Academic Ranking of World Universities
Categories | Higher education |
---|---|
Frequency | Annual |
Publisher | Shanghai Jiao Tong University; since 2009 published by the Shanghai Ranking Consultancy |
Country | China |
Language | English, Chinese |
Website | www.shanghairanking.com |
The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), also known as the Shanghai Ranking, is a publication that was founded and compiled by the Shanghai Jiao Tong University to rank universities globally.[1] The rankings have been conducted since 2003 and updated annually. Since 2009, the rankings have been published by the Shanghai Ranking Consultancy.[2] ARWU was the first global ranking of universities published.[3]
The ranking, backed by the Chinese government, was designed to provide a global benchmark against the various universities in China so they could assess their progress.[4] The aim of the ARWU is for Chinese universities to catch up on hard scientific research.[4]
According to The Christian Science Monitor the Academic Ranking of World Universities is one of the three most influential and widely observed international university rankings, along with the QS World University Rankings and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings.[5][6][7] Its claimed consistent and objective methodology is praised when compared with other rankings.[8] However, it has also been criticized for its heavier focus on the natural sciences over the social sciences or humanities, and on research over the quality of instruction.[5][6]
Methodology
The ranking compares 1200 higher education institutions worldwide according to a formula that took into account alumni winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (10 percent), staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (20 percent), highly cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories (20 percent), articles published in the journals Nature and Science (20 percent), the Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index (20 percent) and the per capita academic performance (on the indicators above) of an institution (10 percent). The methodology is set out in an academic article by its originators, N.C. Liu and Y. Cheng.[9]
The methodology used by the Shanghai Rankings is entirely academic and research oriented.
Influence
As the first multi-indicator ranking of global universities, ARWU has attracted a great deal of attention from universities, governments and media. A survey on higher education published by The Economist in 2005 commented ARWU as "the most widely used annual ranking of the world's research universities."[10] In 2010, The Chronicle of Higher Education called ARWU "the best-known and most influential global ranking of universities".[11]
One of the factors in the significant influence of ARWU is that its methodology is said to look globally sound and transparent. EU Research Headlines reported the ARWU's work on 31 December 2003: "The universities were carefully evaluated using several indicators of research performance."[12] Chancellor of Oxford University, Chris Patten, said "the methodology looks fairly solid ... it looks like a pretty good stab at a fair comparison." Vice-Chancellor of Australian National University, Ian Chubb, said "The SJTU rankings were reported quickly and widely around the world… (and they) offer an important comparative view of research performance and reputation." Margison (2007) also commented the ARWU ranking that one of the strengths of "the academically rigorous and globally inclusive Jiao Tong approach" is "constantly tuning its rankings and invites open collaboration in that."[13] Philip G. Altbach named ARWU's "consistency, clarity of purpose, and transparency" as significant strengths.[14]
The ARWU ranking and its content have been widely cited and applied as a starting point for identifying national strengths and weaknesses as well as facilitating reform and setting new initiatives. Bill Destler (2008), the president of the Rochester Institute of Technology, draw reference to the ARWU ranking to analyze the comparative advantages the Western Europe and US have in terms of intellectual talent and creativity in his publication in the journal Nature.[15]
European commissioner of Education, Jan Figel, pointed out in an interview in 2007 that, "If you look at the Shanghai index, we are the strongest continent in terms of numbers and potential but we are also shifting into a secondary position in terms of quality and attractiveness. If we don't act we will see an uptake or overtake by Chinese or Indian universities."[16] Also, Enserink (2007) referred to ARWU and argued in a paper published in Science that "France's poor showing in the Shanghai ranking ... helped trigger a national debate about higher education that resulted in a new law... giving universities more freedom."[17] The world leading think tank Rand Corporation used the ARWU ranking as evidence in their consultancy paper to the European Institute of Innovation and Technology.[18]
In two subsequent research papers[19][20] published by Academic Leadership (2009), then in an article[21] published by the Times Higher Education (2009), Paul Z. Jambor of Korea University established the connection between any unfavorable image/reputation universities may develop (and/or their association, by country, to those universities linked to the wrongdoing) to a halt in their climb or even to a drop in their Times Higher Education–QS World University Rankings. This is because 40% and 10% of THE – QS World Methodology is based on Academic Peer Review and Employer Review respectively. In essence, any unfavorable image developed by a group of universities, associated by country, tends to harm their collective rankings. For this reason, universities worldwide should seriously consider adhering to internationally accepted standards so that they do not run the risk of sliding in the ranks on the international front. Consequently, a number of critics consider this aspect of the Times Higher Education–QS World University Rankings unfair and even biased.[22]
The new Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE-Reuters), published since 2010 is based on a revised Methodology. In the Methodology of the THE-Reuters World University Rankigs, the 'Papers per research and academic staff' {at 4.5%} and the 'Citation impact (normalised average citation per paper)' {at 32.5%} indicators make it evident that a university's ranking heavily relies on the number and quality of research papers written by its faculty. With 95% of research papers written in English, the relationship between English language use and a university's subsequent ranking thus becomes ever more clear. Jambor highlights the connection between actual English use and university rankings in a pair of research papers[23][24] respectively published by the US Department of Education: ERIC and Academic Leadership.
