A week ago, the entire country had reason to rejoice: the University of Dhaka, the oldest university in the nation, was placed 554th in the QS World University Rankings 2025, the best ranking ever achieved by a Bangladeshi university. But how are universities ranked? What are the criteria followed in ranking? How authentic are they?
This represents a significant improvement, especially considering the university’s rating was mired in the 801–1000 range for the previous five years. The Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, which rose to 761 from the 801–850 range the previous year, is now the second Bangladeshi institution, according to the aforementioned rankings. As the third-ranked university in Bangladesh, North-South University is listed in the QS World University Rankings 2025, with a ranking between 901 and 950. Even while these numbers make our hearts skip a beat, it is impossible to ignore the question: What message are these rankings attempting to convey to us each year?
What are University Rankings?
University rankings, as the name implies, arrange universities according to a set of predefined standards. Nonetheless, there is a lack of global consensus among experts regarding its objective, as evidenced by the various definitions proposed. University ranking, according to Aguillo et al. (2010), is a type of “organisational report card” that offers unambiguous methods for grading universities. Rather, it is seen by Amsler (2014) as “…an act of symbolic violence and a mechanism of social exclusion; that it is politically problematic and ethically unjustifiable.” Regardless of one’s thoughts on the intent and implications of the ranking systems, scholars (Merisotis, 2002; Olds, 2010; UNESCO, 2011; Tofallis, 2012; Osborn, 2013) appear to agree on one thing: the rankings are here to stay.
Are all university ranking systems the same?
Although the QS World University Rankings for this year made us happy, there are other ranking systems used all over the world. Other prominent rating systems include the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), Leiden University Ranking, Webometrics Rankings, Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE), and others. In the same way that their names differ, so do their measuring standards. This can be further evident from the next table that contains the rankings of this year’s top three best universities of Bangladesh according to the QS World University Rankings in other such ranking systems.
As previously stated, the standards by which each rating is created may differ significantly from those of another commonly used ranking system. This explains why, despite being completely absent from other rankings like the ARWU and Leiden University Rankings, the University of Dhaka has made a huge jump in the QS World University Rankings. Different rankings prioritize a different set of criteria over others. Criteria used in different ranking systems are mentioned below:
Academic Reputation Calculation
The QS Rankings are based on surveys. For academic reputation score, they survey academicians, i.e. ask academicians to nominate institutions that are doing well academically. They usually ask to nominate 3 types of institutions –
- Domestic: up to 10 institutions from their country/territory and faculty area excluding their own institution
- International: 30 institutions outside of their country/territory, but within their faculty area expertise
- Subject Area: up to 10 institutions in their subject area
They assign equal weightage to domestic and international nominations and come up with the final academic reputation score.
Employer Reputation Calculation
In this case, employers are surveyed for nominating institutions that provide the best graduates in their field. Usually employers are asked to nominate both domestic and international universities.
Faculty Student Ratio Calculation
The following formula is used to calculate faculty-student ratio:
Number of Faculty figure validated by QS / Students figure validated by QS
Citations Per Faculty Calculation
QS collects data from Elsevier Scopus to analyze the number of citations per faculty. In this case they divide the total number of citations by the total number of faculties.
Internationalization Calculation
The international faculties to total faculties and international students to total students ratios are quite straightforward. However, the international research network score is calculated by using the IRN index.
IRN Index = Number of Countries in Partnership / ln(Number of International Partners)
In simple terms, the number of countries where an institution has international partner institutions is divided by the natural log of the number of international partners to derive the IRN Index.
Employment Outcomes Calculation
The employment outcomes data is self-reported by the universities or provided by third-parties. The alumni impact index and graduate employment rate is used to quantify employment outcomes using the following formula –
Alumni Impact Index adjusted * ln(Graduate Employment Rate)
The other two rankings – Leiden University Rankings is based on bibliometric scientific impact indicators and Webometrics University Rankings is based on web presence and impact.
Bangladeshi Universities in QS Rankings
The University of Dhaka has improved its ranking significantly in the QS Rankings. If we look into a detailed breakdown of the scores of Dhaka University in different criteria, we will notice that both academic reputation and employer reputation has increased gradually over the last 4 years. However, faculty-student ratio has decreased gradually as well. In the last ranking where DU has ranked exceptionally well, International Research Network and Employment Outcomes have increased many folds in one year.
A similar anomaly to Dhaka University can be noticed in case of BUET as well. International Research Network and Employment Outcomes Scores have increased many folds during the last year.
