Month: May 2021

THE Big Issue

A picture of the Board of Times Higher Education (THE) has been doing the Twitter rounds and attracting attention because of its lack of diversity*.  THE has been part of the higher education landscape since 1973 but since 2012 has developed its role as a provider of league tables on a plethora of issues.  It’s developing combination of data services, branding and hiring services saw it  bought by Inflexion Private Equity in 2019.

Much of the chatter on Twitter has simply posted the picture and danced around the implications for a business that claims to generate 320,000 online page views and visits from 2.8m “…academics, university leaders, students and their families” each month.  These are big numbers and THE’s intention to exploit the data generated was made clear by its Chief Development Officer in recent reporting in the PIE and elsewhere.  For an organization holding that much potential power and authority in higher education there is arguably a responsibility to consider positive steps on diversity, equity and inclusion at Board level.  

This is particularly so when THE has made a great deal of its latest Impact Rankings league table judging universities around the world on their commitment to the UN Sustainable Development Goals.  It may be worth the Board considering Goal 5 – Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.  Target 5.5 sums it up by saying – “ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life”

Several other Development Goals imply a wider consideration of equity, diversity and inclusion but Goal 10 focuses on reducing inequality within and among countries.  Specifically, target 10.2 says “..empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.”  Even Blackrock, possibly the world’s largest asset manager, has commented “..we expect companies in all countries to have a talent strategy that allows them to draw on the fullest set of talent possible,”

THE operates as part of Bologna Topco Limited which may be a slightly inside joke about the University of Bologna’s claim to being Europe’s oldest university having been founded in 1088.  Or possibly the  Bologna Process signed in 1999 to ensure comparability in the standards and quality of higher-education qualifications across Europe.  It’s worth considering the Statement of the Fifth Bologna Policy Forum to see the commitment to fair access both in higher education and employment.

As one would expect of any company Bologna Topco Limited the Director’s Report contains some fine words on issues of equal opportunities.  However, they are placed, even in the revised version of the Annual Report under the heading – Employment of Disabled Persons – which might suggest that insufficient attention is being paid to what this might really mean.  None of this is intended to suggest a lack of sincerity in the Board’s thinking but attention to detail and action are equally important.

Good intentions may have been captured in the inaugural THE Live session with HSBC UK that asked: “What action do we need to take to ensure that every voice is represented at a senior level?”.  For reference the HSBC UK board membership is available and people can make up their own mind about it but their policies and targets on inclusion and diversity seem clear. But searching the THE site does not provide much detail on their own approach or ambitions in this area.

Universities have come under significant pressure to increase diversity in their senior academic and administrative ranks for many years.  It is particularly ironic in the current context that the THE Student noted on International Women’s Day this year that “It is striking that still only a few of the world’s top universities are led by women.”  It’s World University Rankings showed that only 41 of the top 200 universities were run by women.

It may be time for universities to do their own due diligence on the way that THE is reflecting the need for greater diversity and inclusivity.  There is the potential for a powerful, united approach, perhaps led by UUK and the NUS, to put pressure on THE to begin to reflect at Board level the drive for equity, inclusion and diversity that is holding so much of the world’s attention.  It is the brands, reputation and attention of universities that hold the key to THE’s future and that power should be exercised for good purposes.        

*For colleagues not on Twitter this is the picture that was circulating.  I would be happy to credit the copyright holder if provided with authoritative details.  The Board membership is the same as the Active Director list for Bologna Topco Limited at Companies House in the UK.

It is reasonable to note that Ms Fabrizia Rizzi was a non-executive director of THE for three months (according to her LinkedIn profile) from February 2021 until her resignation in April 2021.  At the time she was an Assistant Director of Inflexion but moved on to another company in May 2021.

  Title image by Joshua Woroniecki from Pixabay  

Brass in Yocket for Aggregator Founders*

Having recently delved into ApplyBoard and Study Portals it was Yocket’s turn to go under the computer mouse.  Reportedly, started in 2012 with $136USD (less than £100GBP) the company claimed over $1m revenue in 2020 and a plan to get to over $10m in three years.  Various internet searches have not found references to other external funding in support of the company, so it looks like the founders are backing themselves. 

Described as a ‘one stop study abroad solution’ Yocket focuses on candidates from India and suggests it has registered more than 400,000 since 2015. The company name is a word play on the company being a ‘rocket’ for students to meet their aspiration.  It claims to have ‘tied-up’ with over 100 universities in the UK, US, Canada and Australia although the nature of the engagement and the split by country are not transparent.  Yocket is part of Avocation Education Services Private Limited (Avocation) which also owns Stupidsid** which was also started by the founders.

Yocket’s model would appear to be focused on being a ‘student aggregator’ making money by selling added value services rather than an ‘agent aggregator’ trying to attract recruitment agents. There is a clear attempt to build a revenue stream from universities but this appears to have had limited success with only 42 in the ‘Apply through Yocket’ list and limited institutional activity on the site. Before universities go rushing in to fill that void they may want to consider some features of the site and what their brand will be associated with.

Data Management and Use     

One of the emerging concerns about aggregator sites is their use of data and Yocket’s site demands an email as the price of doing any search and engages the user in giving more personal details at every opportunity.  An email, phone number and other details allows you to set up an account and “By creating an account you agree to Yocket’s Terms of use and Privacy policy.  Attempts to click on the links to read these take the user on a circular route back to the initial sign on page which may be a glitch but is unhelpful. 

However, the Privacy Policy is available through an internet search and is the same as that of Avocation in giving broad opportunities for the use of data, such as making it available to ‘third party service providers’ as well as to advertisers including financial services.  It notes that ‘Avocation Educational Services Private Limited’ reserves the right to update, change or modify this policy at any time.’  The Terms of Use can also be found and note that, “It cannot be guaranteed that the material, information, links, and content presented on and by this website is comprehensive, complete, accurate, sufficient, timely, or up to date for any particular purpose or use.” 

Given that students going to the site are expecting accurate and comprehensive information about any country that they hope to study in this seems problematic.  The information provides the basis for the potential student spending money on other services, such as Yocket Premium or finding a loan, so there should at least be some sense of responsibility.  As the test searches outlined below suggest, there is some way to go before the information available provides full confidence.

In Search of Substance 

A search for universities in the UK provided a list of 124 institutions – well short of the number of degree-awarding institutions in the country.  The opportunity to search by private universities only provided information on Ecole de Management de Normandie, Oxford and Arden University.  There was no mention at all of sector notables such as BPP and the University of Law (one of Arden’s siblings in the Global University Systems family).

Oddities in the UK public university listings included:

–  Northumbria (Amsterdam) listed as one of the three for the institution.                

–  Nottingham Trent, Aston and Birmingham each having two locations listed             

– University of Buckingham, a private university, appears in the list of public universities

The listing of each institution comprised a fuzzy photo of something that looks like a university with the university logo superimposed on top of it.  Adding to the general sense of low-resolution and compromise on detail is that 12 of the universities had no logo shown and 47 of the universities had no indicative tuition fee shown.  That might be a blessing for anyone interested in accuracy and quality of information.

There is a feature which allows a search by Low, Medium or High Price and this has several anomalies.  The most obvious shows Kings College London as having an international tuition fee of £9,250.  A fee of £20,790 for classroom based international undergraduate students appears to be the starting point at this venerable London institution. 

Thirty institutions are listed in the Medium price sector but only one makes it to be shown as High Price.  The University of Bristol occupies this category with a tuition fee that the site suggests is £72,000 when the university’s published undergraduate classroom based BSc is 20,100 and an MSc in Management at £26,500.

The low-priced list did not include the University of Chester which has a rate of £12,750 for international students which is lower than the £13,000 shown (correctly) for Teeside University. All of this suggests that AI or machine learning is being used to find information on university sites it needs some fine tuning. If it’s human research then the quality control needs to be stepped up. It’s currently misleading to students and potentially damaging to university recruitment hopes.

Going to North America

The search for top universities in the USA offered up 242 universities with Harvard, MIT and Stanford at the top but one for “popular universities” listed 659 with Northeastern, Texas A&M and University of Texas at Dallas at the top.  The first two are among those among the 42 listed on the Apply to Universities via Yocket page which suggests there may be a closer relationship between institution and aggregator.

