Academic Ranking of World Universities
Get Academic Ranking of World Universities essential facts below. View Videos or join the Academic Ranking of World Universities discussion. Add Academic Ranking of World Universities to your PopFlock.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Academic Ranking of World Universities
Academic Ranking of World Universities
Academic Ranking of World Universities logo.png
CategoriesHigher education
FrequencyAnnual
PublisherShanghai Ranking Consultancy (2009-present)
Shanghai Jiao Tong University (2003-2008)
CountryChina
LanguageTen languages with English & Chinese
Websitewww.shanghairanking.com

Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), also known as Shanghai Ranking, is one of the annual publications of world university rankings. The league table was originally compiled and issued by Shanghai Jiao Tong University in 2003, making it the first global university ranking with multifarious indicators.[1][2]

Since 2009, ARWU has been published and copyrighted annually by Shanghai Ranking Consultancy, an independent organization focusing on higher education.[3] In 2011, a board of international advisory consisting of scholars and policy researchers was established to provide suggestions.[4][5] The publication currently includes global league tables for institutions and a whole and for a selection of individual subjects, alongside independent regional Greater China Ranking and Macedonian HEIs Ranking.

ARWU is regarded as one of the three most influential and widely observed university rankings, alongside QS World University Rankings and Times Higher Education World University Rankings.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] It is praised for the objectivity, stability and transparency of its methodology,[10][11][12] but draws wide criticism as it fails to adjust for the size of the institution, and thus larger institutions would tend to rank above smaller ones.[9][13][14]

Global rankings

Overall

Methodology

ARWU methodology[15]
Criterion Indicator Code Weighting Source
Quality of education
Alumni
  • 10%
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
  • 20%
  • 20%
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
  • 20%
  • 20%
Citation index
Per capita performance
  • Per capita academic performance of an institution
PCP
  • 10%
--
*
  1. ^ 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."[16] In 2010, The Chronicle of Higher Education called ARWU "the best-known and most influential global ranking of universities".[17] EU Research Headlines reported the ARWU's work on 31 December 2003: "The universities were carefully evaluated using several indicators of research performance."[18] 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.[19] Philip G. Altbach named ARWU's 'consistency, clarity of purpose, and transparency' as significant strengths.[20] While ARWU has originated in China, the ranking have been praised for being unbiased towards Asian institutions.[21]

Criticism

The ranking is condemned for "relying too much on award factors" thus undermining the importance of quality of instruction and humanities.[9][22][23][24] 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.[25] A 2013 paper in the same journal finally showed how the Shanghai ranking results could be reproduced.[26] 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.[27] 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[28][29] and the unreasonable weight given to research often performed decades ago.[30] It is also criticised in France for its use as a motivation for merging universities into larger ones.[31] Indeed, a further criticism has been that the metrics used are not independent of university size, e.g. number of publications or award winners will mechanically add as universities are grouped, independently of research (or teaching) quality; thus a merger between two equally-ranked institutions will significantly increase the merged institutions score and give it a higher ranking, without any change in quality.[14]

Results

Academic Ranking of World Universities (500) - Top 50[32][Note 2]
Academic Ranking of World Universities, 2003-2018, Top ten