Criticism
College and university rankings often stimulate controversy (see Criticism of college and university rankings (North America) and Criticism of college and university rankings (2007 United States)) and the ARWU is no exception. A 2007 paper published in the journal Scientometrics found that the results from the Shanghai rankings could not be reproduced from raw data using the method described by Liu and Cheng.[25]
In a report from April 2009, J-C. Billaut, D. Bouyssou and Ph. Vincke analyze how the ARWU works, using their insights as specialists of Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM). Their main conclusions are that the criteria used are not relevant; that the aggregation methodology has a number of major problems; and that insufficient attention has been paid to fundamental choices of criteria.[26]
The ARWU researchers themselves, N.C Liu and Y Cheng,[27] think that the quality of universities cannot be precisely measured by mere numbers and any ranking must be controversial. They suggest that university and college rankings should be used with caution and their methodologies must be understood clearly before reporting or using the results.
Others have pointed out, the ARWU is known for "relying solely on research indicators", and "the ranking is heavily weighted toward institutions whose faculty or alumni have won Nobel Prizes": it does not measure "the quality of teaching or the quality of humanities."[6][28]
Ioannides et al. suggested that (in common with all ranking systems they reviewed), the ranking lacked construct validity modest concordance between the Shanghai and Times rankings. They highlighted measurement precision, and transparent methodology as important issues.[29]
Like the Times Higher Education's rankings, the ARWU has been criticized by the European Commission as well as some EU member states for "favour[ing] Anglo-Saxon higher education institutions".[30] For instance, ARWU is repeatedly criticized in France, where it triggers an annual controversy, focusing on its ill-adapted character to the French academic system.[31]
Rankings
The table below contains the overall rankings as ordinal numbers (i.e., 1 is best, 2 is second best, etc.) from 2003 to 2013 for all universities that ranked in the top 100 in one of the years tabulated.[1] The ranking is omitted for years in which the school did not land within the top 100. Note the full ranking contains over 500 universities. If a university is not listed in this table, it did not rank in the top 100 in any of the years tabulated.
Harvard University has been ranked first in the world every year since ARWU was first published in 2003.
Country | University | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Denmark | Aarhus University | 93 | 97 | 98 | 86 | 86 | 86 | 74 | |||||
USA | Arizona State University | 100 | 96 | 93 | 94 | 81 | 78 | 79 | 81 | 88 | |||
Australia | Australian National University | 49 | 53 | 53 | 54 | 57 | 59 | 59 | 59 | 70 | 64 | 66 | 74 |
USA | Boston University | 98 | 87 | 81 | 81 | 85 | 83 | 74 | 77 | 76 | 71 | 75 | 72 |
USA | Brown University | 49 | 82 | 86 | 85 | 70 | 71 | 69 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 67 | 74 |
USA | California Institute of Technology | 3 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 |
USA | Carnegie Mellon University | 61 | 62 | 62 | 56 | 60 | 62 | 59 | 58 | 55 | 51 | 52 | 62 |
USA | Case Western Reserve University | 51 | 65 | 65 | 70 | 78 | 83 | 87 | 97 | 97 | 99 | 99 | |
USA | Columbia University | 10 | 9 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 |
USA | Cornell University | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 |
USA | Duke University | 33 | 31 | 31 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 31 | 35 | 35 | 36 | 31 | 31 |
