Academic Ranking of World Universities

The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), also known as the Shanghai Ranking, is one of the annual publications of world university rankings. The league table was originally compiled and issued by Shanghai Jiao Tong University in 2003, making it the first global university ranking with multifarious indicators.[1][2]

Academic Ranking of World Universities
Academic Ranking of World Universities logo.png
CategoriesHigher education
FrequencyAnnual
PublisherShanghai Ranking Consultancy (2009–present)
Shanghai Jiao Tong University (2003–2008)
CountryChina
LanguageTen languages including Russian, English & Chinese
Websitewww.shanghairanking.com

Since 2009, ARWU has been published and copyrighted annually by Shanghai Ranking Consultancy, an organization focusing on higher education that is not legally subordinated to any universities or government agencies.[3] In 2011, a board of international advisory consisting of scholars and policy researchers was established to provide suggestions.[4][5] The publication currently includes global league tables for institutions as a whole and for a selection of individual subjects, alongside independent regional Greater China Ranking and Macedonian HEIs Ranking.

ARWU is regarded as one of the three most influential and widely observed university rankings, alongside QS World University Rankings and Times Higher Education World University Rankings.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] It has received positive feedback for its objectivity and methodology,[10][11][12] but draws wide criticism as it fails to adjust for the size of the institution, and thus larger institutions tend to rank above smaller ones.[9][13][14]

Global rankingsEdit

OverallEdit

MethodologyEdit

ARWU methodology[15]
Criterion Indicator Code Weighting Source
Quality of education Alumni as Nobel laureates & Fields Medalists Alumni 10% Official websites of Nobel Laureates & Fields Medalists[Note 1]
Quality of faculty Staff as Nobel Laureates & Fields Medalists Award 20% Official websites of Nobel Laureates & Fields Medalists[Note 1]
Highly cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories HiCi 20% Thomson Reuters' survey of highly cited researchers[Note 1]
Research output Papers published in Nature and Science[* 1] N&S 20% Citation index
Papers indexed in Science Citation Index-expanded and Social Science Citation Index PUB 20%
Per capita performance Per capita academic performance of an institution PCP 10% -
  1. ^ Not applicable to institutions specialized in humanities and social sciences whose N&S scores are relocated to other indicators.

ReceptionEdit

A survey on higher education published by The Economist in 2005 commented ARWU as "the most widely used annual ranking of the world's research universities."[16] In 2010, The Chronicle of Higher Education called ARWU "the best-known and most influential global ranking of universities".[17] EU Research Headlines reported the ARWU's work on 31 December 2003: "The universities were carefully evaluated using several indicators of research performance."[18] University of Oxford Chancellor Chris Patten has said "the methodology looks fairly solid ... it looks like a pretty good stab at a fair comparison."[19] Philip G. Altbach named ARWU's 'consistency, clarity of purpose, and transparency' as significant strengths.[20] While ARWU has originated in China, the ranking have been praised for being unbiased towards Asian institutions, especially Chinese institutions.[21]

CriticismEdit

The ranking has been criticised for "relying too much on award factors" thus undermining the importance of quality of instruction and humanities.[9][22][23][24] A 2007 paper published in the journal Scientometrics found that the results from the Shanghai rankings could not be reproduced from raw data using the method described by Liu and Cheng.[25] A 2013 paper in the same journal finally showed how the Shanghai ranking results could be reproduced.[26] In a report from April 2009, J-C. Billaut, D. Bouyssou and Ph. Vincke analyse how the ARWU works, using their insights as specialists of Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM). Their main conclusions are that the criteria used are not relevant; that the aggregation methodology has a number of major problems; and that insufficient attention has been paid to fundamental choices of criteria.[27] The ARWU researchers themselves, N.C. Liu and Y. Cheng, think that the quality of universities cannot be precisely measured by mere numbers and any ranking must be controversial. They suggest that university and college rankings should be used with caution and their methodologies must be understood clearly before reporting or using the results. ARWU has been criticised by the European Commission as well as some EU member states for "favour[ing] Anglo-Saxon higher education institutions". For instance, ARWU is repeatedly criticised in France, where it triggers an annual controversy, focusing on its ill-adapted character to the French academic system[28][29] and the unreasonable weight given to research often performed decades ago.[30] It is also criticised in France for its use as a motivation for merging universities into larger ones.[31] Indeed, a further criticism has been that the metrics used are not independent of university size, e.g. number of publications or award winners will mechanically add as universities are grouped, independently of research (or teaching) quality; thus a merger between two equally-ranked institutions will significantly increase the merged institutions’ score and give it a higher ranking, without any change in quality.[14]

