By Ruth A. Pagell*
- Four of THE’s top five “Young” universities are from East Asia.
- Australia leads the region with 23 universities.
- UK leads the world with 27
THE released its 2017 Young University rankings during the first week of April. This recalibration of existing data is interesting because of additional articles including rankings by generations and an analytical article on the 14 mistakes that new universities make. There is limited free public access to these additional reports from the Times Higher Education Supplement. Online.
In 2012, both THE and QS initiated their rankings of the top universities under 50 years old. THE included 100. This month, THE issued its newest list of top 200 universities under 50. The methodology recalibrates the indicators, reducing the weighting for reputation. QS also ranked 50 universities. Its latest ranking from September 2016 includes 100 universities. Metrics are not recalibrated and the institutions are extrapolated from the world rankings by founding year.
Times Higher Education (THE)
The Times has used this iteration as an opportunity to change its name to Young University Rankings and to drill down into performance by “generations”.
Millennials – 21st c; Top world, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (DE); top Asia, Tokyo Metropolitan University. Seven of this group are French, due to recent changes in the French higher education system with mergers and groupings. Only three East Asian universities are on this list.
Gen Y – Late 80s and 1990s; Top world and Asia, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST). 23 of the top 50 are from the United Kingdom and Australia. 15 are from East Asia.
Gen X – 1967 – 1985; Top world, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, top Asia, Korea Advanced Institute for Science and Technology (KAIST). Australia and Germany have seven universities in this group and there are eight universities from Asia.
Not surprisingly, over half of the ranked young universities are from Gen X. Several of the young universities listed in 2012 are no longer eligible and Gen Xers will start dropping out each year going forward.
THE also included another article ranking of the top 100 Golden Years or Middle Aged – (1945-1966) universities. The UK led the list with 19 universities. The U.S., notably absent from top generational rankings, had nine, primarily due to the creation of state university systems. India led Asia with seven followed by China with five and South Korea with four.
“14 common errors when you set up to create a world-class university”
Higher Ed and QS, continue to slice and dice their dataset and add more institutions each year. What is best for young universities? First, is to avoid the mistakes listed below.
Ruth’s Rankings 20 and 21 explored world class and flagship universities in the context of rankings and bibliometrics. We concluded that “The challenges for rising Asian universities is not what a model is called but how the universities find the right ingredients to balance the obsession with rankings and the need for quality assurance with massification and national relevance.” (Pagell, Ruth’s Rankings 21)
In conjunction with Times Higher Education releasing its 2017 Young University Rankings, Jamil Salmi, credited with listing the characteristics of World Class Universities (Salmi, 2009) wrote a side bar for Young Universities on the mistakes that young universities have been making.
- Build a magnificent campus, expect magic to happen
- Design the curriculum after constructing the facilities
- Import all the content from somewhere else
- Design with an OECD ecosystem in mind, implement in a challenging environment: OECD Flagship model requires concentration of talent, abundant resources and favorable governance
- Delay putting in place the governing board and appointing the leadership team
- Stack the board with political appointees
- Plan for up front facility costs but pay little attention to the long-term financial sustainability
- Engage in mergers for the wrong reasons
- Be too ambitious in the quantitative growth targets
- Think that everything can be accomplished in eighteen months
- Rely exclusively on foreign academics without building local capacity
- Neglect to integrate your foreign students well
- Focus on the global research scene at the expense of the local environment
- Be obsessed with the ranking
Salmi’s blog, Global View of Tertiary Education, includes the full text of the report.
It is unfortunate that Times Higher Ed chose to require a subscription to see the generational reports and to make extracting the data a challenge. Salmi’s “mistakes” combined with THE’s indicators could prove useful to higher education administrations of young universities in deciding how important it is to play the rankings games and determine which indicators from which provider is best to use.
Salmi, Jamil (6 April 2017). 14 common errors when you set up to create a world-class university, Global View of Tertiary Education, accessed 13 April at http://tertiaryeducation.org/ .
Salmi, J. (2009). The Challenge of Establishing World Class Universities. Washington D.C., World Bank. Accessed online 14 April 2017 at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/2600/476100PUB0Univ101Official0Use0Only1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
- Introduction: Unwinding the Web of International Research Rankings
- A Brief History of Rankings and Higher Education Policy
- Bibliometrics: What We Count and How We Count
- The Big Two: Thomson Reuters and Scopus
- Comparing Times Higher Education (THE) and QS Rankings
- Scholarly Rankings from the Asian Perspective
- Asian Institutions Grow in Nature
- Something for Everyone
- Expanding the Measurement of Science: From Citations to Web Visibility to Tweets
- Do-It-Yourself Rankings with InCites
- U S News & World Report Goes Global
- U-Multirank: Is it for “U”?
- A look back before we move forward
- SciVal – Elsevier’s research intelligence – Mastering your metrics
- Analyzing 2015-2016 Updated Rankings and Introducing New Metrics
- The much maligned Journal Impact Factor
- Wikipedia and Google Scholar as Sources for University Rankings – Influence and popularity and open bibliometrics
- Rankings from Down Under – Australia and New Zealand
- Rankings from Down Under Part 2: Drilling Down to Australian and New Zealand Subject Categories
- World Class Universities and the New Flagship University: Reaching for the Rankings or Remodeling for Relevance
- Flagship Universities in Asia: From Bibliometrics to Econometrics and Social Indicators
- Indian University Rankings – The Good the Bad and the Inconsistent
- Are Global Higher Education Rankings Flawed or Misunderstood? A Personal Critique
- Malaysia Higher Education – “Soaring Upward” or Not?
- THE Young University Rankings 2017 – Generational rankings and tips for success
- March Madness –The rankings of U.S universities and their sports
- Reputation, Rankings and Reality: Times Higher Education rolls out 2017 Reputation Rankings
- Japanese Universities: Is the sun setting on Japanese higher education?
- From Bibliometrics to Geopolitics: An Overview of Global Rankings and the Geopolitics of Higher Education edited by Ellen Hazelkorn
- Hong Kong and Singapore: Is Success Sustainable?
- Road Trip to Hong Kong and Singapore – Opening new routes for collaboration between librarians and their stakeholders
- The Business of Rankings – Show me the money
- Authors: People and processes
- Authors: Part 2 – Who are you?
- Come together: May updates lead to an investigation of Collaboration
- Innovation, Automation, and Technology Part 1: From Scholarly Articles to Patents
*Ruth A .Pagell is currently an adjunct faculty [teaching] in the Library and Information Science Program at the University of Hawaii. Before joining UH, she was the founding librarian of the Li Ka Shing Library at Singapore Management University. She has written and spoken extensively on various aspects of librarianship, including contributing articles to https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3238-9674.