Abstract
Saumen Chattopadhyay in his paper ‘World Ranking of Universities: What does it entail for the Future of the Universities’ raises some fundamental questions regarding the implications of the quantification and ordering of universities at the global scale on how are the universities evolving. Ranking replaces old ways of social assessment of universities by a numerical assessment approach whereby ranking facilitates students to make informed choices. An important issue, as argued by the author, is whether ranking promotes quality for the higher education system as a whole in a particular country context. The paper argues that the improvemengt in quality of the higher education system as a result of ranking has to be understood in the context of selection based efficiency which is typical of a higher education market and the public good character of higher education system. As ranking parameters guide the decision-making by the university authority, the faculty autonomy in their academic engagement remains circumscribed and, the particular mission of a university may be compromised. Ranking encourages indulgences in unethical practices. The accentuation of the differences within the university system mitigates the objective of massification of higher education. Inevitability of ranking and its impact on the policy making are effecting irreversible changes in the way universities function and in the traditional role of the university in the society and the economy. The author notes that the phenomenon of ranking of universities has led to support various market strategies in higher education which may not prove to be inclusive, participative and democratic in the knowledge general process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Shin et al. (2011) gave an estimate that there were 33 ranking systems in the world in 2009.
- 2.
The THE ranking excludes those universities if undergraduate courses are not offered by them, or if the research output amounted to less than 1000 articles during 2012–2016 or a minimum of 150 per year, or if the activity is concentrated to the extent of 80% in one of the eight subject areas listed by them. Research influence is measured by the number of times a university’s publication work is cited by scholars globally. The THE claims that Elsevier examined more than 56 million citations to 11.9 million journal articles, conference proceedings, books and book chapters. See for weights https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/methodology-world-university-rankings-2018 accessed on 28 December 2017.
- 3.
- 4.
Literature and Peace Prizes are not considered.
- 5.
The list of highly cited researchers is selected by Clarivate Analytics. The ARWU was developed by an engineering professor, Liu Niancai, in Shanghai Jiao Tong University primarily in 1983 to highlight the university’s contribution in China’s science and technology and assess how far a university has to travel to catch up with the universities in the West, basically the American Universities (Marginson 2016: 51–53). See http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU-Methodology-2017.html accessed on 28 December 2017.
- 6.
This adds a new dimension to the nature of competition in higher education compared to the industries where even quality inputs are produced, and hence they are, in general, reproducible. Product differentiation is attributable to the technology or idea that combines the inputs. If the quality inputs were replicable, it would have been feasible for the universities to produce as per need huge amount of quality inputs. The competition in the market amongst the universities would have been similar to a typical textbook-type monopolistic competition.
- 7.
Generally, the universities accorded with the status of world-class universities (WCUs) with a definite mandate are the ones that would be keen to effect the changes required to conform to the ranking parameters.
- 8.
Homogenization of university mandate or convergence amongst the aspiring universities is recognized to be a side effect of competing globally to rank high in the world ranking table (Shin et al. 2011).
- 9.
The citation index is the weights given to natural science research, and the choice of journals like Nature and Science by the ARWU indicates this.
- 10.
Shanghai Jiao Tong group argues in favour of focusing on research as data related to research is more reliable. The Times Higher Education is argued to be more holistic but is based on poor response rate. Composite approaches for the purpose of comprehensive assessment may not be a good idea as they may reveal a convoluted picture as well.
- 11.
In a government-funded university, the intake of research students can be regulated by the regulations which govern the admission of the universities like in India.
- 12.
Higher education is best described as a mixed good or a quasi-public good as it is a combination of both private which is in the form of higher stream of incomes and externalities that graduates generate.
- 13.
In The Challenge of Establishing World-Class Universities published by the World Bank.
References
Arimoto, A. (2011). Reaction to academic ranking: Knowledge production, faculty productivity from an international perspective. In J. C. Shin, R. K. Toutkoushian, & U. Teichler (Eds.), University rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Barnett, R. (2014). Thinking about higher education. In P. Gibbs & R. Barnett (Eds.), Thinking about higher education. London: Springer.
Bhushan, S. (2016a). Institutional autonomy and leadership in higher education. In N. V. Varghese & G. Malik (Eds.), India higher education report. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group: Oxon.
Bhushan, S. (2016b, April 23). Public university in a democracy. Economic and Political Weekly, LI(17), 35–40.
Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the market place: The commercialisation of higher education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bornmann, L. (2011). Peer review and bibliometric: Potentials and problems. In J. C. Shin, R. K. Toutkoushian, & U. Teichler (Eds.), University rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Chandra, P. (2017). Building Universities that matter: Where are Indian Institutions going wrong? Hyderabad: Orient BlackSwan.
Chattopadhyay, S. (2012). Education and economics: Disciplinary evolution and policy discourse. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Gingras, Y. (2016). Bibliometrics and research evaluation: Uses and abuses. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Glennerster, H. (1991). Quasi-markets for Education? Economic Journal, 101(408, September), 1268–1276.
Locke, W. (2011). The institutionalization of rankings: Managing status anxiety in an increasingly Marketized environment. In J. C. Shin, R. K. Toutkoushian, & U. Teichler (Eds.), University rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global Higher education (pp. 201–228). Dordrecht: Springer.
Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher. Education Higher Education, 52(1), 1.
Marginson, S. (2011). The New World order in Higher education. Research rankings, outcomes measures and institutional classifications. In M. Rostan & M. Vaira (Eds.), Questioning excellence in Higher education: Policies, experiences and challenges in national and comparative perspective (pp. 3–20). The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Marginson, S. (2014). University rankings and social science. European Journal of Education, 49(1), 45–59.
Marginson, S. (2016). Dynamics of national and global competition in HIgher education. Higher Education, 52(1), 1–39.
Marginson, S. (2016a). The dream is over: The crisis of Clark Kerr’s California idea of higher education. California: University of California Press.
Marginson, S. (2016b). The higher education and the common good. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Morphew, C. C., & Swanson, C. (2011). On the efficacy of raising your University’s rankings. In J. C. Shin, R. K. Toutkoushian, & U. Teichler (Eds.), University rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global Higher education (pp. 185–199). Dordrecht: Springer.
Nandi, E., & Chattopadhyay, S. (2012). Quality, accreditation and global university ranking: Issues before Indian higher education. In IDFC infrastructure report, 2012: Private sector in education. New Delhi: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
Nixon, J. (2011). Higher education and the public good: Imagining the university. London: Continuum.
Rider, S., Hasselberg, Y., & Waluszewsski, A. (2013). Introduction. In S. Rider, Y. Hasselberg, & A. Waluszewsski (Eds.), Transformations in research, higher education and the Academic market. Dordrecht: Springer.
Salmi, J. (2008). The challenge of establishing world-class universities. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Shin, J. C. (2011). Organizational effectiveness and university rankings. In J. C. Shin, R. K. Toutkoushian, & U. Teichler (Eds.), University rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Shin, J. C., & Toutkoushian, R. K. (2011). The past, present, and future of university rankings. In J. C. Shin, R. K. Toutkoushian, & U. Teichler (Eds.), University rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Shin, J. C., Toutkoushian, R. K., & Teichler, U. (Eds.). (2011). University rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Stiglitz, J. E. (1975). The theory of screening, education, and the distribution of income. The American Economic Review, 65(3), 283–300.
Täljedal, I.-B. (2013). Publish and perish: A note on a collapsing academic authorship. In S. Rider, Y. Hasselberg, & A. Waluszewsski (Eds.), Transformations in research higher education and the academic market. Dordrecht: Springer.
Teichler, U. (2011a). Social contexts and systemic consequences of university rankings: A meta-analysis of the ranking literature. In J. C. Shin, R. K. Toutkoushian, & U. Teichler (Eds.), University rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Teichler, U. (2011b). The future of university rankings. In J. C. Shin, R. K. Toutkoushian, & U. Teichler (Eds.), University rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education. Dordrecht: Springer.
van der Wende, M. (2008). Rankings and classifications in Higher education: A European perspective. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XXIII, pp. 49–71). Springer.
Washburn, J. (2005). University Inc. The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education. New York: Basic Books.
Webber, K. L. (2011). Measuring faculty productivity. In J. C. Shin, R. K. Toutkoushian, & U. Teichler (Eds.), University rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Winston, G. C. (1999). Subsidies, hierarchy and peers: The awkward economics of higher education. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(1, Winter), 13–36.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chattopadhyay, S. (2019). World Ranking of Universities: What Does It Entail for the Future. In: Bhushan, S. (eds) The Future of Higher Education in India. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9061-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9061-7_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-32-9060-0
Online ISBN: 978-981-32-9061-7
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)