Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A different approach to university rankings

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Educationalists are well able to find fault with rankings on numerous grounds and may reject them outright. However, given that they are here to stay, we could also try to improve them wherever possible. All currently published university rankings combine various measures to produce an overall score using an additive approach. The individual measures are first normalized to make the figures ‘comparable’ before they are combined. Various normalization procedures exist but, unfortunately, they lead to different results when applied to the same data: hence the compiler’s choice of normalization actually affects the order in which universities are ranked. Other difficulties associated with the additive approach include differing treatments of the student to staff ratio, and unexpected rank reversals associated with the removal or inclusion of institutions. We show that a multiplicative approach to aggregation overcomes all of these difficulties. It also provides a transparent interpretation for the weights. The proposed approach is very general and can be applied to many other types of ranking problem.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Attwood, R. (2009). Redrawing ranking rules for clarity, reliability and sense. Times Higher Education, December 10, 2009.

  • Baty, P. (2009). New era for the world rankings. Times Higher Education, November 5, 2009.

  • Centre for Higher Education Research and Information (CHERI), Open University, and Hobsons Research. (2008). Counting what is measured or measuring what counts? League tables and their impact on higher education institutions in England. Report to HEFCE.

  • Filinov, N. B., & Ruchkina, S. (2002). Ranking of higher education institutions in Russia—Some methodological problems. Higher Education in Europe, 27(4), 407–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, H., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (1996). League tables and their limitations: Statistical issues in comparisons of institutional performance (with discussion). Journal of Royal Statistical Society A, 159(3), 385–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holder, R. D. (1998). The good university guide and rank reversal. Journal of Operational Research Soc, 49(9), 1019–1020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ince, M. (2007a). Fine tuning reveals distinctions. Times Higher Education Supplement, 9th November supplement.

  • Ince, M. (2007b). Ideas without borders as excellence goes global. Times Higher Education Supplement, 9th November supplement.

  • Kingston, B. (2007). The Complete University Guide 2008.

  • Times Higher Education. (2008). Strong measures. Times Higher Education, October 9th, supplement.

  • Tofallis, C. (2008). Selecting the best statistical distribution. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 54, 690–694.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Development Programme. (2010). Human Development Report 2010. The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to human development.

  • Yorke, M., & Longden,B. (2005). Significant figures: Performance indicators and league tables. SCOP (Standing Conference of Principals). Available from: http://www.scop.ac.uk/UploadFolder/SCOPsigfigfinalprint2.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Statistical Services and Consultancy Unit, University of Hertfordshire Business School, College Lane, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9AB, UK

    Chris Tofallis

Authors
  1. Chris Tofallis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris Tofallis.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 1.

Table 1 Comparison of scores and rankings
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tofallis, C. A different approach to university rankings. High Educ 63, 1–18 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9417-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9417-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation