Abstract
Being declared a “world-class” university is one of the most enduring legacies of global rankings. By identifying a few indicators, theAcademic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), also known as the Shanghai Rankings, managed virtually overnight to insert a global dynamic into academic competition. It has been followed over the years by many others, most notably the Times Higher Education (THE) and QS world rankings. An inevitable product of a world economy and an internationalized educational system and labor market, global rankings have become a visible (and annual) reminder of the accelerating pace of global competitiveness andthe premium being attached to elite universities and their graduates. The choice of indicators sets the parameters for what constitutes quality, leading to—in some cases—a profound transformation in institutional and national priorities for higher education. Today, these rankings are much less about informing student choice and much more about geopolitical positioning.
Leading Research Universities in a Competitive World is a good example of the way universities are now being assessed and compared. Using evidence drawn from ARWU and THE rankings, and focusing primarily on top-100 universities, Robert Lacroix and Louis Maheu dissect the characteristics of what makes a “leading research university.” Their argument is based on the United States, which dominates the top 100, and thus shadows an objective of the original ARWU team, who sought to compare Chinese universities with other world-leading universities. That action reflected their government’s ambitious 211 and 985 Projects (1995, 1998) aimed at building an educational system of international stature. In this case, the unstated objective is to identify challenges for Canada (the authors’ home country).
It seems to me there are two ways to read the book: 1) as a normative primer, describing and helping to explain and understand what works; this is similar to the aim of various consultancies and conferences held around the world, attracting academics, policymakers, and institutional leaders, all paying considerable sums of money, seeking to learn the formula for moving up in the rankings; or 2) from a critical political-sociological perspective, asking questions about and reflecting on what all this says about the role of universities in the twenty-first century. I will look briefly at each issue.
Lacroix and Maheu provide a thought-provoking, well-evidenced comparison across four countries (the U.S., the UK [although it is really England], France, and Canada), looking first at the historical conditions that have led to the emergence of research universities, and then looking at the overall policy environment. Their aim is to discover what accounts for the geographical distribution of the top universities and why the United States continues to win. To get at this, they establish a comparative framework looking at operating funds, human resources (students and faculty), and academic governance and then compare and contrast their distinguishing characteristics. Ultimately, they find that rankings success rests upon the quantum of resources from a diversity of sources; having a critical mass of excellent, high-achieving students and faculty; and the provision of a research-intensive and well-resourced environment. Operating within a competitive environment, at a national as well as a global level, is seen as vital. The authors also argue that successful universities have a high degree of institutional autonomy (e.g., they are free from state regulation) alongside visionary strategic and professional self-governance and management. The UK system—which is punching above its weight in the global rankings—has been able to balance these matters while the French system—which is underperforming—has been stymied by, among other factors, a domineering, centralizing state and disaggregated institutions too often ruled by a “republic of faculties.”
Lots of meat to chew on and think about—but nothing really new in the conclusions. This leads me to offer an alternative perspective.
One concern is the way in which pursuance of a rankings-led strategy has led to a perversion in policymaking. A criticism of the book is that global rankings are presented almost uncritically as the appropriate benchmark for excellence. I say “almost” because there is a discussion in the opening chapters about methodological shortcomings and rankings’ warping effect, but this is not pursued later or commented on in terms of what effect or impact that may be having on the institutional or national policies that are being described. So there is a disconnect between the opening and later chapters. Elsewhere, the authors question whether universities that are not ranked at the top can ever be considered “world-class,” reinforcing rankings’ “norming effect.”
This obsession with focusing on the top 100 fails to capture, and undermines, the important diversity and complexity of the post-secondary landscape. For example, using THE rankings for 2014, the United States had 46 percent of the universities in the top 100, while Europe had only 35 percent. However, if the scope is widened to include the top 400, the U.S. share declines to 27 percent, while Europe’s increases to 41 percent. This suggests that in the top stratum of really excellent universities, the United States does well, but Europe does better at providing greater (e)quality across the sector.
Indeed, the book confuses elite research universities with the “university system”—which it uses for the title of each country case study. But overemphasis on the performance of individual institutions has encouraged the (mis)belief that national performance is simply the aggregate of a few top-ranked elite universities. This has fostered policies leading to increased hierarchical differentiation between higher education institutions and growing social stratification. This is a variation of what was known as “trickle-down economics,” which argued that putting more money in the hands of elites—for example, through tax reductions—would result in resources filtering down to create more jobs and lessen inequality. International evidence, however, shows the results have been the opposite of the one predicted.
Thus, while the United States may lead in the top 20 and the top 100 rankings and spend more than every other country (outspending the OECD average of 1.6 percent GDP) on tertiary education, American student performance is falling behind. Many countries now surpass the United States in the percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds with a bachelor’s degree. Of the students who begin attending a four-year public college or university, only about 55 percent receive a bachelor’s degree within six years, and only about 21 percent receive a degree or certificate within three years from a public two-year college.
Probably my strongest comment about the book is that the indicators used in the framework are essentially “inputs.” There is an underlying assumption that “leading research universities” are ipso facto making an important contribution to society and the economy. Indeed, the fact that the top universities receive a disproportionate amount of public funds is celebrated; a counterintuitive view might suggest that it would be wiser to put more public money into colleges and universities that service the overwhelming majority of the population and not elites. So, after all the plaudits, I am left asking who is looking after the “public good” as these universities pursue their global agendas. Has the public interest become confused with private self-serving interest?