ACADEMIC RANKING OF WORLD UNIVERSITIES INTRODUCTION The university

ACADEMIC RANKING OF WORLD UNIVERSITIES

INTRODUCTION • The “university ranking” is an American invention. • The West ranks hospitals, schools and universities. Hotels are ranked and classified according to stars. • Ranking is normally conducted through survey processes. • The university ranking is part of human nature to set hierarchies. • It is also the nature of contemporary world functions due to the globalization impact. • Higher education is complex, costly and important, and it always attracts many attentions of politicians, employers, potential students as well as their families. They need quantified evidences about “quality and performance”.

CURRENT ACADEMIC RANKING OF WORLD UNIVERSITIES

THINGS TO REMEMBER ABOUT UNIVERSITY RANKING Advantages • Ranking can give advantages to universities for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Universities have Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to measure their performances. Ranking will become self-improvement tools for universities. Ranking can foster healthy competition among higher education institutions. Disadvantages • Whereas the disadvantages of university ranking are as follows: 1. 2. Measurement is not based on category or university’s objectives. Results of ranking can give impacts to staff’s and students’ motivation.

Dilemma of Ranking • In the ranking exercises, the following matters should be taken into consideration: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Ranking must be based on the same categories “homogeneous”. Public Universities need to fulfill national agenda which is not taken into account in the ranking exercise. Most ranking systems are driven by the commercial need to sell more publications. Rankings are something of a self-fulfilling prophecy: reputation is considered a significant factor. There is always data manipulation to place well on rankings. Many data collecting exercises are driven by the information that is available rather than the information that is necessary to accurately gauge the level to which an institution meets particular quality criteria. Ranking should not count factors that are proxy for quality. Ranking must not ignore universities’ missions and goals which are different between one university to another. Ranking cannot assume “one size fits all” which norms of research universities are the gold standard.

Frequent Asked Questions • How to ensure that the data provided conforms to the questionnaire for best advantage? • How to develop your university’s strategy to maintain or improve your ranking? • Why does World Ranking increase student numbers and revenue? • How ranked universities can attract the most talented student and faculty? • How to globalize your institution?

TYPES OF RANKING PROVIDERS § § § § Media Government Agencies Independent Professional Bodies Accrediting Bodies Funding Organizations Individual/Group Initiatives Academic Themselves

WHY THE NEED FOR RANKINGS? • Higher Education is becoming more global. • Knowledge is the key driver of international competitiveness. • Ranking will raise awareness of institutions / universities being ranked. • International Study Trends show that world wide demand for education is on the rise. • Public funding is being slashed, so one source of funding is from international students. In some countries international students’ contribution to the economy is higher than the other sectors.

CRITERIA OF UNIVERSITY RANKING

CRITERIA OF TOP UNIVERSITIES CRITERIA STANDARD INDICATORS BEING USED Research • Amount of research grants received • No. of research products / recognitions conferred by national and international bodies • No. of papers refereed and cited in refereed journals • No. of articles, books and publications per staff • No. of patents attained • No. of products commercialized • No. of postdoctoral Teaching • Ratio of academic staff to students • No. of programmes accredited by professional bodies Infrastrucure • % of equipment fully operational and calibrated or physical facilities that meet safety and quality standards • No. of book titles in the Library Human Resource • No. of academic staff with Ph. D or equivalent • % of results from “Peer Review”

CRITERIA STANDARD INDICATORS BEING USED Consultancy • Income generated from consultancy activities Internationalization • No. of international academic staff • No. of international students Students • CGPA of students admitted into the University • % of graduates employed after graduation • % of results from Employer Survey • No. of University Alumni awarded “Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals” • No. of Ph. D students Service Delivery • Compliance to International Quality Standard i. e. ISO 9000 QMS • % of Customer Satisfaction Index

CRITERIA OF WORLD UNIVERSITIES Ranking Bodies Criteria Indicator Weight Peer Review : Composite score drawn from peer review (which is divided into 5 subject areas) 40% Citations per Faculty : Score based on research performance factored against the size of the research body 20% Graduate Employability Recruiter Review : Score based on responses to recruiter survey 10% International Outlook International Faculty : Score based on international faculty 5% International Students : Score based on proportion of international students 5% Student Faculty : Score based on student/faculty ratio 20% Research Times Higher Education Survey Quality Teaching Quality

Ranking Bodies Criteria Shanghai Jiao Tong World University Ranking Indicator Weight Quality of Education Alumni of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals 10% Quality of Faculty Staff of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals 20% Highly cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories 20% Research Output Articles published in Nature and Science 20% Articles in Science Citation Indexexpanded, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index 20% Size of Institution Academic performance with respect to the size of an institution 10%

Ranking Bodies Criteria Research University Quantity and Quality of Researchers Quantity and Quality of Research Indicator Weight Critical Mass 60% of academic staff involved as Principal Investigator Percentage of Academic Staff with Ph. D or Equivalent 60% Research Experience With balanced distribution of staff with >20 yrs experience, 10 -20 yrs and <10 yrs experience Number of recognitions/awards/ stewardsip conferred by national and international learned and professional bodies 100 Publications 2 papers in national/international refereed and cited journals per staff/yr or cumulative impact factor for the institution of not less than 5000 Research grants for S&T academic staff: a) Public b) Private (including contract research) c) International At RM 50, 000/staff/yr of which at least 20% is from international sources and 20% from private sector Research Expenditure Should not be less than 60% of grants attained/yr