France | École normale supérieure – Paris | 85 | 93 | 99 | 83 | 73 | 70 | 71 | 69 | 73 | 71 | 67 | |
USA | Emory University | 99 | 100 | 100 | |||||||||
Germany | Free University of Berlin | 95 | 99 | 83 | |||||||||
USA | Georgia Institute of Technology | 99 | |||||||||||
Germany | Goethe University Frankfurt | 100 | |||||||||||
USA | Harvard University | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Israel | Hebrew University of Jerusalem | 94 | 90 | 90 | 60 | 64 | 65 | 64 | 52 | 57 | 53 | 59 | 70 |
Germany | Humboldt University of Berlin | 95 | 95 | ||||||||||
UK | Imperial College London | 17 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 27 | 26 | 26 | 24 | 24 | 24 | 22 |
USA | Indiana University Bloomington | 97 | 90 | 92 | 93 | 90 | 82 | 84 | 85 | ||||
USA | Johns Hopkins University | 24 | 22 | 19 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 19 | 18 | 18 | 17 | 17 | 17 |
Sweden | Karolinska Institutet | 39 | 46 | 45 | 48 | 53 | 51 | 50 | 42 | 44 | 42 | 44 | 47 |
UK | King's College London | 75 | 77 | 77 | 83 | 83 | 81 | 65 | 63 | 68 | 68 | 67 | 59 |
Belgium | KU Leuven | 96 | |||||||||||
Japan | Kyoto University | 30 | 21 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 24 | 27 | 26 | 26 | 26 |
Sweden | Lund University | 93 | 92 | 92 | 90 | 97 | 97 | ||||||
USA | Massachusetts Institute of Technology | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
Canada | McGill University | 79 | 61 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 60 | 65 | 61 | 64 | 63 | 58 | 67 |
Canada | McMaster University | 86 | 88 | 88 | 90 | 87 | 89 | 91 | 88 | 89 | 92 | 92 | 90 |
USA | Michigan State University | 87 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 83 | 86 | 86 | 92 | 96 | 92 | |
Russia | Moscow State University | 66 | 66 | 70 | 76 | 70 | 77 | 74 | 77 | 80 | 79 | 84 | |
Japan | Nagoya University | 68 | 97 | 97 | 98 | 94 | 82 | 79 | 94 | 96 | |||
USA | New York University | 55 | 32 | 32 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 31 | 29 | 27 | 27 | 27 |
USA | North Carolina State University | 99 | |||||||||||
USA | Northwestern University | 29 | 30 | 30 | 33 | 29 | 30 | 30 | 29 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 28 |
USA | Ohio State University | 81 | 73 | 73 | 66 | 61 | 62 | 62 | 59 | 63 | 65 | 65 | 64 |
Japan | Osaka University | 53 | 54 | 54 | 61 | 67 | 68 | 71 | 75 | 82 | 83 | 85 | 78 |
USA | Pennsylvania State University | 40 | 43 | 43 | 42 | 43 | 42 | 45 | 43 | 45 | 49 | 54 | 58 |
USA | Princeton University | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 |
USA | Purdue University | 80 | 71 | 71 | 73 | 68 | 65 | 65 | 69 | 61 | 56 | 57 | 60 |
USA | Rice University | 61 | 75 | 75 | 87 | 87 | 97 | 99 | 99 | 93 | 91 | 92 | 82 |
USA | Rockefeller University | 28 | 29 | 29 | 30 | 30 | 32 | 32 | 34 | 33 | 32 | 34 | 33 |
USA | Rutgers University | 38 | 44 | 44 | 46 | 47 | 54 | 55 | 54 | 59 | 61 | 61 | 52 |
USA | Stanford University | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Sweden | Stockholm University | 97 | 97 | 84 | 86 | 86 | 88 | 79 | 81 | 81 | 82 | 78 | |
Switzerland | Swiss Federal Institute of Technology | 96 | |||||||||||
Switzerland | ETH Zurich | 25 | 27 | 27 | 27 | 27 | 24 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 20 | 19 |
Germany | Technische Universität München | 60 | 45 | 52 | 54 | 56 | 57 | 57 | 56 | 47 | 53 | 50 | 53 |
Israel | Technion – Israel Institute of Technology | 78 | 77 | 78 | |||||||||
USA | Texas A&M University | 70 | 88 | 91 | 88 | 88 | 95 | 100 | 93 | 96 | |||
Japan | Tohoku University | 64 | 69 | 69 | 76 | 76 | 79 | 84 | 84 | 97 | |||
Japan | Tokyo Institute of Technology | 89 | 99 | ||||||||||
USA | Tufts University | 83 | 99 | 99 | |||||||||
USA | University of Arizona | 55 | 76 | 76 | 76 | 74 | 77 | 77 | 78 | 80 | 77 | 78 | 86 |
