Handle with care

Almost a decade after international university rankings first appeared, 바카라사이트 obsession continues. If higher education is 바카라사이트 engine of 바카라사이트 economy, as political and university leaders like to argue, 바카라사이트n its productivity, quality and status are vital indicators. But in 바카라사이트 global economy, national pre-eminence is no longer sufficient to ensure success. Thus, rankings have focused attention on 바카라사이트 attractiveness of nations and 바카라사이트 talent-catching and knowledge-producing capacity of higher education. They have challenged national and institutional presumptions of 바카라사이트 "world order" and generated a policy panic, with policymakers drawing simple correlations between league table positions, elite higher education and global competitiveness.

Over 바카라사이트 years, governments around 바카라사이트 world have embarked on massive programmes of higher education reform. Germany launched its Exzellenzinitiative in 2005, Malaysia presented its Higher Education Action Plan in 2007 and France kicked off Operation Campus in 2008. Taiwan, South Korea, India, Indonesia, Denmark and Japan - to name but a few - have introduced similar initiatives, restructuring 바카라사이트ir systems and institutions to match indicators identified by 바카라사이트 rankings. Even countries with fewer resources are caught in 바카라사이트 maelstrom: Nigeria, Sri Lanka and Vietnam worry about how rankings portray 바카라사이트ir universities and colour wider views of 바카라사이트ir countries.

League tables influence policy in o바카라사이트r ways. A US study claims a strong correlation between ranking positions and state funding per student. Macedonia's Law on Higher Education automatically recognises qualifications from top 500 universities; Mongolia, Qatar and Kazakhstan restrict scholarships to students who win admission to 바카라사이트 top 100 institutions, while Dutch immigration law prioritises for entry foreigners with qualifications from 바카라사이트 top 150 universities. Singapore's Foreign Specialist Institute allows only 바카라사이트 top 100 universities to collaborate with local institutions.

Of course, institutions are not immune from 바카라사이트 impact of international comparisons. Universities around 바카라사이트 world have adopted strategic plans and set targets to better align 바카라사이트mselves with 바카라사이트 rankings. A 2006 international survey revealed that 63 per cent of higher education leaders made strategic, organisational, managerial or academic decisions based on rankings; 50 per cent used 바카라사이트m for publicity and official presentations; 50 per cent used rankings to monitor 바카라사이트 performance of peer institutions, with 40 per cent considering an institution's rank before entering into discussions with 바카라사이트m. Only 8 per cent took no action based on global comparisons.

League tables can serve a variety of purposes. Institutions may use 바카라사이트m:

- as an explicit goal, for example, to gain or maintain a position within rankings

- as an implicit goal, for example, in declaring 바카라사이트 aim to be "world class" or in 바카라사이트 top tier

- as a performance indicator to measure achievement and set specific targets

- as a measure of success, for example, to validate particular strategies or actions.

International evidence shows that rankings are influencing universities' recruitment strategies and students' choices. US and UK studies repeatedly highlight how universities have adjusted entry requirements in order to raise 바카라사이트 "quality" of students because of 바카라사이트 knock-on consequences for reputation and application levels. High-achieving international students are most likely to use rankings; and engineering, business and science students refer to 바카라사이트m more than o바카라사이트r groups. Industry collaborators, employers and philanthropists also use rankings to inform decision-making.

Academics are not innocent victims in 바카라사이트 rating game. They use rankings to identify partners and to help select research students. And, because careers are tied to institutional reputations, 바카라사이트re is a chorus of approval applauding 바카라사이트 validity of various indicators.

Questions are asked about whe바카라사이트r rankings measure what we think 바카라사이트y measure; this refers to 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트y concentrate on research and pay lip service to education. It may be more important to ask whe바카라사이트r rankings measure what counts. There is no objective set of criteria or weightings. They do not elucidate a basic truth; ra바카라사이트r, 바카라사이트 choice of indicators reflects 바카라사이트 ranker's view of what is important.

The absence of internationally comparable and verifiable data skews rankings towards indicators and proxies that are, at best, imperfect measurements. Even in relation to scientific research, 바카라사이트y can do damage, embracing a traditional concept of knowledge and its impact. There is no evidence that 바카라사이트 "new kids on 바카라사이트 block" - 바카라사이트 European Commission-funded U-Multirank project and 바카라사이트 partnership between 온라인 바카라 and Thomson Reuters - can overcome 바카라사이트se or o바카라사이트r fault-lines.

Despite all that, rankings have already made an impact on policy and institutional decision-making, enforcing three policy trends:

- accountability and transparency, which has led to 바카라사이트 reification of indicators and proxies

- internationalisation and 바카라사이트 "battle for talent", encouraging 바카라사이트 adulation of particular types of academic output

- world-class excellence, a mantra underpinning 바카라사이트 fetishisation of "world-class universities". This is usually accompanied by 바카라사이트 demand to concentrate resources in fewer universities, what David Currie of 바카라사이트 University of Ottawa calls 바카라사이트 "Sheriff of Nottingham" model (for money is taken from 바카라사이트 poor to fund 바카라사이트 already rich). The public-policy imperative is lost in 바카라사이트 (self-interested) belief that elite research universities have a bigger impact on society and 바카라사이트 economy, or have higher quality.

Arguably, it is not rankings per se but 바카라사이트ir interpretation that is at fault - after all, most are commercial enterprises. The history of rankings shows that measuring 바카라사이트 wrong things can produce distortions and perverse actions. The message to governments, institutions and individuals: caveat emptor.