The Chronicle welcomes correspondence from readers about our articles and about topics we have covered. Please make your points as concisely as possible. We will not publish letters longer than 350 words, and all letters will be edited to conform to our style.
Send letters to letters@chronicle.com. Please include a daytime phone number and tell us what institution you are affiliated with or what city or town you are writing from.
To the Editor:
We read with interest Mr Leiter’s recent essay on our operating practices when compiling rankings, as well as those of our competitors (“
Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.
A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.
To the Editor:
We read with interest Mr Leiter’s recent essay on our operating practices when compiling rankings, as well as those of our competitors (“Academic Ethics: To Rank or Not to Rank?,” The Chronicle, July 12). We were extremely concerned by some of the comments made by Mr Leiter and would like to bring to your attention aspects of his writing which are inaccurate and defamatory. For example, Mr. Leiter asserts that “QS does not [...] disclose the geographic distribution of its survey respondents.” This is incorrect. A full geographic breakdown of our survey responses — by country, as opposed to Times Higher Education, who only provide a regional breakdown — can be found with ease here, as can a breakdown of survey respondents by job title.
Mr. Leiter’s allegations are either outdated (no evidence from after 2013 is offered) or unsubstantiated.
We recognize the importance of providing the most extensive survey of academic opinion possible, and one frankly obvious way of doing so is requesting that the academic community help to increase that survey’s reach. We go to great lengths to ensure that, when universities conduct this type of outreach, good faith and best practice are maintained at all times. These measures include providing clear guidelines about legitimate and illegitimate behavior and penalizing/excluding any institution that attempts to game the survey.
Mr. Leiter also neglects to mention THE are a commercially driven organization. We do not argue — as Mr. Leiter does numerous times — that this inevitably makes any ranking organization less reliable, or their practices less valid. In addition, to assert that we “offer paid consulting services to improve a university’s ranking” is completely untrue. Unlike other rankings compilers, our organization is entirely focused on higher education, making the integrity of our rankings of vital importance. Indeed, rankings analysts are aware that accepting any artificial influence, commercial or otherwise, would result in termination of employment.
We totally agree with Mr. Leiter in recognizing that academics have a negligible knowledge of teaching quality at other universities. QS do not and have never attempted to use their opinions on teaching in any of its rankings. Yet Mr Leiter appears to conflate us with THE, who do ask academics to evaluate the quality of teaching at institutions in which they may have never set foot.
There are no legitimate grounds whatsoever for encouraging academics to boycott our surveys. The main justification provided by Mr. Leiter — suspect business practices — has no evidence offered to support it. We trust that the academic community will continue to collaborate with us in providing millions of students with robust, high-quality data about the world’s universities.
QS truly welcome legitimate critique of our approach, as is evident from changes to our practices including the introduction of faculty area normalization (designed to deal with the justified criticism that our rankings, prior to 2015, favored fields with high citation counts). We are also proud of our commitment to high ethical standards, sharing Mr. Leiter’s concerns. We perceive ensuring our rankings are robust and independent to be of the utmost importance, and have worked tirelessly to maintain that independence.
We will happily engage with Mr. Leiter (and any member of the academic community) if they wish to critique our methodology constructively. We also seek high-quality discussion about improving ranking services, something which inaccurate articles such as this fail to provide.
Simona Bizzozero
Director of Communications
QS Quacquarelli Symonds
London