Switzerland | University of Basel | 96 | 91 | 91 | 81 | 82 | 87 | 85 | 86 | 89 | 85 | 83 | 90 |
UK | University of Birmingham | 93 | 93 | 90 | 92 | 91 | 94 | 99 | |||||
Germany | University of Bonn | 99 | 99 | 99 | 97 | 98 | 93 | 94 | 94 | ||||
UK | University of Bristol | 55 | 60 | 60 | 62 | 62 | 61 | 61 | 66 | 70 | 70 | 64 | 63 |
Canada | University of British Columbia | 35 | 36 | 36 | 36 | 36 | 35 | 36 | 36 | 37 | 39 | 40 | 37 |
USA | University of California, Berkeley | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
USA | University of California, Davis | 36 | 42 | 42 | 42 | 43 | 48 | 49 | 46 | 48 | 47 | 47 | 55 |
USA | University of California, Irvine | 44 | 55 | 55 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 46 | 46 | 48 | 45 | 45 | 47 |
USA | University of California, Los Angeles | 15 | 16 | 14 | 14 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 |
USA | University of California, Riverside | 88 | |||||||||||
USA | University of California, San Diego | 14 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 15 | 15 | 14 | 14 |
USA | University of California, San Francisco | 13 | 17 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 17 | 18 | 18 | 18 |
USA | University of California, Santa Barbara | 26 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 36 | 35 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 41 |
USA | University of California, Santa Cruz | 93 | |||||||||||
UK | University of Cambridge | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
USA | University of Chicago | 11 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 |
UK | University College London | 20 | 25 | 26 | 26 | 25 | 22 | 21 | 21 | 20 | 21 | 21 | 20 |
USA | University of Colorado | 31 | 34 | 34 | 34 | 34 | 34 | 34 | 32 | 32 | 33 | 33 | 34 |
Denmark | University of Copenhagen | 65 | 59 | 59 | 56 | 46 | 45 | 43 | 40 | 43 | 44 | 42 | 39 |
UK | University of Edinburgh | 43 | 47 | 47 | 52 | 53 | 55 | 53 | 54 | 53 | 51 | 51 | 45 |
USA | University of Florida | 75 | 67 | 67 | 53 | 51 | 58 | 58 | 68 | 72 | 72 | 71 | 78 |
Germany | University of Freiburg | 88 | 88 | 93 | 94 | 96 | 99 | 100 | |||||
Switzerland | University of Geneva | 73 | 69 | 69 | 66 | ||||||||
Belgium | Ghent University | 99 | 90 | 89 | 89 | 85 | 70 | ||||||
Germany | University of Göttingen | 91 | 79 | 79 | 85 | 87 | 90 | 90 | 93 | 86 | |||
Netherlands | University of Groningen | 84 | 92 | 82 | |||||||||
Germany | Heidelberg University | 58 | 64 | 64 | 66 | 65 | 67 | 63 | 63 | 62 | 62 | 54 | 49 |
Finland | University of Helsinki | 74 | 72 | 72 | 74 | 73 | 68 | 72 | 72 | 74 | 73 | 76 | 73 |
USA | University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign | 45 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 26 | 26 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 28 |
USA | University of Illinois at Chicago | 96 | |||||||||||
USA | University of Iowa | 90 | 95 | 97 | |||||||||
Netherlands | Leiden University | 78 | 63 | 63 | 72 | 71 | 76 | 72 | 70 | 65 | 73 | 74 | 77 |
UK | University of Manchester | 89 | 78 | 53 | 50 | 48 | 40 | 41 | 44 | 38 | 40 | 41 | 38 |
USA | University of Maryland, College Park | 75 | 57 | 57 | 37 | 37 | 37 | 37 | 36 | 38 | 38 | 38 | 43 |
Australia | University of Melbourne | 92 | 82 | 82 | 78 | 79 | 73 | 75 | 62 | 60 | 57 | 54 | 44 |
USA | University of Michigan, Ann Arbor | 21 | 19 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 23 | 22 |
USA | University of Minnesota, Twin Cities | 37 | 33 | 33 | 32 | 33 | 28 | 28 | 28 | 28 | 29 | 29 | 30 |
Germany | University of Munich | 48 | 51 | 51 | 51 | 53 | 55 | 55 | 52 | 54 | 60 | 61 | 49 |
USA | University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill | 52 | 56 | 56 | 59 | 58 | 38 | 39 | 41 | 42 | 41 | 43 | 36 |
UK | University of Nottingham | 80 | 80 | 79 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 83 | ||
