is there a needed and appropriate role for public policy in the development and distribution of university ranking systems and what might that role be? This paper explores these questions through a comparative analysis of university rankings in Australia, Canada, the UK, and the US.

The knowledge triangle, European higher education policy logics and policy implications

“…Various versions of this separation might occur. Within the university a stronger division of labour might develop between ''teaching staff'' and ''researchers'' with what some have labelled ''hollow collegiality'' as one of the consequences (Dill and Soo 2005). At the system level a new domestic and European institutional landscape may emerge with ''research'' and ''teaching'' universities as the key institutional divide, comparable to the current divide in the English university sector.…”

Preparing for Academic Ranking Reports in the Kurdistan Regional Government Higher Education

“…Although different procedures are suggested to develop academic ranking reports, most ranking stakeholders agree on six prescribed steps (Dill & Soo, 2005, Hazelkorn, 2008 that are followed in order to produce the ranking reports:…”

“…suggested three categories of academic quality, faculty accomplishments, student achievements and institutional academic resources. Dill and Soo (2005) on the other hand suggested the following three categories for the academic quality:…”

“…searchers develop pragmatic, educationally sensitive and methodologically informed approaches for managing this increasingly prominent aspect of higher education" (Coates, 2007, p.70) Academic ranking reports are the reports that are generated periodically (i.e., yearly) and are intended to list in ranked order the academic performance of colleges and universities (Dill & Soo, 2005, Hazelkorn, 2007, Liu & Cheng, 2005. The final result of the reports is the production of "one easy-to-digest number" (Clarke, 2002, p. 446) for each university that represents the ranking of the university enrolled in the system.…”

Navigating in the Field of University Positioning: On International Ranking Lists, Quality Indicators and Higher Education Governing

“…In current discourses on higher education and research, notions of 'world-class universities' and international ranking positions are put forward in competitive language. Distinctive in these discourses are comparisons based on measures of performance and reputation by means of a selection of indicators (Dill & Soo, 2005). These comparisons result in ranking positions assumed to measure the qualities of universities around the world (Usher & Savino, 2007).…”