Institution 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
United States Harvard University 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
United States Stanford University 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
United Kingdom University of Cambridge 5 3 2 2 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 3
United States Massachusetts Institute of Technology 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 4 3 3 5 4 4 4
United States University of California, Berkeley 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 4 4 3 4 4 3 5 5 5
United States Princeton University 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6
United Kingdom University of Oxford 9 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 10 7 7 7 7
United States Columbia University 10 9 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 8 8 8
United States California Institute of Technology 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 8 9 9 9
United States University of Chicago 11 10 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10
United States University of California, Los Angeles 15 16 14 14 13 13 13 13 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11
United States Yale University 8 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 11
United States Cornell University 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 12 13
United States University of Washington 16 20 17 17 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 15 15 15 13 14 14
United Kingdom University College London 20 25 26 26 25 22 21 21 20 21 21 20 18 17 16 17 15
United States Johns Hopkins University 24 22 19 20 19 20 19 18 18 17 17 17 16 16 18 18 16
United States University of Pennsylvania 18 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 15 16 17 18 17 16 17
United States University of California, San Diego 14 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 14 14 14 14 15 15 18
Switzerland Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich 25 27 27 27 27 24 23 23 23 23 20 19 20 19 19 19 19
United States University of California, San Francisco 13 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 17 18 18 18 18 21 21 21 20
United States University of Michigan 21 19 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 23 22 22 23 24 27 20
United States Washington University in St. Louis 22 28 28 28 28 29 29 30 31 31 32 32 32 23 20 20 22
United Kingdom Imperial College London 17 23 23 23 23 27 26 26 24 24 24 22 23 22 27 24 23
Canada University of Toronto 23 24 24 24 23 24 27 27 26 27 28 24 25 27 23 23 24
Japan University of Tokyo 19 14 20 19 20 19 20 20 21 20 21 21 21 20 24 22 25
Denmark University of Copenhagen 65 59 57 56 46 45 43 40 43 44 42 39 35 30 30 29 26
United States University of Wisconsin-Madison 27 18 16 16 17 17 17 17 19 19 19 24 24 28 28 28 27
United States Duke University 32 31 32 31 32 32 31 35 35 36 31 31 31 25 26 26 28
United States Northwestern University 29 30 31 33 29 30 30 29 30 30 30 28 27 26 22 25 29
United States New York University (NYU) 55 32 29 29 30 31 32 31 29 27 27 27 27 29 29 32 30
United Kingdom University of Edinburgh 43 47 47 52 53 55 53 54 53 51 51 45 47 41 32 32 31
Japan Kyoto University 30 21 22 22 22 23 24 24 27 26 26 26 26 32 35 35 32
United Kingdom University of Manchester 89 78 53 50 48 40 41 44 38 40 41 38 41 35 38 34 33
United States University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 52 56 55 59 58 38 39 41 42 41 43 36 39 35 33 30 33
United States Rockefeller University 28 29 30 30 30 32 32 34 33 32 34 33 33 37 36 30 35
Canada University of British Columbia 35 36 37 36 36 35 36 36 37 39 40 37 40 34 31 43 35
France Paris-Sud University 72 48 61 64 52 49 43 45 40 37 39 42 41 46 41 42 37
Sweden Karolinska Institute 39 46 45 48 53 51 50 42 44 42 44 47 48 44 44 44 38
United States University of Colorado Boulder 31 34 35 34 34 34 34 32 32 33 33 34 34 38 43 38 38
United States University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 45 25 25 25 26 26 25 25 25 25 25 28 29 30 37 41 38
Australia University of Melbourne 92 82 82 78 79 73 75 62 60 57 54 44 44 40 39 38 41
United States University of Minnesota 37 33 32 32 33 28 28 28 28 29 29 30 30 33 34 37 41
China Tsinghua University 201-300 202-301 153-202 151-200 151-202 201-302 201-302 151-200 151-200 151-200 151-200 101-150 101-150 58 48 45 43
France Sorbonne University - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 36 44
United States University of Texas at Austin 47 40 36 39 38 39 38 38 35 35 36 39 37 44 51 40 45
United States University of Maryland, College Park 75 57 47 37 37 37 37 36 38 38 38 43 43 52 53 51 46
Germany Heidelberg University 58 64 71 66 65 67 63 63 62 62 54 49 46 47 42 47 47
United States University of California, Santa Barbara 26 35 34 35 35 36 35 32 33 34 35 41 38 42 45 46 48
United States University of Texas - Dallas 34 36 38 38 39 41 48 49 51 48 46 45 44 43 48 48 49
Netherlands Utrecht University 40 39 41 40 42 47 52 50 48 53 52 57 56 65 47 51 49

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%.

