The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Times Higher Education World University Rankings: why do we care? > Comments

Times Higher Education World University Rankings: why do we care? : Comments

By Nattavud Pimpa, published 17/10/2011

Australian Universities have been rising in the THE rankings, but so what?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
One of the reasons we care I suppose is that the rankings are then used by the marketing department to sell the Uni. Adelaide Uni flogs the fact that it's in the top one percent of unis in the world - but that's only if you include Botswana, Somalia, etc.

The Times Index has flaws, no doubt about that. Those who don't make the cut like RMIT, tend to be critical. Those such as Melb Uni and ANU think the rankings are reasonably fair.

Better to be inside the tent peeing out than outside the tent trying to pee in.
Posted by Cheryl, Monday, 17 October 2011 8:36:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My argument is about the consequences that the THE rankings may bring to Australia and other HEIs, not the point on which unis make it to top 400.
Posted by moburne, Monday, 17 October 2011 9:24:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nattavud Pimpa wrote 17 October 2011:

> The Times Higher Education (THE) World University ... help Australian universities to improve their academic performance in the future. ...

Yes, regardless of what we think of these university rankings, they will influence potential students and collaborators. Even my own institution, Australian National University, cannot afford to be complacent.

Universities tend to neglect the role of the World Wide Web in reputation. Some of university rankings include the quality of the university's web presence. There is consideration being given to the measures of performance of Australian academics and universities to take into account their contributions to on-line discussion, not just traditional journal conference papers.

The Group of Eight Universities has provided "Australia's Knowledge Gateway" (AKG) a search system to find experts and information collected from contributing universities: http://gateway.go8.edu.au/

AKG was produced by Australian company Funnelback and makes use of information universities already publish about their people and work. But this, in the main, only includes formal papers and books, not social networking contributions by academics: http://www.funnelback.com/news-and-events/news/posts/group-of-eight-launches-knowledge-gateway-with-funnelback-search

Why track other than formal publications? One of the lessons I learned early in my career as an IT professional, was that reputation as an expert comes partly from how you are perceived by non-experts. While a few close collaborators will know of your work in detail, most will judge you by public comments. So what is said in the media and on the chat forms matter. A parent looking for a university for their child will not read a technical paper I write, but will read what I said to the media, or what was reported from a parliamentary inquiry: http://blog.tomw.net.au/2011/08/parliamentary-report-on-nbn.html

Another way universities can improve their reputation on-line is to give away information. ANU ePress provides eBooks for free online, showcasing the work of its authors: http://epress.anu.edu.au/

I have suggested this practice be extended to all Australian universities, with a national Universities Australia e-Press: http://blog.tomw.net.au/2011/10/universities-australia-e-press.html

As an example, of what can be done, here are the notes for my ICT Sustainability course at Australian National University: http://www.tomw.net.au/ict_sustainability/
Posted by tomw, Monday, 17 October 2011 10:55:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
IMO rankings based on methodology like this one, or the Chinese equivalent, are largely rubbish. How, and why, would you use the 'information' they provide? If your interest is in how to help a new student in the search for the right place, they are next to meaningless. If to help an aspiring PhD choose the right place, he or she has dozens of better insights.

These rankings are about relative status and status-seeking, and are best ignored (unless of course you are seeking status or defending it).
Posted by Don Aitkin, Monday, 17 October 2011 10:59:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The article is interesting for an educator like me. I still believe in TIMES rankings, due to its rigorous system and its long-term reputation. One point, however, by Nattavud on the missing roles of University (i.e. teaching) is very important.

I have been working with one University in Sydney since 1990s and never before I have seen the decline of teaching. Most academic staff members are now aiming for ARC and outsourced their teaching to some unqualified sessional staff. This is truly unfair for our students.
Posted by lupita, Monday, 17 October 2011 12:20:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
plus, most of my colleagues do feel the pressure to publish, although they are more interested in good teaching or relationship building with the industry. Rankings have influenced us tremendously.
Posted by lupita, Monday, 17 October 2011 12:23:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's something seriously odd about these rankings. How on earth did Charles Darwin University outrank the University of Tasmania, Griffith, Curtin, Deakin, Flinders, La Trobe, UniSA ... hell, I'm surprised that Charles Darwin University outranked any Australian institution. Is there something about the place that they've been keeping a secret?
Posted by Otokonoko, Monday, 17 October 2011 5:57:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seriously, though. The problem, in my opinion, is that rankings such as this one oversimplify universities. They try to rank them as a body rather than a set of discrete bodies. The School of Medicine at one university may be shocking, but the School of Business grand. The research output may be awe-inspiring, but the teaching atrocious. The reputation may be terrific, but the university may have ridden on that reputation for too long and, as a result, not have too much left to offer.

