Education

  Star Education Fair

Sunday November 9, 2008

Be realistic about rankings

WITH the strong emphasis on the development of higher education institutions in many countries, the case for additional investment in this sector has never been stronger. Institutions are constantly competing to be the best on the global stage. This is where global univesity rankings come into play.

There are two global rankings of measurement: the research university comparison by the Shanghai Jiao Tong University of Higher Education (SHJT) and the combined index of “best universities” managed by the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES).

The SHJT rankings look primarily at research and are not holistic university rankings. They argue that research data is the only data that is sufficiently reliable for the purpose of ranking. They are broadly available and there are internationally comparable data of measurable research performance.

On the other hand, the larger part of the THES index comprises an international opinion survey of academics while other parts include a survey of “global employers” and two internationalisation indicators.

Prof Dr Simon Marginson, Australian professorial fellow and professor at the Higher Education Centre for the Study of Higher Education, Melbourne University, Australia, was interviewed in 2007 regarding the two methods of university rankings.

He criticised the THES index, saying that it was possible, with the THES index, to be given a low ranking and still maintain lots of credibility.

“Ranking results are volatile and universities get treated harshly when the rankings go up and down although their performance has not changed.

“So now, everyone realises that there are no real links with regards to merit, the university and rankings,” said Prof Marginson.

These two global university rankings are suited for use in developed countries that possess the capacity and ability to invest in, and to compete at such levels.

At the other end of the line, developing countries are still haunted by problems such as poverty, gender disparity and declining health conditions, all of which cripple them from improving the standards of higher education.

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), initiated at the United Nations Millennium Summit held in New York in September 2000, should be the principal focus of developing countries.

As of now, developing countries such as Sub-Saharan Africa do not have the means to invest at levels such as the SHJT or THES.

In the case of Malaysia, it will be a long time before it can even start creating an impact in the SHJT rankings because that will require us to pay highly competitive salaries to bring people back from countries like the United States and the United Kingdom.

For developing countries like Malaysia, the goals should be to achieve greater accessibility to high-quality higher education, social equity and the democratisation of higher education.

In fact, the inclusion of criteria based on sustainability should be a top priority for a ranking system, in the context of developing countries.

Ratings or rankings of universities in developing countries should focus on performance based on each of these criteria.

Developing countries have to be realistic a well as practical in their approach when competing with other universities globally.

In the case of the THES rankings, the targets are constantly changing. Admittedly, this is good if we are concerned solely about the number of international students we want to attract.

However, I feel that our concern is not just about attracting international students. Instead, we need to focus on the questions of equity, access and social justice.

We therefore need a ranking system that reflects such objectives.

MORSHIDI SIRAT and CHRISTOPHER KOH

Institut Penyelidikan Pendidikan Tinggi Negara (IPPTN)

Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang

  • E-mail this story
  • Print this story