By Edith Fortunate and Esther Mwangi. The announcement by the Commission for Higher Education (CHE) that it plans to start ranking universities has elicited mixed reactions.
According to the commission’s new chairman, Prof David Some, the exercise, which will run for an initial pilot period of three years to give universities a chance to understand it, aims to improve university education in Kenya.
“Ranking is one of the ways to stimulate competition among universities, promote quality, enhance access, and elicit public confidence,” he said during an interview recently.
CHE, a government organisation charged with the responsibility of enforcing learning standards, will lead the process. The proposed rankings come at a time when Kenya is seeking ways to improve higher education standards which have been affected caused by overcrowded classes and inadequate numbers of teaching staff.
The perception of declining quality of education in local institutions is believed to be pushing more Kenyan students to foreign universities. In recent years, there has been a general perception, especially among employers, that the quality of higher education has deteriorated. Many institutions have established campuses and learning centres with little regard to the conduciveness of the environment.
The rapid expansion has also constrained resources, including lecturers, leading many institutions to yield to the temptation to hire less qualified personnel. The parallel degree programmes, driven by commercial interests, have attracted an unmanageable number of students and it is common for students to miss seats in lecture halls. Some learn while standing or sitting on the floor.
According to Prof Some, the ranking system is expected to identify and promote sensible quality parameters for both private and public universities. It is hoped that this will push universities to improve their standards in order to get good ratings.
Kenyan universities rely on international ranking institutions, such as Webometrics coordinated from Spain, to gauge their reputation in the continental and global higher education arena. However, the ranking by Webometrics is based on the Web presence of universities, implying that those with an elaborate website and good hits could be ranked above those with a not-so-impressive Internet presence.
Stakeholders say that this is not a realistic method as it leaves out crucial parameters for genuine assessment.
The CHE formula will seek to ensure that the appraisal will be based on the institutions’ learning and research impact, not merely size and number of courses on offer. Therefore, one of the key factors to be considered will be the reputation of the institution among employers, the quality of its facilities in relation to the programmes on offer, and its lecturer-student ratios.
CPS International, a research institution with an interest in education, prefers that universities’ uptake of information communication technology be given prominence in the ranking. This is to take into account the growing need for e-learning as the number of students in need of university studies overwhelm physical infrastructure, in addition to allowing distance studies.
The organisation’s lead researcher Mr Dann Mwangi says: “The first online university in Kenya was recently awarded a letter of interim authority to operate, and it is against this background that we have closely been monitoring ICT development in East Africa.”

By Menachem Wecker. U.S. schools continued to fare well in the World's Best Universities rankings.
In what may be a sign of the growth of science and technology in international education, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology wrestled the top spot in the new U.S. News World's Best Universities rankings away from University of Cambridge, which was No. 1 for the past two years.
MIT, which tied for sixth place among National Universities in the recent U.S. News Best Colleges rankings, had ranked No. 3 in the previous World's Best rankings. The new 2012 data are based on the QS World University Rankings, developed by QS Quacquarelli Symonds. Harvard University dropped from second in the 2011 rankings to third place, and Cambridge assumed the second spot on the new list.
A global education network headquartered in London, QS used six indicators to rank the top 400 universities worldwide: academic reputation, faculty-student ratio, citations per faculty, employer reputation, proportion of international faculty, and percentage of international students. More...

By William Patrick Leonard. What US News and World Report started in the 1980s as an assessment said to be based on objective criteria, has morphed into an international status competition.
The US News’ Best Colleges, Times Higher Education, QS and Shanghai Jiao Tong tertiary education rankings systems attract increasing attention with each autumn.
As with any rankings outcome, there are winners and losers.
Institutions ascending in rank note with muted pride their independently documented quality. After all, if the institution is awarded a higher rank, it must be much better than those of lesser or no rank. Those descending quibble over the validity of the metrics employed, but still draw attention to them.
The media, often the survey sponsors, enjoy additional readership and some seasonal revenue boost with the release of their latest rankings. More...

Times Higher Education (THE), working in cooperation with Thomson Reuters, has unveiled its latest university ranking findings, delivering three main products. THE’s World University Rankings exercise examines data across 13 different indicators to calculate the 400 top universities globally. Its World Reputation Rankings aim to provide insight into the 100 universities enjoying the “most powerful global university brands” by virtue of the “expert judgment of senior, published academics”. And the THE 100 under 50 rankings highlight the top 100 universities worldwide that have been in existence for fewer than 50 years.
This year, THE has introduced no methodological changes from its 2011-12 rankings exercise. Five main areas provide the framework for THE’s consideration of university excellence in terms of its World University Rankings. These include:

The 100 under 50 rankings are determined by the same 13 indicators as the World University Rankings, but give less weight to reputational factors, whereas reputation is obviously the overriding indicator for the World Reputation Rankings.
In terms of specific results and broader trends, the theme of “Asia rising” raised in September by the 2012/13 QS World University Ranking is clearly reinforced by the THE rankings. THE analysis notes that the world’s longstanding elite institutions in Europe and North America would be wise to look carefully over their shoulders specifically at the ambitious and fast-improving universities of East Asia, but more broadly at an emerging crop of contenders eager for recognition on the global rankings stage.
2012-13 Times Higher Education World University Rankings: www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/.

