Review of University Rankings Offers a Comprehensive Critique of the Process

International university rankings have “galvanized” the world of higher education, but, despite their growing influence, they provide only an “oversimplified picture” of the mission of universities, says a new report released today. What’s more, the report says, any benefits the rankings might provide are outweighed by an overall lack of openness about how they are conducted and the “negative effects” of their impact.

The report, “Global University Rankings and Their Impact,” was commissioned by the Brussels-based European University Association, whose members include 850 universities and rectors organizations in 47 countries, and represents the organization’s first major foray into the sometimes contentious discussion of international rankings.

Lesley Wilson, the university association’s secretary general, explained that the organization decided to conduct an analysis of the different international rankings in response to demand from universities. “We receive an enormous number of questions from our members, asking what the difference is between the rankings, saying they are not sure of the different methodologies,” she said.

The report provides a comprehensive analysis of the various methodologies used by the international rankings, including both the better-known compilations such as those produced annually by China’s Shanghai Jiao Tong University and Times Higher Education, as well as more recent entrants to the field, such as the new U-Multirank project that is being backed by the European Union.

The report says that “global university rankings reflect university research performance far more accurately than teaching” and emphasizes that many of the indicators on which rankings are based are susceptible to manipulation by institutions seeking to boost their performance in the lists. At the same time, rankings are here to stay, and the proliferation of international rankings does offer some benefits, including fostering accountability and encouraging the collection of more-reliable data, the report notes.

Ms. Wilson said that the report is intended to be the first in a series. “We’re quite interested in feedback from our members. Depending on the issues they bring up, we will continue to report on international rankings, and we will try to take up broader questions of the impact of rankings,” she said.