ResultsEdit

 
Academic Ranking of World Universities, 2003–2018, Top ten
Academic Ranking of World Universities (500) – Top 50[32][Note 2]
Institution 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004
  Harvard University 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
  Stanford University 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2
  University of Cambridge 3 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 2 2 3
  Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4 4 4 4 4 5 3 3 4 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5
  University of California, Berkeley 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 4 3 4 4 2 3 3 3 4 4 4
  Princeton University 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 7
  University of Oxford 7 9 7 7 7 7 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8
  Columbia University 8 7 8 8 8 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 9
  California Institute of Technology 9 8 9 9 9 8 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
  University of Chicago 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 9 10
  Yale University 11 11 11 12 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
  Cornell University 12 12 13 12 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
  Paris-Saclay University 13 14 37 42 41 46 41 42 39 37 40 45 43 49 52 64 61 48
  University of California, Los Angeles 14 13 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 14 16
  University of Pennsylvania 15 19 17 16 17 18 17 16 15 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
  Johns Hopkins University 16 15 16 18 18 16 16 17 17 17 18 18 19 20 19 20 19 22
  University College London 17 16 15 17 16 17 18 20 21 21 20 21 21 22 25 26 26 25
  University of California, San Diego 18 18 18 15 15 14 14 14 14 15 15 14 14 14 14 13 13 13
  University of Washington 19 16 14 14 13 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 20
  University of California, San Francisco 20 21 20 21 21 21 18 18 18 18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 17
  Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich 21 20 19 19 19 19 20 19 20 23 23 23 23 24 27 27 27 27
  University of Toronto 22 23 24 23 23 27 25 24 28 27 26 27 27 24 23 24 24 24
  Washington University in St. Louis 23 23 22 20 20 23 32 32 32 31 31 30 29 29 28 28 28 28
  University of Tokyo 24 26 25 22 24 20 21 21 21 20 21 20 20 19 20 19 20 14
  Imperial College London 25 25 23 24 27 22 23 22 24 24 24 26 26 27 23 23 23 23
  University of Michigan 26 22 20 27 24 23 22 22 23 22 22 22 22 21 21 21 21 19
  New York University 27 27 30 32 29 29 27 27 27 27 29 31 32 31 30 29 29 32
  Tsinghua University 28 29 43 45 48 58 101-150 101-150 151-200 151-200 151-200 151-200 201-302 201-302 151-202 151-200 153-202 202-301
  University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 29 30 33 30 33 35 39 36 43 41 42 41 39 38 58 59 55 56
  University of Copenhagen 30 33 26 29 30 30 35 39 42 44 43 40 43 45 46 56 57 59
  University of Wisconsin–Madison 31 32 27 28 28 28 24 24 19 19 19 17 17 17 7 16 12 8
  Duke University 32 27 28 26 26 25 31 31 31 36 35 35 31 32 32 31 32 31
  University of Melbourne 33 35 41 38 39 40 44 44 54 57 60 62 75 73 79 78 82 82
  Northwestern University 34 30 29 25 22 26 27 28 30 30 30 29 30 30 29 33 31 30
  Sorbonne University 35 39 44 36 / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
  University of Manchester 35 36 33 34 38 35 41 38 41 40 38 44 41 40 48 50 53 78
  Kyoto University 37 34 32 35 35 32 26 26 26 26 27 24 24 23 22 22 22 21
  PSL University 38 36 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
  University of Edinburgh 38 42 31 32 32 41 47 45 51 51 53 54 53 55 53 52 47 47
  University of Minnesota 40 40 41 37 34 33 30 30 29 29 28 28 28 28 33 32 32 33
  University of Texas at Austin 41 41 45 40 51 44 37 39 36 35 35 38 38 39 38 39 36 40
  Karolinska Institute 42 45 38 44 44 44 48 47 44 42 44 42 50 51 53 48 45 46
  Rockefeller University 42 43 35 30 36 37 33 33 34 32 33 34 32 32 30 30 30 29
  University of British Columbia 42 38 35 43 31 34 40 37 40 39 37 36 36 35 36 36 37 36
  Peking University 45 49 53 57 71 71 101-150 101-150 151-200 151-200 201-300 151-200 201-302 201-302 203-304 201-300 203-300 202-301
  University of Colorado Boulder 46 44 38 38 43 38 34 34 33 33 32 32 34 34 34 34 35 34
  King's College London 47 47 51 56 46 50 55 59 67 68 68 63 65 81 83 83 80 77
  University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas 48 48 49 48 48 43 44 45 46 48 51 49 48 41 39 38 38 36
  Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich 48 51 52 53 57 51 52 49 61 60 54 52 55 55 53 51 51 51
  Utrecht University 50 52 49 51 47 65 56 57 52 53 48 50 52 47 42 40 41 39

