rankings – View From A Bridge – management, education and personal thoughts

University League Table – No Sympathy, No Spite

The cosy conspiracy that has created the current rankings merry go round is built on handing out kudos and credibility while launching new iterations and self-congratulatory events at as many exotic venues as possible. There’s no reason for anyone to bite the hand that feeds them or jeopardize cooperation on the monetization of student interest. Many institutions and academics collaborate with the rankers in public while griping privately about the unwelcome outcomes of higher education marketization.

It leaves a gap in the market for a rankings table that highlights decisions institutions make which seem against the spirit of being focused on academic values, student interest and fairness. Borrowing from Prof Scott Galloway’s thinking of “No Mercy, No Malice” such a table should not be perverse or spiteful in favouring one institution over another but equally should not shirk or be sympathetic when reflecting facts. It needs to be based on public information that is difficult to manipulate or massage and to highlight decision making in areas where students have every right to think that there might be some consistency.

Decision Making Made Easy

It is in this spirit that the first “No Sympathy, No Spite” rankings below focus on English universities to make use of recently and currently available data. The marking criteria allocates a score which penalises universities for not taking action where it would seem to be in the interests of students or where the data provided by an external body suggests it may have questions to answer. Each score reflects the university’s relative position against listed peers but scores are also totalled, with higher scores generally indicating universities that might wish to consider their decision making.

The table highlights which universities have signed or not signed on to the Can’t By My Silence pledge to stop using NDAs to stop students speaking out and also their decisions about involvement with the Universities UK Fair Admissions Code of Practice. While the sector is fond of praising those who do the right thing it seems shy about naming those that will not agree to basic standards which means students struggle to find out which universities are gaming the system or simply refusing to play at all. This ranking makes it clear who has chosen not to support specified courses of action.

Readers will determine for themselves if they agree that institutions should be signing up to fair admissions criteria or agreeing to stop using NDAs to gag students who are subject to sexual harassment and worse. More controversial may be the use of “unexplained” firsts data but the Office for Students is the designated regulating body and their chief executive said, “This spiralling grade inflation risks undermining public confidence in our higher education system.”. The People and Planets data reflects student activism and the voice of an important constituency on a vital issue.

The Office for Students data is only applicable to universities in England and universities that did not have degree awarding powers in 2020/11 have been excluded leaving 107. Further analysis may result in tables for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland where, for example, only Cardiff Metropolitan University has signed onto the Pledge to stop using NDAs for complaints about sexual harassment, bullying and other forms of misconduct. The information is provided in good faith based on the sources quoted and any authoritative amendments will be considered with amendments being made and flagged.

For the avoidance of doubt, a high score in the NDA Pledge and UUK Fair Admissions Code categories means the university has not signed up to either. A high score in the People and Planet category means the university is ranked poorly for environmental and ethical performance. The score in the Unexplained first-class degree is simply a function of the number of graduates and percentage of unexplained first-class degrees in 2020-21.