However, BUET does not have any international faculties, hence getting no scores in that criteria. Their international students are also considerably low. Therefore, in both these criteria BUET has a lower score compared to the other universities.
North South University has a comparatively higher score for International Faculties and International Students compared to the other universities of the country. However, they also have a high international research network score even though their employment outcome has drastically decreased.
BRAC University’s Faculty-Student Ratio has been declining rapidly which shows they are admitting more and more students every year. Their international research network has also increased substantially like every other university. However, international students and faculties at BRAC University have also played a vital role in their overall rankings unlike Dhaka University or BUET.
Bangladeshi Universities in THE Rankings
The two universities in Bangladesh that have consistently been ranked by Times Higher Education are – the University of Dhaka and Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology
Both these universities have more or less been consistent in all the aspects. However, the major difference in score has been noticed in terms of citations. Both BUET and DU have increased their citation score for obtaining better ranks in THE Rankings. Even though Dhaka University’s Industry Income (patent, research income etc.) has decreased significantly in the last year.
The Quality Assurance Framework in Bangladesh
Although the World University Rankings’ standards are frequently scrutinized and criticized, Bangladesh can find some solace in the “Quality Assurance Framework” that the University Grant Commission (UGC) recommended in 2015. The purpose of this framework is to ensure quality of education by fostering a culture of quality assurance at all universities in Bangladesh. Though it is still in its cradle, the framework comprises the following nine pillars.
- Corporate vision, mission and objectives
- Academic standard based on graduate profiles and learning outcomes
- Process of follow-up and peer observation
- Documentation at all levels of university administration
- Program Management
- Stakeholder Management
- Involvement of stakeholders
- Need Assessment
- Content and Structure
- Definite Course Learning Outcomes
- Skill development mechanism
- Evaluation & Review
- Entry Qualification
- Admission Procedure
- Progress and Achievement
- Classroom
- Library
- Laboratory
- Others
- Teaching-learning
- Student Performance Assessment
- Academic guidance and counseling
- Co-curricular and Extra-curricular activities
- Career & Placement
- Alumni Services
- Community Services
- Recruitment
- Staff Development
- Career Development
- Key Performance Indicators
- Cutting Edge research initiatives
- Recognition and Priority to research
- Motivation and Innovation for research
- University-Industry research collaboration
- Dissemination of research fundings to grassroot levels
- Patenting products
- Establishing commercial arms
Room for Improvement in Quality Assurance
The methods and sources for obtaining the data needed to assess an institution’s performance according to these standards have not yet been made public, but the criteria appear to be sufficiently detailed to cover all the factors that affect how successfully and efficiently a university can carry out its duties in teaching, research, and community service. And in order to improve it even more, the following elements must be taken into account.
Inclusion Focal Point
Since one of our goals is to create an inclusive society through inclusive education, this framework needs to have an “Inclusion Focal Point” made up of experts, teachers, and students who can supervise the inclusion mechanism and all of its opportunities and difficulties. Universities are currently working to include students with disabilities, students from indigenous communities, and transgender students. Ensuring these students’ safety and appropriate inclusion in mainstream classrooms is crucial when evaluating a university’s quality, and the Inclusion Focal Point can be extremely valuable in this regard.
Ensuring Students’ Participation
One of the fundamental problems of any ranking system is the lack of student participation, despite the fact that students are meant to be at the centre of all arrangements at educational institutions. To obtain a true picture of a university and ensure triangulation, the sources and procedures employed in this framework must include student voices throughout the data collection process. Additionally, input from students is required in the follow-up process.
Ensuring Fairness
The “Institutional Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)” and “Quality Assurance Committee (QAC)” are entities responsible for the proper implementation of the “Quality Assurance Framework” in various universities. They are supposed to be chaired by the Vice-chancellor and comprise a number of academic and administrative staff from the respective universities. Because the members of these entities are already members of the specific institution and there might be conflict of interest, one may be tempted to falsify the statistics to their advantage. Strict efforts must be taken to prevent these tendencies in order to conduct a more objective assessment. If the ecosystem in which these organizations operate is not free of external pressures, the framework’s output will be compromised and rendered invalid.
