Learning to Live with League Tables and Ranking: The Experience of Institutional Leaders

Hazelkorn, Ellen

doi:10.1057/hep.2008.1

Cited by 260 publications

(164 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

140

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings also relate to work in industrial organization and the under-researched question of how demand responsiveness to beliefs about quality is moderated by the degree of market competition (Beckert et al, 2012;Gaynor et al, 2012;Porter, 1974). The present study is additionally of interest to decision-makers at both university and departmental levels who have increasingly confronted questions about the pay-offs from investments to improve student satisfaction scores and popular league table rankings (Hazelkorn, 2008;The Economist, 2013). In particular, by providing more refined insights into the extent to which quality metrics affect applicant numbers, our paper provides valuable information which might help managers in their resource allocation decisions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Student satisfaction, league tables and university applications: Evidence from Britain

Gibbons

Neumayer

Perkins

2015

Economics of Education Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate the impact of information about student satisfaction on university choice, using data from the UK's National Student Survey (NSS) and on applications to undergraduate degrees.We show that NSS scores have a small statistically significant effect on applications at the universitysubject level. This effect operates via the influence of the NSS on a university's position in separately published, subject-specific league tables, suggesting that information contained in the league table rankings is more salient. The impact of rankings is greater for more able students, for universities with entry standards in the upper-middle tier, and for subject-departments facing more competition.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Student satisfaction, league tables and university applications: Evidence from Britain

Gibbons

Neumayer

Perkins

2015

Economics of Education Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, the quality criteria need to be combined together either into categories or into one lump sum metric that indicates the quality of the university or the program being ranked. Hazelkorn (2008) used the term "University League Tables Ranking System" and gave it the acronym LTRS. Hazelkorn explained that LTRS are "contemporary form, type are published by, inter alia, government and accreditation agencies, higher education, research and commercial organizations, and popular media, as a consumer information tool" (p. 193).…”

Section: Ranking Systems -Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They also added that there are "countless" numbers of program ranking reports -like the ranking reports for the MBA (Master of Business Administration) programs. An important point to note is that many reports are being generated with dissimilar ranking (Hazelkorn, 2008). Having that many ranking reports may question the validity and reliability of all the ranking reports (Osterloh & Frey, 2015, Bhattacharjee, 2011.…”

Section: Ranking Institutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hazelkorn (2008) suggested that global ranking institutions (institutions that rank universities globally) mainly emphasize research production as the prime factor for ranking. This puts the universities that receive research funding at an advantage because they can pursue research and publication with greater rigor.…”

Section: Validity and Reliability Considerations For Ranking Reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although different procedures are suggested to develop academic ranking reports, most ranking stakeholders agree on six prescribed steps (Dill & Soo, 2005, Hazelkorn, 2008 that are followed in order to produce the ranking reports:…”

Section: The Process Of Development Ranking Reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Preparing for Academic Ranking Reports in the Kurdistan Regional Government Higher Education

Ali¹,

Fatah²,

Kohun³

2016

InSITE Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explains the development of a system of academic ranking across the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) colleges and universities. The Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MHE) at KRG has embarked on a project to develop a system for ranking the universities under their jurisdiction. The MHE wanted their ranking system to be modeled on other established university ranking systems. They studied other systems of academic rankings, considered the factors that goes into them systems and tried to create a similar system of providing data in order to issue such ranking reports.However, dissimilarities between the established academic system and that of the KRG necessitated modifying to the ranking system in order to provide a reliable and relevant ranking report. This study explains the steps involved in establishing a system for ranking academic performance of Kurdistan universities. It begins by reviewing literature about the established systems of academic ranking, and the factors that are included in their ranking systems. It then details the factors that typically considered into completing such ranking system and how the MHE attempted to modify some of them in order to produce a reliable ranking system of higher education in Kurdistan universities.

show abstract

The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation

Waltman

Calero-Medina

Kosten

et al. 2012

J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec

338

323

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 is a ranking of universities based on bibliometric indicators of publication output, citation impact, and scientific collaboration. The ranking includes 500 major universities from 41 different countries. This paper provides an extensive discussion of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012. The ranking is compared with other global university rankings, in particular the Academic Ranking of World Universities (commonly known as the Shanghai Ranking) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. The comparison focuses on the methodological choices underlying the different rankings. Also, a detailed description is offered of the data collection methodology of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 and of the indicators used in the ranking. Various innovations in the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 are presented. These innovations include (1) an indicator based on counting a university's highly cited publications, (2) indicators based on fractional rather than full counting of collaborative publications, (3) the possibility of excluding non‐English language publications, and (4) the use of stability intervals. Finally, some comments are made on the interpretation of the ranking and a number of limitations of the ranking are pointed out.

show abstract

Learning to Live with League Tables and Ranking: The Experience of Institutional Leaders

Cited by 260 publications

References 20 publications

Student satisfaction, league tables and university applications: Evidence from Britain

Student satisfaction, league tables and university applications: Evidence from Britain

Preparing for Academic Ranking Reports in the Kurdistan Regional Government Higher Education

The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About