Gero Federkeil

An Evaluation and Critique of Current Rankings

This chapter raises the question of whether university league tables deliver relevant information to one of their key target groups – students. It examines the inherent biases and weaknesses in the methodologies of the major rankings and argues that the concentration on a single indicator of excellence (research) and single function of an institution ignores the diverse needs and motivations of prospective students in choosing a university. It also raises the issue of rankings that proclaim the ‘excellence’ of an entire institution, which may not be an accurate reflection of the performance of individual departments. The authors then present some principles and examples of good practice in ranking and discuss alternative classification systems.

Classifications and rankings

This chapter examines higher education classifications and introduces the European U-Map classification tool and discusses a number of the most influential global league tables, their methodological underpinnings, scope, target groups and data sources.

An Interactive Multidimensional Ranking Web Tool

This chapter presents examples of U-Multirank results, demonstrating the user-driven approach and showing that U-Multirank introduces a second level of interactive ranking beyond the selection of indicators: the selection of a sample of institutions to be compared in focused rankings. U-Multirank has a much broader scope than existing rankings and intends to include a wider variety of institutional profiles. The authors argue that it does not make much sense to compare institutions across diverse institutional profiles and that U-Multirank offers a tool to identify and select institutions that are truly comparable in terms of their institutional profiles.

Ranking Goes International

The basic idea underlying the pilot project ‘CHE Ranking of European Universities’ is that the evolution of a common European Higher Education Area in the context of the Bologna process and a common European Research Area in the Lisbon strategy will lead to growing European mobility of students and higher education staff. Hence, comparable information about European higher education institutions will become more important for students as well as for academics in order for them to make well-informed choices in selecting where to go in the large European space, with perhaps 4,000 higher education institutions in more than 40 countries.

Background and design

This chapter presents the history and development of the U-Multirank project, the system’s design principles, conceptual framework and methodological approach.

The Pilot Test and Its Outcomes

This chapter describes the design and outcomes of the pilot test assessing the feasibility of implementing U-Multirank. The authors outline the construction of the global sample of institutions that participated in the pilot test and discuss the feasibility of the data collection procedures and use of the various indicators presented in Chap. 7. Finally, they discuss the level of institutional interest in participating in the pilot and the potential upscaling of U-Multirank to a globally applicable multidimensional ranking tool.

Dimensions and Indicators

This chapter presents in detail the selection of indicators for U-Multirank and the depth of stakeholder involvement in the design process. It discusses each indicator, the research leading to its selection and the testing processes which affected the final decisions on inclusion or exclusion of certain indicators.