Perhaps surprisingly given the world rankings, Canada has 194 ‘top universities’ listed which is exactly the same as the number shown as ‘popular’.   The University of British Columbia Vancouver and the University of Western Ontario are at the top of both lists but there is no description of how a university gets on one or the other list.  Neither university is on the 42 listed on the “Apply to Universities via Yocket” page.

Generally speaking, the pictures and the logos for the USA and Canada are in better shape than those for the UK.  The site also provides further counselling if you are “Confused about which country to pick?” but this requires upgrading to Yocket Premium.  The paucity of filters to offer comparisons make it difficult to make any sort of well-informed choice without taking that step.    

Clicking through to the university page from the search does give the added information about how many ‘Yocketers’ have applied and how many have been accepted as well as their average GRE quant score.  There’s also some information on scholarships available.  Just out of interest the claim is that 99 have applied to Harvard’s School of Engineering with 17 admitted and 222 have applied to MIT’s School of Engineering with 14 admitted.  Whether or not they chose to use Yocket’s other services or counselling is not made clear.

Further Insights

The application to universities service is currently limited to 42 institutions with only the universities of Wolverhampton, Sheffield, Huddersfield and Essex listed for the UK.  These universities do not appear to receive special treatment in other search facilities on the site and the nature of the relationship is unclear.  A 5 May 2020 blog post on the site in the Applying to Universities section indicates a session with University of Essex where participants may receive an “on the spot offer” depending on eligibility.

In answering the question Why Should I Choose Yocket?  the company says that it has “..been a helpful companion to 300,000+ study abroad aspirants since 2016. Through a powerful network of students and machine learning algorithms, yocket empowers you to make informed decisions to your educational pursuits.”  The critical question for many observers might be whether or not the platform and its current capabilities is enabling sufficient information for an informed decision.

An interesting feature and highly relevant given the power of peer-to-peer recommendations is the ‘Trending Yocketers’ section which allows direct connection to a candidate who is looking to study at a specific university.  This is supplemented by a Discussions thread where candidates can pose questions in the hope that a peer will respond. 

Yocket may be planning to upgrade the site in the near future. A blog on 27 April invites interest from users willing to participate in the Yocket Hydrogen Beta version.  It is described as “an upgraded platform that is better in design, experience and features”.  With the anticipated growth in India students travelling abroad to study this would seem a reasonable investment. 

Some Thoughts

Yocket’s story is well known and it has recently announced plans to recruit 300 more staff in 2021 and a further 1,000 over three years.  It has presented itself as enhancing student services in a disorganized market dominated by agents, where students were often misguided.  It is reasonable to believe that the development of an online service provides access to more people but this, in itself, does not mean that students are better advised or informed.

It is difficult to know how the information about universities is being gathered and the extent to which it is verified to allow reasonable comparisons.  Whether the other Yocket services – such as premium service at a reported £500 per student – gives well-founded counselling is also hard to know.  The company’s 7th Annual Virtual Meet Up in March 2021 claims to have gathered 40 universities from the US, UK, France and New Zealand and over 4,000 students, so the demand would seem to be there.

From the point of view of institutions news stories have indicated that universities can get directly involved for between $1,000 and $10,000 dollars.  This gets access to services that reach out to students in a growing market and may be tempting.  Institutions who choose to engage might consider learning how data is used and the terms under which additional services, particularly loans, are being offered.      

There are also questions about the levels of transparency, the comprehensiveness of coverage and the quality of information available.  For universities who have not given permission for their brands to be used it may be time to consider whether the format and presentation is acceptable and they should certainly check the details given about them.  Aggregators are using university names and logos as bait for students and then selling other services so it would be reasonable to take an assertive stance.

The overall impression is that Yocket started as a page allowing students to exchange information about universities and has become a business operating in one of the fastest growing student recruiting markets in the world.  The founders have commented extensively on their desire to ensure a more accessible and better organized service for students than they believe many recruitment agents have offered.  These are fine principles but operationalizing them probably requires more attention to detail than is currently evident on the site.  

