27. The Sophistry of University Rankings: Implications for Learning and Student Welfare

Page, Stewart; Cramer, Kenneth M.; Page, Laura A.

doi:10.22329/celt.v2i0.3221

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One is that the various ranking indices and measures used are generally incongruent with reasons for university attendance and selection typically reported by undergraduates themselves (e.g., Page, Cramer, & Page, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Canadian University Rankings: Buyer Beware Once Again

2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Canadian University Rankings: Buyer Beware Once Again

2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ranking of higher education institutions has arguably grown in popularity, and many implications have arisen for the ranked institutions (whether high or low), the surrounding communities, alumni, and certainly both current and prospective students (Cramer et al, 2016;Cramer & Page, 2007;Page, Cramer, & Page, 2009, 2010. The exercise has even grown popular in regions of the world outside of Canada and the United States (Murphy & Sage, 2014), and now includes Europe, Latin America, and Asia (see Times Higher Education, n.d.).…”

Section: The Business Of Rankingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…High-versus low-ranking schools were significantly different on approximately onequarter of the indices; and 3. The cluster analysis produced largely meaningless and unintelligible (although empirically similar) families of institutions (see Cramer et al, 2016;Cramer & Page, 2007;Page & Cramer, 2001;Page et al, 2009Page et al, , 2010. Arguably, the implications of how administrators utilize these rankings will regrettably highlight a darker element, including outright fabrication of data in an effort to improve relative standing in Maclean's.…”

Section: The Business Of Rankingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Past research has acknowledged potential shortcomings within the validity of Maclean's rankings since most studies (Cramer & Page, 2007;Page & Cramer, 2001;Page et al, 2009, 2010-with the exception of Cramer et al, 2016) have investigated a single year of data, and it has been determined that a multi-year analysis would be beneficial. Thus, the present study selected what researchers deemed to be the most popular and impactful indices (rank and reputation) for each institution of higher learning across a period of 20 years.…”

Section: Present Study and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Maclean’s Magazine University Rankings (1998-2018)

Cramer

DeBlock

2020

CELT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following 20 years of publishing rank and reputation scores for Canada’s 49 institutions of higher education, the present analysis tested five hypotheses: (1) rank and reputation should be positively correlated across schools for each year; (2) rank and reputation should be positively correlated across the 20 years for each school; (3) a school’s rank variance should be equivalent to a school’s reputation variance; (4) previous reputation would predict current rank; and (5) previous rank would predict current reputation. Results showed that whereas rank corresponded roughly to reputation for a given school, there are noteworthy exceptions. One in seven schools offered a reliable correlation between rank and reputation, and four school correlations were negative. Rank and reputation variability correlated, though (marginally) better-ranked schools had stable reputation scores over the years. Implications for future ranking exercises are discussed, as are directions for future research. Voilà maintenant 20 ans que l’on publie le classement et la réputation des 49 établissements d’enseignement supérieur canadiens. Dans cet article, nous examinons cinq hypothèses : 1) le classement et la réputation devraient faire l’objet d’une corrélation positive parmi les établissements d’année en année; 2) le classement et la réputation devraient faire l’objet d’une corrélation positive sur toute la période de 20 ans pour chaque établissement; 3) les variations dans le classement d’un établissement devraient se refléter dans les variations de la réputation; 4) l’indice de réputation antérieur permettrait de prévoir le classement actuel d’un établissement; et 5) le classement antérieur permettrait de prévoir l’indice de réputation actuel d’un établissement. Selon les résultats de notre analyse, bien que le classement et la réputation puissent être équivalents dans le cas d’un établissement en particulier, il existe des exceptions notoires. Dans le cas d’un établissement sur sept, il y a une corrélation sûre entre le classement et la réputation. Dans le cas de quatre établissements, la corrélation s’est montrée négative. Il y a une corrélation entre les variations du classement et de la réputation, quoique les établissements un peu mieux classés ont des indices de réputation plus stables au fil du temps. Nous présentons enfin les conséquences de ces résultats pour la conception de futurs palmarès et nous proposons des avenues pour la recherche.

show abstract

The Marketing of Canadian University Rankings: A Misadventure Now 24 Years Old

Cramer

Page

Burrows

et al. 2016

CELT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on analyses of Maclean’s ranking data pertaining to Canadian universities published over the last 24 years, we present a summary of statistical findings of annual ranking exercises, as well as discussion about their current status and the effects upon student welfare. Some illustrative tables are also presented. Using correlational and cluster analyses, for each year, we have found largely nonsignificant, inconsistent, and uninterpretable relations between rank standings of universities and Maclean’s main measures, as well as between rank standings and the many specific indices used to generate these standings. In our opinion, when assessed in terms of their empirical characteristics, the annual data show generally that this system of ranking is highly limited in terms of its practical or academic value to students. Among other difficulties with the interpretation of ranks, we also discuss the possibility that ranking exercises have unintended, though potentially serious, negative consequences for the intellectual and personal welfare of students.

show abstract

27. The Sophistry of University Rankings: Implications for Learning and Student Welfare

Cited by 3 publications

References 12 publications

Canadian University Rankings: Buyer Beware Once Again

Canadian University Rankings: Buyer Beware Once Again

Maclean’s Magazine University Rankings (1998-2018)

The Marketing of Canadian University Rankings: A Misadventure Now 24 Years Old

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About