Fairness, Justice and Rankings
In the modern world, rankings play a critical role in higher education since they affect a variety of significant decisions, from personal choices to policy-making. Research indicates that parents and potential students base their decisions about pursuing higher education on university rankings (Beine et al., 2014). While investors choose their contributions, people use university rankings to determine their future work prospects (Chan et al., 2015). In order to set long-term objectives and make decisions, stakeholders and legislators assess universities’ research performance (Huang, 2012). Universities at the top of the rankings with track records of success are preferred for funding by governments and nongovernmental organizations. Even though the usages seem noble, fairness can only be guaranteed if the criteria are legitimate and fair. Let us consider whether rankings can perform the role of Themis by examining the prevalent criteria and some relevant issues related to various rating systems :
Lack of Emphasis on Pedagogical Practices
Teaching, research, and community involvement are a university’s three primary responsibilities, according to Askari et al. (2018). However, only THE World University Rankings takes teaching practices into consideration, whereas the majority of the ranking systems we previously examined concentrate on universities’ research activity. If this crucial component is missing, a ranking system as a whole may be called into question. This is because students may be misled if they select a highly ranked university based on a ranking system that doesn’t even indicate whether or not the educational procedures are up to par.
Emphasis on Research
It makes obvious sense that university research efforts are a major element in almost all rankings. The number of citations alone, however, may raise questions about research efforts because biases such as gender, race, and national identity are present in citations and can be deeply ingrained in our consciousness (Maliniak, 2013; Dion et al., 2018; Thelwall, 2018; Wang et al., 2018; Earhart et al., 2020, Chick et al., 2021). Even though citation counts are an unreliable indicator of research paper quality, universities with a higher proportion of scholars from historically underrepresented racial, gender, and national identities stand to lose even more from this strategy.
The number of research papers published per faculty member is another method used by several ranking systems to evaluate the amount of research that a university conducts. The faculties might be forced to choose quantity over quality as a result. Furthermore, this can put more pressure on faculty members to compromise their academic integrity when doing research (Fauzi et al., 2020).
Emphasis on Awards
The number of major awards that its faculty and graduates have won—such as the Field Medal, the Nobel Prize, and others—is heavily considered by rankings like ARWU. Fauzi et al. (2020) state that it is controversial because some people feel that a “politicking factor” determines the decisions about the awarding of these prizes and that the winner’s scientific contribution is not the most important consideration. The prize is also dependent on submission; nevertheless, on occasion, a university may have had a distinguished candidate who satisfied the requirements for the prize but was not submitted because of the university’s cultural and philosophical beliefs. A person is awarded the Nobel Prize decades after the research has been completed. When the Nobel Prize is factored into a university rating, this becomes problematic. For example, Albert Einstein received his Nobel Prizes while he was a professor at the University of Berlin, but he worked at the Swiss Patent Office in Zurich when he conducted his research on photoelectric phenomena (Billaut et al. 2010).
Applied Survey Methods
Because of the small sample size and underrepresentation of certain countries in the THE and QS survey, the results are skewed towards a select few nations (particularly US, UK, and Australian universities). (Aguillo et al.,2010). Because THE and QS are operated in the US and the UK, respectively, their respondent selection may only include a limited number of nations due to date collection accessibility. It is unjust to other nations, particularly the growing nations of Asia and Africa, which need to have equal representation according to methodology. Rankings that primarily rely on surveys may have issues related to psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Survey reputation issues may arise from rankings that rely on composite measures, including ARWU, QS, and THE (Vidal and Fillatreau, 2014). Using comprehensive statistical techniques that work in tandem with the survey approach could result in a more valid and trustworthy system. Soh (2016) emphasised that ranking needs to be based on statistical criteria; otherwise, the conversation would solely be verbal and abstract.
Emphasis on the Presence of International Faculties and Students
The presence of international faculty and students at a university is taken into consideration by the QS and THE rankings because it is purported to reflect the university’s standing internationally. Moving to a university as an international faculty member or student, however, has implications beyond the school’s calibre. This decision is also influenced by the social climate and the country’s standard of living. Thus, even if one were offered the opportunity to teach at a highly esteemed university, one might choose not to relocate there due to national circumstances.
Emphasis on Website Visibility
Webometrics and some other rankings give universities’ web presence and marketability top priority. A significant problem with Webometrics has arisen from using website presence alone as the ranking criterion. When compared to other institutions, a university that actively markets on its website may have a high Webometrics ranking. An otherwise reputable university’s Webometrics ranking could suffer from poor website promotion (Fauzi et al., 2020).