NOTES

1.  *For those unfamiliar with popular music “Brass in Pocket” is a 1979 single by The Pretenders.   Apparently, lead singer Chrissie Hynde overheard someone enquiring if anyone had, “Picked up dry cleaning? Any brass in pocket?”  Brass is Northern English slang for money but is used idiomatically in several other ways including “brass neck” to mean showing a lot of nerve.

** Stupidsid.com started in February 2010 as a college review website with students’ opinions on colleges, courses and universities. It has developed to provide Study Resources (including solved question papers, university syllabuses and previous questions) and Knowledge Hub (claimed to be the “largest database of engineering-related information you’ll ever come across.”)

2. Searches were carried out on various browsers over the period from 13 to 17 May.

Image by WikiImages from Pixabay

Do Aggregators Match Up?

There’s significant interest in the higher education community about the rise of websites claiming to match students to degree programmes and what they might mean for student choice.  The websites and public comments of these aggregators are strong on claims about transparency, choice and putting the interests of students first.  This blog gets close and personal with a couple of websites of main players and gets granular enough to suggest that there might be room for improvement.

As a disclaimer I should note that, despite a philosophical preference for all education to be free, I appreciate the value that private investment can bring to expanding choice and opportunity.  If investors can employ people and make a return while offering good value to students, it seems to me to be an acceptable trade off.  I also have no reason to disbelieve the claim of aggregators that they aim to make global student choice easier and more accessible.

To ease the flow of the blog I have put a note of search terms used at the bottom of the text.  As with all research there is an element of subjectivity in my choices but they serve to explore some points about the way the system works. The two operators chosen reflect their scale and profile rather than any value judgement about their quality compared to other operators in this increasingly crowded space.

Before plunging into that detail there are a couple of general points that emerge from looking at several aggregator websites: 

–  The word ‘partner’ occurs often without a full explanation of what the relationship is or what due diligence has been done to ensure quality or appropriateness.  There is usually even less   insight into the nature of the commercial relationship with their partners and the ways that this might skew presentation of information.    

An example of that the Studyportals Bachelorportal top level search* produced 839   courses on the ‘Our Picks’ list.  The first 10 were the University of Lincoln and the first 253 were flagged as ‘Featured’.  The site says, “the university partners with us for this programme to reach students like you”.  Studyportals have confirmed that being featured represents ‘paid exposure services’ for the universities in question.

It is common for internet search engines to tell the user which results are adverts.  But when an aggregator lists ‘Our Picks’ it might be taken to imply that they take some responsibility (other than being paid) for the selection.  While Studyportals gives details about its organizational partners and its student partners it does not do so about university partners.       

–   There are many claims intended to satisfy students about the choice the site offers and the lure of counselling about those options. For example, ApplyBoard claims to have “built partnerships with over 1,500 primary, secondary, and post-secondary educational institutions, and work with 5,000+ recruitment partners”.  It’s difficult to know the breakdown of these and the website gives no indication of how many universities in each of the four countries  – Canada, USA, UK and Australia – can be searched on the site.

Using the ApplyBoard Quick Search and asking a broad query to study Business in the United Kingdom offered 10,000+ programs in 100+ “schools”.  My count was of only 70 institutions named with the 100 being achieved through branch campuses – including the most, eight, from University of Law.  At least 40 of the 100+ links led to pathway operations from Study Group, Kaplan, INTO, Navitas or CEG.

With over 140 degree bearing institutions in the United Kingdom it seems arguable that ApplyBoard is some way short of offering a critical mass of choice for students using the service. One of the arguments levelled against student recruitment agents has been that their choice is restricted to institutions who they have commercial terms with.  The strength of this may be that they usually have the benefit of familiarization trips and visits from university or pathway staff to enhance the advice they give students.  The extent to which an aggregator offers counselling         advice based on direct personal knowledge of an institution may be an area for development.      

To an extent none of that would matter if the much-vaunted machine learning, artificial intelligence and algorithms were providing good matching between the student and the university.  A student would put their information into the system and it would throw out carefully calibrated responses that reflected the student’s personal needs as well as their academic capability.  Testing across the aggregators is complex and cannot be consistent because search terms are rarely the same but a look at Apply Board and Studyportals gives some indication of what the student experience looks like.  The analysis took place between 8 and 11 May.

