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

Abstract

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.

Ranking Japan’s Institutions of Higher Education, 2017: A Comparative Analysis

“…To begin, the correlation between index rank and final rank was significant for most indices (excluding each of student/faculty ratio, long-term study abroad, active learning, and career goals); this is somewhat improved from the typical statistics among Canadian data where approximately 30-40% of indices are correlated with final rank (cf. Cramer et al, 2016). It is worth noting as well that none of the correlations in the Japanese data were negative, a reassuring outcome with regard to validity and meaningfulness of these data.…”

“…Using a significance level () of .05, we present a Spearman rho (rank) correlation table of all variables (Table 1 also includes means, standard deviations, and both skewness and kurtosis statistics). Modelled after past research (Cramer et al, 2016), we divided the main nonparametric (rank) analysis into three branches: (1) an assessment of the correlation between each index rank and the final rank, (2) a comparison for each index by lower-versus higher-ranking schools, and (3) a cluster analysis to group like-profiled schools into a family or cluster of constituent members who share similar index scores.…”

“…That is, high-ranking medical/doctorate schools are grouped with both comprehensive and undergraduate schools of vastly different characteristics. As such, Canadian researchers concluded that the cluster analysis cannot offer students and parents a meaningful and useful guide toward selecting their school of higher education (Cramer et al, 2016).…”

“…The exercise of ranking various entities in our worldfrom toasters to celebritieshas entered the realm of higher education (Amsler & Bolsmann, 2012;Axelrod, 2010;Boyer, 2003;Bruneau, 2006;Cramer et al, 2016;Ishikawa, 2009Ishikawa, , 2014Li, 2016;Post, 2012;Yonezawa, 2010). Of course, the legacy of low-impact decisions, like brand of chewing gum, are hardly salient; it is rather the high-impact decisionssuch as home ownership, automobile purchase, and institutions of higher educationthat may last years, even decades.…”

Is University Nursing Education in Canada Taking the Lead in a World Focused on Sustainable Development? / La formation universitaire au Canada est-elle à l’avant-plan dans un monde centré sur le développment durable?

“…As with any ranking system, there are criticisms (Olcay & Bulu, 2017); however, we felt that the benefits of having a specific list of ranked nursing faculties or schools was valuable for this project. The Maclean's list of rankings was considered; however, methodological issues in that ranking system have been identified by academics (Cramer et al, 2016). The Times Higher Education list was also considered; however, that ranking does not allow for a search specific to nursing.…”