Competition is a good thing in most industries; university rankings are no different – here's why we value alternative rankings, such as Times Higher Education's.
For one thing, it stimulates innovation and creates choice. At QS, founder of the World University Rankings, we have spent the last eight years providing seminars and workshops for academics, employers and university students explaining the differences between the QS system, and other rankings such as Shanghai Jiao Tong, HEEACT and Webometrics.
Rankings are a challenging undertaking to which there is no “right answer”.
In October 2009, QS and THE ended their collaboration under which THE was licensed to publish the QS results known as “Times Higher Education (THE) – QS World University Rankings”.
Striving for accuracy
Since then, THE have announced they intend to produce their own rankings and have been systematically critical of QS’s methodology as part of their explanation for the split. This is surprising; THE consistently praised the QS methodology throughout the six-year publishing collaboration. Indeed, their former publishing director described it as one of the best partnerships in the history of THE.
Similarly, Ann Mroz, Editor of THE wrote in October 2008: "These rankings use an unprecedented amount of data to deliver the most accurate measure available of the world’s best universities, and of the strength of different nations’ university systems. They are important for governments wanting to gauge the progress of their education systems, and are used in planning by universities across the world."
Phil Baty, Associate Editor of THE wrote only on October 10 2009: “Congratulations on a highly successful campaign on the rankings again this year. The internet is buzzing.”
Yet it seems our objectives and methodological principles have subsequently diverged. QS will continue to produce our rankings using citation data from Scopus. THE have decided to align themselves with Thomson Reuters’ academic citation database.
THE has a largely academic-based weekly circulation of 28,275 copies, with limited international audience, though Thomson Reuters are certainly a Goliath. QS, although the David of this play, is one of the world’s most prolific provider of information to students and young professionals facing higher education choices at undergraduate, postgraduate and business school level.
Global reach
Over seven million people visited our web sites* in 2009 while over 250,000 registered to attend our higher education events and conferences held in more than 40 countries around the world. QS also sponsors ten students each year towards postgraduate study costs through the QS Education Trust.
To ensure the QS World University Rankings reaches these young people QS has forged partnerships with US News & World Report in the USA and we have also utilized our existing partnerships with over 20 other leading publications around the world, developed over the two decades we have spent working in the higher education sector. Our rankings reached tens of millions of new readers in 2009.
QS welcomes competition in the rankings arena. We look forward to the output of the CHERPA alliance funded by the European Commission, recognizing that it is likely to compare institutions which are similar and comparable in terms of their missions and structures, based on the idea of a European classification (“mapping”) of higher education institutions.
The OECD’s AHELO exercise is another fascinating development. We equally welcome other rankings and evaluations which fuel the debate and provide an objective basis for comparison. Those that maintain their editorial integrity and remain impartial will – and should – succeed in providing academics, candidates and the world at large with an ever-increasing set of essential measures with which to make informed decisions.