Norway | University of Oslo | 63 | 68 | 68 | 68 | 69 | 64 | 65 | 75 | 75 | 67 | 69 | 69 |
UK | University of Oxford | 9 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 |
France | Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University (Paris 6) | 65 | 41 | 41 | 45 | 39 | 42 | 40 | 39 | 41 | 42 | 37 | 35 |
France | University of Paris-Sud 11 | 72 | 48 | 48 | 64 | 52 | 49 | 43 | 45 | 40 | 37 | 39 | 42 |
USA | University of Pennsylvania | 18 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 14 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
USA | University of Pittsburgh | 53 | 48 | 48 | 48 | 49 | 52 | 50 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 61 | 65 |
Australia | University of Queensland | 86 | 90 | 85 | 85 | ||||||||
Italy | Sapienza University of Rome | 70 | 93 | 97 | 100 | ||||||||
USA | University of Rochester | 72 | 52 | 52 | 74 | 75 | 73 | 77 | 82 | 84 | 86 | 90 | 90 |
UK | University of Sheffield | 68 | 69 | 69 | 69 | 72 | 77 | 81 | 88 | 97 | |||
USA | University of Southern California | 40 | 48 | 48 | 47 | 50 | 50 | 46 | 46 | 46 | 46 | 47 | 51 |
France | University of Strasbourg | 82 | 82 | 96 | 99 | 97 | 95 | ||||||
Australia | University of Sydney | 97 | 94 | 92 | 96 | 93 | 97 | ||||||
USA | University of Texas at Austin | 47 | 40 | 40 | 39 | 38 | 39 | 38 | 38 | 35 | 35 | 36 | 39 |
USA | University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center | 34 | 36 | 36 | 38 | 39 | 41 | 48 | 49 | 51 | 48 | 46 | 45 |
Japan | University of Tokyo | 19 | 14 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 20 | 21 | 20 | 21 | 21 |
Canada | University of Toronto | 23 | 24 | 24 | 24 | 23 | 24 | 27 | 27 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 24 |
USA | University of Utah | 81 | 95 | 95 | 94 | 93 | 79 | 80 | 82 | 79 | 82 | 85 | 87 |
Netherlands | Utrecht University | 40 | 39 | 39 | 40 | 42 | 47 | 52 | 50 | 48 | 53 | 52 | 57 |
Austria | University of Vienna | 84 | 86 | 86 | |||||||||
USA | University of Virginia | 67 | 95 | 91 | 96 | ||||||||
USA | University of Washington | 16 | 20 | 17 | 17 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 15 |
Australia | University of Western Australia | 96 | 91 | 88 | |||||||||
USA | University of Wisconsin–Madison | 27 | 18 | 16 | 16 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 24 |
Switzerland | University of Zurich | 45 | 57 | 57 | 58 | 58 | 53 | 54 | 51 | 56 | 59 | 60 | 56 |
Sweden | Uppsala University | 59 | 74 | 74 | 65 | 66 | 71 | 76 | 66 | 67 | 73 | 73 | 60 |
USA | Vanderbilt University | 32 | 38 | 38 | 41 | 41 | 42 | 41 | 53 | 52 | 50 | 49 | 54 |
Netherlands | VU University Amsterdam | 100 | |||||||||||
USA | Washington University in St. Louis | 22 | 28 | 28 | 28 | 28 | 29 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 31 | 32 | 32 |
Israel | Weizmann Institute of Science | 93 | 92 | ||||||||||
USA | Yale University | 8 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 |
References
- ^ a b Shanghai Jiao Tong University (2007). "Academic Ranking of World Universities 2007". Graduate School of Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Archived from the original on 18 February 2008. Retrieved February 19, 2008.
{{cite web}}
:|archive-date=
/|archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; 19 February 2008 suggested (help); Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) - ^ 'ARWU : About ARWU'[dead link]
- ^ Physics in Mainz maintains leading position in global comparison. Uni-mainz.de. Retrieved on 2013-07-17.
- ^ a b University education. "University rankings: which world university rankings should we trust?. ''The Telegraph''". Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 2014-06-09.
- ^ a b Ariel Zirulnick. "New world university ranking puts Harvard back on top". The Christian Science Monitor.
