Correlation among top 100 universities in the major six global rankings: policy implications

Abstract The discrepancies among various global university rankings derive us to compare and correlate their results. Thus, the 2015 results of six major global rankings are collected, compared and analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively using both ranking orders and scores of the top 100 universities. The selected six global rankings include: Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), Quacquarelli Symonds World University Ranking (QS), Times Higher Education World University Ranking (THE), US News & World Report Best Global University Rankings (USNWR), National Taiwan University Ranking (NTU), and University Ranking by Academic Performance (URAP). Two indexes are used for comparison namely, the number of overlapping universities and Pearson’s/Spearman’s correlation coefficients between each pair of the studied six global rankings. The study is extended to investigate the intra-correlation of ARWU results of the top 100 universities over a 5-year period (2011–2015) as well as investigation of the correlation of ARWU overall score with its single indicators. The ranking results limited to 49 universities appeared in the top 100 in all six rankings are compared and discussed. With a careful analysis of the key performance indicators of these 49 universities one can easily define the common features for a world-class university. The findings indicate that although each ranking system applies a different methodology, there are from a moderate to high correlations among the studied six rankings. To see how the correlation behaves at different levels, the correlations are also conducted for the top 50 and the top 200 universities. The comparison indicates that the degree of correlation and the overlapping universities increase with an increase in the list length. The results of URAP and NTU show the strongest correlation among the studied rankings. Shortly, careful understanding of various ranking methodologies are of utmost importance before analysis, interpretation and usage of ranking results. The findings of the present study could inform policy makers at various levels to develop policies aiming to improve performance and thereby enhance the ranking position.

[1]  S. Marginson,et al.  Globalisation and Higher Education. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 8. , 2007 .

[3]  J. Salmi,et al.  League Tables as Policy Instruments: Uses and Misuses , 2007 .

[4]  Simon Marginson,et al.  Global University Rankings: Implications in general and for Australia , 2007 .

[5]  Lee Harvey,et al.  Rankings of Higher Education Institutions: A Critical Review , 2008 .

[6]  Ellen Hazelkorn,et al.  Rankings and the battle for world-class excellence , 2009 .

[7]  K. Soh,et al.  Don’t read university rankings like reading football league tables: Taking a close look at the indicators , 2011 .

[8]  Ellen Hazelkorn,et al.  Learning to Live with League Tables and Ranking: The Experience of Institutional Leaders , 2008 .

[9]  P. Altbach The Globalization of College and University Rankings , 2012 .

[10]  Alisa F. Cunningham,et al.  Impact of College Rankings on Institutional Decision Making : Four Country Case Studies , 2009 .

[11]  魏屹东,et al.  Scientometrics , 2018, Encyclopedia of Big Data.

[12]  Kuang-hua Chen,et al.  A comparative study on world university rankings: a bibliometric survey , 2012, Scientometrics.

[13]  Chris Tofallis,et al.  A different approach to university rankings , 2011 .

[14]  Cengiz Acartürk,et al.  A comparative analysis of global and national university ranking systems , 2015, Scientometrics.

[15]  John Daniel,et al.  Rankings and Accountability in Higher Education : Uses and Misuses , 2013 .

[16]  Diana Hicks,et al.  International collaboration , 2021, Nature.

[17]  D. Dill,et al.  Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems , 2005 .

[18]  R. Braddock,et al.  International University Ranking Systems and the Idea of University Excellence , 2007 .

[19]  J. Ritzen A Chance for European Universities: Or: Avoiding the Looming University Crisis in Europe , 2011 .

[20]  M. Sunder,et al.  The German excellence initiative and efficiency change among universities, 2001-2011 , 2016 .

[21]  Francis Ltd,et al.  Rankings of Higher Education Institutions: A Critical Review , 2008 .

[22]  Ellen Hazelkorn,et al.  Reflections on a Decade of Global Rankings: What We've Learned and Outstanding Issues , 2014 .

[23]  ÇakırMurat Perit,et al.  A comparative analysis of global and national university ranking systems , 2015 .

[24]  S. Marginson,et al.  Globalisation and Higher Education , 2007 .

[25]  Mahmood Khosrowjerdi,et al.  Asian top universities in six world university ranking systems , 2013, Webology.

[26]  P. Cashell,et al.  Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: The Battle for World-Class Excellence , 2011 .

[27]  Nicholas A. Bowman,et al.  College Rankings as an Interorganizational Dependency: Establishing the Foundation for Strategic and Institutional Accounts , 2011 .

[28]  Rachel Bowden,et al.  Fantasy Higher Education: University and college league tables , 2000 .

[29]  K. Mahmood,et al.  Research Collaboration in Saudi Arabia 1980–2014: Bibliometric Patterns and National Policy to Foster Research Quantity and Quality , 2016 .

[30]  A. Usher,et al.  A Global Survey of University Ranking and League Tables , 2007 .

[31]  Ellen Hazelkorn,et al.  Rankings and the Battle for World-Class Excellence: Institutional Strategies and Policy Choices , 2009 .

[32]  José Luis Ortega,et al.  Comparing university rankings , 2010, Scientometrics.