Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), also known as Shanghai Ranking, is an annual publication of university rankings by Shanghai Ranking Consultancy based in China.[1] The league table was originally compiled and issued by Shanghai Jiaotong University in 2003, the first global ranking with multifarious indicators,[2] after which a board of international advisories was established to provide suggestions.[3][4] The publication currently includes world's overall and subject league tables, alongside independent regional Greater China Ranking and Macedonian HEIs Ranking. ARWU is regarded as one of the three most influential and widely observed university measures, alongside QS World University Rankings and Times Higher Education World University Rankings.[5][6][7][8] It is praised for its objective methodology but draws some condemnation for narrowly focussing on raw research power, undermining humanities and quality of instruction.[5][7][9]
Global rankings
Overall
Methodology
ARWU methodology[10]
Criterion |
Indicator |
Code |
Weighting |
Source |
Quality of education |
|
- Alumni
|
|
- Official websites of Nobel Laureates & Fields Medalists[Note 1]
|
Quality of faculty |
- Staff as Nobel Laureates & Fields Medalists
- Highly cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories
|
- Award
- HiCi
|
|
- Official websites of Nobel Laureates & Fields Medalists[Note 1]
- Thomson Reuters' survey of highly cited researchers[Note 1]
|
Research output |
- Papers published in Nature and Science[* 1]
- Papers indexed in Science Citation Index-expanded and Social Science Citation Index
|
- N&S
- PUB
|
|
- Citation index
|
Per capita performance |
- Per capita academic performance of an institution
|
- PCP
|
|
--
|
*
- ↑ Not applicable to institutions specialized in humanities and social sciences whose N&S scores are relocated to other indicators.
|
Reception
ARWU is praised by several media and institutions for its methodology and influence. 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."[11] In 2010, The Chronicle of Higher Education called ARWU "the best-known and most influential global ranking of universities".[12] EU Research Headlines reported the ARWU's work on 31 December 2003: "The universities were carefully evaluated using several indicators of research performance."[13] Chancellor of University of Oxford, Chris Patten and former Vice-Chancellor of Australian National University, Ian Chubb, said: "the methodology looks fairly solid ... it looks like a pretty good stab at a fair comparison." and "The SJTU rankings were reported quickly and widely around the world… (and they) offer an important comparative view of research performance and reputation." respectively.[14] Philip G. Altbach named ARWU's 'consistency, clarity of purpose, and transparency' as significant strengths.[15]
Criticism
Like all other rankings, ARWU has criticism. It is condemned for "relying too much on award factors" thus undermining the importance of quality of instruction and humanities.[5][7][16][17] 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.[18] A 2013 paper in the same journal finally showed how the Shanghai ranking results could be reproduced.[19] In a report from April 2009, J-C. Billaut, D. Bouyssou and Ph. Vincke analyse 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.[20] The ARWU researchers themselves, N.C Liu and Y Cheng, 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. ARWU has been criticised by the European Commission as well as some EU member states for "favour[ing] Anglo-Saxon higher education institutions". For instance, ARWU is repeatedly criticised in France, where it triggers an annual controversy, focusing on its ill-adapted character to the French academic system.[21][22]
Results
Alternative
As it may take much time for rising universities to produce Nobel laureates and Fields Medalists with numbers comparable to those of older institutions, the Institute created alternative rankings excluding such award factors so as to provide another way of comparisons of academic performance. The weighting of all the other factors remains unchanged, thus the grand total of 70%.
Alternative Rankings (500) – Top 50[Note 2]
Institution |
2014[24] |
2015[25] |
Harvard University |
1 |
1 |
Stanford University |
2 |
2 |
Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
4 |
3 |
University of California-Berkeley |
3 |
4 |
California Institute of Technology |
5 |
5 |
University of Oxford |
6 |
6 |
University of Cambridge |
8 |
7 |
University of California, San Diego |
7 |
8 |
University of Washington |
10 |
9 |
Yale University |
9 |
10 |
Columbia University |
12 |
11 |
University of Michigan |
13 |
12 |
University of California, Los Angeles |
11 |
13 |
University of California, San Francisco |
15 |
14 |
The University of Tokyo |
14 |
15 |
University of Pennsylvania |
16 |
15 |
Cornell University |
18 |
17 |
The Johns Hopkins University |
19 |
18 |
University of Toronto |
17 |
19 |
Princeton University |
20 |
20 |
University College London |
21 |
21 |
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich |
23 |
22 |
Duke University |
22 |
23 |
Imperial College, London |
24 |
24 |
Northwestern University |
25 |
25 |
University of Minnesota |
26 |
26 |
University of Chicago |
27 |
27 |
University of Wisconsin - Madison |
28 |
28 |
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill |
29 |
29 |
The University of Texas at Austin |
34 |
30 |
University of California, Davis |
31 |
30 |
University of Copenhagen |
40 |
30 |
Washington University in St. Louis |
30 |
30 |
New York University |
32 |
34 |
University of British Columbia |
33 |
35 |
Pennsylvania State University |
35 |
36 |
The University of Melbourne |
39 |
37 |
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign |
38 |
38 |
Kyoto University |
36 |
39 |
University of Colorado at Boulder |
37 |
40 |
The Ohio State University, Columbus |
41 |
41 |
University of Maryland, College Park |
42 |
42 |
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh Campus |
43 |
43 |
Pierre and Marie Curie University |
45 |
44 |
University of Queensland |
58 |
45 |
McGill University |
51 |
46 |
KU Leuven |
59 |
47 |
University of California, Santa Cruz |
50 |
47 |
Ghent University |
53 |
49 |
Heidelberg University |
63 |
49 |
University of California, Irvine |
48 |
49 |
Subject
There are two categories in ARWU's disciplinary rankings, broad subject fields and specific subjects. The methodology is similar to that adopted in the overall table, including award factors, paper citation, and the number of highly cited scholars.
Broad fields[26] |
Specific subjects[27] |
Natural sciences and mathematics |
Mathematics |
Computer science and engineering |
Physics |
Life and agricultural sciences |
Chemistry |
Clinical medicine and pharmacy |
Computer science |
Social sciences |
Economics and business |
Regional rankings
Considering the development of specific areas, two independent regional league tables with different methodologies were launched.
Greater China
Methodology
Methodology of Greater China Rankings[28][Note 2]
Criterion |
Indicator |
Weight |
Education |
- Percentage of graduate students
- Percentage of non-local students
- Ratio of academic staff to students
- Doctoral degrees awarded
- Alumni as Nobel Laureates & Fields Medalists
|
|
Research |
- Annual research income
- Nature & Science Papers
- SCIE & SSCI papers
- International patents
|
|
Faculty |
- Percentage of academic staff with a doctoral degree
- Staff as Nobel Laureates and Fields Medalists
- Highly cited researchers
|
|
Resources |
|
|
Results
Macedonia
Methodology
Methodology of rankings of Macedonian higher educational institutions[30][Note 3]
Criterion |
Indicator |
Weight |
Teaching and learning |
- Percentage of incoming students who participated in state matura examination
- Average score of incoming students in state matura examination
- Percentage of foreign students
- Academic staff / undergraduate students ratio
- Proportion of academic staff with the highest degree
- Proportion of academic staff with 1 year or above foreign work experience
- Proportion of students with academic scholarships from Ministry of Education and Science
- Institutional income per student
- Spending on library resources per student
- Spending on IT infrastructure and equipment per student
- Proportion of undergraduates who graduated within regular time
- Proportion of undergraduates with 3 months or above foreign study/practical experience under the state-level agreements
- Employment rate of undergraduates
|
- 5%
- 5%
- 5%
- 4%
- 8%
- 6%
- 6%
- 2%
- 1%
- 1%
- 1%
- 2%
- 4%
|
Research |
- Total research income per academic staff
- Research income from the Ministry of Education & Science per academic staff
- Papers published in peer reviewed journals per academic staff
- Papers indexed by Web of Science per academic staff
- Books published per academic staff
- Numbers of doctorates granted per academic staff
|
|
Social service |
- Research income from industry per academic staff
- Patents issued per academic staff
|
|
Results
Notes
References
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
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)