- ^ a b c Indira Samarasekera and Carl Amrhein. "Top schools don't always get top marks". Edmonton Journal. Archived from the original on 2010-10-03.
- ^ "We're fighting above our weight when it comes to uni rankings". Theaustralian.com.au. 2013-08-29. Retrieved 2014-06-09.
- ^ Richard Holmes (2012-07-01). "Power and responsibility – The growing influence of global rankings". University World News. Retrieved 2012-09-21.
- ^ N.C. Liu and Y Cheng 2005 "Academic ranking of world universities – methodologies and problems", Higher Education in Europe, Vol. 30, No 2., and earlier in the proceedings of Meeting of the International Rankings Expert Group 2004.
- ^ "A survey of higher education: A world of opportunity", The Economist, 8 September 2005
- ^ International Group Announces Audit of University Rankings – The International Chronicle of Higher Education
- ^ European Research Headlines 2003 Chinese study ranks world's top 500 universities [1]
- ^ Marginson, S. 2007. Global university comparisons: the second stage. Paper presented at the Symposium on International Trends in University Ranking and Classifications. February 12, 2007, Griffith University, Australia
- ^ The State of the Rankings – Inside Higher Ed
- ^ Destler, B. 2008 "A new relationship". Nature, 453, 853-854, December 2008]
- ^ Figel, A. 2007 "Asia threatens to knock British universities off the top table", The Times
- ^ Enserink, M. 2007 "Who ranks the university rankers?" Science vol 317 (5841), pp. 1026-1028
- ^ Galama, T. et al. 2006 The Pursuit of Excellence. A European Institute of Tech.
- ^ Jambor, Paul Z. "Why South Korean Universities Have Low International Rankings", Academic Leadership: Volume 7 – Issue 1, February 20, 2009
- ^ Jambor, Paul Z. "Why South Korean Universities Have Low International Rankings – Part II: The Student Side of the Equation", Academic Leadership: Volume 7 – Issue 3, August 10, 2009
- ^ Jambor, Paul Z., "Slide and prejudice", Times Higher Education, December 10, 2009
- ^ Helena Spongenberg (2009-11-26). "EUobserver / EU to test new university ranking in 2010". Euobserver.com. Archived from the original on 19 August 2010. Retrieved 2010-09-16.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) - ^ Jambor, Paul Z. (2012) 'English Language Influence on THE – Reuters 2010 University Rankings: The Evidence: A South Korean Model in a Global Context', US Department of Education: Educational Resources Information Center
- ^ Jambor, Paul Z. (2010)'The Reluctance of Korean Education in the Face of Change', Academic Leadership: Volume 8 – Issue 3, June 24, 2010
- ^ Răzvan V. Florian (June 2007). "Irreproducibility of the results of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities". Scientometrics. 72 (1): 25–32. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1712-1.
- ^ Jean-Charles Billaut, Denis Bouyssou et Philippe Vincke (April 2009). "Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking ?". Internal report LI Tours.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help) - ^ N.C. Liu and Y Cheng 2008 "Academic ranking of world universities: FAQ", retrieved June 2009
- ^ J. Scott Armstrong and Tad Sperry (1994). "Business School Prestige: Research versus Teaching" (PDF). Energy & Environment. 18 (2): 13–43.
- ^ "1741-7015-5-30.fm" (PDF). Retrieved 2014-06-09.
- ^ Spongenberg, Helena (2014-06-05). "EUobserver / EU to test new university ranking in 2010". Euobserver.com. Retrieved 2014-06-09.
- ^ August 29, 2013 (2013-08-29). ""Shanghai Academic Ranking: a French Controversy" by Marc Goetzmann, for ''La Jeune Politique''". Lajeunepolitique.com. Retrieved 2014-06-09.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
External links
- Academic Ranking of World Universities Website
- Interactive maps comparing the ARWU, Times Higher Education and QS World University Rankings
- Jambor, Paul Z. 'The Changing Dynamics of PhDs and the Future of Higher Educational Development in Asia and the Rest of the World' Department of Education – The United States of America: Educational Resources Information Center, September 26, 2009 (Accessed in October, 2009)
- Csizmazia Roland A., Jambor, Paul Z. "Korean Higher Education on the Rise: Time to Learn From the Success - Comparative Research at the Tertiary Education Level", Human Resource Management Academic Research Society: International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development,Volume 3, Issue 2 (March, 2014)