Dons not impressed by rankings system
Both QS World University Rankings 2010 and Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings 2010-11 issued their latest lists recently.
While Universiti Sains Malaysia Vice-Chancellor Tan Sri Professor Dzulkifli Abdul Razak dismissed the recent rankings exercises as “old hat”, others “see their merits”.
The QS and THE lists were announced a week apart from one another and Malaysian tertiary institutions were nowhere on the Top 200 spots of both.
As far as Dzulkifli is concerned, the results of both league tables were predictable.
“It is a new ranking system but that is old hat,” he said, referring to the revised THE league table.
THE, which has been producing World University Rankings since its inception in 2004 with data supplier QS Quacquarelli Symonds Ltd, had introduced a new methodology and partner this year.
It was slammed in the past for “being based on questionable data and flawed methodology”. The most criticised component of the rankings was “peer review”, which accounted for 40 per cent of the overall score because only 3,500 researchers had responded.
With a new partner, THE promised that its seventh league table would be different — with clearer and more transparent performance indicators and data.
In the revised rankings, American schools grabbed seven of the Top 10 spots, with Harvard University leading the pack.
Last year, under the old rankings system, Universiti Malaya was the only local higher learning institution to make the Top 200.
It was followed by Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (291), USM (314), Universiti Teknologi Putra (320) and Universiti Putra Malaysia (345).
However, both USM and UM did not participate in the recent exercise.
Dzulkifli said that USM did not receive any invitation from THE.
“Even if they were to approach us, we would not be keen — that is our official stand. QS had insisted on ranking us even though we have repeatedly stated our lack of interest in the exercise.
“That alone makes it suspect.”
UM Vice-Chancellor Professor Datuk Ghauth Jasmon said: “We (declined) because THE did not respond to our questions (about the ‘industry income’ component of THE’s individual performance indicators)”.
It will continue to do so until THE replies.
But UM is not boycotting exercises to rank universities as it sees the benefits. “QS World University Rankings have pointed out some (of our) weaknesses and motivated us to review our work culture and aim for better key performance indicators,” Ghauth said.
Professor A. Murad Merican, a strong critic of rankings exercises, cautioned local tertiary institutions against missing the big picture and succumbing to being captive minds.
“Mental captivity is characterised by a way of thinking that is imitative and uncritical. The captive mind assumes that the THE list is the ultimate measure of what universities do,” said Murad, who is from Universiti Teknologi Petronas’ Management and Humanities Department.