Apply Board

Even for a native English speaker the process is tough to navigate so I decided to go with being a US citizen who had studied in the UK to A-level.  After my experiment with a top-level query (discussed above) I filled out both the eligibility and school filters on the page to give a more precise search for a UK university**.  It provided 1000+ programs at 45 schools but the results were less than inspiring.

As I wanted to go direct to a university BA degree programme it was unhelpful to find the Relevance list populating only with pathway operations or foundation courses offered by a university through another route. The top option on the list was “2-Semester Pathway – International Year One in Business and Management – Bachelor of Science – Business and Management (Year in Business)” at Royal Holloway’s International Study Centre run by Study Group.  This suggests that the algorithm does its best but may not always reflect what students are searching for.

When I tried to view the list by the “school rank” option I presumed it would be indicative of university rankings although there was no source indicated.  Given this expectation it was surprising to find the universities of Manchester, Durham and Lancaster further down the list than Anglia Ruskin University.  There would be merit in clarifying what the ranking system is and also, what the progression rate to the university is if a pathway option is shown. 

When I entered the same search terms for study in Canada (changing my visa status to Canadian Study Permit or Visitor Visa and the duration to a four-year bachelors) I got 25 schools and 139 programs with direct entry options at universities at the top.  Presumably, this reflects the lower number of pathway operations in Canada or the strength of ApplyBoard connections in the country.  

For the USA (visa status F1 and as a UK national) it was 91 schools and 1000+ programs but with INTO’s Undergraduate Pathway at George Mason University at the top and their two-semester business pathway at Suffolk University third on the list.  Digging further down the list it became clear that the pathway operations were featured relatively heavily rather than the ‘direct admission’ I had searched for.  This, couple with the UK experience, might suggest that pathway operators are early investors in the aggregator model in countries where they have a foothold. 

Studyportals

The recent linking of Studyportals with Times Higher Education Student is one of the most apparent signs of league table compilers looking for ways to exercise their aggregator power over student interest.  Studyportals pages currently appears to favour the QS World University Rankings as a yardstick for university ranking and it will be interesting to see if the allegiance shifts.  It’s the sort of decision that reflects the impetus behind deciding what information to present to students and how transparent an aggregator is about who is paying to be represented. 

A helpful feature is the ability to adjust the information received to reflect a currency of your choice and also the actual rate being charged for your nationality. This is particularly important for EU students who, in 2021, will be charged Home tuition fees by some UK universities rather than international fee rates. This is available on the home page but it might be better if elevated to make this more apparent – I totally missed it in my original analysis.3   

I signed up and completed most of my profile in the Mastersportal*** (there is some personal information I preferred not to share).  When I looked at the ‘Recommended for You’ section of my profile I was offered 18 programmes of which all 10 in the UK were through online delivery.  This seemed to ignore my stated preference for on campus study. 

There was no explanation of how these had been selected or favoured but three were from Nottingham Trent University.  So, I returned to the main Masters portal to search for Business and Management at the top level and found that Nottingham Trent University was a ‘featured’ university.  When I searched at this level with ‘on campus learning’ enabled the online NTU options disappeared.

Some Thoughts

The mystery shopping was not comprehensive or even exhaustive but serves to highlight some of the issues that emerge in a complex and dynamic sector where nuance can mean a lot.  My insights are likely to be better informed than a non-native English-speaking student encountering the systems for the first time and the world of HE as a newcomer.  My contention would be that the limitations of the systems and their biases could be made clearer to users.

On the upside, both sites were relatively easy to use and the links to information about the universities were generally well managed.  I did not research aspects of the service that students pay for and it is possible that these would remedy some of the points I have highlighted.  The volume of information on the sites is overwhelming and there would seem to be scope for agents to offer a service that moderates the information on behalf of students.

The sector is becoming familiar with operators showing quotes and testimonials from students who have done well through using the sites but this is a drop in the bucket compared to the volumes looking at them.  It might be more interesting to know the extent to which they are mystery shopping their own sites (rather than drinking their own bathwater) with non-native English speakers.  Students who have succeeded are a much more forgiving audience than those who did not make it through the system.