Provider name	Unexplained first-class degrees*	NDA Pledge**	UUK Fair Admissions Code***	People and Planet****	Total
Coventry University	12.2	7	5	1	25.2
University of Birmingham	11.2	7	*	5	23.2
Liverpool John Moores Uni	8.6	7	5	2	22.6
University of Leeds	13.2	7	*	2	22.2
Staffordshire University	6.1	7	5	4	22.1
Birmingham City University	7.4	7	5	2	21.4
University of Portsmouth	11.3	7	*	3	21.3
University of East London	5.3	7	5	4	21.3
Manchester Metropolitan Uni	20.1	*	*	1	21.1
Kingston University	5.7	7	5	3	20.7
University of Salford	12.3	7	*	1	20.3
Leeds Beckett University	10.2	7	*	3	20.2
Roehampton University	3.0	7	5	5	20.0
Queen Mary University of London	11.0	7	*	2	20.0
Goldsmiths’ College	3.6	7	5	4	19.6
University of Northampton	4.0	7	5	3	19.0
University of Wolverhampton	7.7	7	*	4	18.7
Anglia Ruskin Uni HE Corp	9.7	7	*	2	18.7
De Montfort University	10.7	7	*	1	18.7
University of St Mark & St John	1.2	7	5	5	18.2
Norwich University of the Arts	1.0	7	5	5	18.0
University College Birmingham	0.9	7	5	5	17.9
Liverpool Hope University	1.9	7	5	4	17.9
The University of Huddersfield	8.1	7	*	2	17.1
University of Sussex	6.1	7	*	4	17.1
The University of Essex	7.0	7	*	3	17.0
Royal Central School of Speech and Drama	0.5	7	5	4	16.5
University of Lincoln	6.5	7	*	3	16.5
Sheffield Hallam University	14.3	*	*	2	16.3
University of Brighton	7.2	7	*	2	16.2
University of Central Lancashire	7.2	7	*	2	16.2
University of Chester	5.2	7	*	4	16.2
University of Sunderland	4.0	7	*	5	16.0
University of Derby	6.7	7	*	2	15.7
The University of Buckingham	0.6	7	5	3	15.6
The University of Bradford	6.1	7	*	2	15.1
University of Hertfordshire	11.0	*	*	4	15.0
The University of Hull	5.9	7	*	2	14.9
University for the Creative Arts	3.9	7	*	4	14.9
The University of West London	5.8	7	*	2	14.8
University of Oxford	1.7	7	5	1	14.7
London School of Economics and Political Science	1.7	7	5	1	14.7
The University of Surrey	4.6	7	*	3	14.6
King’s College London	6.4	7	*	1	14.4
The University of Bolton	2.4	7	*	5	14.4
York St John University	3.3	7	*	4	14.3
Oxford Brookes University	4.0	7	*	3	14.0
Brunel University London	3.8	7	*	3	13.8
St Mary’s University, Twickenham	1.8	7	*	5	13.8
The University of Cumbria	2.3	7	*	4	13.3
St. George’s Hospital Med School	1.1	7	*	5	13.1
The University of Manchester	10.0	*	*	3	13.0
University of the Arts, London	5.0	7	*	1	13.0
University of Gloucestershire	2.9	7	*	3	12.9
University of Cambridge	2.9	7	*	3	12.9
Bishop Grosseteste University	0.8	7	*	5	12.8
University of Durham	5.7	*	5	2	12.7
Imperial College	2.7	7	*	3	12.7
Falmouth University	1.6	7	*	4	12.6
Nottingham Trent University	4.6	7	*	1	12.6
City, University of London	4.5	7	*	1	12.5
The University of Bath	2.4	7	*	3	12.4
The Royal Agricultural University	0.2	7	*	5	12.2
The University of Westminster	4.1	*	5	3	12.1
Bournemouth University	4.0	7	*	1	12.0
Newman University	0.5	7	*	4	11.5
Uni of Northumbria at Newcastle	10.4	*	*	1	11.4
University of Nottingham	9.4	*	*	2	11.4
Harper Adams University	0.2	7	*	4	11.2
The Royal Veterinary College	0.1	7	*	4	11.1
Arts University Bournemouth	1.0	7	*	3	11.0
London Metropolitan University	3.5	*	5	2	10.5
Royal Northern College of Music	0.3	*	5	5	10.3
London South Bank University	5.1	*	*	5	10.1
University of Bedfordshire	1.9	7	*	1	9.9
Uni of the West of England, Bristol	8.7	*	*	1	9.7
University of Southampton	5.6	*	*	4	9.6
Royal Holloway	5.4	*	*	4	9.4
The University of Kent	7.4	*	*	2	9.4
The University of Liverpool	7.3	*	*	2	9.3
The University of East Anglia	7.1	*	*	2	9.1
Edge Hill University	6.1	*	*	3	9.1
University College London	8.0	*	*	1	9.0
Middlesex University	7.8	*	*	1	8.8
Teesside University	5.6	*	*	3	8.6
The University of Sheffield	5.5	*	*	3	8.5
University of Greenwich	7.2	*	*	1	8.2
University of Exeter	7.2	*	*	1	8.2
University of Plymouth	7.0	*	*	1	8.0
The University of Leicester	5.9	*	*	2	7.9
Canterbury Christ Church Uni	4.6	*	*	3	7.6
The University of Lancaster	4.4	*	*	3	7.4
Solent University, Southampton	4.4	*	*	3	7.4
University of Newcastle upon Tyne	6.1	*	*	1	7.1
The University of Warwick	4.3	*	*	2	6.3
University of York	3.3	*	*	3	6.3
University of Bristol	5.2	*	*	1	6.2
Aston University	5.2	*	*	1	6.2
Loughborough University	2.6	*	*	3	5.6
The University of Chichester	1.6	*	*	4	5.6
The University of Reading	4.6	*	*	1	5.6
Leeds Trinity University	1.4	*	*	4	5.4
University of Keele	4.2	*	*	1	5.2
Buckinghamshire New University	1.6	*	*	3	4.6
Bath Spa University	2.3	*	*	2	4.3
University of Worcester	2.1	*	*	1	3.1
University of Winchester	1.0	*	*	1	2.0

Scoring Criteria/Method

Unexplained First Class Degrees
- This issue affects more students in larger universities so the number of graduates in 2020-21 is multiplied by the percentage of “unexplained first class degrees” in that year to show the number potentially affected. That sum is then divided by 100 to ensure the overall score is not wholly distorted by this category. The full analysis by the Office for Students is available.
Not Signed NDA Pledge
- The list of English university signatories on the Can’t Buy My Silence site was reviewed over the weekend of 14/15 May 2022. Universities that have signed the pledge score 0 (signified by an asterisk) while universities that have not signed receive 7 points.
UUK Fair Admissions Code
- The list of signatories shown on the Universities UK Fair Admissions Code of Practice site was reviewed over the weekend of 14/15 May 2022. Universities that have signed the pledge score 0 (signified by an asterisk) while universities that have not signed receive 5 points.
People and Planet
- The People and Planet University League ranks institutions in one of five classes – from First Class for the best, via 2:1, 2:2 and 3rd, to Failed. First class universities score one point with each succeeding category scoring one more through to Failed universities scoring 5. The People and Planet website gives extensive information on the methodology used.

Any comments, corrections or thoughts for development are welcome.

Image by Peggy und Marco Lachmann-Anke from Pixabay

(What’s So Funny ‘Bout) Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions?

Readers might need some inspiration for trivia questions about the latest Times Higher Education Impact Rankings so I thought I’d help out. The Russia Federation had more universities represented than any other country in the 2022 rankings BUT in which SDG category are none of them listed? It’s a good test of whether anyone can remember all the SDGs but for those that can, the unsurprising answer would be Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.

This is despite the fact that 49* Russian institutions were listed in that category in the 2021 rankings and it highlights the big problem when you allow universities to self-report and select which categories they enter because they can be really quite good at some things but ignore or even oppose others. It is difficult to see how a Russian institution could be good at, say, “peace” when there could be 15 years in prison and other serious penalties for mentioning “war” or “invasion”. Strong institutions also come under serious pressure when Russian Political Rights rank a 5/40 and Civil Liberties rank 14/60 according to Freedom House.

Universities can be enfeebled as institutions by political power and the outcome can be that they even become agents of coercion and repression. Examples include the Higher School of Economics restricting political activism on campus in 2020 and more recently hundreds of students reported as having been expelled and some students playing an active role in hunting down activist teachers. The tightening of the Russian Government’s grip on senior administrative appointments and strategic direction is well documented and one author has suggested, “controlling universities via rector appointment may serve as an instrument for controlling young minds.”

THE Fails On Effective Action to Minimise Credibility, Prestige and Marketing

Also, unsurprising is that the universities have continued to use their presence in the Impact Rankings to publicise themselves despite the words of Times Higher Education Chief Executive Paul Howarth on 4 March that “we will be taking steps to ensure that Russian universities are not using branding or other promotional opportunities offered by THE until further notice.” Here’s a snip from Peter the Great St Petersburg Polytechnic University showing how feeble that statement was and why the THE should ban institutions from the rankings.

It would be good to think that the full weight of the THE’s legal machinery might come crashing down on the Russian universities that are continuing to use the organization’s logo and public properties for their own promotional purposes. But as we have seen in a previous blog Study Portals, the THE’s partners in monetizing student mobility, also continues to promote the THE ranking of Russian universities. The statement from THE looks increasingly like a cynical PR ploy to play for time and hope that nobody remembered the promises made.

