Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education

The Battle for World-Class Excellence

Ellen Hazelkorn

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781137446664
• eBook ISBN: 9781137446671
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

University rankings have gained popularity around the world and are now a significant factor shaping reputation. This second edition updates Ellen Hazelkorn's first comprehensive study of rankings from a global perspective, drawing in new original research and extensive analysis. It is essential reading for policymakers, managers and scholars.

1

Globalization and the Reputation Race

The current strength of research in European universities has been called into question in two recent surveys, which – despite some cultural and methodological biases – came to the conclusion that European universities are not performing strongly in global comparisons

(Europa, 2004, 23).

The world rankings of the 500 universities show the poor state of academic institutions in Islamic countries … To ameliorate this situation, … the OIC … resolved to strengthen selected universities in the fields of science and engineering, with the goal of elevating at least 20 universities within the Islamic countries to the rank among the top 500 world universities

(Organization of the Islamic Conference, in Billal, 2007).

Globalization and rankings

There is a growing obsession with university rankings around the world. What started as an academic exercise in the early 20^th century in the US became a commercial “information” service for students in the 1980s and the progenitor of a “reputation race” with geo-political implications today. Around the world, rankings consciousness has risen sharply and, arguably inevitably, in response to globalization and the pursuit of new knowledge as the basis of economic growth, and the drive for increased public accountability and transparency. Rankings are a manifestation of what has become known as the worldwide “battle for excellence”, and are perceived and used to determine the status of individual institutions, assess the quality and performance of the higher education system and gauge global competitiveness. As internationalization has become a priority for both government and higher education, the talent-catching and knowledge-producing capacity of higher education has become a vital sign of a country’s capacity to participate in world science and the global economy. In the process, rankings are transforming universities and reshaping higher education. Despite the fact that there are almost 18,000 higher education institutions (HEIs) worldwide,¹ there is a fascination with the standing and trajectory of the top 100, less than half a percent of the world’s institutions. Like the ranking of restaurants or hotels, no one wants to be at the bottom of the hygiene list.

Published by, inter alia, government and accreditation agencies, higher education, research and commercial organizations, and the popular media, rankings have become ubiquitous since the 1990s. The U.S. News and World Report’s special issue on “America’s Best Colleges” has been published annually in U.S. News magazine and as a separate newsstand guidebook since 1987, and remains the most popular in that country. Around the world, media organizations and other commercial interests have predominated in the publication of such lists: Times Higher Education (first published in The Times, October 1992), Financial Times, The Guardian and The Sunday Times (UK/Ireland), Der Spiegel (Germany), Maclean’s (Canada), Reforma (Mexico), and Washington Monthly (US). Over the years, government and accreditation agencies, and higher education organizations have developed their own systems for evaluating and ranking institutional performance: e.g. CHE (Germany), AQA (Austria), ARRA (Slovak Republic), CIEES, CACEI, CNEIP and CONEVET (Mexico), NAAC, NBA (India), Universities Commission Ranking (Nigeria), the Higher Education Council and TUBITAK (Turkey), the Commission on Higher Education and Philippine Accrediting Association of Schools, Colleges and Universities (Philippines), and the Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT).² There have also been initiatives developed by supra-national organizations, such as the EU U-Multirank and the OECD AHELO project. In addition, there are a variety of commercial college “guide” books and websites, e.g. the Good Universities Guide (Australia), The Complete University Guide (UK), Re$earch Infosource Inc. (Canada), and ELS University Guide Online (US). As higher education has become globalized, the focus has shifted to worldwide university rankings, e.g. the Shanghai Jiao Tong Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE), QS Top Universities (QS), Webometrics, and so on. Today, there are ten main global rankings of significance and probably at least another 150 international, national and regional rankings of various types.

The transformation of the higher education environment over the last few decades has been well documented (inter alia, CERI, 2009; Marginson and van der Wende, 2007a; Simons et al., 2009; Altbach et al., 2010; King et al., 2011; Curaj et al., 2012). Despite different perspectives, there is a general consensus about the speed and depth of the revolution impacting on higher education and the extent of change required or occurring in response. Without being too simplistic, there are probably four headline drivers: (i) transition to knowledge-intensive economies, (ii) demographic pressures and the global pursuit of talent, (iii) criticality of higher education to the economy and society, and (iv) informed student choice and consumerist attitudes towards higher education.

First, the positioning of knowledge as the foundation of economic, social and political power has driven the transformation of economies and the basis of wealth production from those based on productivity and efficiency to those based on higher valued goods and services innovated by talent. If the first phase of globalization was marked by “working cheaper”, the current phase is measured by connecting people and processes globally, and breaking down traditional barriers (Cheese et al., 2007, 2) – a contemporary version of Marx’s “heavy artillery … batter[ing] down all Chinese walls” (1948, 125). Friedman’s (2007) flattening out of the globe, and Castell’s (1996) “networked society” are not just ignorant of national boundaries but are actively and daily destroying those boundaries and its industries while creating new working practices and forms of social networking. Today, almost 80 percent of a company’s value comes from intangibles or soft knowledge – unique knowledge of services, markets, relationships, reputation and brand (Hutton, 2006). Successful economies are those which rely on the ability to develop and exploit new knowledge for “competitive advantage and performance … through investment in knowledge-based and intellectual assets – R&D, software, design new process innovation, and human and organizational capital” (Brinkley, 2008, 17–18). Research shows that “productivity growth in the United States has been generated largely by advances in technology” which in turn have been driven in recent years by innovation as measured by the number of patents awarded to industry and universities (Chellaraj et al., 2005, 1). This has placed higher education – a provider of human capital through education and training, a primary source of new knowledge and knowledge/technology transfer, and a beacon for international investment and talent – at the centre of policymaking.

Governments have endeavoured to steer and restructure higher education in ways which, while supporting autonomy, use performance-based funding and, in many instances, institutional contracts to ensure higher education meets its social and economic objectives. The EU Lisbon Agenda aimed to make Europe “the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world” by significantly increasing investment in R&D to three percent of GDP and doubling the number of PhD students (Europa, 2000); it has been followed by Europe 2020 which focuses on “smart, sustainable and inclusive growth” (Europa, 2010a). Most governments have similar models: Building Ireland’s Smart Economy (Government of Ireland, 2008), Brain Korea 21 and Brain Korea 21 Plus (Korean Research Council, 1999, 2013), Malaysia’s Vision 2020 (Government of Malaysia, 1991), Abu Dhabi Economic Vision 2030 (Government of Abu Dhabi, 2008) and India’s National Knowledge Commission (Government of India, 2009), to name just a few. The global financial crisis of 2008 sounded alarm bells but it simply accelerated the speed of change bringing the BRICS countries (e.g. Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) firmly into the competitive spotlight. Rankings have made the geopolitical dimension of higher education obvious; thus, internationalization – accompanied by pursuit of world-class excellence – strategies are now a “priority of many higher education agendas” (Jöns and Hoyler, 2013, 55) In its aftermath, higher education has come to be regarded as the route to short and long-term solutions to improving economic competitiveness, which is why “public investment in higher education has become a semi-protected part of national and regional budgets in the midst of the worst economic recession in more than six decades” (Douglass, 2010, 24; OECD, 2013, 213).

Second, at the moment when countries are dependent upon talent, many are under demographic pressure. This has arisen for a combination of reasons, including greying of the population and retirement of professionals combined with the end of the “baby boomer” bubble and late childbirth, leading to a decline in the number of students. While the world population is likely to increase by 2.5 billion over the years to 2050, the population of the more developed regions is expected to remain largely unchanged, and would have declined, if not for net migration from developing to developed countries. In 2005, young people were 13.7 percent of the population in developed countries, but their share is expected to fall to 10.5 percent by 2050 (Bremner et al., 2009, 2, 6). This will affect the pool of secondary students, ultimately challenging government strategies for growing knowledge-intensive sectors of their economies. As a result, what the Daily Yomiuri calls the “scramble for students” (Matsumoto and Ono, 2008, 1) and the Economist refers to as the “battle for brainpower” (Wooldridge, 2006) is complementing more traditional struggles for natural resources. Knowing that people with higher levels of education are more likely to migrate (Europa, 2006a), governments around the world are introducing policies to attract “the most talented migrants who have the most to contribute economically” (Rüdiger, 2008, 5; ICREA; Brandenburg et al., 2008), especially in science and technology. The importance of mobility stems not just from its contribution to the production and dissemination of codified knowledge but also transmitting tacit knowledge in the broadest sense. There can be benefits for both sending and receiving countries (not just brain drain but brain circulation), if the latter has the appropriate absorptive capacities to attract (back) and retain high skilled talent (Hvistendahl, 2008). Internationalization, once seen simply as a policy of cultural exchange, is now a necessary mechanism to increase the number of international students, especially graduate research students, and ultimately the labour force (Hazelkorn, 2008b).

