Wits and Rankings

It has become a widely shared view that only world-class or leading universities can earn a rank in the top 500 league. Wits has repeatedly earned itself a good rank in this league of universities, asserting itself as one of the leading universities in the world. A shift in the actual position Wits occupies does not mean that standards have dropped and quality has been compromised – Wits remains one of the best 500 universities in the world where there are approximately 20 000 institutions.

The international ranking of universities has been given impetus by globalization. In recent years, the league table approach has become a popular method of ranking and making international comparisons. Students and academics are keen to ensure that their university of choice is indeed a worldclass institution. The challenge of league tables is that they operate on shifting sand and targeted at moving targets. Everyone wants to be worldclass or in the top 100 whether or not they articulate that goal. In real life, there is no significant difference between an institution ranked 500 and the other ranked 501, and yet that marginal difference displaces institution 501 from the top 500 league. This alone may have huge implications for an institution ranked 501 in terms of public perceptions of:

• funders who want to donate their money in top league universities
• scholars and researchers trying to figure out where to work
• students trying to establish where to study
• employers planning to recruit the best graduates
• governments planning to invest in leading edge research and intellectual capital
• universities exploring partners for research networks,
• and industry looking for innovative solutions.

It is a given that league tables use methodologies that are flawed to a certain extent and will probably remain that way given the fact that universities are complex and distinct entities. It is also equally true that the outcomes of assessment have huge implications for institutional positioning. The possibility of having a flawless methodology for the ranking of universities is slim and can only exist in a state of utopia. It is in this context that Wits continues to use the top 100 goal as a proxy for excellence as opposed to a mechanistic pursuit of a particular rank. Wits is realistic about the challenges of maintaining a high ranking amongst her peers globally. The university continues to strive for academic excellence with aspirations to remain a leading university and which could culminate in the university earning a place in the top 100 league in 2022 (12 years from now). The university is repositioning itself for this target through the Vision 2022 Strategic Framework.

While Wits University should not only position its strategic thrust toward achieving higher rankings, we have to accept that rankings are here to stay, even if we do not like them. If we choose not to participate, they (the ranking authorities) will continue to rank us using the information available in the public domain anyway. Universities have the responsibility to inform and shape perceptions and assumption made about their quality arrangements and standards of scholarship through these league tables. They need to engage and participate in conversations that seek to reduce the margins of error in ranking criteria and methodologies and foreground issues of institutional differentiation (social and economic context; institutional typology; role of universities in their immediate context, language imperatives; national imperatives in the context where universities are situated etc.)

The challenges with current methodologies for ranking include the following:

• global comparison which assesses institutions with limited sensitivity to differing social and economic contexts
• a tendency to focus on research in hard sciences and ignore performance of universities in other areas like humanities, social sciences; teaching quality, innovation, internationalization and community outreach
• insufficient recognition of teaching and academic citizenship and national relevance – different roles that universities play in society – very insensitive to national, developmental imperatives
• lack of multidimensional ranking and focusing on entire institutions, not on programmes/disciplines as if being ranked position 100 means that everything in that particular university is at the same standard of excellence.
• bestowing an institutional rank without recognising excellence in niche areas
• favouring old and wealthy universities using English as a medium of communication (explicitly exude cultural and language biases)
• pronouncing on the state of quality based on perceptions and less interrogated data
• encourage instrumentalist planning instead of strategic positioning – encouraging universities to ‘sell their public good souls’ to earn a better rank in league tables
• rely heavily on peer reviews and perceptions of others. In this way quality is reduced to a social construct – based on opinions and less on tangible facts.
• exactness of scores/ranking while relying on perceptions (what is a difference between institution 99 and institution 100, and what does it mean to be ranked 100?)
• limited independence since they are affiliated to particular universities, governments or agencies that may have affiliation biases

Given the fact that a number of universities from first world economies are sidelined in these league tables, it is clear that universities from Africa and South Africa in particular will continue to experience ‘double’ marginalisation in these league tables due to a largely developmental context in which these universities operate. Further, that most of our universities are teaching and research orientated is a factor that works against us when being ranked. This does not mean that rankings will dissolve and disappear for our sake. In South Africa, we need to work on ensuring that our universities are differentiated and those that are largely research intensive are well positioned in the knowledgebased global economy to produce high level research with visible global impact.