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[35] Specific subjects[36]
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[37][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
  • 5%
  • 5%
  • 5%
  • 10%
  • 10%
Research
  • Annual research income
  • Nature & Science Papers
  • SCIE & SSCI papers
  • International patents
  • 5%
  • 10%
  • 10%
  • 10%
Faculty
  • Percentage of academic staff with a doctoral degree
  • Staff as Nobel Laureates and Fields Medalists
  • Highly cited researchers
  • 5%
  • 10%
  • 10%
Resources
  • Annual budget
  • 5%

Results

Greater China Rankings (100) - Top 10[Note 2][38]
Institution 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
China Tsinghua University 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
China Peking University 7 7 5 5 4 2 2 2 2
Hong Kong The Chinese University of Hong Kong 6 5 6 7 5 5 4 4 3
China Zhejiang University 10 9 9 10 9 9 5 5 4
Hong Kong The University of Hong Kong 3 6 4 6 6 5 6 8 5
China University of Science and Technology of China 9 11 10 8 8 4 7 6 6
China Shanghai Jiao Tong University 15 12 12 12 12 10 8 7 7
China Fudan University 16 10 11 11 10 12 9 10 8
Taiwan National Tsing Hua University 4 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 9
Taiwan National Taiwan University 1 2 2 3 3 7 9 9 10

Notes

  1. ^ a b c Official datum sources adopted by ARWU: Nobel Laureate Web, Fields Medalist Web, Thomson Reuters' survey of highly cited researchers & Thomson Reuters' Web of Science.
  2. ^ a b c d Order shown in accordance with the latest result.