The march of the aggregators will not be disrupted and probably does bring benefits in offering greater accessibility to students.  But the potential to overclaim coverage, distort perceptions of quality and act as a limiter of student choice rather than an enabler is obvious.  As this part of the sector matures it is to be hoped that, as with recruitment agents, the best operators prevail and become the choice of most potential students.        

It is also to be hoped that universities recognise that they have responsibilities when lending their brand names to third parties and that their very presence as part of an aggregator portfolio lends credibility to the entire endeavour.  They may prefer the word ‘featured’ to something like ‘promoted’ or ‘advertised’ but they should accept that honesty and integrity in the way they are represented is their decision rather than that of the aggregator.  For universities in the United Kingdom the option of making UCAS a wholly-owned, comprehensive and managed service for students remains an option that could become an exemplar of responsible self-regulation.

NOTES       

1.            As with all my blogs I am happy to have authoritative comment on the outcomes and where these add value or correct a clear error will reflect any resulting changes.  The purpose of doing the work and writing it up is to try and improve things for students while making observations that colleagues in the sector might consider.    

 2.           Search Terms Used

*Business and management in the UK, 3-year, full-time on campus, Bachelor of Arts. 

**US Citizen, educated to high school level in the UK with B/C GCE A-level grades, with a Tier 4 UK student visa and 9 IELTS in all categories.  I confirmed my interest was direct admission to UK universities for a three-year bachelors in business, management or economics starting between August and November 2021.  I placed no constraints on tuition, living costs or admission fee.

***UK citizen resident in the US.  Interested in Masters level study in Business and Management in the UK starting in between 6 months and one year.  Preference for attendance on campus.  Tuition fee and living cost budget set at 150,000 (so not a barrier). Bachelor’s degree in Business and Management securing a 2:1. With 5 years of work experience.  Native speaker English level.

3. In the original of this piece it was indicated that rates on the Portal were quoted in Euros and showed international rates and that this might have particular implications for EU students looking to study in the UK (where some institutions have chosen to offer EU students lower tuition fees than other international students in 2021). This has been removed to recognize that at the base of the home page of the Portal you are able to adjust your results to reflect the actual rate being charged and can do so in a denomination of your choice. If this information is put into your individual account it is also adjusted.

Image by Hier und jetzt endet leider meine Reise auf Pixabay aber from Pixabay

LEAGUE TABLE CLICK-BAIT COMPLICATION FOR UNIVERSITIES

It is standard to hear a manager in the English Premier League say “the table doesn’t lie” as they bemoan their lowly position or celebrate their success.  By contrast it has been equally standard to hear university recruiters put the case that various league tables are wanting in terms of nuance, specificity or even veracity.  But it may become even more complicated if university league table compilers have a direct, commercial interest in the outcome of the table and its impact on students.

In a recent article in The PIE, the Chief Development Officer of Times Higher Education (THE) outlined plans for millions of international students who consult its rankings website each year.  He said, “We want to stay top of the funnel and maximise the number of students coming to the site. What we will then do is identify a network of complementary, trusted partners that we will send those students to.”  The potential for universities to find themselves excluded or obliged to pay large sums for access seem obvious.

Regulators, governments and the sector’s networking bodies would do well to consider whether this manipulation of the recruitment process through commercially driven league tables is in the interests of the institutions and the students.  Back in October 2018 the Office for Students Director of External Relations wrote of the “challenge for policymakers….providing information responsibly and well as accessibly” but it is difficult to see any action to head off the private sector. Allowing brands that have been built with substantial public funding to be used as click-bait providing a return to private money certainly does not seem the best way forward.

Selective, Subjective and Subject to Manipulation

It is equally troubling to think that students may find themselves railroaded into choices by an organization that decides how the league table is compiled and has commercial partners who may have more than a passing interest in the result.  Elsevier have quoted Lydia Snover, director of institutional research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as saying, “every ranking is based on the available, comparable data, and is built on the subjective judgement (over indicators and weightings) of its compilers.”.  Even when league tables are independently audited, consulted upon and done with good intentions they are about choices. 