It's been my experience that some of the lesser universities trying to make a name for themselves tend to be among the best places to study. Without pretty sandstone buildings and a big name to ride on, some work doubly hard to earn - and keep - students. I've studied at a few institutions, and I'd say that Griffith and Macquarie both punch above their weight. The trouble is, if they rise too high in the rankings, they might become complacent and lose that edge.
Posted by Otokonoko, Monday, 17 October 2011 6:04:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oto,

I suspect menzies school of health research would have a lot to do with charles darwin making it. I suspect CDU would also be ok in indigenous research. On other areas I'm not so sure...
Posted by dane, Monday, 17 October 2011 9:06:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oto,

I think Charles Darwin University has done very well in health, education and community studies. Thus, higher rank from the previous years.
Posted by moburne, Monday, 17 October 2011 9:58:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks dane and moburne. In truth, my comment was tongue-in-cheek. What you say seems to be in line with my second post: universities that are trying to make a name for themselves often do wonderful things that may well go unnoticed in a nation where the Group of 8 dominates. I was actually surprised that James Cook Uni didn't make the cut. While the 'elite' kids here in Townsville all tend to pack their bags and head for the south when they finish school, JCU seems to offer a lot and has wisely focused much of its attention on matters relevant to the region: indigenous health, tropical medicine (and other tropical sciences), marine archaeology (rather than classical archaeology) and so on. Perhaps these fields are overlooked, perhaps they aren't especially valued in the 'serious' world of academia - after all, they are nice markets of little interest to the frosty types in Europe, Britain and North America.
Posted by Otokonoko, Tuesday, 18 October 2011 12:21:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agree with you. Why JCU didn't make it? It's clearly one of the leaders in fields such as marine science and biology.
Posted by moburne, Tuesday, 18 October 2011 7:05:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The internet is still in its infancy and its potential has yet to be fully realized. Having gotten my bachelors and masters the traditional route, I was skeptical about online learning given the obvious differences it has with lecture hall style education modes. This article helped me understand how online learning can be very beneficial for the right crowd: http://educationcareeradvisors.com/resources/detail/6
Posted by Rwinston87, Tuesday, 18 October 2011 7:49:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Split them into 3: general colleges, university teaching and research facilities.

For all tertiary students, 1 year of general college studies.

Then learning at a university or TAFE college.

Then perhaps post grad and into a research facility outside of a university to do research.

In their present format, universities are now failing the country. They are producing minimal research that benefits the country, and with up to a 30% student drop out rate, they are wasting the time and money of many people. As well, they are filled with feminists and left wing staff, and give the student minimal ability to think for themselves or think outside the box.
Posted by vanna, Tuesday, 18 October 2011 8:26:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What I find is the subjectivity of saying X university has better research output than Y confusing. We can see terrible articles in top tier journals. They do slip through. What is rigorous? Who decides what is quality research? The rankings to me may be good for marketing purposes, but why spend hours aiming for A+ ranked journals purely to be seen to be a high quality university, when there are many factors for publication in such journals. It is totally idealistic, but to be concerned only with publishing as an end to a means is not an ideal situation for higher education. Being in the top 100 is great, but to push a university into a ranking only for image purposes when research in anything from literature to curing disease may in fact be rubbish and done purely to see how many A+ journals the university can get into; not a good strategy.
Posted by Big M, Wednesday, 19 October 2011 3:20:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
agree with Big M. The politics of publication is complex.
Posted by moburne, Saturday, 22 October 2011 7:36:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks moburne. I just feel that to base quality of a teaching university purely on publication output, and to me that's what I am seeing when the amount of effort to post in A+ is often not rewarded by appearance in one or only to those authors that are 'elite' and have 'the network', mostly, does not mean the lecturers are imparting knowledge to their students consistantly. A quality unversity is not just the number of published authors in the world's top tier journals in their fields. Those that do appear tend to be part of a network where X knows Y, so even with blind peer review you will get in. Not saying this is the case 100% of the time, but networks make publications often precluding beginning researchers. You might need to produce 'quality' research but again we do see articles in top tired journals that are appalling in method or conclusions. Research output should be on contribution to knowledge; I cannot picture people rushing to X university purely because you are in so many A+ ranked journals. But this seems to be part of the image game.
Posted by Big M, Sunday, 30 October 2011 11:54:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy