1. CEIHE II CONFERENCE SANTANDER 24-26 APRIL 2008 Dr Peter W A West Secretary to the University

2. League Tables and European Higher Education  ‘European HE needs to be modernised. We have global dominance in football, so why not in HE.’ Commissioner Jan Figel (2/08)  ‘European HE has only two out of the top 10 in Shanghai tables. Governments can create good universities, not excellent ones.’ Minster Ziga Turk, Slovenia (2/08)  ‘The Shanghai rankings show that European HE is, overall, unsuccessful.’ M. Arnaldo Abruzzini, Euro Chambers (2/08)  ‘League tables count what can be measured, rather than measuring what counts.’ HEFCE Publication (4/08)

3. Near-Obsession With Rankings Satisfy a ‘public demand for transparency and information that institutions and government have not been able to meet on their own.’ (Usher & Savino, 2006, p38)  Aid to students/consumers re: monetary ‘private benefits’ of university attainment and occupational/salary premium  Aid to employers what they can expect from graduates  Aid to government/policymakers re: quality, international standards & economic credibility  Aid to public because they are perceived as independent of the sector or individual universities  Aid to HEIs because they want to be able to benchmark their performance Source: E.H.

4. Institutional Response To Ranking Status  Significant gap between current and preferred rank  93% and 82%, respectively, want to improve their national or international ranking.  58% respondents not happy with current institutional ranking  Current ranking:  3% of all respondents are nationally ranked 1 st in their country, but 12% want to be so ranked;  No respondents are internationally ranked 1st, but 3% want to be so ranked  70% of all respondents wish to be in top 10% nationally, and  71% want to be in top 25% internationally.

5. Institutional Response: Other Actions  ‘Driven us to consider unhelpful merger proposals’  ‘Made us spend money bolstering demand in key overseas markets to counter league tables’ counter league tables’  ‘Made us devote time to restoring our damaged feelings’  University administrators:  ‘most engaged and obsessively implicated’ (Keller, 2007)  ‘caught between not wanting to place public emphasis on their ranking…and privately trying to avoid slipping’ (Giffith/Rask, 2007) SOURCE: E.H.

6. Impact on Diversity  Public HEIs have hard time competing: ‘...measures favour private institutions over public ones’ (Chronicle HE, 25/05/07)  Student selectivity indicators and shift in resources being made to improve ranking are disadvantageous for ‘low income and minority students’ (Clarke, 2007)  ‘…certain institutions or types of institutions…rise to the top regardless of the specific indicators and weightings’ (Usher and Savino, 2007)  As demand for status increases, rankings are leading to creation of more elite institutions. (Samuelson, Newsweek, 2004)  ‘Devaluing of hundreds of institutions…that do not meet criteria to be included in rankings’ (Lovett, President AAHE, 2005) SOURCE: E.H.

7. Indicators and Weightings THES-SQ WorldSJTU Indicators The GuardianThe Times*Sunday Times*University RankingsARWU+ Student Survey (NSS)15%++17%16% TQA/Subject Review 7% Head teacher survey 4.50% Entry standards17%11%23% Spending17%11% Value added17% Good Honours 11%9% Completion/dropout 11%Variable~ Graduate prospects17%11% Unemployment 9% Research assessment 17%18% Student:staff ratio17%11%9%20% Recruiter survey 10% Peer survey 4.50%40% International staff 5% International students 5% Nobel laureates (staff) 20% Nobel laureates (alumni) 10% Highly cited researchers 20% Articles published 20% Articles cited 20% Size 10% Total100% * Approximate figures; + The SJTU ARWU uses different weightings for institutions that specialise in humanities or social science; ++ Teaching 10%, Feedback 5%; ~ bonus/penalty mark

8. Typology Study  Rationale of project to show diversity of European HE  Key factors of institutional profile: Type of degree Range of subjects Research intensiveness International orientation of teaching and staff  Contrast with fields of league tables  Does Europe have different expectations?

9. Implications of Typology for Strathclyde  Unorthodox University, on willing to accept league table position  Looking for benchmarks: ‘European Technological University’  Partnerships for EU funding/student exchange  National pressures – HE/FE convergence