UC Berkeley’s Center for Studies in Higher Education has suggested that “universities with frequent QS-related contracts experienced much greater upward mobility in both overall rankings and in faculty-student ratio scores over five years in the QS World Rankings”. HEPI’s president, Bahram Bekhradnia, did not find this a surprise and noted, “QS is a commercial organisation. They’re there to make money and their rankings are not objective.”  The higher education sector, while complicit in working with rankings media, is aware that this is a double-edged sword, and it may be that commercial imperative is sharpening one side. 

Those factors are made worse by the documented cases of universities deliberately manipulating the data they submit in order to secure a place higher up the ranking.  A University World News article in 2019 highlighted how the University of Oklahoma had been supplying US News and World Report rankings with incorrect information for nearly two decades.  Occasional errors seem forgivable but the more complex and wide ranging the tables the more scope there would seem to be for manipulation.

Legitimization and Lost Perspective

It seems a long time ago that in the late 1990s a few national UK newspapers would produce university league tables once a year as part of their wider agenda of news coverage.  But since the early 2000s league table compilation and publication has become increasingly central to the activity and business model of some HE sector-oriented media organisations.  Universities have played their own part in legitimizing the ranking races that may undermine their reputation and their ability to compete for students.

Many university planning offices have also spent hundreds of hours analysing league table performance and working to advise their senior colleagues on the levers that can elevate the institution’s position.  It would be difficult to believe any Vice Chancellor who says their university’s league table performance is not considered in strategic discussions.  League tables have become silent and increasingly oppressive enforcers influencing decision making, reputations and student experience.

It is certainly plausible that one of the factors influencing grade inflation at UK universities has been the weighting of a ‘good degree’ in the league tables.  When one university sees a perceived competitor getting league table marks for awarding a higher proportion of ‘good degrees’ the argument to amend marking criteria can be positioned as not disadvantaging students.  Almost without realising it institutions and academics may find their autonomy compromised by external factors.

Methodology, Misalignment and Misunderstanding

Over and above that, the dizzying array of league tables has become a way for compilers to open new routes for advertising income and securing influence.  Universities under 50 years old may welcome the chance to trumpet their performance against similar institutions and it allows the sector to applaud its own achievements.  But when high placings are used as advertising and marketing fodder to attract students the institutions are validating a process which is almost entirely out of their control and where interests may not be aligned. 

In 2004 the Times Higher Education (THE) began its University World Rankings but that has now been joined by 18 other main categories including World Reputation Rankings, Young University Rankings, Emerging Economy Rankings, Subject and Teaching Rankings.  The latest addition of Impact Ranking assesses universities against the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).  The accompanying launch events, announcements and conferences drive substantial content, which may be the purpose of media organizations but that is not the same as the purpose of universities.

The QS Rankings also began in 2004 and now covers 11 main categories, with several similar to THE but some noticeable differences such as Employability and System Strength.  They have built a student-facing event series – the QS World Tours – to bring students together with admissions directors at events.  Conferences and consultancy services also build out of the rankings as a source of revenue.

The variability of methodology that universities are trying to deal with shows in the league table results.  The THE and QS most recent “top 10 global universities” and “top 10 under 50 years old” show seven as being the same in each category but three different.  It’s a discrepancy which seems unhelpful if you are a student really wanting to know which were the best of breed in either category.

So, even when compilers are gauging similar categories they are making subjective choices about what to include, how to weight it and whether it will be important to their readers.  But in what is largely a game of statistical musical chairs there is some evidence that there are also fundamental misunderstandings about what is driving the performance of institutions.  Research by QS has suggested, for example, that students believe that a university’s ranking is substantially linked to employability of graduates when this only makes up a small element of the overall score.

It seems indisputable that league tables have become very big business for organizations that compile them and are influential enough to be a source of power over university decision making.  The prospect of them being leveraged to influence student choice and the recruitment potential of institutions has been made clear.  An informed, open discussion leading to collective action by the sector would be a step towards restoring balance. 

Image by Firmbee from Pixabay