Global University Rankings Face Growing Institutional Criticism

Sorbonne University, a leading French institution, withdrew from the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings. This move brought into light ongoing concerns about the transparency and fairness of global higher education rankings. Several top universities worldwide, including prominent Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), have expressed dissatisfaction with ranking methodologies. These rankings influence student choices, employer perceptions, and policy decisions but face criticism for their data opacity and bias towards certain disciplines.

Overview of Major Global University Rankings

Three main global university rankings dominate the field – QS World University Rankings, Times Higher Education (THE) Rankings, and the Shanghai Ranking (Academic Ranking of World Universities). QS and THE are London-based and produce annual global, regional, and subject rankings. Shanghai Ranking is managed by a Shanghai consultancy and focuses heavily on research metrics. QS uses ten indicators including academic reputation and citations. THE applies 17 indicators, emphasising research environment and reputation. Shanghai Ranking relies on six metrics, denoting Nobel laureates and highly cited researchers.

Ranking Methodologies and Data Sources

QS collects data via surveys from academics and employers and allows institutions to submit contacts for these surveys. THE depends on institutional data submissions and independent surveys, while Shanghai Ranking uses publicly available data on research output and awards. Both THE and QS use citation databases like Scopus and Web of Science, which are subscription-based and have raised concerns about accessibility and openness. THE requires institutions to publish at least 1,000 papers indexed in Scopus to qualify.

Institutional Concerns and Criticisms

Sorbonne University criticised rankings for favouring English-language journals and disciplines like science and technology, disadvantaging humanities and social sciences. It labelled rankings as black boxes with opaque data and methodologies that cannot be independently verified. The university also objected to the heavy reliance on reputational surveys lacking scientific rigour. Several Indian IITs boycotted THE rankings citing lack of transparency, particularly regarding perception scores and citation practices such as institutional self-citations and large multi-author papers.

Impact on Indian Higher Education

In India, only a few IITs participate in THE rankings, with IISc often topping national listings. The government aims to improve India’s global ranking presence, targeting 25 Indian institutions in the QS top 100 by leveraging the National Education Policy. However, institutional withdrawals and scepticism about ranking fairness remain barriers. Indian experts also critique the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) for similar transparency issues.

Responses from Ranking Organisations

THE rankings defend their methodology as balanced and comprehensive, citing millions of data points and survey votes annually. They encourage voluntary data submission to ensure accuracy and global visibility. THE officials express regret over institutional non-participation, emphasising that engagement is crucial for international recognition and collaboration. Despite criticism, ranking bodies continue refining their methods but face persistent challenges in addressing institutional demands for transparency and inclusivity.

Alternatives and Future Directions

Some universities like Utrecht University have withdrawn citing the competitive nature of rankings and methodological doubts. Sorbonne promotes free, open research infrastructures such as OpenAlex over subscription-based databases. The debate continues over how to fairly assess diverse academic activities globally without bias towards certain disciplines or regions. The future may see more collaborative, open, and multidimensional evaluation systems replacing traditional rankings.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Critically discuss the impact of global university rankings on higher education policies and institutional behaviour in developing countries.
2. Examine the role of data transparency and methodological rigor in global education rankings. How can these improve the credibility of such rankings?
3. With examples from India and France, analyse the challenges faced by universities in balancing research output with teaching quality in global rankings.
4. Discuss in the light of globalisation how international rankings influence student mobility and knowledge exchange between countries.

Answer Hints:

1. Critically discuss the impact of global university rankings on higher education policies and institutional behaviour in developing countries.

1. Rankings influence government policies aiming to improve global standings, e.g., India’s target for 25 institutions in QS top 100.
2. Institutions often focus on metrics favored by rankings, such as increasing research publications and citations, sometimes at the cost of teaching quality.
3. Pressure to perform in rankings can lead to strategic behaviors like institutional self-citations and prioritizing English-language publications.
4. Rankings shape perceptions among students and employers, affecting student choices and employability of graduates.
5. Developing countries face challenges due to limited resources and infrastructure, making it difficult to compete globally.
6. Boycotts by institutions (e.g., Indian IITs, Sorbonne) show dissatisfaction and call for more context-specific evaluation.

2. Examine the role of data transparency and methodological rigor in global education rankings. How can these improve the credibility of such rankings?

1. Opaque data sources and undisclosed methodologies lead to mistrust and accusations of black box operations.
2. Transparency allows institutions to verify, question, and improve data submissions and understand ranking outcomes.
3. Use of subscription-based databases (Scopus, Web of Science) restricts access and raises equity concerns.
4. Methodological rigor requires balanced indicators covering diverse disciplines, avoiding bias towards English-language and STEM fields.
5. Open, participative infrastructures (e.g., OpenAlex) can democratize data access and improve inclusivity.
6. Transparent reputational surveys with clear geographic and disciplinary representation mitigate biases and enhance fairness.

3. With examples from India and France, analyse the challenges faced by universities in balancing research output with teaching quality in global rankings.

1. Global rankings prioritize research metrics heavily (e.g., citations, publications), often overshadowing teaching quality.
2. Indian IITs and IISc focus on research output but face criticism on transparency and reputation-based scoring.
3. Sorbonne University marks disadvantage to humanities and social sciences due to English-language journal focus.
4. Teaching reputation is assessed via surveys, which are subjective and less quantifiable than research data.
5. Institutions struggle to maintain excellence in both research and teaching under pressure to perform in rankings.
6. Balancing diverse academic missions requires multidimensional evaluation beyond simplistic ranking scores.

4. Discuss in the light of globalisation how international rankings influence student mobility and knowledge exchange between countries.

1. High-ranking universities attract international students, enhancing cross-border education and cultural exchange.
2. Rankings shape global perceptions, influencing student and faculty decisions on study and collaboration destinations.
3. International visibility through rankings can boost research partnerships and funding opportunities.
4. Ranking-driven competition may lead to homogenization of curricula and research priorities globally.
5. Some institutions withdraw from rankings to focus on collaboration over competition, emphasizing open science.
6. Global rankings can both enable and constrain equitable knowledge exchange depending on inclusivity and transparency.