Stephen Vasciannie
A REVERED senior colleague at the University of the West Indies has kindly sent me this year's ranking of the top 200 universities in the world, according to the Times Higher Education Supplement.
This is the second year in succession for the ranking, and all indications are that the Supplement will continue to assess universities across the world with a view to identifying the best of the lot. For those who like to find 'globalisation' in every facet of life, I suppose this is yet another index of our globalised environment.
Of course, one may argue that it is quite unrealistic to rank universities for quality. Those who take this view will note that individual departments at one university may be stronger than their counterpart departments at other universities, and yet, such departmental differences will not be reflected in a broad, across-the-board assessment of universities.
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES
It is also true that universities throughout the world will have different primary objectives: some research universities attach relatively little significance to teaching while, particularly with respect to universities in developing countries, there is a marked tendency to stress teaching considerations, arguably to the detriment of the research function of the university. The need to reach the mass community - the people who fund operations in many Third World universities - may also dilute the research component of a given university's mission.
Thus, given that universities may have different functions, the factors used in assessing one university versus another may actually flatter some universities, and underestimate the value of others. The Times is sensitive to such points, and so, they are driven to the rather dry conclusion that "(t)here is no sign that a high-ranking university in our table is better than one more lowly ranked."
This is dry because the essential point of putting together a ranking of universities is to indicate that on the basis of some criteria, one university is better than another.
Is that not the raison d'être of a hierarchy?
CRITERIA
What, then, are the criteria relied upon by the Times in preparing its ranking? Generally speaking, the ranking attaches considerable significance on "peer review". Thus, for both last year and this year, a poll has been taken of academics from different parts of the world, with a view to ascertain how these academics would rank various universities. For this year the peer review score accounted for 40 per cent of the marks given to each university. Persons who are major international employers of graduates have also been polled, and their opinions contribute to 10 per cent of the overall score.
The rankings also take into account the research output of various institutions, with 20 per cent of the score for each university turning on citations of research publications. As a proxy for teaching performance, the survey also relies upon staff/student ratios, and allocates 20 per cent of the marks on the basis of this criterion.
Finally, the survey attaches importance to the international character of each institution, so that five per cent of the marks are allocated with reference to the ratio of international lecturers who are on staff, and another five per cent on the basis of the ratio of international students enrolled at each university.
TOP RANKING
With these criteria in place, the Times concludes that the top 20 universities in the world are as follows: (1). Harvard University (US); (2). MIT (US); (3). Cambridge University (UK); (4). Oxford University (UK); (5). Stanford University (US); (6). Univ. of California, Berkeley (US); (7). Yale University (US); (8). California Inst. of Tech. (US); (9). Princeton University (US); (10). Ecole Polytechnique (France); (11). Duke University (US); (11). London School of Econ. (UK); (13). Imperial College, London (UK); (14). Cornell Univ. (US); (15). Beijing University (China); (16). Tokyo University (Japan); (17). Univ. of Calif., San Fran. (US); (17). Univ. of Chicago (US); (19). Melbourne Univ. (Australia): (20); Columbia Univ. (US).
There is much to be said about this ranking, but space is precious. Last year, Cambridge trailed Oxford; now the tables have turned. This may highlight the subjective element in the rankings. Similarly, in one year, Duke University moved up from 52nd place to 11th place. In one year, Harvard is king, but Yale at seventh place may have cause to complain. The prominence of California in the rankings may reflect developments in information technology and related disciplines, but I wonder if these institutions are widely perceived as being stronger than, say, McGill, or Johns Hopkins, or NYU, none of which make the top 20.
Unless you count South Korea and Singapore as developing countries, you will not find any university from the Third World in the top 200 in the whole world.
Stephen Vasciannie is a professor at the University
of the West Indies and a consultant in the Attorney-General's chambers.