Lilliput or Brobdingnag

In Jonathan Swift’s books Gulliver becomes a giant amongst the people of the island country of Lilliput during his first voyage because they are only 6 inches tall. But the second voyage takes him to a peninsula called Brobdingnag where he lives with a farmer who is about 72 feet tall. It is a reminder that there is a perspective to most things and the Impact Rankings are worth considering in that respect.

So, another good trivia question might be – universities in which countries seem disinterested in the Impact Rankings? A good answer might be the USA where only 42 universities are shown but even lower is China where only 13 universities are featured. The USA number is even down on last year’s 45.

It is difficult to believe that the USA does not have more than that number of institutions with a strong record in sufficient SDG categories to make a bid for the top place. As it is, only one of the 12 US institutions who rank in the THE’s own world top 20 seems to have taken part. Neither of the Chinese universities in the world top 20 are mentioned in the Impact Rankings and the three from the UK are also missing.

Professor Barney Glover of the table topping Western Sydney University recognised the problem and commented, “there are too many of the very strong and powerful universities in the world that are not recognised” in the Impact Rankings.” His university’s website doesn’t go so far as to acknowledge that situation or that less than half the universities in the World Rankings feature in the Impact Rankings. But I think he may realizes that WSU was visiting Lilliput on this occasion.

Writing in University World News Dr Anand Kulkarni makes the point that while the number of Indian universities participating grew that “what is also noticeable is that, unlike the World University Rankings, the famed Indian Institutes of Technology are not as prominent.” Rankings expert Ellen Hazelkorn noted that absence of many leading universities “may not be due to their poor(er) performance but rather their choice not to participate” and commented on the THE Impact Rankings reliance on “self-reported and interpreted data”. If, as claimed by THE chief knowledge officer, Phil Baty the Impact Ranking are “redefining excellence in global higher education” it rather makes one wonder why the THE don’t have the courage of their convictions and drop their other league tables.

There is a tradition in the English Football Association Challenge Cup (the FA Cup) that there are qualifying rounds before the First Round Proper when teams from the bottom two tiers of the professional Leagues join. The Second Round Proper sees the teams from the second tier join and finally the Premier League teams join for the Third Round Proper. The Impact Rankings look a little like selecting the winner of the FA Cup long before the Third Round Proper.

Not The Only Game In Town

This is not to argue that many of the institutions who enter aren’t doing magnificent work in some areas related to the SDGs. But it does suggest that some institutions have recognized that the THE Impact Rankings are just another attempt to build rankings for commercial benefit and private equity gain or are simply unwilling to undertake the extra administration for little gain. There are also other channels, with Carnegie Mellon, Georgia Tech, Rice, Harvard and Northeastern not featuring in the Impact Rankings but all being mentioned in a recent United Nations Foundation blog highlighting innovative ways progress on the SDGs is being driven by universities in the US.

There is also increasing evidence that students are less interested in rankings and more focused on employability while interest in the SDGs seems less evident. The THE’s own research suggests that “only 16 per cent said they would choose a university that had a worse reputation for teaching and research if it had a better reputation for sustainability.” It may be that the refusal of significant numbers of universities to become involved is a sign that the merry go round of league table mania has passed its peak.

Note:

The title of this blog is a small nod to the classic tune “(What’s So Funny ‘Bout) Peace Love and Understanding” written by Nick Lowe and originally released by his band Brinsley Schwarz in 1974. It became more famous when recorded by Elvis Costello and the Attractions in 1978 but even then was only a B-side. It has been played by many artists to reflect hope in troubled times and the message seems very pertinent right now.

Image by Joan Cabras from Pixabay

*As a note of clarification. In its Overall Rankings list the THE only shows the top three scores of the institution plus their SDG17 ranking. They list separately, presumably for all institutions registering a score in the specific category, the ranking for each individual SDG. Thus, in 2021, 27 out of 75 Russian institutions had SDG 16 count towards their overall ranking but 49 were listed as having a score in the SDG 16 category.