AlternativeEdit

As it may take much time for rising universities to produce Nobel laureates and Fields Medalists with numbers comparable to those of older institutions, the Institute created alternative rankings excluding such award factors so as to provide another way of comparisons of academic performance. The weighting of all the other factors remains unchanged, thus the grand total of 70%.

SubjectEdit

There are two categories in ARWU's disciplinary rankings: broad subject fields and specific subjects. The methodology is similar to that adopted in the overall table, including award factors, paper citation, and the number of highly cited scholars.[35]

  • Natural sciences
    • Atmospheric science
    • Chemistry
    • Earth sciences
    • Ecology
    • Geography
    • Mathematics
    • Oceanography
    • Physics
  • Engineering
    • Aerospace engineering
    • Automation and control
    • Biomedical engineering
    • Biotechnology
    • Chemical engineering
    • Civil engineering
    • Computer science and engineering
    • Electrical and electronic engineering
    • Energy science and Engineering
    • Environmental science and engineering
    • Food science and technology
    • Instruments science and technology
    • Marine/ocean engineering
    • Materials science and engineering
    • Mechanical engineering
    • Metallurgical engineering
    • Mining and mineral engineering
    • Nanoscience and nanotechnology
    • Remote sensing
    • Telecommunication engineering
    • Transportation science and technology
    • Water resources
  • Life sciences
    • Agricultural sciences
    • Biological sciences
    • Human biological sciences
    • Veterinary sciences
  • Medical sciences
    • Clinical medicine
    • Dentistry and oral sciences
    • Medical technology
    • Nursing
    • Pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences
    • Public health
  • Social sciences
    • Business administration
    • Communication
    • Economics
    • Education
    • Finance
    • Hospitality and tourism management
    • Law
    • Library and information science
    • Management
    • Political sciences
    • Psychology
    • Public administration
    • Sociology
    • Statistics

Regional rankingsEdit

Considering the development of specific areas, two independent regional league tables with different methodologies were launched - Ranking of Top Universities in Greater China and Best Chinese Universities Ranking.

Mainland ChinaEdit

ResultsEdit

Mainland China Rankings (582) – Top 10[Note 2]
Institution 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021[36]
  Tsinghua University 1 1 1 1 1
  Peking University 2 2 2 2 2
  Zhejiang University 3 3 3 3 3
  Shanghai Jiao Tong University 4 4 4 4 4
  Nanjing University 7 7 7 5 5
  Fudan University 5 5 5 6 6
  University of Science and Technology of China 6 6 6 7 7
  Huazhong University of Science and Technology 8 8 7 8 8
  Wuhan University 13 12 12 9 9
  Xi'an Jiaotong University 16 14 14 11 10

Greater ChinaEdit

MethodologyEdit

Methodology of Greater China Rankings[37][Note 2]
Criterion Indicator Weight
Education Percentage of graduate students 5%
Percentage of non-local students 5%
Ratio of academic staff to students 5%
Doctoral degrees awarded 10%
Alumni as Nobel Laureates & Fields Medalists 10%
Research Annual research income 5%
Nature & Science Papers 10%
SCIE & SSCI papers 10%
International patents 10%
Faculty Percentage of academic staff with a doctoral degree 5%
Staff as Nobel Laureates and Fields Medalists 10%
Highly cited researchers 10%
Resources Annual budget 5%