By Julia Lawrence. Although the U.S. maintains its strong position in the 2012-2013 edition of the Times Higher Education World University Rankings, overall, American universities have given ground to the ascent of academic institutions from the Asia-Pacific region. This represents a universal trend among Western countries, with many marquee Western European universities finding themselves much lower — or even off the list entirely.
The California Institute of Technology maintains its grip on the top of the rankings, repeating its showing from the year before. However, Harvard University, last year’s runner up, slipped two places to number four to make room for California’s Stanford University and UK’s University of Oxford, which tied for second. At first glance, the position of U.S. institutions remains as strong as ever by retaining possession of seven of the top ten slots. Of the top 200, 76 are American universities, a gain of one over last year’s list.
Still, the relative position of those 76 tells a much more alarming story.
The Times Higher Education World University Rankings are the world’s most comprehensive and carefully calibrated global rankings, using 13 separate performance indicators to examine a university’s strengths against all of its core missions – teaching, research, knowledge transfer and international outlook. All data are collected, analysed and verified by global data provider Thomson Reuters.
The methodology, which is identical to the one used last year, presents a picture of a slipping grip on premier educational status by institutions in the U.S. and Western Europe, and the steady rise of schools in Asia-Pacific. The biggest impact seems to have been on institutions mostly funded by public money as many U.S. state universities, while still appearing on the list, declined from their position the year before. Those include members of the University of California system such as UC Davis, which went from 38th place last year to 44th this year. Several other state schools performed similarly, including Pennsylvania State University (from 51st to 61st), University of Massachusetts (from 64th to 72nd,) and Arizona State University, which slipped down to become one of the lowest ranked U.S. schools on the list at 148.
Still, American schools performed well compared to Canadian universities for whom this year’s edition of the rankings offered almost no good news at all. Of the nine Canadian institutions represented on the list last year, only eight returned, with Queen’s University falling off the rankings entirely. Of the remainder, only two moved up: the University of Montreal jumped 20 places from 104th to 84th and the University of Ottawa went up from 185th to 171st.
In stark contrast, the leading universities from across the Asia-Pacific region saw significant improvements.
China’s two top 200 institutions both rose, with Peking University moving from 49th to 46th and Tsinghua jumping 19 places from 71st to 52nd. Thanks to extremely strong income figures, Singapore’s two top 200 institutions saw spectacular success. The National University of Singapore moved from 40th to 29th and Nanyang Technological University rocketed up the table from 169th to 86th.
Universities in South Korea also had good showings. Not only had each of the schools on the list last year gained in standing, an additional South Korean school entered the top 200: Yonsei University at 183rd. The press release accompanying the new edition of the list took a particular note of the “spectacular” improvement by Seoul National University, which, in one year, went from 124th to 59th.
Editor of Times Higher Education rankings Phil Baty took note of the fact that the grip by American universities on the rankings seems to be loosening.
“America’s lead in global higher education and research is faltering. The US still has by far the most world-class universities of any nation, and its leading institutions remain the very best in the world – but there are signs of dangerous complacency and the start of the decline of a world-leading university sector.
“While household names MIT, Caltech and Berkeley hold on to top positions, the US as a whole has suffered serious decline – of the 71 institutions ranked in the top 200, 51 have fallen down the table.
“This comes down to money. For many years, the US has been the world’s biggest investor in tertiary education, spending more of its gross domestic product than any other developed nation on its universities — but not anymore. Latest figures from the OECD show that the US spend has dipped – from 2.8 per cent to 2.6 per cent – and South Korea has caught up.
Baty noted that while America seems to be rolling back its investment in higher education — something that is already having an impact on the rankings of its formerly well-performing public universities — countries in the Asia-Pacific region are increasing the percentage of GDP allocated towards university funding. He theorizes that this is one of the reasons behind their rapid rise up the list.
Still, money isn’t everything as proved by the Canadian example. At 2.5% of GDP, Canada spends well above the OECD average on higher education, but it is not seeing much of a return on its investment. On average, Canada’s showing was 5 slots lower than their performance last year.
Writing in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings publication in a personal capacity, Dirk Van Damme, the head of the Innovation and Measuring Progress Division at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, said:  “Academic excellence is gradually shifting away from the 20th-century centres. The US and UK still dominate the absolute top, but they face a severe loss of total ranking positions in the top 200 list.”