UniVanity League Table

Unveiling a new league table and asking people to look is a bit like extolling the virtues of a spare tyre. It’s not needed for any functional purpose, takes up space that could be used for better purposes and does not assist with current performance. Little wonder that about 30% of new cars don’t have one and something of surprise that university league tables continue to proliferate with the support and knowing glances of institutions that should know better.

The UniVanity League Table emerges from a review of the 141 institutional strategic plans and home pages of universities who are members of UUK. The table reflects a mixture of fact at a point in time, a scoring system* laced with bias, and an entirely personal component to replicate those well-established rankings that rely on questionnaire responses. It’s a similar methodology (or ‘mythology’ as a US News and World Report ex-editor told Malcolm Gladwell) to many of the major league tables.

53 of 141 institutions reviewed used rankings from major league tables** on their home page but, the UniVanity Table focuses on 27 who state that achieving a ranking, either explicitly or implicitly in a main league table, is a strategic objective. Elevating pursuit of rankings to this level looks, in many cases, like a vanity project and is certainly a distraction from the core business of a university. If fox-hunting is the ‘unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable’, chasing rankings may be considered the insecure in pursuit of the unnecessary.

Readers can be assured that this table, unlike most others, is made available without advertising from institutions and will not be developed or exploited for commercial gain or to build a database of students, parents, agents or government officials who might look at it. A celebratory event may be held if a sufficient number of universities are willing to invest their scarce resources to buy a table of ten at an appropriately salubrious London venue where they can eat, drink and dance the night away.

UNIVANITY LEAGUE TABLE 2022

University	Stated Aim	Score
Southampton	top 10 UK and towards a top 50 internationally	26
Bristol	firmly established among the world’s top-50 universities (draft)	23
Durham	The Times/Sunday Times League Tables Top 5	22
Queen’s Belfast	top 175 in global league tables	21
Birmingham	within the top 50 global institutions in the leading international tables	20
Plymouth	Top 30 in national league tables Top 250 in international ranking	20
Manchester	in the top 25 in leading international rankings	18
Glasgow Caledonian	Annual improvement in Impact Rankings score	18
Lancaster	progress towards a top 100 position in key global rankings	14
East Anglia	as a top 20 university in all of the main UK university league tables	14
Essex	top 25 Times Good University Guide..top 200 Times Higher Education World Rankings	14
Liverpool	among the top 20 UK universities in the world rankings	14
Central Lancashire	League table ranking (Guardian, Times, GUG)	14
Heriot Watt	World University ranking top 250	13
West of Scotland	recognised as a world leading university ranked inside the top 200	13
Cardiff	UK top 20 in The Times and Sunday Times Good University Guide..world top 200..QS World University Rankings..TimesHigher Education World University Rankings, the Academic Ranking of World Universities and the Best Global Universities Ranking, and in the top 100 of at least one of these	12
City	Top 20 in the Times and Sunday Times University League Table	11
West London	KPI – Aggregate League table position Top 50	11
Solent	Times Higher Education Impact Rankings Top third of rankings	11
Surrey	reaching the top 200 in THE and QS, and the top 300 in ARWU	8
Huddersfield	Top 300 Times and QS World University Rankings	8
Liverpool John Moores	reputation reflected in..THE WUR: performance of disciplines in Times and Sunday Times	8
South Bank	being in the top 500 QS and THE rankings	8
Newcastle	global Top 100 as measured by at least one of the main university rankings	7
Royal College of Art	number 1 for art and design in the QS World University Rankings. The College will occupy the same position in 2021	7
Buckingham New	80th or better in aggregate across league tables	5
Stirling	one of the top 25 universities in the UK	4

You had one eye in the mirror**

Russell Group universities dominate the table with all top five places and nine of the overall positions which suggests that they feel a real need for external validation. It’s a reminder of the old McKinsey hiring dictum to recruit people who are “smart…driven by their insecurity;and..competitive”. Institutions that are in a club claiming to be for the “UK’s leading research-focused universities” should probably feel more comfortable in their quality.

The Group has always been slightly ambivalent about league tables with various press releases making the point that “League tables shouldn’t be used in isolation to make judgements about the quality of an institution..” (2015) and “Ranking universities is fraught with difficulties..” (2014). Perhaps it is the division in the views of the members themselves that has caused the Group to be silent on the issue in recent years. It is also something that Universities UK seems to steer well clear of with a search showing no comments on rankings and league tables at all.

