Abstract
Noting that university rankings are not new, this article reviews the effects of more than a century of higher education ranking schemes. It notes that a pursuit of high rankings has led not to “innovation” but rather to “imitation” and institutional conformity. It uses three US education thinkers—Thorstein Veblen, John Dewey, and Joseph Jastrow—to show how rankings drove American universities to pursue international publicity and profit rather than local service to the public good. Significantly, the result of a competition for external rankings was a loss of internal academic creativity and autonomy. The article concludes with two proposals, or thought experiments, concerning alternative rankings strategies.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Dewey, J. (1939). Theory of valuation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1976). “Academic Freedom,” Educational Review 23 (1902), 1–14, reprinted in Jo Ann Boydston, ed., John Dewey: The Middle Works, 1899–1924, Volume 2: 1902–1903. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Jastrow, J. (1906). The academic career as affected by administration. Science (April 13, 1906).
Veblen, Thorstein. (1918). The higher learning in America: A memorandum on the conduct of universties by businessmen. New York: B.W. Huebsch.
Veysey, L. R. (1965). The emergence of the American university. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Acknowledgments
This paper was presented in April 2017 at the “International Conference on University Innovation and Evaluation” held at Zhejiang University. The author would like to thank the conference organizers and forum participants for their helpful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
International Academic Advisory Conference on University Innovation Evaluation, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nelson, A.R. Ranking university innovation: a critical history. Entrep Educ 1, 1–10 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41959-018-0002-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41959-018-0002-y