References

  1. ^ Pavel, Adina-Petruta (2015). "Global university rankings - a comparative analysis". Procedia Economics and Finance. 26: 54-63. doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00838-2.
  2. ^ "World university rankings: how much influence do they really have?". The Guardian. 2013. Retrieved 2015. The first international rankings, the Academic Ranking of World Universities or Shanghai Rankings
  3. ^ "About Academic Ranking of World Universities". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2014. Retrieved 2014. Since 2009 the Academic Ranking of World Universities has been published and copyrighted by ShanghaiRanking Consultancy.
  4. ^ "Shanghai rankings rattle European universities". ABS-CBN Interactive. 8 December 2010. Retrieved 2015. France's higher education minister travelled to Jiaotong University's suburban campus last month to discuss the rankings, the Norwegian education minister came last year and the Danish minister is due to visit next month.; The idea for the rankings was born in 1998, when Beijing decreed China needed several world-leading universities.
  5. ^ "ARWU International Advisory Board". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2014. Retrieved 2015.
  6. ^ Network, QS Asia News (2018-03-02). "The history and development of higher education ranking systems - QS WOWNEWS". QS WOWNEWS. Retrieved .
  7. ^ "About Academic Ranking of World Universities | About ARWU". www.shanghairanking.com. Retrieved .
  8. ^ Ariel Zirulnick (2010-09-16). "New world university ranking puts Harvard back on top". Christian Science Monitor. Those two, as well as Shanghai Jiao Tong University, produce the most influential international university rankings out there
  9. ^ a b c Indira Samarasekera & Carl Amrhein. "Top schools don't always get top marks". The Edmonton Journal. Archived from the original on October 3, 2010. There are currently three major international rankings that receive widespread commentary: The Academic World Ranking of Universities, the QS World University Rankings and the Times Higher Education Rankings.
  10. ^ a b Philip G. Altbach (11 November 2010). "The State of the Rankings". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved 2015. The major international rankings have appeared in recent months -- the Academic Ranking of World Universities, the QS World University Rankings, and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE).
  11. ^ a b "Strength and weakness of varsity rankings". NST Online. 2016-09-14. Retrieved .
  12. ^ a b Marszal, Andrew (2012-10-04). "University rankings: which world university rankings should we trust?". Daily Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved .
  13. ^ ""Shanghai Academic Ranking: a French Controversy" by Marc Goetzmann, for La Jeune Politique". Lajeunepolitique.com. 29 August 2013. Archived from the original on 9 January 2015. Retrieved 2014.
  14. ^ a b Bahram Bekhradnia (15 December 2016). "International university rankings: For good or ill?" (PDF). Higher Education Policy Institute. p. 16. Retrieved 2017. ARWU presents a further data issue. Whereas in the case of the other rankings the results are adjusted to take account of the size of institutions, hardly any such adjustment is made by ARWU. So there is a distortion in favour of large institutions. If two institutions were to merge, the very fact of merger would mean that the merged institution would do nearly twice as well as either of the individual institutions prior to merger, although nothing else had changed.
  15. ^ "ARWU - Methodology". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2014. Retrieved 2015.
  16. ^ "A world of opportunity". The Economics. 8 September 2005. Archived from the original on 18 July 2012. Retrieved 2015. It is no accident that the most widely used annual ranking of the world's research universities, the Shanghai index, is produced by a Chinese university.
  17. ^ "International Group Announces Audit of University Rankings". The Chronicle of Higher Education. 10 October 2010. Retrieved 2015. Shanghai Jiao Tong University, which produces the best-known and most influential global ranking of universities...
  18. ^ "Chinese study ranks world's top 500 universities". European Research Headlines. 2003. Archived from the original on 2015-01-09. Retrieved 2015.
  19. ^ Rankings and Accountability in Higher Education: Uses and Misuses. United Nations Educational. 2013. p. 26. ISBN 9789230011567. Retrieved 2015.
  20. ^ Philip G. Altbach (11 September 2010). "The State of the Rankings". INSIDE HIGHER ED. Retrieved 2015. Nonetheless, AWRU's consistency, clarity of purpose, and transparency are significant advantages.
  21. ^ "Academic Ranking of World Universities 2013 released". Times Higher Education (THE). 2013-08-15. Retrieved .
  22. ^ Marszal, Andrew (2015). "University rankings: which world university rankings should we trust?". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2015. It is a remarkably stable list, relying on long-term factors such as the number of Nobel Prize-winners a university has produced, and number of articles published in Nature and Science journals. But with this narrow focus comes drawbacks. China's priority was for its universities to 'catch up' on hard scientific research. So if you're looking for raw research power, it's the list for you. If you're a humanities student, or more interested in teaching quality? Not so much.
  23. ^ J. Scott Armstrong and Tad Sperry (1994). "Business School Prestige: Research versus Teaching" (PDF). Energy & Environment. 18 (2): 13-43. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-06-20.
  24. ^ "1741-7015-5-30.fm" (PDF). Retrieved 2014.
  25. ^ R?zvan V. Florian (17 June 2007). "Irreproducibility of the results of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities". Scientometrics. 72 (1): 25-32. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1712-1.
  26. ^ Domingo Docampo (1 July 2012). "Reproducibility of the results of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities". Scientometrics. 94 (2): 567-587. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0801-y.
  27. ^ Jean-Charles Billaut, Denis Bouyssou & Philippe Vincke. "Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking?". CCSD. Retrieved 2015.
  28. ^ ""Shanghai Academic Ranking: a French Controversy" by Marc Goetzmann, for La Jeune Politique". Lajeunepolitique.com. 29 August 2013. Retrieved 2014.
  29. ^ Spongenberg, Helena (5 June 2014). "EUobserver / EU to test new university ranking in 2010". Euobserver.com. Retrieved 2014.
  30. ^ Dagorn, Gary (16 August 2016). "Universités : pourquoi le classement de Shanghaï n'est pas un exercice sérieux". Le Monde.fr (in French). lemonde.fr. Retrieved 2016.
  31. ^ Gérand, Christelle (September 2016). "Aix-Marseille, laboratoire de la fusion des universités" (in French). www.monde-diplomatique.fr. Retrieved 2016.
  32. ^ "ARWU World University Rankings 2019 | Academic Ranking of World Universities 2019 | Top 1000 universities | Shanghai Ranking - 2019". www.shanghairanking.com. Retrieved .
  33. ^ "Alternative Ranking 2014 ( Excluding Award Factor ) ( Excluding Award Factor )". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2014. Retrieved 2015.
  34. ^ "Alternative Ranking 2015 ( Excluding Award Factor )". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2015. Retrieved 2015.
  35. ^ "Academic Rankings of World Universities in subject fields". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2014. Retrieved 2015.
  36. ^ "Academic Rankings of World Universities in specific subjects". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2014. Retrieved 2015.
  37. ^ "Greater China Ranking - Methodology". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2014. Retrieved 2015.
  38. ^ "Ranking of Top Universities in Greater China - 2019". www.shanghairanking.com. Retrieved .

External links


  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.

Academic_Ranking_of_World_Universities
 



 



 
Music Scenes