The World University's Academic Ranking ( ARWU ), also known as Shanghai Ranking , is one of the annual publications of world university rankings. The league table was originally compiled and issued by Shanghai Jiao Tong University in 2003, making it the first global university rank with various indicators.
Since 2009, ARWU has been published and copyrighted annually by Shanghai Ranking Consultancy, an independent organization focused on higher education intelligence. In 2011, an international advisory board consisting of experts and policy researchers was established to provide advice. Current publications include a global league table for the institution and the whole and for individual subject preferences, along with the independent regional rankings of Greater China and Macedonia's HEIs Ranking.
ARWU is regarded as one of the three most influential and widely observed university rankings, together with the QS World University Rankings and World University Rankings of Education Times. Often praised for objectivity, stability and transparency of the methodology, but attracts some criticism because it is heavily focused on scientific research and understates the quality of instruction; it also does not adequately adjust for agency size, so larger institutions will tend to rank on smaller ones.
Video Academic Ranking of World Universities
Global rating
Overall
Methodology
Reception
ARWU is praised by several media and institutes for its methodology and influence. A survey on higher education published by The Economist in 2005 commented ARWU as "the most widely used annual ranking of university research universities." In 2010, The Chronicle of Higher Education was called ARWU "the university's most famous and most influential global rank". The EU Research Principals reported ARWU's work on December 31, 2003: "Universities are carefully evaluated using several performance indicators." Oxford University Chancellor Chris Patten and former Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, Ian Chubb, said: "This methodology looks solid enough... it looks like a good prick with a fair comparison." and "SJTU ratings are reported rapidly and widely throughout the world... (and they) offer an important comparative view of research performance and reputation." each. Philip G. Altbach calls ARWU 'consistency, clarity of purpose, and transparency' as a significant force. While ARWU is from China, the ratings have been praised for not being biased against Asian institutions.
Criticism
The ranking was condemned for "relying too much on the factor of appreciation" that undermined the importance of teaching and humanity quality. A 2007 paper published in Scientometrics found that results from the Shanghai rank can not be reproduced from raw data using the methods described by Liu and Cheng. A 2013 paper in the same journal finally shows how Shanghai's ranking results can be reproduced. In a report from April 2009, J-C. Billaut, D. Bouyssou and Ph. Vincke analyzes how ARWU works, using their insights as a Dual Criteria Decision Making Specialist (MCDM). Their main conclusion is that the criteria used are irrelevant; that the aggregation methodology has a number of major problems; and that insufficient attention has been paid to the fundamental choices of criteria. ARWU researchers themselves, N.C Liu and Y Cheng, think that university quality can not be precisely measured only with numbers and any rankings should be controversial. They suggest that university and college ratings should be used with caution and their methodology should be clearly understood before reporting or using the results. ARWU has been criticized by the European Commission as well as some EU member states for "supporting Anglo-Saxon higher education institutions". For example, the ARWU was repeatedly criticized in France, where it sparked an annual controversy, focusing on unadjusted characters into the French academic system and the unreasonable weights given to research that were often done decades ago. It is also criticized in France for its use as a motivation for combining universities into larger universities. Indeed, further criticism has been that the metrics used are inseparable from the size of the university, for example the number of publications or award winners will be mechanically added because universities are grouped, regardless of the quality of research (or teaching); thus merging between two institutions with the same rank will almost double the combined scores of institutions and rank higher without any change in quality.
Results
Alternative
Because it takes a lot of time for the rising university to produce Nobel Prize recipients and Field Collectors in comparable amounts to the old institutions, the Institute creates an alternative ranking beyond the award factor thus providing another way of comparing academic performance. The weighting of all other factors remains unchanged, bringing the total to 70%.
Subject
There are two categories in the ARWU disciplinary rank, broad subject areas and special subjects. This methodology is similar to that adopted in the overall table, including award factors, paper quotes, and highly quoted intellectuals.
Maps Academic Ranking of World Universities
Regional rating
Considering the development of certain areas, two independent regional league tables with different methodologies were launched.
Greater China
Methodology
Results
Note
References
External links
- The Academic Rankings of World University Sites
- An interactive map comparing ARWU, Times Higher Education, and QS World University Rankings
- Jambor, Paul Z. 'Change of Dynamics PhD and Future Development of Higher Education in Asia and Ministry of Education' - USA: Education Resources Resource Center, September 26, 2009 (Retrieved October, 2009)
- Csizmazia Roland A., Jambor, Paul Z. "Korean Higher Education Increases: Time to Learn from Success - Comparative Research at Tertiary Education Level", Human Resource Management Community Academic Research: International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, Volume 3, Issue 2 (March, 2014)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments