A number of prominent universities have spoken out against such rankings, which cannot measure the multifaceted goals of higher education.
Jason Tan – Associate Professor in Policy, Curriculum and Leadership (NIE)
The original source of this article is from The Straitstimes – 30 march 2023.
The Straits Times reported that the National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) had been rated the top universities in Asia based on the QS or Quacquarelli Symonds rankings by subject areas involving 1,594 universities in 93 countries and territories. A similar report in 2022 recapped how both also ranked well in the QS World University Rankings.
There are several other international ranking tables – like those published by Times Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University and US News & World Report. A key claim made by these organisations producing such tables is that they serve as guides to help students select universities and courses.
Many universities around the world await the publication of each round of ranking tables anxiously. They know the results come with high stakes, and may serve to boost a university’s international standing and inform its strategic goals.
Yet in more recent years, a number of prestigious US university law and medical schools – like those at Harvard (both of which ranked among the top 10 in their respective fields) – as well as a few undergraduate schools have withdrawn from the US News & World Report ranking tables.
The ranking system simply ran against key institutional values, including a commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion, they argued.
Criticism over university rankings:
- Historically prestigious universities such as Cambridge and Oxford tend to have higher ratings. Western universities operating in English tend to receive higher rankings than their non-Western counterparts – even domestically prestigious institutions such as the National Taiwan University (ranked 77 in the latest QS tables) – reflecting the possibility that survey respondents tend to think of the more internationally prestigious universities that teach in English as superior.
- A second problem arises because these tables do not reflect the varied purposes of higher education. Differences in each university’s key objectives in research, teaching and community service, and the great diversity of programmes offered in universities worldwide make it a pointless exercise to compare apples with oranges, durians and tomatoes.
- A third issue is that the tables fail to adequately indicate the processes and outcomes related to quality teaching and learning, and that students’ opinions are hardly, if ever, solicited in this regard.
- A fourth major criticism is the heavy weightage accorded to research and institutional reputation rather than focusing on teaching quality. Academic Woo Jun Jie argued in a 2018 CNA commentary that this skewed emphasis on research may come at the cost of teaching quality as universities seeking to ascend the ranking tables are incentivised to devote extensive resources towards boosting research outcomes at the expense of adult learning.
Besides examination scores, personal interests and passions, parental aspirations and the amount of comprehensive information about the range of available options both within and outside of Singapore, other factors may include financial circumstances, family circumstances and peer influence. Some students may also consider fields that they believe are emerging areas of demand in the job market.
University rankings are also less useful in aiding Singapore students to navigate the diverse local university landscape.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) website indicates that these six universities can be grouped into two categories:
- more academically focused, research-intensive universities (the NUS, the NTU, the SMU and the Singapore University of Technology and Design, with the first two being comprehensive and the next two being specialised)
- more hands-on experience and industry exposure (the Singapore Institute of Technology and the Singapore University of Social Sciences).
Thankfully, the QS website acknowledges the rankings are merely a starting point that cannot replace individual decision-making based on further research and information-gathering through exploring university websites, speaking to alumni and attending open-day events. Students should do their own homework rather than rely on ranking tables to light the way for them.
There is growing emphasis on upskilling and mental health. These ranking leagues are even less useful for local autonomous universities, as the educational landscape evolves to embrace larger goals of creating more pathways to success and empowering individuals to reach their fuller potential through upskilling.
A prominent theme emerging in recent years in Singapore discourse is that of broadening the definition of success, and moving away from a meritocracy of grades towards a meritocracy of skills.
On another front, the recent Covid-19 pandemic has brought into focus the importance of addressing issues related to students’ mental well-being. The pandemic has also left in its wake questions about the adequacy of home-based learning as an alternative to face-to-face instruction, thus highlighting the importance of examining the merits of diverse instructional modes.
While the results of ranking exercises may prove helpful in the short term in terms of boosting institutional prestige, attracting research funding and attracting prospective students, it makes more sense instead to set independent priorities in the light of more pressing national priorities.
In the final analysis, it is probably time for all of us to break the habit of reading more into the international ranking tables than they can tell us about what really matters in higher education.
The original source of this article is from The Straitstimes – 30 march 2023.
