How university rankings work

"The rankings have many limitations"

Interview with Paul Cross and Stephan Zimmermann from Institutional Research.

Paul, why are university rankings important for ETH?
Paul Cross: The world-renowned rankings we submit our data to have attracted international attention, including from several of our stakeholders, Swiss politicians, the private sector, the media and students. Governments, too, take a top position in a world university ranking as evidence of excellence. The UK, for example, recently announced fast-track work visas exclusively for people working at universities that are in the top 50 of two of the three big rankings.

That makes it seem like these rankings only have benefits...
Stephan Zimmermann: Well, aside from their public relations value, these rankings aren’t particularly relevant or useful to us. They are too limited a tool to properly benchmark our activities in research, teaching and knowledge transfer.

So, the rankings also have their weaknesses?
Stephan Zimmermann: Indeed. Reducing complex institutions such as universities to a small number of indicators comes with limitations. The rankings are too simplistic. To be able to compare universities with one another requires a one-size-fits-all set of criteria. For instance, in my view, the rankings don’t pay enough attention to the different higher education systems in which universities are embedded – such as the difference between the Swiss university system and that of the United States.

Paul Cross: One of my biggest concerns in terms of method is that the QS and THE rankings rely very heavily on surveys, which account for 33 to 50 percent of their total score. While surveys can provide a general impression of an issue, they are by their very nature subjective and somewhat biased. There is also a danger that some parties may “rig” the surveys and influence the results.

Are there other limitations or perhaps even risks?
Paul Cross: Yes, there are several. Especially since neither the base data nor the data processing are adequately transparent. Universities can buy consultancy services and granular ranking data from the agencies that conduct the rankings. But we never do that because it conflicts with our general open-access philosophy. Instead, we work closely with other institutions and networks (e.g. CESAER, ISCN) to compare our activities.

Stephan Zimmermann: What’s more, by their very nature, rankings emphasise competition between universities. In reality, however, universities tend to work together as partners; that’s how they keep evolving. In light of the global challenges we’re facing, such as climate change, it’s crucial to highlight quality and outstanding accomplishments in international university systems, but in a more context-oriented and constructive manner.

For years, ETH has performed very well in the three big rankings. But it has never made it all the way to the top. Why?
Paul Cross: Indeed, over the past ten years, ETH has consistently performed well in most WUR categories. But when it comes to the student–faculty ratio, we lag behind our direct competitors in the QS and THE rankings. One critical factor is our education system: In Switzerland, anyone with a Matura (general qualification for university entrance) has access to our universities. Most other top-flight universities, by contrast, have restrictive admission requirements and, therefore, fewer students and a better student–faculty ratio. Nevertheless, we have reason to be proud of our unique education system.