Conclusion
According to Fauzi et al. (2020), a university projects its ranking in a way that obscures its fundamental shortcomings. This is due to the fact that university rankings generally have a poor ability to assess universities comprehensively (Olcay & Bulu, 2017). Rankings of universities can be deceptive since, after all, we do live in a society that values brands and labels. A university’s ranking might provide insight about the institution or its student body. However, in order to meet worldwide needs and serve as a basis for how we now assess a university’s progress, a more useful measuring instrument is required. Because different universities use different ranking systems, it is possible for false conclusions about a university’s rating to arise. For this reason, rankings should not be the only factor considered when making decisions, both as an individual and policymakers. The wisest course of action would be to proceed cautiously while making a decision, as individual circumstances vary and no one size fits all.
About the Author
Subah Binte Ahsan is a post-graduate student in Evaluation and Research at the Institute of Education and Research, University of Dhaka. She has completed her B.Ed. on Special Education from IER, University of Dhaka.
References
Aguillo, I. F., Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Ortega, J. L. (2010). Comparing university rankings. Scientometrics, 85(1), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0190-z
Amsler, S. (2014). University ranking: a dialogue on turning towards alternatives. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 13(2), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.3354/esep00136
Are university rankings too powerful? (n.d.). University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20130412163531737
Askari, M. Y., Mazouz, A., & Refae, G. a. E. (2018). Crafting employability strategy in skills-driven labour markets. International Journal of Economics and Business Research, 16(1), 126. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijebr.2018.093379
Bangladesh | Ranking Web of Universities: Webometrics ranks 30000 institutions. (n.d.). https://www.webometrics.info/en/Asia/Bangladesh%20
Beine, M., Noël, R., & Ragot, L. (2014). Determinants of the international mobility of students. Economics of Education Review, 41, 40–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.03.003
Boulton, G. (2011). University rankings: Diversity, Excellence and the European Initiative. Procedia: Social & Behavioral Sciences, 13, 74–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.006
Chan, K. C., Fung, A., Fung, H., & Yau, J. (2016). Ranking of institutions and academic journals. Managerial Finance, 42(4), 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1108/mf-09-2015-0247
Chick, N. L., Abbot, S., Mercer-Mapstone, L., Ostrowdun, C. P., & Grensavitch, K. (2021). Naming is Power. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.2.2
Dion, M. L., Sumner, J. L., & Mitchell, S. M. (2018). Gendered Citation Patterns across Political Science and Social Science Methodology Fields. Political Analysis, 26(3), 312–327. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2018.12
Earhart, A. E., Risam, R., & Bruno, M. (2020). Citational politics: Quantifying the influence of gender on citation in Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 36(3), 581–594. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqaa011
Fauzi, M. A., Tan, C. N.-L., Daud, M., & Awalludin, M. M. N. (2020). University rankings: A review of methodological flaws. Issues in Educational Research, 30(1). https://www.iier.org.au/iier30/fauzi.pdf
Huang, M. (2012). Opening the black box of QS World University Rankings. Research Evaluation, 21(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvr003
Maliniak, D., Powers, R., & Walter, B. F. (2013). The gender citation gap in international relations. International Organization, 67(4), 889–922. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818313000209
Olcay, G. A., & Bulu, M. (2017). Is measuring the knowledge creation of universities possible?: A review of university rankings. Technological Forecasting & Social Change/Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.029
Qs. (2024, June 10). QS World University Rankings 2025: Top global universities. Top Universities. https://www.topuniversities.com/world-university-rankings?countries=bd
ShanghaiRanking’s Academic Ranking of World Universities. (n.d.). https://www.shanghairanking.com/rankings/arwu/2023
Soh, K. (2015). Nearing world-class: Singapore’s two universities in QSWUR 2015/16. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 38(1), 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080x.2015.1126897
Staff Correspondent, & Staff Correspondent. (2024, June 5). Dhaka University achieves highest-ever spot in QS Rankings, claims 554th position. Prothomalo. https://en.prothomalo.com/youth/h4ki47z03p
Studies, C. F. S. a. T. (n.d.). CWTS Leiden Ranking. CWTS Leiden Ranking. https://www.leidenranking.com/ranking/2023/list
Tofallis, C. (2011). A different approach to university rankings. Higher Education, 63(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9417-z
Vidal, P., & Filliatreau, G. (2014). Graphical comparison of world university rankings. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/67a3/90548a4eca7c05f6ae305a51692d54f4ee03.pdf
Wang, X., Dworkin, J. D., Zhou, D., Stiso, J., Falk, E. B., Bassett, D. S., Zurn, P., & Lydon-Staley, D. M. (2021). Gendered citation practices in the field of communication. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45(2), 134–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1960180
World University Rankings 2024. (2023, December 21). Times Higher Education (THE). https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2024/world-ranking#!/length/25/locations/BGD/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats
1 comment
Fine piece!