By Alex Usher. One of the greatest misapprehensions about rankings – and there are a lot, believe me – is that rankers are “just doing it for the money”.  For the most part, this is wrong.  It’s really hard to make money at rankings. More...

By Alex Usher. You may recall that in last Friday’s blog I was looking at scientific output of world-class universities.  I could do that thanks to quite an excellent database available from Leiden University’s Centre for Science and Technology Studies, developers of the excellent multi-dimensional Leiden Rankings, which do a strong job of comparing university research output and impact. I have covered this output and impact a couple of times before back here and here. More...

By Alex Usher. Its origins were remarkably humble: a loose assortment of parochial nineteenth-century liberal arts colleges, which emerged in the pursuit of sectarian expansion and civic boosterism more than scholarly distinction. These colleges had no academic credibility, no reliable source of students, and no steady funding. More...

By Alex Usher. We define “world-class universities” as any institution in the top 200 of the 2017 Shanghai Academic Rankings of World Universities (ARWU).   Our measure of financial clout is expenditures per student, converted to $US at purchasing-power-parity, using the Economist’s “Big Mac index” (yes there are more sophisticated tools out there, but they are usually 2-3 years behind). More...

By Alex Usher. Of the 174 top-200 ARWU universities for which we have financial data for 2015 or 2016, 155 have data on finances and students going back to 2006. For another 11 institutions, we have data going back to 2008 and can impute figures for the missing years based on comparable institutions in the same countries. More...

By Alex Usher. One of the knocks against the whole idea of “world-class universities” is that it tends to reinforce institutional privilege; that it’s mostly about big universities with big reputations aiming to expand their financial advantage over everyone else. More...

By Alex Usher. Over the past few days, I’ve been providing a lot of data on how well global “world-class universities” are faring (briefly: most of them are doing pretty well, the ones in Canada much less so).  But to some degree the real question is: does any of this matter. More...

By Alex Usher. On a pretty regular basis, some academic or other pens a piece in the popular press talking about overproduction of PhDs.  Take for example this 2015 Jonathan Wolff piece in the Guardian with a  piece entitled “Doctor, doctor we’re suffering from a glut of PhDs who can’t find academic jobs” in which he obsesses about a figures in a 2010 Royal Society document suggesting that of 200 people who complete a PhD only seven will get a permanent academic post and one will become a professor (this is England, so “professor” means “full professor” here). More...

By Alex Usher. The post-Naylor Report effort to get big new investments in fundamental science is in trouble.  Bluntly, the Finance Department appears not to be buying the argument that fundamental research is, in fact, a good investment.  I’m not 100% surprised: the Naylor mostly tended to assume the wider benefits of research to economic growth rather than demonstrate or prove it, and the big U-15 institutions have banked everything on a rhetorical strategy of: money for research à a miracle occurs à innovation and growth!  A strategy as wrong-headed as it is cynical, frankly. More...

By Alex Usher. My last blog post on university tuition – which said that higher education has both public and private returns and charges should be arranged commensurate with the latter – seems to have sparked a variety of responses by email and on the blog.  Some of you were trolling, I think, or playing devil’s advocate, anyway. Others had serious objections. More...