La Asociación Europea de Universidades viene de publicar en estos días un análisis crítico de los rankings globales.
Bajar el informe completo (85 pp) aquí 3,3 MB
EUA publishes first review of main international university rankings
June 23, 2011
Comunicado oficial de la European University Association (EUA)
EUA has published a major new report “Global University Rankings and their Impact” that analyses the methodologies used in the main international university rankings and also refers to a number of other ongoing projects seeking to measure university performance.
EUA commissioned this report as a response to the recent growth in international and national rankings, and as a result of increasing questions from its members requesting information and advice on such rankings. The report was presented to an audience of nearly 150 university leaders from EUA member institutions and higher education experts from across Europe – as the central part of the EUA Rankings Seminar held in Brussels on Friday 17 June.
The main findings of the report were presented by author Professor Andrejs Rauhvargers who stressed that “higher education policy decisions should not be based solely on rankings data”. The event then included two panel debates, focusing on the report and the different strengths and weaknesses of international rankings, which involved different stakeholders from the university sector, the European Commission, ranking providers and student bodies.
It is clear that despite their shortcomings, rankings are here to stay, the EUA report notes, quoting a recent European Commission report, that they “enjoy a high level of acceptance among stakeholders and the wider public because of their simplicity and consumer type information”.
Predicting a rise in the number of rankings in the future, the report argues that it is vital for universities and different stakeholders to be aware of the degree to which rankings are transparent, and from a user’s perspective, of the relationship between what it is stated is being measured and what is in fact being measured, how the scores are calculated and, even more importantly, what they mean.
The report also argues that the main international university rankings provide an “oversimplified picture” of institutional mission, quality and performance, as they focus mainly on indicators related to the research function of universities. It also makes the case that the benefits rankings offer, be it through fostering accountability or encouraging the collection of more reliable data, are outweighed by a lack of transparency and by “unwanted consequences”. Such consequences include a growing tendency for universities to invest in activities that will improve their position in the rankings rather than in core areas such as teaching and learning.
This EUA Rankings Review project was made possible by funding from the Robert Bosch Stiftung and the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

Editorial
EUA commissioned this report in response to the growth in international and national rankings, as a result of increasing questions from member institutions requesting information and advice on the nature of these rankings, because of the interest shown by national governments in ranking exercises, and finally in light of the European Commission’s decision to develop a ‘European ranking’.
An ad hoc working group of Council was first established in 2009 to consider how the association could
best serve its members in this respect. This resulted in a decision of the EUA Council to launch a pilot
project to publish, in 2011, the first in a series of EUA reviews of rankings.
This project was entrusted to an Editorial Board chaired by EUA President, Professor Jean-Marc Rapp,
former Rector of the University of Lausanne, and including: Professor Jean-Pierre Finance, President of the Henri Poincaré University, Nancy 1 and EUA Board member; Professor Howard Newby, Vice -Chancellor of the University of Liverpool; Professor Oddershede, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Southern Denmark and President of the Danish Rectors’ Conference. Professor Andrejs Rauhvargers, Secretary General of the Latvian Rectors’ Conference accepted our invitation to carry out this analysis, and is the author of the Report.
We are honoured that the Gulbenkian Foundation and the Robert Bosch Foundation have, together,
agreed to support this project over a two year period.
The report focuses on international rankings and also refers to a number of other ongoing projects
seeking to measure university performance. It describes and analyses the methodologies used by the main international rankings using only publically available and freely accessible information. It is intended as a service to EUA members, often under pressure to appear in the rankings, or to improve their position in one way or another.
It is clear that despite their shortcomings, evident biases and flaws, rankings are here to stay. They ‘enjoy a high level of acceptance among stakeholders and the wider public because of their simplicity and consumer type information’ (AUBR Expert Group, 2009). For this reason it is important that universities are aware of the degree to which they are transparent, from a user’s perspective, of the relationship between what it is stated is being measured and what is in fact being measured, how the scores are calculated and what they mean.
However, it is important to underline that international rankings in their present form only cover a
very small percentage of the world’s 17,000 universities, between 1% and 3% (200-500 universities),
completely ignoring the rest. They are of direct relevance for only around half of EUA members, situated in a small percentage of those countries in which EUA has members, and strongly correlated with the wealth of those countries.
The report confirms that most international rankings focus predominantly on indicators related to the
research function of universities. Attempts to measure the quality of teaching and learning generally
involve the use of proxies, often with a very indirect link to the teaching process, and are rarely effective.
The importance of links to external stakeholders and environments are largely ignored. Where existing
data is used, it is often not used consistently, and reputational factors have in many cases disproportional importance. Taken together, this leads to an oversimplified picture of institutional mission, quality and performance, and one that lacks relevance for the large majority of institutions, especially at a time when diversification and individual institutional profiling are high on agendas across Europe.
On a more positive note, the arrival of global rankings over the last few years has focused considerable
attention on higher education, and put the spotlight on universities that are increasingly being compared
nationally and internationally. Rankings have certainly helped to foster greater accountability and increased pressure to improve management practices. They have encouraged the collection of more reliable data and in some countries have been used to argue for further investment in higher education. Although it is said they can be used to guide consumer choice, there is little convincing evidence that they do so (exceptin Asia or via the CHE Ranking in Germany).
It is our view that at present it would be difficult to argue that the benefits offered by the information
they provide, given the lack of transparency that we have observed, are greater than the ‘unwanted
consequences of rankings’. For there is a danger that time invested by universities in collecting and using data and statistics in order to improve their performance in the rankings may detract from efforts to progress in other areas such as teaching and learning or community involvement.
Looking to the future, measures are being taken by the ranking providers to try to improve the
methodologies they use, which we can only encourage, and which we will follow up in subsequent
reports. The International Rankings Expert Group (IREG) has announced that it will conduct an audit
of the various rankings. We hope that this exercise will include the use of independent experts as this
would add considerably to its credibility. Among the open questions for future consideration is that of
the ‘democratisation’ of rankings to allow more of the world’s universities the opportunity to find their
place, and what this would entail. With regard to some of the more recent European initiatives that seek
to broaden the focus of rankings to cover the different missions of the university experience suggests that lack of internationally comparable data is a challenge. The debate will continue and EUA will take up these and other questions in future reports.