ResultsEdit

Greater China Rankings (100) – Top 10[Note 2]
Institution 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019[38] 2020[39]
  Tsinghua University 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
  Peking University 7 7 5 5 4 2 2 2 2 2
  The Chinese University of Hong Kong 6 5 6 7 5 5 4 4 3 3
  Zhejiang University 10 9 9 10 9 9 5 5 4 4
  University of Science and Technology of China 9 11 10 8 8 4 7 6 6 5
  Shanghai Jiao Tong University 15 12 12 12 12 10 8 7 7 6
  Fudan University 16 10 11 11 10 12 9 10 8 7
  The University of Hong Kong 3 6 4 6 6 5 6 8 5 8
  City University of Hong Kong 18 17 15 13 13 8 14 13 12 9
  National Tsing Hua University 4 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 9 10

NotesEdit

  1. ^ a b c Official datum sources adopted by ARWU: Nobel Laureate Web, Fields Medalist Web, Thomson Reuters' survey of highly cited researchers & Thomson Reuters' Web of Science.
  2. ^ a b c d e Order shown in accordance with the latest result.

ReferencesEdit

  1. ^ Pavel, Adina-Petruta (2015). "Global university rankings - a comparative analysis". Procedia Economics and Finance. 26: 54–63. doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00838-2.
  2. ^ "World university rankings: how much influence do they really have?". The Guardian. 2013. Retrieved 27 January 2015. The first international rankings, the Academic Ranking of World Universities or Shanghai Rankings
  3. ^ "About Academic Ranking of World Universities". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2014. Retrieved 26 September 2014. Since 2009 the Academic Ranking of World Universities has been published and copyrighted by ShanghaiRanking Consultancy.
  4. ^ "Shanghai rankings rattle European universities". ABS-CBN Interactive. 8 December 2010. Retrieved 27 January 2015. France's higher education minister travelled to Jiaotong University's suburban campus last month to discuss the rankings, the Norwegian education minister came last year and the Danish minister is due to visit next month.; The idea for the rankings was born in 1998, when Beijing decreed China needed several world-leading universities.
  5. ^ "ARWU International Advisory Board". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2014. Retrieved 27 January 2015.
  6. ^ Network, QS Asia News (2018-03-02). "The history and development of higher education ranking systems - QS WOWNEWS". QS WOWNEWS. Retrieved 2018-03-29.
  7. ^ "About Academic Ranking of World Universities | About ARWU". www.shanghairanking.com. Retrieved 2018-03-29.
  8. ^ Ariel Zirulnick (2010-09-16). "New world university ranking puts Harvard back on top". Christian Science Monitor. Those two, as well as Shanghai Jiao Tong University, produce the most influential international university rankings out there
  9. ^ a b c Indira Samarasekera & Carl Amrhein. "Top schools don't always get top marks". The Edmonton Journal. Archived from the original on October 3, 2010. There are currently three major international rankings that receive widespread commentary: The Academic World Ranking of Universities, the QS World University Rankings and the Times Higher Education Rankings.
  10. ^ a b Philip G. Altbach (11 November 2010). "The State of the Rankings". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved 27 January 2015. The major international rankings have appeared in recent months — the Academic Ranking of World Universities, the QS World University Rankings, and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE).
  11. ^ a b "Strength and weakness of varsity rankings". NST Online. 2016-09-14. Retrieved 2018-03-29.
  12. ^ a b Marszal, Andrew (2012-10-04). "University rankings: which world university rankings should we trust?". Daily Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2018-03-29.
  13. ^ ""Shanghai Academic Ranking: a French Controversy" by Marc Goetzmann, for La Jeune Politique". Lajeunepolitique.com. 29 August 2013. Archived from the original on 9 January 2015. Retrieved 9 June 2014.
  14. ^ a b Bahram Bekhradnia (15 December 2016). "International university rankings: For good or ill?" (PDF). Higher Education Policy Institute. p. 16. Retrieved 10 June 2017. ARWU presents a further data issue. Whereas in the case of the other rankings the results are adjusted to take account of the size of institutions, hardly any such adjustment is made by ARWU. So there is a distortion in favour of large institutions. If two institutions were to merge, the very fact of merger would mean that the merged institution would do nearly twice as well as either of the individual institutions prior to merger, although nothing else had changed.
