Context:
In the last two decades, global university ranking systems have become the focal point of attention in higher education ecosystems globally. Countries such as China, Japan, and Russia are investing significant resources to enhance the standing of their universities, aiming for “world-class” status as defined by these rankings. However, a recent trend has seen some universities worldwide withdrawing from participation in rankings due to concerns about the incentives created by these systems and their alignment with the universities’ own goals.
Relevance:
GS2- Education
Mains Question:
What are the concerns associated with national and global university ranking systems? How has India performed in these rankings and how apt is it to rely on them for future policy making in the field of education? (15 Marks, 250 Words).
Recent Rankings in News:
National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) Ranking 2023:
- The recent unveiling of the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) Ranking 2023 highlighted the accomplishments and excellence of diverse educational institutions in India.
- For the fifth consecutive year, the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Madras, claimed the top position in the overall rankings. Simultaneously, the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bengaluru, was recognized as the best university in the rankings.
Parameters considered in NIRF Ranking:
The Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings 2024:
- The Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings 2024, in its 20th edition, have been published, with 91 Indian institutions earning a spot. This year’s rankings encompass 1,904 universities representing 108 countries and regions.
- The 2024 Rankings thoroughly evaluate globally recognized research-intensive universities, considering 18 key indicators distributed across five categories: teaching (29.5%), research environment (29%), research quality (30%), industry engagement (4%), and international outlook (7.5%).
Are ranking systems flawless?
Two critical aspects related to the conduct of the agencies overseeing certain ranking systems—conflicts of interest and data rights—need to be noticed.
Relying Solely on Specific Parameters:
- Critics highlight that the pursuit of higher rankings by universities parallels the flawed approach of relying solely on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the measure of a country’s prosperity.
- Drawing a comparison, the economists Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen, and Jean-Paul Fitoussi argued in their 2010 book “Mis-Measuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn’t Add Up” that using a single indicator to gauge a country’s economic and social progress would inevitably neglect aspects like the environmental impact of its growth and measures of inequality, among other crucial issues.
- Experts have observed that the top-ranked universities across various ranking systems share common characteristics, being old, large, affluent, research-intensive, science-oriented, English-speaking, and located in the Global North.
- The NIRF rankings concentrate on a restricted set of parameters that fail to offer a holistic view of an educational institution.
- Disproportionate weightage given to metrics like faculty-student ratio and infrastructure facilities overshadows critical aspects such as teaching quality, industry collaborations, and alumni success.
Role of Citations and Reputation:
- Studies indicate that higher scores in research excellence within rankings are significantly influenced by two key factors: citations and reputation. For instance, Bielefeld University experienced a notable ascent from 250th to 166th in the 2020 Times Higher Education (THE) rankings.
- This surge is credited to the work of a single scholar who authored 10 papers, collaborated with hundreds of other researchers, mostly in The Lancet, contributing to 20% of the university’s total citations over a two-year period. It’s worth noting that these citations are not incidental but rather over-represented.
- Subjective measures of research excellence, such as citations, can significantly impact an entire university’s position in rankings. A case in point is the 2023 Science report highlighting the instance of Saveetha Dental College in Chennai rapidly climbing the ranking charts, allegedly through the manipulation of citations.
The Choice of Parameters:
- The methodology employed by the rankings like NIRF heavily rely on subjective criteria, such as perception-based surveys, leading to potentially inconsistent and misleading outcomes.
- This reliance on subjective factors makes it challenging to accurately gauge the true quality of an institution.
Conflict of Interest:
- In two analyses conducted in 2016, Richard Holmes, an expert in ranking systems and the organizer of the ‘University Ranking Watch’ initiative since 2006, pointed out that regional rankings by THE (Times Higher Education) seemed to favor universities hosting significant THE summits.
- Mr. Holmes suggested that these preferential changes were achieved, among other methods, by adjusting the way the ranking system accounted for citations.
- Similar occurrences abound, spurred by the value attributed to ranking schemes and the substantial benefits reaped by universities that achieve high rankings.
- Many organizations responsible for compiling and publishing rankings operate as private enterprises. Instances have arisen where these entities engage in consultations with universities to assist them in improving their positions within their own ranking systems.
The Issue of Data Security:
- Similar to conflicts of interest, another concern warrants scrutiny: when engaging in ranking assessments, universities and institutions give ranking agencies unrestricted access to their data, posing a threat to their data security.
- In essence, universities are required to provide the agencies with an unrestricted and perpetual authority over their data, encompassing details of institutional, industry, and research incomes, as well as patent information, without the need for future permissions.
- There is no justification for universities, particularly public ones, to consent to such an extensive grant of rights simply to partake in the ranking process.
Recent Developments:
- As these issues became increasingly evident, several prestigious institutions have openly rejected traditional ranking systems. In 2022, Harvard and Yale Universities spearheaded a boycott against the U.S. News & World Report’s rankings, citing a conflict between the career goals they envisioned for their law students post-graduation and the careers incentivized by the ranking system.
- Similarly, in 2023, Utrecht University in the Netherlands withdrew from the THE (Times Higher Education) world rankings for comparable reasons. Additionally, in India, several IITs (Indian Institutes of Technology) have chosen to boycott the same rankings.
Conclusion:
As stated in the UN University’s commentary on ‘Global University Rankings’: “While rankings may have prompted some improvement in the quality of certain universities, there is a growing acknowledgment that they also encourage various detrimental behaviors and lead to systemic, long-term adverse effects.”
