Report 2008:40 R

Ranking of higher education institutions as a source of information to students

The phenomenon of ranking has expanded in line with the expansion of higher education. It is sometimes said that ranking is a way of simplifying and clarifying complex information for students and other stakeholders. The majority of ranking systems gather quality indicators — implicit or explicit — that are summarised in a result that, in turn, is ranked relative to all other results. Thus, ranking is a way to measure quality in higher education or research. However, it differs from other forms of quality audits because the assessments are relative rather than absolute. This can be explained partly by the fact that the makers of ranking systems are often commercial companies — newspapers — that have no direct responsibility for the sector.

There is considerable debate about ranking. Ranking is often defended on the grounds that it is useful to students and other stakeholders. However, criticism of what is measured and how it is measured is considerable. The effect of ranking on HEIs and students is difficult to determine. The few studies that have been conducted show that there are negative and positive effects on HEIs. Some students use rankings when choosing an HEI but the majority do not.

Ranking of HEIs exists throughout the world. A few are international, i.e. they rank HEIs is several countries. The international ranking systems are the most criticised but have the greatest impact.

 
We have chosen to study a number of national ranking systems whose purpose is to provide information to students. There is a range of ranking systems in theUSAand Canada but they are widely criticised. Australia has a long tradition of conducting student surveys that have developed into a source for ranking and allocation of resources. In the UK, HEIs are ranked by major newspapers in order to help students choose a HEI. The most famous example of multi-dimensional, interactive ranking can be found in Germany. Sweden has a relatively limited history of ranking.

Students invest both time and money in their education. It is, therefore, important that they have access to comprehensive and relevant information before choosing where to study. Our view is that the majority of ranking systems do not offer comprehensive, relevant or reliable information about quality in higher education.

Ranking of HEIs as complete entities is particularly problematic. There is too little information and there is the supposition that all target groups share a precise definition of quality. Multi-dimensional ranking, or systems for student information, where students and other stakeholders are allowed to define quality themselves, are preferable.
 
There is considerable information available about higher education in Sweden, as well as information about quality. However, not a lot of the quality assured information is suitable for use in a ranking system.
 
It is beneficial that information is accessible and transparent for students who are interested in comparing different HEIs or study programmes and there is potential to develop such a system. However, certain questions need further investigation. An important question is what the target group (the students) wants. It also requires an awareness that simplification of information means a loss of information and that simplification of information to the degree used in some ranking lists does not offer any real information at all about quality in higher education.