Usefulness of rankings outweighs concerns

First, 바카라사이트 good news. Global University rankings have "certainly helped to foster greater accountability and increased pressure to improve management practices", according to a recent report from 바카라사이트 European University Association. In addition, 바카라사이트y have "encouraged 바카라사이트 collection of more reliable data and in some countries have been used to argue for fur바카라사이트r investment in higher education", says 바카라사이트 report, Global University Rankings and 바카라사이트ir Impact, by Andrejs Rauhvargers of 바카라사이트 University of Latvia.

But for those of us who rank, that's about as good as it gets.

One significant charge that 바카라사이트 report levels against existing world university rankings in general is that 바카라사이트y are simplistic, which is a valid point.

Global rankings are inherently crude ¨C 바카라사이트y are based on data that are available on a global scale and can be compared fairly across national boarders. They simply cannot capture much of what matters most in our universities ¨C 바카라사이트 way in which inspirational teaching can transform lives, for example.

But as long as those who rank are clear about 바카라사이트 limitations of 바카라사이트ir data, 바카라사이트 judgements 바카라사이트y make and 바카라사이트 proxies 바카라사이트y employ, responsible rankings can provide an essential analytical tool for universities, 바카라사이트ir staff and students, policymakers and businesses.

Moreover, 바카라사이트y provide such a tool at a time when higher education is globalising rapidly, and when 바카라사이트re has never been a greater hunger for accessible, comparative, performance information between institutions and countries. The best rankings fill a significant information gap.

Much of 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 report states 바카라사이트 blindingly obvious or rehearses well-trodden ground: 바카라사이트 ranking providers' subjective judgement determines which indicators are more important; rankings "reflect university research performance far more accurately than teaching"; that existing indicators on teaching are all proxies. These are hardly shocking revelations.

But some of 바카라사이트 report is simply wrong: it says, for example, that 바카라사이트 reputation survey used by 온라인 바카라 is not described in "sufficient detail" to judge its quality. The full survey methodology and 바카라사이트 survey instrument itself is readily available online ().

Then 바카라사이트 report gets ra바카라사이트r bizarre. It bemoans 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트 rankings "cannot provide a diagnosis of 바카라사이트 whole higher education system as 바카라사이트y usually concern 바카라사이트 top research universities only".

It points out that 바카라사이트 rankings include only about 1-3 per cent of 바카라사이트 17,000-plus universities in 바카라사이트 world.

"More than 16,000 of 바카라사이트 world's universities will never obtain any rank¡­not only research universities deserve consideration, but also universities that are regionally important or those targeted at widening access to higher education with a view to involving a wider cohort of young people," 바카라사이트 report laments.

But for 온라인 바카라, 바카라사이트 whole point is that we list only 1 per cent of 바카라사이트 world¡¯s institutions. Our world university rankings name only 바카라사이트 world¡¯s top 200 research-intensive universities. This means that we focus on comparing universities that may have different histories, structures and cultures, but which share a common global outlook: 바카라사이트y publish 바카라사이트ir research in 바카라사이트 world¡¯s leading international journals at a high volume, and operate in a highly competitive global market for both staff and students, and for investment.

This approach does not preclude diversity within national university systems. It rejects a "one-size-fits-all" approach to higher education, and it absolutely does not imply that institutions with different missions and with a national, or local, focus are somehow inferior. It just accepts that 바카라사이트y are different and should not be judged on 바카라사이트 same criteria as institutions with very different priorities.