Beware global rankings’ highs and lows

THE rising influence of university rankings is being debated across the higher education sector.

Used by prospective students, parents, educators, researchers, policymakers, university administrators and businesses, rankings capture attention even though they are often poorly understood or lack important context.

For businesses using rankings to inform decisions about partnerships with universities, understanding how they are put together and what they tell us about an institution is critical.

University rankings began almost 50 years ago when countries started to rank the quality of their higher education institutions.

Academic reputation, admissions criteria, academic productivity and financial performance were used to create so-called league tables.

Rankings on a worldwide scale followed shortly after as education become a global commodity. Where a university was positioned on a table affects student choices, academic recruitment, the level of business partnerships and even how governments view their own institutions.

Global rankings are designed to offer a basic comparison of universities across the world.

Institutions that rank highly often enjoy widespread recognition and prestige and are able to attract the best academic and professional staff and the most talented students.

But the use of global rankings remains controversial because different systems prioritise different aspects.

And some ranking systems are accused of placing too much emphasis on a university’s research activities.

Critics also argue ranking methodologies rely too heavily on quantitative measures, such as the number of research publications an institution produces in a given period, or financial indicators.

Such an approach, the critics say, does not adequately capture the nuanced qualities of a university like the quality of teaching and learning or how the institution engages with its community.

For businesses turning to global league tables as part of their due diligence, it is important to understand exactly what is under the rankings microscope.

There are around 20 global ranking systems, the three major and most prestigious of which are the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), the QS World University Rankings, and The Times Higher Education World University Rankings.

The ARWU, also known as the Shanghai rankings, focuses entirely on research excellence.

In 2022, The University of Western Australia was ranked 99th, Curtin University was in the 201-300 band, Murdoch University in the 401-500 range and Edith Cowan University in the 601-700 grouping.

The ARWU is criticised for an inclination towards the natural sciences, research indicators and emphasis on institutions that have been awarded Nobel Prizes rather than considering other factors such as the quality of teaching or graduate employability.

The QS rankings traditionally use several metrics, including: academic reputation; employer reputation; faculty/student ratio; citations per faculty; international faculty ratio; international student ratio; international research networks; sustainability; and employment outcomes.

Most Australian universities improved their position in the recently released 2024 QS rankings, after what those behind the rankings described as a significant methodology change.

In the 2024 QS rankings, UWA was ranked 72nd in the world, Curtin 183rd, Murdoch 431st and Edith Cowan University 529th.

The QS rankings have been criticised in the past for ignoring the quality of research and being too heavily linked to reputational surveys with low response rates.

The Times Higher Education rankings use 13 different measures arranged into five broad areas to determine the standing of a university: teaching; research; citations; international outlook; and industry income.

Its 2023 rankings placed UWA at equal 131st, Curtin in the 201-250 band, Edith Cowan in the 251-400 cluster and Murdoch in the 401-500 band.

Those behind the Times Higher Education rankings claim they have one of the most comprehensive methodologies of league tables.

Rankings encourage universities across the globe to compare and improve themselves.

While this is a positive, global rankings should not be used as the sole reason for choosing a university for study or to source graduates, perform research or form strategic partnerships.

What is perhaps a more important due diligence process is dialogue with academics and those in leadership roles at the university.

It is also always a good idea to discuss a university’s performance with those who have previously studied there or worked with the institution.

• Professor Gary Martin is chief executive officer of the Australian Institute of Management WA.