oneworldtalk

The Top 10 in full is:

1 Harvard University (US)
2 University of Cambridge (UK)
2 University of Oxford (UK)
2 Yale University (US)
5 Imperial College London (UK)
6 Princeton University (US)
7 California Institute of Technology (US)
7 University of Chicago (US)
9 University College London (UK)
10 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)


UK universities rise up rankings Britain's performance in a league table of the world's top universities has improved, but the US still dominates.
Four of the top 10 are British and the rest American. Harvard is top and Yale, Oxford and Cambridge joint second.

University College London breaks into the top 10 for the first time and Imperial College London rises to fifth.

The annual survey by the Times Higher Education Supplement and careers and education group QS ranks according to factors including academics' opinions.

The biggest increase in ranking is by University College London, which rises from 25th position last year to ninth.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology was joint fourth last year but falls to 10th place, while Stanford falls from sixth position to 19th.
Another US university which tumbles in the rankings is the University of California, Berkeley. It was rated eighth last year but drops to 22nd place this year.

The rankings are based on a number of factors including the opinions of academics and of companies employing graduates, international student and staff numbers, and research.

The managing director of QS, Nunzio Quacquarelli, said the rankings recognised the quality of education that UK universities offer.

He said: "In an environment of increasing student mobility, the UK is putting itself forward as a top choice for students worldwide.

They are taking a closer look at the quality of faculty, international diversity and, of course, the education they will receive there."
Asian universities improved their standing but European institutions outside of the UK fell back, the survey said.

Last year there were 41 European universities in the top 100, but in this year's table there are 35.

The president of Universities UK, Professor Rick Trainor, said: "As this table shows, the world standing of UK higher education is at the very top.
"This is due to the high quality of our research and teaching. "Our competitors are increasingly marketing themselves more aggressively so it is vital that the UK remains among the foremost destinations for international students and staff."

PETALING JAYA, Malaysia: Local public universities have been told to make academic reputation their main strategy so that their world rankings can be improved, said Higher Education Minister Datuk Mustapa Mohamed. “Since the peer review and citations carry high marks, I have directed all vice-chancellors to make academic reputation their main strategy in improving their institutions,” he said in a statement yesterday He was commenting on the THES-QS World University Rankings 2007.

The methodology QS Quacquarelli Symonds Ltd managing director Nunzio Quacquarelli said Universiti Malaya (UM) was the highest ranked at 246, followed by Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) at 307, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) at 309 and Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) at 364.
Quacquarelli said calculations for rankings were based on data gathered under peer review (40%), recruiter review (10%), international faculty ratio (5%), international students ratio (5%), student faculty ratio (5%) and citations per faculty (20%).

On the performance of Malaysian universities, he said UM, for instance, showed an improvement in several areas including international students ratio, international faculty ratio and recruiter review. “But its problem, which is also that facing the other Malaysian universities, is the lack of citations per faculty. What this means is that there are not enough people citing their research,” he said.

IT is that time of year again. The latest Times Higher Education Supplement-Quacquarelli-Symonds (THES-QS) World University Rankings were published on Nov 8 and, as in previous years, have drawn much attention in Malaysia.

More so perhaps, as the 2007 results do not include any Malaysian university in the list of top 200 universities. As Ben Sowter, head of research at QS Quacquarelli Symonds Ltd, the British company that conducts the survey has said: “In many places our advice was taken and understood ? but in Malaysia, the reduced performance of Malaysian institutions became a source of great focus for both the media and politicians.”

The reaction this year is therefore inevitable as some have concluded that the performance of Malaysian universities has dropped further.
Some may also feel that the current rankings are the result of an egalitarian education policy. Still, massification of higher education was the right choice for a young, developing country that had to ensure its citizens access to education, and thus a brighter future.

Now, however, we have begun to direct our attention to enhancing the quality of our institutions and championing academic excellence.
As our Prime Minister has accurately pointed out, in order for Malaysia to become a hub of educational excellence, we need universities recognised as outstanding and of world-class quality.

The THES-QS rankings are based on six criteria: peer review (40%), citations per faculty (20%), student to faculty ratio (20%), recruiter review (10%), international faculty ratio (5%), and international students ratio (5%).

The citations per faculty criterion is particularly important as an increase in citations can lead to greater peer recognition and hence better peer review scores. These can also generate greater interest among scholars to teach at a given institution, thus raising international faculty ratio scores too.

I am, of course, concerned about the standing of our universities internationally. Left unchecked, perceptions may form that our exclusion from the THES-QS top 200 reflects a low standard of education – even though Sowter goes on to report that “the drop (in rankings of Malaysian universities) is entirely attributable to the combination of methodological enhancements and improved response dynamics in the rankings themselves.”

