World University rankings

The use of national and international rankings of universities is increasing rapidly. Dill and Soo (2005), who take a generally positive view of university league tables, review the performance of some leading examples of the genre. They conclude that “Our review of the five leading commercial university league tables from Australia, Canada, the UK, and the US suggests that the definitions of academic quality used in these tables are converging…It would be valuable to extend the analysis to league tables developed in Europe, Asia, and Latin America to see the extent to which a common construct of academic quality is becoming truly international” (Dill & Soo, 2005, pp. 525–526).

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

[2]  D. Eastwood,et al.  Counting What Is Measured or Measuring What Counts? League Tables and Their Impact On Higher Education Institutions in England , 2008 .

[3]  Harvey Goldstein,et al.  Data envelopment analysis: An exposition and critique , 1990 .

[4]  Ulrich Teichler,et al.  Changing Structures of the Higher Education Systems: The Increasing Complexity of Underlying Forces , 2006 .

[5]  Van Vught,et al.  U-Map: The European Classification of Higher Education Institutions , 2010 .

[6]  Wynetta Y. Lee.  Increasing Access to College: Extending Possibilities for All Students (review) , 2003 .

[7]  R. Proulx.  Higher Education Ranking and Leagues Tables: Lessons Learned from Benchmarking , 2007 .

[8]  Vannevar Bush,et al.  Science, the endless frontier : A report to the President , 2011 .

[9]  Greg Ridgeway,et al.  Latent Variable Analysis: A New Approach to University Ranking , 2005 .

[10]  J. Salmi.  The challenge of establishing world-class universities , 2009 .

[11]  Terry Cutler,et al.  Venturous Australia: building strength in innovation , 2008 .

[12]  G. Bramley.  Quasi-markets and social policy , 1993 .

[13]  Keith Pavitt,et al.  Public Policies to Support Basic Research: What Can the Rest of the World Learn from US Theory and Practice? (And What They Should Not Learn) , 2001 .

[14]  A. Kaufmann,et al.  Differences in publication and dissemination practices between disciplinary and transdisciplinary science and the consequences for research evaluation , 2009 .

[15]  Nian Cai Liu,et al.  The world-class university and ranking : aiming beyond status , 2007 .

[16]  J. Salmi,et al.  League tables as policy instruments: the political economy of accountability in tertiary education , 2007 .

[17]  J. Garrido.  Universities and the Future of America , 1992 .

[18]  A. Scott.  Peer review and the relevance of science , 2007 .

[19]  S. Marginson.  Dynamics of National and Global Competition in Higher Education , 2006 .

[20]  Jane Calvert,et al.  CHANGING CONCEPTIONS OF BASIC RESEARCH , 2001 .

[21]  Simon Marginson,et al.  Global university rankings , 2007 .

[22]  Ronald G. Ehrenberg,et al.  Econometric Studies of Higher Education. , 2004 .

[23]  Alexander C. McCormick.  The Complex Interplay between Classification and Ranking of Colleges and Universities: Should the Berlin Principles Apply Equally to Classification?. , 2008 .

[24]  A. Salter,et al.  The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review , 2001 .

[25]  H. Goldstein.  Dea: A response , 1992 .

[26]  B. Martin,et al.  The benefits from publicly funded research , 2007 .

[27]  Martin Fieder,et al.  Too much noise in the Times Higher Education rankings , 2010, Scientometrics.

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

[29]  Jean-Charles Billaut,et al.  Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking? , 2010, Scientometrics.

[30]  E. Hazelkorn.  Rankings and the Global “Battle for Talent" , 2009 .

[31]  M. Gibbons.  Globalization, Innovation and Socially Robust Knowledge , 2004 .

[32]  E. Hazelkorn.  The Impact of League Tables and Ranking Systems on Higher Education Decision Making , 2007 .

[33]  D. Bradley,et al.  Review of Australian Higher Education: final report , 2008 .

[34]  A. Elzinga.  The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1997 .

[35]  I V Trotsuk,et al.  Ranking of Higher Education Institutions: Ideology and Methodology of Development (Russian Practice) , 2009 .

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

[37]  Cláudia S. Sarrico,et al.  Data envelopment analysis and university selection , 1997 .

[38]  D. Turner.  Benchmarking Universities: The Canadian Case , 2004 .

[39]  David Turner,et al.  Benchmarking in universities: league tables revisited , 2005 .

[40]  Marek Rocki,et al.  Statistical and Mathematical Aspects of Ranking: Lessons from Poland , 2005 .

[41]  David P. Baker,et al.  The Research University in Transition: The Emerging Global Model , 2008 .

[42]  M. Ishikawa.  University Rankings, Global Models, and Emerging Hegemony , 2009 .

[43]  David F. Channell.  Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation , 1999 .

[44]  S Tartaro,et al.  [The definition of research]. , 1993, Minerva stomatologica.

[45]  Nian Cai Liu,et al.  The Academic Ranking of World Universities. , 2005 .