THE-QS World University Ranking - a US perspective that takes account of country size: Guest Contribution by Jim Farmer

When the 2009 Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings of the world’s universities were published 8 October, Editor of the THE-QS rankings, Phil Baty wrote: “America's superpower status is slipping as other countries' efforts to join the global elite begin to pay dividends.” And he could have written the U.K. universities continue to improve their rankings.

There are two major world rankings of colleges and universities—the Times Higher Education, and Shanghai Jiao Tong University. THE focuses on providing information for prospective students. By contrast, according to Wikipedia. “The Academic Ranking of World Universities compiled by the Shanghai Jiao Tong University, which was a large-scale Chinese project to provide independent rankings of universities around the world primarily to measure the gap between Chinese and ‘world class’ universities.”

The data from the Times Higher Education-QS World University Ranking can also be used for a national perspective. Supplementing the rankings with country population provides additional insight into student opportunities.

Table 1 shows the number of ranked universities in each country included in the Top 200. Some of the countries with a number of ranked institutions have a much smaller population than of those with the most ranked universities—the U.K. (29), U.S. (54) and Canada (11). Adjusting for population gives another perspective. “Density” is the number of ranked or “elite” universities per ten million population. The average is 0.3 universities per ten million. Only 8 of the 32 counties are below that average. Switzerland leads with 9.0. The U.K. has 4.7 and the U.S. 1.8. As a measure of support each country gives to its universities, or at least the “elite universities,” this shows that some of the smaller countries—Switzerland, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Denmark and Sweden for example, all with population less than 10 million—give significantly more student opportunities to attend a ranked university. This metric assumes the universities are about the same size.

	Times Ranked			Ranked Universities
Country	2009		Population	per ten million
Switzerland	7		7,745,900	9.0
Hong Kong	5		7,008,900	7.1
New Zealand	3		4,326,200	6.9
Netherlands	11		16,551,237	6.6
Denmark	3		5,519,441	5.4
Sweden	5		9,316,256	5.4
United Kingdom	29		61,634,599	4.7
Belgium	5		10,754,528	4.6
Ireland	2		4,459,300	4.5
Norway	2		4,839,600	4.1
Australia	9		21,935,000	4.1
Israel	3		7,446,700	4.0
Singapore	2		4,987,600	4.0
Canada	11		33,805,000	3.3
Finland	1		5,347,277	1.9
United States	54		307,658,000	1.8
Germany	10		82,002,000	1.2
Austria	1		8,355,260	1.2
Greece	1		11,257,285	0.9
Japan	11		127,540,000	0.9
South Korea	4		48,333,000	0.8
France	4		65,073,482	0.6
Taiwan	1		23,069,345	0.4
Malaysia	1		28,310,000	0.4
Spain	1		45,929,476	0.2
South Africa	1		49,320,500	0.2
Italy	1		60,114,021	0.2
Thailand	1		63,389,730	0.2
Russia	2		141,882,000	0.1
Mexico	1		107,550,697	0.1
China	6		1,333,420,000	0.0
India	2		1,169,980,000	0.0
Total	200		3,878,862,334	0.5
World	200		6,789,300,000	0.3

 

Table 1 – By country, number and density of ranked universities

It is also interesting to see the trends from 2008 to 2009 by country. Assuming there is equal intervals to the ranks—there isn’t, but perhaps a reasonable estimate—the countries making the most change can be identified. Table 2 gives the average change in rank from 2008 to 2009 for each country having three or more ranked universities. The number of ranked universities in each country is given to provide some indication of the validity of the country average. The average increase in ranking was 8.1. This is generally due to countries with only one or two universities that advanced from the lower ranks (higher number). But the average for those countries with 3 or more ranked universities was 4.1. Universities in countries with only one or two ranked universities tend to be lower ranked and can increase their rank more easily than the top ranked universities.

Country	Number Ranked Universities Times 2009		Ranked Universities per ten million population	Average Change in Rank
South Korea	4		0.8	33.6
Japan	11		0.9	18.1
Germany	10		1.2	12.2
France	4		0.6	11.0
Hong Kong	5		7.1	10.8
Sweden	5		5.4	9.0
Switzerland	7		9.0	5.3
Australia	9		4.1	2.1
Belgium	5		4.6	1.4
United Kingdom	29		4.7	0.9
Netherlands	11		6.6	0.4
New Zealand	3		6.9	0.3
Canada	11		3.3	-0.6
Denmark	3		5.4	-3.7
China	6		0.0	-5.3
Israel	3		4.0	-10.7
United States	54		1.8	-11.3
Total/Average	180		0.5	4.1
Average all			0.5	8.1
Positive change is decrease in ranking number, or "better rank"

Table 2 – By country, average change in rank, omitting those with one or two universities.

The sharpest improvement in rank appears to be countries that have made a commitment to the universities—South Korea, Japan, Germany, France and Hong Kong. They are making an investment in university education and research.

University rankings are only an indicator. For the past three years Leiden University has hosted the International Symposium on University Rankings. These experts have documented the limitations of rankings—often because of limited data. At this year’s conference Martin Ince said library costs, alumni giving, student completions, and course costs are “Things that don’t work.” Instead he said “Look for academic quality, employability, research, teaching, and global reach.” Gero Federkeil, CHE –Centre for Higher Education Development, said European rankings should now focus on information for mobile students, and masters and doctorate programmes and research. He recommended indicators should be based on bibliometric analysis, participation in Marie-Curie-programme, and international students. (The European Union sponsored Marie-Curie-programme provides “free education access through scholarships in the European Union countries and the rest of the world, free audio books, free audio/video lectures, free language courses, and free job vacancies database (undergraduate, PhD, PostDoc) at EU universities.”

Commenting on this year’s THE Top 200 in the Times, the World Bank’s Jamil Salmi and Roberta Malee Bassett wrote “As acceptance—begrudging or otherwise—rankings has settled into the tertiary education environment, the debate has moved on to how to improve their methodology to provide more useful and legitimate data on which to base well-informed decisions”.

The sharp drop in the U.S. rankings—and accompanying rise of those of the U.K.—may be a result of the credit crisis or it may be the result of long term budget trends by sponsoring federal and state governments. Next year’s THE ranking should suggest the impact of the U.S. higher education priorities. And the ability of the U.K. to sustain the government’s support of universities.

Jim Farmer: jfx "AT" immagic "DOT" com

Comments

[Phil Baty]

Times Higher Education's world university rankings are changing. We are no longer working with QS and we are developing a new methodology for 2010 and beyond in consultation with the international university community. For news, and to help us develop the new methodology, see: http://bit.ly/ErAag.