  15. ^ "ARWU – Methodology". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2014. Retrieved 30 January 2015.
  16. ^ "A world of opportunity". The Economics. 8 September 2005. Archived from the original on 18 July 2012. Retrieved 30 January 2015. It is no accident that the most widely used annual ranking of the world's research universities, the Shanghai index, is produced by a Chinese university.
  17. ^ "International Group Announces Audit of University Rankings". The Chronicle of Higher Education. 10 October 2010. Retrieved 30 January 2015. Shanghai Jiao Tong University, which produces the best-known and most influential global ranking of universities...
  18. ^ "Chinese study ranks world's top 500 universities". European Research Headlines. 2003. Archived from the original on 2015-01-09. Retrieved 4 February 2015.
  19. ^ Rankings and Accountability in Higher Education: Uses and Misuses. United Nations Educational. 2013. p. 26. ISBN 9789230011567. Retrieved 30 January 2015.
  20. ^ Philip G. Altbach (11 September 2010). "The State of the Rankings". INSIDE HIGHER ED. Retrieved 30 January 2015. Nonetheless, AWRU's consistency, clarity of purpose, and transparency are significant advantages.
  21. ^ "Academic Ranking of World Universities 2013 released". Times Higher Education (THE). 2013-08-15. Retrieved 2016-01-20.
  22. ^ Marszal, Andrew (2015). "University rankings: which world university rankings should we trust?". The Telegraph. Retrieved 27 January 2015. It is a remarkably stable list, relying on long-term factors such as the number of Nobel Prize-winners a university has produced, and number of articles published in Nature and Science journals. But with this narrow focus comes drawbacks. China's priority was for its universities to 'catch up' on hard scientific research. So if you're looking for raw research power, it's the list for you. If you're a humanities student, or more interested in teaching quality? Not so much.
  23. ^ J. Scott Armstrong and Tad Sperry (1994). "Business School Prestige: Research versus Teaching" (PDF). Energy & Environment. 18 (2): 13–43. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-06-20.
  24. ^ "1741-7015-5-30.fm" (PDF). Retrieved 9 June 2014.
  25. ^ Răzvan V. Florian (17 June 2007). "Irreproducibility of the results of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities". Scientometrics. 72 (1): 25–32. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1712-1. S2CID 8239194.
  26. ^ Domingo Docampo (1 July 2012). "Reproducibility of the results of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities". Scientometrics. 94 (2): 567–587. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0801-y. S2CID 938534.
  27. ^ Jean-Charles Billaut, Denis Bouyssou & Philippe Vincke. "Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking?". CCSD. Retrieved 30 January 2015.
  28. ^ ""Shanghai Academic Ranking: a French Controversy" by Marc Goetzmann, for La Jeune Politique". Lajeunepolitique.com. 29 August 2013. Retrieved 9 June 2014.
  29. ^ Spongenberg, Helena (5 June 2014). "EUobserver / EU to test new university ranking in 2010". Euobserver.com. Retrieved 9 June 2014.
  30. ^ Dagorn, Gary (16 August 2016). "Universités : pourquoi le classement de Shanghaï n'est pas un exercice sérieux". Le Monde.fr (in French). lemonde.fr. Retrieved 17 August 2016.
  31. ^ Gérand, Christelle (September 2016). "Aix-Marseille, laboratoire de la fusion des universités" (in French). www.monde-diplomatique.fr. Retrieved 8 September 2016.
  32. ^ "ARWU World University Rankings 2019 | Academic Ranking of World Universities 2019 | Top 1000 universities | Shanghai Ranking - 2019". www.shanghairanking.com. Retrieved 2020-04-14.
  33. ^ "Alternative Ranking 2014 ( Excluding Award Factor ) ( Excluding Award Factor )". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2014. Retrieved 30 January 2015.
  34. ^ "Alternative Ranking 2015 ( Excluding Award Factor )". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2015. Retrieved 4 September 2015.
  35. ^ "Global Rankings of Academic Subjects 2020". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2020. Retrieved 27 December 2020.
  36. ^ "中国大学排名". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2021. Archived from the original on 2021-04-28. Retrieved 2021-06-10.
  37. ^ "Greater China Ranking – Methodology". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2014. Retrieved 31 January 2015.
  38. ^ "Ranking of Top Universities in Greater China - 2019". www.shanghairanking.com. Retrieved 2020-05-06.
  39. ^ "Ranking of Top Universities in Greater China - 2020". www.shanghairanking.com. Retrieved 2021-06-11.

External linksEdit