Well you’re where you should be all the time

Tom Peter’s book What Gets Measured Gets Done borrowed the phrase from what he considers the soundest piece of management advice he ever heard, which is why it matters when universities elect to chase specific league table targets. With many strategic plans reaching a decade into the future it is just possible that the real driver is the ease with which current management can make supposedly visionary statements with no accountability for delivery. There is also a good deal of fudging of the actual measurement leaving future reporting to decide which table to report against.

Durham University’s strategy set a target to be Top 5 in the Times/Sunday Times league table by 2027 which could reflect that this is a much easier set of parameters to manage than the THE World Rankings where the institution’s position dropped from 96 to 162 from 2017 to 2022.

Liverpool takes a more nuanced stance in wanting to achieve “a UK top 20 worldwide ranking in a recognised international league table by 2026.” At one level this suggests that it is content to see its global position decline as long as other UK universities see the same or greater decline in their position. In the THE World Rankings the university was 25^th in the UK and its overall world position had fallen from 158 to 178 since 2017.

Birmingham has made some progress but is falling some way short of its stated ambition of “..ranking within the top 50 global institutions in the leading international tables”. Since 2017, they have moved from 130 to 105 in the THE but have fallen from 79 to 90 in the QS rankings since 2019 and have been becalmed in the 101-150 ranking of AWRU for the last five years. The timescale for achieving top 50 is 2030 but the incoming Vice Chancellor must be wondering how the growing strength of other countries will mitigate against further progress.

The great shame is that each university has a Strategic Plan that is choc full of ideas, creativity, energy and brilliant stories of how they intend to make students, the economy and the world better off. These are good reasons that holding the institutions sense of worth, progress and well being ransom to a vainglorious punt on league tables makes so little sense.

You Gave Away the Things You Loved

Reviewing over 140 university Strategic Plans is a reminder of the transformative power that institutions have and the tradition of diversity, quality and excellence that they offer. It reminded me of Sir Howard Newby, then chief executive of HEFCE, commenting that, “I think the English – and I do mean the English – do have a genius for turning diversity into hierarchy..”. Perhaps the league table compilers play on this genius to tempt universities into trading instincts for collaboration and cooperation for a system that encourages game playing and one upmanship.

Whatever the reason, the willingness to be judged by external forces seems contrary to the notion of universities as autonomous, self-governing institutions. The sector has, over time, grumbled mightily about REF, teaching quality framework, NSS and others, so willingly paying homage at the altar of QS, THE, AWUR et al seems out of character. It is reasonable to measure progress but there are many more targeted mechanisms for determining performance.

By engaging so actively and giving prominence to league tables, universities are also giving significant opportunities for the commercialization of data from potential students. It is another example of a sector which is struggling to come to terms with the reality that for many organizations education has become just another business opportunity. External investment and for-profit organizations are very welcome where they serve the interests of students, research and teaching but the sector should act collectively to prevent exploitation and ensure that it receives a reasonable slice of any revenue being generated.

Notes

* The final score is generated from six categories. These are: mention (explicit or implicit) of ranking/tables as a measure of performance in the strategic plan; whether the strategic plan was downloadable/easily searchable; how many years are left on the plan; whether rankings were mentioned on the university homepage; Russell Group membership and; whether the compiler had visited the campus and enjoyed the experience.

**’main league table’ generally refers to those published by Times Higher Education, QS Quacquarelli Symonds, or Academic World University Ranking by Shanghai Rankings or in the UK by major national newspapers or the Complete University Guide.

***Sub-headings are, aptly, from You’re So Vain, a song by Carly Simon and released in 1972. It topped the charts in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and sparked years of speculations as to its subject. Simon has gone as far as to say that the song is about three men and Warren Beatty is one (verse two). Separately, she said the ‘apricot scarf’ was worn by American writer, Nick Delbanco.

****If any of the universities listed feel I have misunderstood the intention of their strategic plan or referred to an incorrect/out of date version I will be happy to receive authoritative corrections and note them on this blog.