Advertisement

Higher Education

, Volume 63, Issue 1, pp 1–18 | Cite as

A different approach to university rankings

  • Chris Tofallis
Article

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.

Keywords

League tables Performance measure University rankings 

References

  1. Attwood, R. (2009). Redrawing ranking rules for clarity, reliability and sense. Times Higher Education, December 10, 2009.Google Scholar
  2. Baty, P. (2009). New era for the world rankings. Times Higher Education, November 5, 2009.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Filinov, N. B., & Ruchkina, S. (2002). Ranking of higher education institutions in Russia—Some methodological problems. Higher Education in Europe, 27(4), 407–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Holder, R. D. (1998). The good university guide and rank reversal. Journal of Operational Research Soc, 49(9), 1019–1020.Google Scholar
  7. Ince, M. (2007a). Fine tuning reveals distinctions. Times Higher Education Supplement, 9th November supplement.Google Scholar
  8. Ince, M. (2007b). Ideas without borders as excellence goes global. Times Higher Education Supplement, 9th November supplement.Google Scholar
  9. Kingston, B. (2007). The Complete University Guide 2008.Google Scholar
  10. Times Higher Education. (2008). Strong measures. Times Higher Education, October 9th, supplement. Google Scholar
  11. Tofallis, C. (2008). Selecting the best statistical distribution. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 54, 690–694.Google Scholar
  12. United Nations Development Programme. (2010). Human Development Report 2010. The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to human development. Google Scholar
  13. 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.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Statistical Services and Consultancy UnitUniversity of Hertfordshire Business SchoolHatfieldUK

Personalised recommendations