The importance of the lucrative international student market has raised the global competitive stakes (Guruz, 2008; Green and Koch, 2010). Under GATS, international or cross-border student mobility has become a recognizable, tradable commodity which is likely to encompass 7.2 million students annually by 2025 (Varghese, 2008, 11). Recent OECD reports (2013, 304) show that in 2013 at least 4.3 million students were in higher education outside their home country, a steady rise from 3.8 million in 2011 and 2 million in 2000. This increase is in line with the general increase in higher education enrolments internationally (UIS, 2014). In actual numbers and percentage of total students, Western Europe and North America remain the world regions of choice; 83 percent of all international students are in G20 countries and 77 percent in OECD countries (OECD, 2013, 305; see also IIE, 2013; Guruz, 2008, 230). Top destination countries are the US (17 percent), UK (13 percent), Germany (6 percent), France (6 percent), and Australia (6 percent). Asia is the largest source of international students, with 53 percent of the global total, of which Chinese students are the majority, at 18 percent; the US, Japan and Australia are their primary study destinations (OECD, 2013, 313).

In Australia, education services were the fourth largest export earner in 2012–2013, slightly down from its position in 2008 but likely to remain the largest service-based industry (AEPL, 2009; Connelly and Olsen, 2013). At the same time, “well-trained international graduate students and skilled immigrants from countries such as India, China, Korea and Singapore (the last two of which rank at the top in mathematics and science achievement)” flow into the US plugging the education gap caused by deficiencies elsewhere in the system (Chellaraj et al., 2005, 2). Other countries are copying these examples; Singapore, China, Malaysia, Japan, Jordan and Korea – to name just a few – want to significantly expand the number of international students within the next 5–10 years (Wildavsky, 2010, 24; Anon, 2010a). The Bologna initiative, initially focused on enhancing mobility within the EU, has prompted a worldwide re-tooling of educational systems to ease international mobility and enhance competition for the lucrative international student market (Bologna, 2007; Cemmell and Bekhradnia, 2008). UK universities have been urged to “buckle up for a rough ride” (Gill, 2008) while Japanese universities are having to “send … recruiters out to high schools, hold … open houses for prospective students, build … swimming pools and revamp … libraries, and recruit … more foreign students” (McNeill, 2008). As a counter measure, governments are seeking better alignment between higher education, innovation and immigration policies to guarantee access to the global talent pool. This is because there is a close correlation “between the global distribution of graduates, the demand for higher education and the concentration of academic excellence” (van Damme, 2014).

Third, higher education has been transformed from being considered a social expenditure to being an essential component of the productive economy; accordingly, the way in which higher education is governed and managed has become a major policy issue. There is increasing emphasis on value-for-money, productivity and efficiency, and ensuring investor confidence, often referred to as “new public management” (Deem, 2001) or what the EU calls the “modernization” agenda (Europa, 2006b, 2007a). The extent and breadth of the changes vary across national jurisdictions and sectors, but generally includes: restructuring academic programmes to make them more compatible, competitive and attractive; increased emphasis on research targets and outputs which are measurable and supported by competitively earned funding; links with industry and technology/knowledge transfer activities; and merging departments to promote efficiency, critical mass and visibility or abolishing those which no longer attract sufficient students or meet quality standards. Changes in academic work and terms of employment chronicle the transformation from a relatively autonomous profession operating within a self-regulated code of “collegiality” to an “organizationally managed” workforce comparable to other salaried employees (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997; Rhoades, 1998; Farnham, 1999; Altbach, 2000; Altbach and Lewis, 1996; Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004; Hazelkorn and Moynihan, 2010; Schrecker, 2010). At the system level, many governments are moving away from an egalitarian approach – where all institutions are broadly equal in status and quality – to one in which hierarchical or vertical differentiation is encouraged through competitive positioning and funding. If higher education is the engine of the economy, then the productivity, quality and status of higher education institutions and university-based research becomes a vital indicator. The EU (Europa, 2006b) said

Universities should be funded more for what they do than for what they are, by focusing funding on relevant outputs rather than inputs, … Competitive funding should be based on institutional evaluation systems and on diversified performance indicators with clearly defined targets and indicators supported by international benchmarking.

Or more succinctly, it “isn’t enough to just go around telling ourselves how good we are – we need to measure ourselves objectively against the world’s best” (Carr, 2009).

Finally, because education and graduate outcomes and lifestyle are strongly correlated with higher qualifications and career opportunities, students (and their parents) have bec...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables
• List of Figures
• List of Boxes
• Glossary
• Preface to the 2nd Edition
• Preface to the 1st Edition
• 1 Globalization and the Reputation Race
• 2 What Rankings Measure
• 3 Impact and Influence of Rankings – The View from Inside Higher Education
• 4 Rankings, Student Choice and Recruitment
• 5 Rankings and Policy Choices
• 6 Reshaping Higher Education
• Appendix: Methodology
• Notes
• References
• Index