Yet another exciting new league table
I’ve posted many times before here on different league tables, even occasionally adding a little critique to the reports. Anyway, I thought it was about time to present a ranking of the rankings, a thoroughly objective assessment of the merits of each assembled into a definitive league table, the like of which has not been seen before (probably).
The top 20 appears below. Each of the league tables was awarded a score which has then been scaled. The criterion used to assess the rankings was as carefully chosen as each of the criteria in the tables themselves but can you guess what it is? Wonkhe badge for first person who gets the right answer.
The Ranking of Rankings
| 1 | Guardian League Table | 100 |
| 2 | People and planet | 94 |
| 3 | Free Speech University Ranking | 92 |
| 4 | U-Multirank | 83 |
| 5 | Ecole des Mines de Paris league table | 81 |
| 6 | Student Drinking League | 80 |
| 7 | THE 100 Under 50 | 77 |
| 8 | Global Employability Ranking | 72 |
| 9 | The Times/Sunday Times League Table | 63 |
| 10 | Graduate Rich List | 52 |
| 11 | THE World University Ranking | 51 |
| 12 | Webometrics | 46 |
| 13 | Academic Ranking of World Universities | 45 |
| 14 | Complete University Guide | 33 |
| 15 | Economist Full-Time MBA Ranking | 29 |
| 16 | QS World University Ranking | 25 |
| 17 | High Fliers | 23 |
| 18 | University Ranking by Academic Performance | 18 |
| 19 | GreenMetric ranking | 16 |
| 20 | Universitas 21 Ranking of National Higher Education Systems | 15 |
So there you have it. The ultimate ranking of rankings.
A really memorable ranking this one.
You just know that there is a crisis meeting at THE right now, with everyone angrily rounding on Phil Baty and asking him why his rankings are only 11th and him protesting that it is largely inherent bias within the methodology
I honestly don’t mind what the criteria are; the ye-shall-reap-what-you-sow-yness of this metarank is perfect.
I’m going for Value Added Scores!
It’s good, but it’s not right!
Wild guess: would not concern the U Nottingham position??
Like the way you are thinking there but sadly well wide of the mark.
If not Value Added, how about:
Spend is the amount of money spent on each student?
Should have read – the Amount of Money spent and not included the first two words!
Nope!
As a final stab … student engagement
You are working your socks off on this one. Afraid not. It really is a much cruder criterion
OK, that has me intrigued – is it the number of institutions from the UK that make the list?
No. Too clever again I’m afraid.
I was going to suggest circulation…
Again, sadly off-beam
Are you using “almetrics”? Anyway, I’m missing BGU (US News)…
Ah, sadly that’s a bit too sophisticated
Lowest word score in scrabble? In reverse order?
Genius! But miles off I’m sorry to say.
Number
…try again!
Number of times they refer to being ‘comprehensive’ and ‘independent’ in their introductions?
Good one. Bit wide of the mark though
I once supervised a student programming project that tried to rank university rankings according to their proximity to an aggregated ranking. (For any social choice theorists who read this, I was hoping to use the Kemeny consensus but had to settle for Borda scores.) But the results were inconclusive.
Is it the number of variables used to compile the ranking?
Afraid not!
With many, many apologies to everyone who has been guessing what the criterion underpinning the ultimate ranking of rankings is… There have been some really excellent and remarkably sophisticated attempts to establish the methodology here and I applaud every one. I’m afraid though that in announcing the answer it will only fuel disappointment and a deep sadness at the shallowness of this kind of exercise. So, here goes. You really are going to be upset, you know so do ask yourself whether it might not be better just not to know the answer. You’ll probably feel happier on the whole.… Read more »
Well I’m gobsmacked. Two years and not even so much as a ‘what a load of croc’!
Such is life Stephen!