Flaws in the University Rankings

University ranking is an artificial hierarchy amongst the universities of the world, created by some organisations on both sides of the Atlantic to enforce the supremacy of the European and the North American universities in the academic world.

These rankings are taken very seriously at the time of academic job appointments and to a lesser extent, during PhD admissions in the Western world. The organisations that prepare these rankings go to great extents to collect data about the resources available at the universities, the student-teacher ratio, the academic publications by the faculty, the reputation of a university in the academic world, the graduate research carried out, the international students' strengths and several such criteria. Undergraduate departments' strength at the universities is a major criteria while including a university within the list of ranked universities.

While these criteria have many merits in their inclusion, there are many important considerations that are left out in these rankings - 

1 - Undergraduate and Graduate educations are not separated 

The QS Universities Rankings have attempted to separate the undergraduate and Graduate departments in its rankings, but they still have a long way to go in making it systematic. Besides, Times Higher Education, US News and others don't seriously separate these two forms of education, which reflect different kinds of focus, expertise and academic perspectives in education.

Any serious university ranking should prepare two distinct lists of undergraduate and graduate educations at a university and rankings should be distinct along these two divisions. Many universities are primarily Graduate while some are primarily undergraduate. These should be grouped in distinct divisions, while separate ranking should be done  for the universities having both undergraduate and graduate educations.

2 - There should be a separate ranking based on Doctoral research

 Doctoral research is the backbone of a university. It reflects the advancement in intellectual pursuit the university has achieved or has declined in. Hence, there should be a distinct group of ranking based on diversity of sub-areas of research disciplines, Doctoral students to advisor ratio, the degree of intellectual growth and comfort level that a doctoral student feels under an advisor, the degree of creative freedom, innovation, independent ideas and critical thinking that is allowed in Doctoral research, new innovations made in the Sciences fields and rigour of academic research invested in Doctoral research. 

3 - Success of Graduate Students in the Job Market 

A university is primarily meant for the students, not for the teachers. Almost all rankings place undue emphasis on the academic successes of the teachers, but not on that of the graduate students who pass out of the universities every year in large numbers.

Rankings must reflect the % of students who got a regular academic job after completing their Graduate Degree, the job being in accordance with the level and expertise of subject gained. If a university is failing in producing successful academics, then there is no point ranking the university highly. Similarly, % of students coming out with professional degrees should be studied in terms of whether they get a job in line with their professional degree. Their level, expertise recognised and salary should be taken into account. Fields that have lower employability than others should be accordingly ranked.

4 - Publishability of Doctoral Research

The value of a Doctoral research is established by whether it is of publishable quality in peer-reviewed places. Hence, instead of placing undue emphasis on the teachers' publications, it should be seen how many peer-reviewed articles and books have come out of the Doctoral researches from a university. If research is being done which is not publishable, then such research has no value.

5 - Interdisciplinary Quotient

Many universities that are currently ranked on top actually don't understand the concept of interdisciplinary nature of disciplines. Their education system is thus actually retrogressive and outdated. Any serious ranking system must take into account how much interdisciplinary quotient exists in the university. Ranking traditional, outdated universities o top makes no sense.

6 - Recycling in Faculty Publications

It has been noticed that in order to complete the required numbers of publications and seminar papers presented, many faculty members from top-ranking universities simply recycle their older findings and ideas by just changing the title and format. This artificially inflates the volume of their publications. Any ranking system must take into account the recycled publications and give such departments lower counts while ranking.

7 - Malpractices in Science Research

Many Science faculty members appropriate the research findings of their students in their names. They often belong to prestigious and top-ranking universities. Such universities should be downgraded in ranking, if the research students report such activities by their professors.

8 - Mentoring Process

The mentoring process of the graduate students is very important in cultivating them into successful academics. While some universities go to great lengths to see that their graduate students get teaching and research experience while completing their Masters and PhD degrees, many others abandon their students towards the end of their degrees. More seriously, some advisors go to great lengths to get them placed in jobs, while in other universities the advisors leave the students to fend for themselves - worse, they often spoil their chances of getting a job.

The mentoring process should be a major criteria for ranking ad the students' opinions should be as important as the teachers' is regarded while collecting data.

Going by the kind of mindset that exists on both sides of the Atlantic, I don't see all this happening quite soon. 

Till these factors are taken into account, current university rankings have no meaning whatsoever.