fbpx World university ranking debate | Science in the net

World university ranking debate

Primary tabs

di Marco Milano
Pubblicato il 11/09/2013Read time: 2 mins
Research evaluation
Scientific research policy

Just as happened in Italy after the VQR report has released, a counter-assessment was also given to the Jiao Tong University ranking, concerning the best universities in a global scenario, published on august 2013. "That ranking does not reflect our academic system" were the words of Genvieve Fioraso, French Minister of Higher Education and research. It seems that Fioraso did not intend to contest the French universities rank - which, indeed, earn position with respect to the latest rankings - but rather the criteria used to analize an academic system different than countries for what concer internal organization. The Shanghai ranking is based on four criteria: quality of teaching (ie how many faculty of a university have received a Nobel Prize or Fields Medal); quality of the academic staff (based on the rankings highly cited) scientific production (impact factor ), productivity (the first three criteria in relation to the total number of teachers). Doubts about the reliability of the Shanghai's ranking became more strong when compared with other three major rankings concerning the quality of universities around the world. Those are in disagreement, for example, even for the top positions.



(click on the image above to open the graph)


Consulting the data, the most obvious differences are about the percentage of presence of individual countries in the rankings, the top positions (MIT QS, Harvard for the other three, as well as Johns Hopkins is ranked second only to the Taiwan Ranking). According to observers, those scenarios are so different beacause of the approaches to assessment variables based on different parameters used for individual methods. 
The Asian rankings, for example, are guilty of favoring studies in English and those with impact factor related to a small group of scientific journals.


Scienza in rete è un giornale senza pubblicità e aperto a tutti per garantire l’indipendenza dell’informazione e il diritto universale alla cittadinanza scientifica. Contribuisci a dar voce alla ricerca sostenendo Scienza in rete. In questo modo, potrai entrare a far parte della nostra comunità e condividere il nostro percorso. Clicca sul pulsante e scegli liberamente quanto donare! Anche una piccola somma è importante. Se vuoi fare una donazione ricorrente, ci consenti di programmare meglio il nostro lavoro e resti comunque libero di interromperla quando credi.


  • 9042 reads

prossimo articolo

Why have neural networks won the Nobel Prizes in Physics and Chemistry?

di Chiara Sabelli
Pubblicato il 15/10/2024

This year, Artificial Intelligence played a leading role in the Nobel Prizes for Physics and Chemistry. More specifically, it would be better to say machine learning and neural networks, thanks to whose development we now have systems ranging from image recognition to generative AI like Chat-GPT. In this article, Chiara Sabelli tells the story of the research that led physicist and biologist John J. Hopfield and computer scientist and neuroscientist Geoffrey Hinton to lay the foundations of current machine learning.

Image modified from the article "Biohybrid and Bioinspired Magnetic Microswimmers" https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/smll.201704374

Physics

The 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to John J. Hopfield, an American physicist and biologist from Princeton University, and to Geoffrey Hinton, a British computer scientist and neuroscientist from the University of Toronto, for utilizing tools from statistical physics in the development of methods underlying today's powerful machine learning technologies.