By Andrew Marszal, Education Digital Editor. Two different university world rankings showed wildly variable results for UK universities – so which one should we trust?
Things looked rosy for Cambridge last month. Yes, the university may have lost pole position in the world university rankings to nerd’s paradise MIT. But in taking second place, three slots clear of its great rival Oxford and two ahead of UCL, it reaffirmed its status as the UK’s leading light in higher education.
 Or did it? Today’s world rankings paint a different picture. Cambridge only manages seventh place, while Oxford clambers up to joint-second. UCL is a mere 17th. And what of MIT? Much lauded for its apparently peerless technological research last month, it now gazes up longingly at first-placed California Institute of Technology.
The obvious reason for these discrepancies is the use of different ranking systems. Today’s Times Higher Education tables are a different beast to last month’s QS World University Rankings. Although nominally answering the same question, they don’t share a methodology, a data set or indeed a winner.
Rather than argue over which is right, UK universities should perhaps just be glad that the widely respected Shanghai Ranking is less well-known on these shores – none of our universities come close to ending Harvard’s 10 years at the top of that list.
So, where can prospective students turn for answers? The simple truth is that there is no such thing as a definitive table. But in fact the wildly differing outcomes of these tables make them more, not less, useful. The key is in knowing how to interpret them. More...

By Elizabeth Gibney. Losses for UK and US as Eastern excellence drives start to bear fruit. Elizabeth Gibney reports.
Outside the elite Golden Triangle of Oxbridge and London, the relative performance of the UK's research-intensive universities is slipping, analysis of the 2012-13 Times Higher Education World University Rankings shows.
Despite UK institutions on average improving scores across most criteria, a surge in performance elsewhere has seen UK universities in the top 200 slip by an average of 6.7 places.
Meanwhile, the US continues to dominate the rankings. Its universities claimed 76 places in the top 200, although 51 lost ground.
Wendy Piatt, director general of the Russell Group of research-intensive universities, said the rankings show that its institutions continue to punch above their weight but that the UK cannot afford to take the path of the US, where cuts in state investment have seriously weakened some public universities.
"The UK cannot afford to be outmanoeuvred by other countries that clearly recognise that investment in their leading universities is the key to growth," she said.
Asian universities, especially in the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and China, performed particularly well in the rankings, published on 3 October, rising by an average of almost 12 places.
In the UK, although the University of Oxford rose two places to joint second and Imperial College London and University College London held on to their places at eighth and 17th respectively, several other research-intensive institutions slipped.
Notable among those dropping down the table are the University of Bristol, falling eight places to 74th, and the University of St Andrews, sliding 23 places to 108th. The University of Leeds fell nine places to joint 142nd, and the University of Sheffield slipped nine places to joint 110th. More...

Les universités occidentales dominent toujours le monde du savoir, mais elles perdent du terrain face à leurs rivales asiatiques. C'est l'une des principales informations du dernier classement du Times Higher Education, publié jeudi 4 octobre.
Certes, parmi les 200 meilleurs établissements du monde, les occidentaux continuent de se tailler la part du lion. Dans l'élite universitaire mondiale, telle que définie par l'hebdomadaire britannique à partir de treize critères censés dresser un portrait fidèle (enseignement, recherche, ouverture internationale…), les Etats-Unis placent 76 universités, s'arrogeant la première place, le Royaume-Uni 31, les Pays-Bas 12, l'Allemagne 11. La France n'est que le 7e pays. Alors qu'elle comptait cinq établissements dans le top 200 en 2011, elle en a sept cette année: l'Ecole normale supérieure de Paris (59e), Ecole polytechnique (62e), les universités parisiennes Pierre-et-Marie-Curie (81e), Paris-Sud (92e) et Paris-Diderot (166e), Ecole normale supérieure de Lyon (170e), Université Joseph-Fourier de Grenoble (180e). Il n'y a guère lieu de s'en réjouir plus que de mesure : c'est la première fois que les deux nouveaux venus (Paris-Sud et Joseph-Fourier) acceptent de répondre au questionnaire du THE.
Si la domination occidentale n'est donc pas remise en cause, elle s'affaiblit cependant. Ainsi, la prédominance américaine "masque un déclin d'ensemble alarmant", prévient le THE: "51 institutions américaines dégringolent". Certaines font même une belle glissade. C'est le cas de Stony Brook University qui perd quarante-huit places en un an (162e), du Dartmouth College (-34, 124e) ou de la University of Iowa (-28, 169e)… La plupart des établissements britanniques perdent également du terrain. Les pays du sud de l'Europe chutent: l'Espagne perd son unique représentant dans le top 200. Les meilleures universités d'Italie, du Portugal ou de Grèce qui faisaient déjà partie du 2e classement du THE (200e à 400e), dévissent.
Parmi les occidentaux, seuls les Pays-Bas et l'Allemagne tirent leur épingle du jeu: leurs établissements progressent presque tous. Mais, souligne le THE, "ce classement donne une nouvelle preuve solide du glissement de puissance qui se produit de l'Occident vers l'Asie dans l'enseignement supérieur et la recherche". Les établissements asiatiques affichent de belles performances. "L'investissement massif de la Chine dans la constitution d'universités de niveau mondial est récompensé", ajoute l'hebdomadaire: les deux universités chinoises du top 200 progressent: l'université de Pékin gagne trois places (49e) et Tsinghua, à Pékin également, dix-neuf places (52e). La National University of Singapore passe du 40e au 29e rang et la Nannyang Technological University, également à Singapour, du 169e au 86e rang. La Corée du Sud et Hong Kong se montrent également très dynamiques. Article entier...