In May 2016, UK based Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) – author of the QS World University Rankings – published a new Higher Education System Strength Ranking to rate national higher education systems. This tool ranks the entire context rather than individual institutions but, rather than conducting a new set of country evaluations, they used their existing university ranking data to construct this ranking. Is this useful for institutions?
We’ve written about the contested place of global university rankings, as there are controversial opinions about their status verifying and promoting the quality of universities, as one of the ways to compare different educational institutions and support funding options with evidence. Applicants and scholarship programs normally take into account many considerations to evaluate the quality of the institutions they apply to. Even though they may be reality and contested, it is used as a comparison framework.
Rather than just individually, the success of a higher education institution depends on the context of the country it is placed.
For instance, Oxford’s International Trends in Higher Education recalls how international branch campuses are expanding to include non-traditional countries, with different levels of support or rejection from certain host governments and academics. Some concerns range from "disquiet over the political environment surrounding the new campus to concern that focus on developing campuses overseas weakened the education provided at the home campus.”
Why do this ranking? QS says that this could be "excellent news for university marketers, especially those from lesser-known institutions and smaller countries looking to recruit students internationally. A strong national education system is an excellent way of showing off your institution and the culture of your country to prospective students.”
QS reviewed each country against 4 criteria:
The United States lead the scores at all levels, followed by the United Kingdom and Germany. However, these positions are counterbalanced depending on the area, according to QS.
Source: QS Higher Education System Strength Rankings 2016
This is good and bad news for some. For instance, Pakistan was at the bottom of the table. The media called this “embarrasing” to their country's heavy funding policies. South African press, on the other hand, showed pride that the country was “leading the way” in African Education.
However, when looking at the different criteria, there are some interesting trends.
Source: QS Higher Education System Strength Rankings 2016
Regarding system, Singapore appears in third place. In terms of access, Australia climbs to second place, taking over the spot from the United Kingdom. In that regard, Italy and Spain also come into the top 10 countries, along with New Zealand.
In terms of flagship institutions, countries such as Switzerland, Canada, Hong Kong and South Korea appear with important scores, while in the economic dimension, China rises considerably and seconds the United States, while India reaches second place.
To revise the best quality universities in Latin America, we may also look at its system. The position of the countries in the region has shown several differences within each country’s higher education system. However, QS only shows the top 50 countries and nations such as Peru or Uruguay have been left out from the publication.
Source: QS Higher Education System Strength Rankings 2016
Argentina and Brazil lead the rankings. Chile, Mexico and Colombia, whilst on the top 50, score well below 50% of the total score.
When looking at the different areas that the ranking revised, we can see substantial differences.
Source: Constructed by U-Planner from QS Higher Education System Strength Rankings 2016
Even though Brazil leads in economic and flagship scores, its access score is lower than 40 points. Argentina, while having the best flagship institution on 2016 (Universidad de Buenos Aires, which competes closely with Universidad de Sao Paulo), has a very small system score. Colombia's important economic score is cut short by lower system and access scores.
The case of Mexico is also interesting. While having one of the flagship institutions of the region (Universidad Autónoma de Mexico UNAM), its access scores are the lowest in this group. Chile also presents this trend, as the scores of the Pontificia Universidad Católica rank well above the rest of the country's dimension. On the other hand, Colombia’s Universidad de los Andes ranks in number 283 and hence shows a very fair score in this set. However, the economic performance of the entire education system outranks Chile and Mexico.
This ranking is new and is constructed with the information of particular university rankings. While experts in education can contest the results and method – for instance, regarding the high level of importance given to one particular institution’s rankings, within the entire country’s higher education system’s score – these trends also show substantial disparities for institutions within their systems in Latin America.
“As well as providing an additional resource for the prospective international students who form the organization’s primary audience, this country-level index is expected to be of additional interest to governments and policy makers, as a new national benchmarking tool,” QS says.
We realize these rankings have a contested academic validation. However, we could continue monitoring them. It is valuable to realize that one should not rely solely on one’s institutional placement, while the collective reputation of the country may lowering the chances of people choosing a particular university.
What do you think about these rankings?