Presentation on international rankings of universities by Kim Huijpen. Presented on Monday the 17th of October 2011 to managers Marketing & Communication of Delft University of Technology . Sheets 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28 and 29 are from earlier presentations by Johan Verweij. Sheets 2 and 23 are based on sheets from earlier presentations by Johan Verweij.

1. International rankings of universities An overview for managers M&C TU Delft Kim Huijpen, Strategic Policy Affairs | 17/10/11

2. International rankings Context Criticism Overview The position of the TU Delft New initiatives to improve rankings How do we use international rankings? Do we influence international rankings?

3. Context Rankings fill in a need Stakeholders – students, parents, governments, accreditation councils, industry (inter)national organizations – want to know the differences between HEI’s and how they perform Rankings are more and more used (directly or indirectly via reputation) By the media By governmental institutions (reallocation of funds) By students (Asia) By HEI’s themselves! For marketing purposes or to select partners for cooperation

4. International rankings, criticism and new developments Most important international rankings in 2011 QS-, THE-, Shanghai-, HEEACT-, Leiden-ranking not 5 rankings, but 66 (11+6+7+17+25) Criticism content: bias for big & old universities, focus on research, bias for natural & medical sciences, language bias, comparison of whole HEI’s methodology: adding up all kind of indicators, numbering, dubious weighting, intransparency, institutions deliver data, methodological changes

5. Criticism Conceptual some universities have an advantage: Anglo-Saxon, beta- and medical disciplines, focus on research, big, old, general you can’t compare whole universities you can’t add up all the indicators Methodology underpinning of the weight factors sensitivity for outliers: best HEI=100 (z-scores are better) methodological changes in time Data limited or no insight in the raw data data provided by HEI’s themselves: mistakes, manipulation

6. Overview: similarities and differences

8. ‘life sciences & biomedicine’‘engineering & IT’

9. ‘social sciences’

10. ‘arts and humanitiesRanking by field: solely based on ‘academic peer review’

11. QS-ranking 2005-2011 (general)TU Delft from 108 (2010) to 104 (2011)

12. QS-ranking 2005-2011 (engineering)TU Delft stayed at position 18

13. QS-ranking 2005-2011 (natural sciences)TU Delft from 84 (2010) to 79 (2011)

15. ‘Life Sciences’

16. ‘Clinical, pre-clinical & Health’

17. ‘Physical Science’

18. ‘Social Sciences’

19. ‘Arts & Humanities’Ranking by field: based on same 13 indicators with slightly different weighting

20. Position of 3TU’s, LDE and IDEA League in THE-ranking 2011 * ParisTech exists of eleven ‘Grandes Ecoles Paris’ of which Ecole Polytechnique is the most well known.

21. THE Engineering and Technology Universities 2011-2012 (Top 50) TU Delft rose from 33 (2010) to 22 (2011) TU Delft is the only Dutch university in this ranking Top 50 Engineering and Technology Universities 2011-2012 1 California Institute of Technology, United States 1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States 3 Princeton University, United States 4 University of California, Berkeley, United States 5 Stanford University, United States 9 ETH Zürich, Switzerland 10 Imperial College London, United Kingdom 22 Delft University of Technology, Netherlands 29 École Polytechnique, France

22. Citation impact THE (30%) vsnew Crown Indicator CWTS Position of Dutch universities: THE-ranking ’11 (blue) & new Crown Indicator CWTS ’10 (red)

23. Indicators Shanghai-ranking (since '03)

24. Shanghai-ranking 2011 (general)TU Delft: 151-200 * ParisTech exists of eleven ‘Grandes Ecoles Paris’ of which Ecole Polytechnique is the most well known.

25. Shanghai-ranking 2011Field Rankings The TU Delft and University of Twente are in only one of five Field Rankings (top 100) between 76-100: ‘Engineering/Technology and Computer Sciences’ (Engineering, Computer Science en Materials Science) Last year TU Eindhoven was in none of the Field rankings Now TU/e is on position 52-75 of ‘Engineering/Technology and Computer Sciences’ TU/e has one full professor in ISIHighlyCited.com But: Thomson Reuters seems to stop with ISIHighlyCited.com

27. U-Map dimensions Teaching & learning profile Student profile Research involvement Knowledge exchange International orientation Regional engagement Presentation F. van Vught on the 13th DAIR seminar (4-11-09)

28. Example European Classification of HEI’s (U-Map)

29. How do we use international rankings? Until now Participation in QS-/THE-/CHE-ranking and U-map Internal memos for the Executive Board Annual report Website‘facts and figures’ Marketing and PR

30. “Proof of the pudding…?”

31. Reserved way of commenting TU Delft 22ste in Times Top 50 Technology Universities Collegevoorzitter Dirk Jan van den Berg is blij te zien dat de TU Delft in vergelijking met universiteiten wereldwijd goed beoordeeld wordt. De algemene THE World University Ranking kijkt naar 13 indicatoren en probeert zo de universiteit in de volle breedte te beoordelen. “Daarmee is onze positie in de ranking een mooi compliment voor de onderzoekers en docenten.” [...] “Hoe mooi de stijging van de TU Delft en andere Nederlandse universiteiten ook is, het laat ook zien dat het goed is om de waarde van dergelijke ranglijsten te relativeren. Kleine wijzigingen in de methode hebben een grote invloed op de uitkomst.”

32. How do we choose a ranking for marketing purposes? Ideology versus pragmatism

33. Should we influence our position in international rankings? No No We hold a good position in the rankings which are most important to us (THE-Technology, Shanghai-Engineering, Leiden- “Crown Indicator”) We use An elaborate internal planning and evaluation cycle providing all kind of data. These data are related to the way the government finances universities (dissertations, students, diploma’s) There are national reviews of our educational- and research-programmes which we use to improve our performance. These reviews include peer reviews and data on publications and citations

36. WoS/Highly cited (Shanghai)

37. Recruiters(QS): e.g. 180 HEI’s gave 45.000 namesInclude ranking-indicators in internal P&E-cycle (choose, monitor and benchmark indicators)

38. However, it is difficult to influence the rankings Your position is dependent upon Your own performances The performances of other HEI’s The way you and other HEI’s report data to the ranking institutions Methodological changes introduced by the ranking institutions

39. Messages More and more international rankings (need) Are used by several stakeholders and affect your reputation Are biased and have methodological drawbacks However, methodologies are improving Nevertheless, important to be in the rankings It is difficult for specialized universities to reach a high position in general rankings (TU Delft: technology/engineering) However, field normalization is improving New initiatives to improve international rankings: CHE rankings European Classification and Multidimensional ranking project

40. Questions and discussion: Do we need a ‘ranking strategy’? Whichrankings do we choosefor marketing purposes? More information: www.3tu.nl/uploads/media/Rankings_en_3TU.pdf Thanksto Johan Verweij I elaborated on his presentations Kim Huijpen, Policy Advisor, TU Delft / Corporate Policy Affairs T +31 (0)15 27 85296 |EK.Huijpen@tudelft.nl | @KimHuijpen

41. References Sheets 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28 and 29 are fromearlierpresentationsby Johan Verweij Sheets 2 and 23 are based on sheets fromearlierpresentationsby Johan Verweij Websites rankings: http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2011.html http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011 http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/top-400.html http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2010/TOP/100 http://www.socialsciences.leiden.edu/cwts/products-services/leiden-ranking-2010-cwts.html