University rankings began to emerge in the early 2000s, coinciding with a growing awareness of the negative consequences of uncontrolled capitalism and unchecked consumerism worldwide.
The inception of these rankings can best be traced to the development of Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE), and QS World University Rankings.
These rankings are often oversimplified and primarily driven by unconscious competitiveness, overlooking contextual realities and true quality enhancement. Each ranking system employs different methodologies and criteria, reflecting various aspects of university performance and reputation.
Broadly, they aim to provide a comparative assessment of institutions, primarily focusing on neoliberal developmental and quantifiable aspects, rather than critical evaluative perspectives.
Thus, the methodology and impact of university rankings readily lend themselves to criticism. These rankings may be more ‘myth’ than reality.
Most universities in the Global South, particularly in the Indian subcontinent, are plagued by excessive politicisation, opportunistic academic practices, parasitic clientelism – i.e., quid-pro-quo, and restricted freedom of speech. Despite these challenges, some still manage to receive relatively high rankings.
Conversely, many universities in the Global North, which are prime destinations for faculty and students from the Global South seeking higher education and employment opportunities, often remain unranked. This paradox underscores fundamental flaws and inconsistencies in university ranking systems, which often fail to account for socio-political challenges and compromised academic standards in certain regions.
The exact number of universities worldwide is difficult to determine, but a reliable source suggest there are at least 25,000 universities globally as of July 2023, including 5,350 in India, 3,300 in Indonesia, 3,200 in the USA, 2,706 in Europe, 2,495 in China, and 383 in Canada, among others.
The 2024 QS University Ranking positioned Bangladesh’s Dhaka University at 554th place, which might be seen as a moment of mythical pride for many of us.
For instance, the University of Bedfordshire is unranked by QS, but falls within the overall ranking between 1001 and 1600 by Times Higher Education, and the University of Bradford ranks between 601 and 650 in the 2024 QS World University Ranking.
Seemingly, Dhaka University’s rank suggests it has higher qualities than thousands of such unranked universities in the Global North, including those in the USA, Canada, and Australia. However, the extent to which this ranking reflects the true quality and meaningful education provided by Dhaka University and similar institutions in the Global South remains questionable.
Furthermore, whether this ranking will attract international students and faculty from the Global North is also uncertain. A high ranking does not necessarily guarantee that a university offers a superior educational experience or meets the diverse needs of international students.
Therefore, it is more practical for universities, especially those resembling Dhaka University, to focus on ensuring quality education rather than pursuing rankings.
By emphasising quality education, including effective teaching, student satisfaction, employability of graduates, and contributions to societal development, universities can fulfil their primary and premier objective of higher education mission.
Rankings should not overshadow the importance of providing a meaningful and robust educational experience.
The methodological quagmire
The rankings tend to focus mostly on surface-level metrics. These metrics typically include academic reputation, employer reputation, faculty/student ratio, citations per faculty, international faculty ratio, international student ratio, among others.
While these criteria may seem comprehensive, they are inherently biassed and often fail to capture the true essence and goal of educational quality with such digits, numbers, and percentages.
The influence of organisational features, such as academic and employer reputations derived from surveys, has garnered significant attention from critical researchers. These surveys are subjective and tend to favour established institutions with long-standing reputations.
Consequently, newer, or less internationally recognised universities, regardless of their quality, are disadvantaged. Additionally, this metric disproportionately favours institutions with strong research funding and a predominant focus on science and technology, side-lining those excelling in the humanities, social sciences, and arts.
This imbalance highlights the flaws in using citations as the primary measure of research quality, as it fails to capture the full spectrum of academic excellence across different disciplines.
While Faculty/Student Ratio is intended to measure teaching quality, it does not account for the diverse teaching methods and learning environments that different universities provide.
Moreover, it often ignores the quality and effectiveness of the teaching itself. Also, the presence of international faculty and students is often seen as a measure of a university’s global appeal. However, this metric disadvantages institutions like ours where attracting international talent is challenging due to socio-economic or political reasons.
Contextual disparities
Rankings often fail to consider the socio-economic and political contexts within which universities operate. For example, universities in developing countries like Bangladesh face different challenges compared to those in developed countries. Factors such as funding, political stability, embedded divide-and-rule game in the workplace, and socio-economic conditions play a crucial role in shaping the educational landscape but are often overlooked in global rankings.
Despite facing issues such as political interference, funding constraints, and infrastructural challenges, Dhaka University remains a critical educational and research institution in Bangladesh that is vastly different from its counterparts in the USA or Europe. Ranking systems that do not account for these contextual differences provide an incomplete and often misleading picture.
The illusion of objectivity
Rankings create an illusion and discrepancy between subjectivity and objectivity, suggesting that educational quality can be quantified and compared across vastly different contexts and disciplines.
This illusion often misleads students, parents, and policymakers into making decisions based solely on rank, ignoring other crucial factors such as the specific academic programs offered, campus culture, support services, and alignment with personal or professional goals.
Impact on institutional behaviour
The emphasis on rankings can drive universities to prioritise activities that improve their position rather than enhance educational quality. This phenomenon, known as “gaming the rankings,” includes strategies like hiring star researchers to boost citation counts, increasing the number of international students and faculty, and investing in high-visibility research projects at the expense of indigenous resources and community engagement.
Such practices can distort the mission of universities, shifting the focus from providing a well-rounded education and fostering critical thinking to merely climbing the ranks. This shift can be particularly detrimental in countries like Bangladesh, where higher education institutions struggle to meet basic expectations regarding academic ambiance.
Moreover, the pursuit of citations has become an obsession for many university faculties including our ones, as citations are commonly used to measure research impact. In their quest to be cited, researchers often overlook the fundamental ethics and principles of research, with some resorting to forgery and manipulation to present striking results, solely to increase their citation counts.
Moving beyond rankings
To truly assess and improve the quality of our higher education, a more holistic approach is needed—stakeholders must look beyond rankings and adopt a context-sensitive approach.
For instance, while the Bangladeshi universities strive for higher rankings, disappointment persists due to the continued allocation of only 1.76% of the country’s GDP to the education sector in FY25, the same as the previous year.
Our universities enrol local students who complete primary, secondary, and higher secondary education in different parts of the country, often experiencing inequalities and uneven treatment. Failing to invest adequately in the development of these students significantly hampers the creation of an environment conducive to academic excellence.
Bangladeshi teachers receive among the lowest salaries in comparison to other countries. It is well known that the university teachers in Bangladesh are not provided with reasonable financial incentives to maintain a standard of living or to support their research efforts. As a result, many faculty members strive for positions that offer financial benefits and other amenities over engaging in academic involvement.
This trend detracts from their primary responsibilities of teaching and research, leading to a decline in academic quality and student outcomes. When faculty prioritize administrative roles for personal gain, it results in a lack of focus on curriculum development, mentorship, and scholarly activities.
To ensure a robust academic environment, it is crucial to incentivise and support faculty members in their academic and research endeavours while curbing the current form of teacher and student liaison-politics at educational institutions.
Ensuring accountability and introducing a meaningful reward culture for academic excellence and accomplishments can help universities better fulfil their primary mission of creating and disseminating knowledge, fostering critical thinking, and contributing to societal development. Ultimately, we do not need to place too much emphasis on rankings.