Ranking Bodies Criteria Quantity of Postgraduate Indicator Weight Ratio of Ph. Ds graduated to academic staff 1: 18 academic staff of which 60% will be from S&T Ratio of PG to academic staff 3 PG : 1 staff Ratio of PG to UG 1 PG : 4 UG % of International Postgraduate Students 10% Quality of Postgraduate Students % of PG Intake 50% of PG Intake with CGPA > 3. 00 % of PG fellowships/grants from prestigious bodies awarded to PG via research mode Not less than 10% Innovation Number of patents attained/number of products commercialized/number of technology know-how licensing/number of IPR/copyrights 30/yr Professional Services and Gifts Income generated from training courses/services/consultancy/PG students fees/endowment/gifts Not less than RM 20 million/yr Networking and Linkages Inter-institution (national) participation 70% Inter-institution (international) participation 30% Equipment fully operational and calibrated or physical facilities met safety & quality standards, supporting facilities 75% compliance attained Support Facilities

Ranking Bodies Criteria World Class Research University Quantity and Quality of Researchers Quantity and Quality of Research Indicator Weight Critical Mass 85% of academic staff involved as Principal Investigator Percentage of Academic Staff with Ph. D or Equivalent 95% Research Experience With 60% distribution of staff with >20 yrs experience, 20% with 10 -20 yrs and 20% with <10 yrs experience Number of recognitions/awards/ stewardsip conferred by national and international learned and professional bodies 500 Publications 5 papers in national/international refereed and cited journals per staff/yr or cumulative impact factor for the institution of not less than 5000 Research grants for S&T academic staff: a) Public b) Private (including contract research) c) International At RM 1, 000/staff/yr of which at least 40% is from international sources and 40% from private sector Research Expenditure Should not be less than 70% of grants attained/yr

Ranking Bodies Criteria Quantity of Postgraduate Indicator Weight Ratio of Ph. Ds graduated to academic staff 1: 3 academic staff of which 80% will be from S&T Ratio of PG to academic staff 5 PG : 1 staff Ratio of PG to UG 4 PG : 6 UG % of International Postgraduate Students 15% Quality of Postgraduate Students % of PG Intake 50% of PG Intake with CGPA > 3. 25 % of PG fellowships/grants from prestigious bodies awarded to PG via research mode Not less than 20% Innovation Number of patents attained/number of products commercialized/number of technology know-how licensing/number of IPR/copyrights 100/yr Professional Services and Gifts Income generated from training courses/services/consultancy/PG students fees/endowment/gifts Not less than RM 600 million/yr Networking and Linkages Inter-institution (national) participation 50% Inter-institution (international) participation 50% Equipment fully operational and calibrated or physical facilities met safety & quality standards, supporting facilities 95% compliance attained Support Facilities

Ranking Bodies Criteria • Teaching Quality Rating Australian University Ranking • Research Rating • Entry Standards • Students per member of academic staff • Library/Computing Spending • Student Facilities Spending • Degree Classifications • Graduate Destinations • Completion Rate Newsweek International Criteria from Shanghai Jiao Tong : 50% • Staff of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals • Articles published in Nature and Science • Articles in Science Citation Index-expanded, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index Criteria from Times Higher World University Ranking : 40% • % of international academic staff • % of international students • Ratio of academic staff to students • Score based on research performance factored against the size of the research body Criteria of Library : 10% • No. of volumes in the university library

Ranking Bodies OIC Ranking Criteria Research (50) Indicator Weight Research Quality 15 Research Performance 15 Research Volume 8 Rate of growth for research quality 5 Rate of growth for research performance 5 Patents 2

Ranking Bodies Criteria Education (35) Indicator Weight Faculty members with awards 6 Faculty highly cited researchers 8 Ratio of faculty members with Ph. D to total number of faculty 4 Alumni that did win awards 3 Alumni that become highly cited researchers 3 Ratio faculty to students 3 Ratio of postgraduate students to total number of students 2 Rate of growth of postgraduate students 3 Students winning international Olympiads 3

Ranking Bodies Criteria International Outlook (7) Indicator Weight Ratio of international faculty to total faculty 2 Ratio of international students to total students 1 Ratio of faculty members with foreign Ph. D degrees to total number of faculty members with Ph. D degrees 1½ International Conferences 1½ International Exchange Programmes 1

Ranking Bodies Criteria Facilities (3) Socio. Economic Impact (5) Indicator Weight Number of book titles per student 1 Number of journals/periodicals accessible (hard or soft copies) 1 Number of university’s research Institutes/Centres 1 Contracts and consultancies incomes 2½ Life learning courses 1 Entrepreneurship programmes and industrial linkages 1 Number of incubated projects and spinoff companies 1/2

IMPROVEMENTS TO CURRENT CRITERIA § Purposes and goals of the rankings § Should recognize the diversity of institutions and take into account their different missions and goals (ranking tends to ignore these issues). § Design and weighting of indicators § Be transparent regarding the methodology used for creating the rankings. § Appropriate ways of measuring outcomes, such as retention and graduation rates, scores on examinations, etc. § Collection and processing of data § Use audited and verifiable data whenever possible. § Presentation of ranking results § Provide consumers with clear understanding of all factors used to develop ranking, and offer them a choice in how rankings are displayed such as by allowing them to determine how factors are weighed on interactive web sites. Sources “Berlin Principles on Ranking of Higher Education Institutions” -

PROCEDURES AND MECHANISMS FOR UNIVERSITY SELECTION § Assign universities with the same groups of their peers. § Academic reputation & research outputs. § Faculty and student diversity and background. § Webpage becomes impact factor, i. e. volumes of published materials on the web.

“If we don’t produce our own ranking, don’t be surprised that others are going to do it for us”