Malaysia has made great strides in higher education but we have not yet produced world-class universities. Malaysians therefore must gain an accurate sense of where we stand today, and the changes being driven by the Higher Education Ministry to bring us to the next level.
As I write this, I have just finished meeting with some Malaysians working and doing business in Vietnam. As with other such visits I have had elsewhere, I am reminded that Malaysians working abroad, most of whom have studied in our local universities, are able to do very well anywhere in the world.

Malaysian institutions have also begun to export our education abroad. This too is reflective of the advances we have made in the quality of our higher education.

So does this mean that we are doing all right and can ignore international university rankings? No. We cannot be satisfied with present performance. As we are running, others may be running faster. The race is getting tougher and this notion must sink into all our institutions.

The ministry recognises that our universities are not yet world class, so there is still much to be done, and it must be done with the greatest possible sense of urgency. While changes and improvements to education systems take time to mature, this does not mean that we can take our time to bring about change and improvement.

I am encouraged to note that in the last few years, vice-chancellors have come to accept international university rankings as important guides to performance and a gauge of their progress in building the human capital Malaysia needs to remain globally competitive.

Our universities must establish a strong academic reputation and the crux of the matter lies in having our academics recognised and cited as they publish their work in high-impact and refereed journals.

Four universities have been granted research university status to accelerate this. Universiti Malaya, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Universiti Putra Malaysia and Universiti Sains Malaysia have been given additional funding and revised terms of governance so that they can pursue research excellence.

Vice-chancellors must therefore ensure that their institutions uphold the academic tradition to “publish or perish”.

The rationale for the apex university initiative is to strive for excellence. The apex university concept is not about declaring an existing university world class. Rather, it is about identifying one or two institutions with the greatest potential of reaching such levels, and focusing resources for them to compete with the best in the world, and hence be recognised as world class.

It is for this reason that the ministry has launched its National Higher Education Strategic Plan and the corresponding National Higher Education Action Plan 2007-2010. The action plan is an initiative in the pursuit of excellence while improving quality all round.

The success we have with these plans lies in the quality of our delivery, and the vice-chancellors must lead their institutions to play their part in translating the action plan into reality.

This has to be done quickly and effectively.

Regardless of who is the next minister for education, science and training, the occupant will have one over-riding duty: to advance the national interest of all Australians through education. Both sides of politics are being bombarded with advice on how to address this duty.

Some universities argue the national interest is best served by concentrating Commonwealth funding on a select few universities to increase their international rankings. Others contend the solution lies in targeted funding that addresses special needs or builds capacity.

While I greatly respect these views, I still have not heard a compelling case for how any of the positions will meaningfully advance the national interest in its truest sense.

For me, a good test of higher education policy is to ask one simple question: does this decision improve the situation of all Australians (for example, their health, financial means, international security and so on)?

I ask myself a variation of this question every day as the vice-chancellor of Australia's largest non-metropolitan university: Does this decision improve the situation of our inland communities?

Never before in Australia's history has it been so important to recognise the country's universities as partners in the economic, social and cultural development of the nation.

All Australian universities provide an exceptional standard of education to their students. However, what we sometimes forget is the extended role of universities in our communities. Universities also contribute to the creation of jobs and economic activity. In our case, Charles Sturt University generates more than $260 million in economic activity in its inland communities each year.

It trains the doctors and nurses who care for us when we are ill, the vets and agricultural scientists who assure that we have an abundance of fresh food at reasonable prices, and the teachers who educate our children.

The national skills shortage causing increasing surgery waiting lists, poor dental services in many areas, cancellation of air services, capacity constraints in mining and agriculture demonstrates the essential role universities and other education providers play in sustaining and advancing the national interest.

This role is particularly felt in communities outside capital cities. For example, before Charles Sturt University established its rural pharmacy program, only two to three metropolitan-trained pharmacists moved to a practice in regional Australia each year.

Since the university established its program, an average of 35 highly trained pharmacists locate annually to inland towns and cities, ensuring the survival of essential pharmacy services and, by extension, many of these towns. This is no small thing for an elderly couple who rely on a local pharmacist for care allowing them to stay in the town where they have lived all their lives.

I am not suggesting that a place in the Shanghai Jiao Tong worldwide university ranking, or righting the historical wrongs of inequitable university funding, is not important to our national interest.

My sense, however, is that these things do not tell any of us much about how universities advance the interests of all Australians, and that is the key question that should exercise the mind of the minister.

Professor Ian Goulter is the vice-chancellor of Charles Sturt University

But eminent academician Khoo Kay Kim feels there is too much emphasis on increasing the number of PhD holders, instead of producing quality doctorate graduates.