WHO Ranked NTU?

The DARK SIDES of QS World Universities Ranker
Singapore Universities have recently been ranked at the Top by what most Academics and the United Nations Education agency, UNESCO, generally considered to be Bogus Ranking Standards of Dubious Excellence. 

Singapore University NTU has secured top placing as the world's best young university, according to Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World Universities Ranking, one of three major international university ranking systems.  The London-based QS World Universities Ranking has been called “a Fraud on the public.” Another Eminent Professor said: “QS simply doesn’t do as good a job as the other rankers that are using multiple indicators”. 

Eminent Professor Simon Marginson of then Melbourne University remarked of QS that: “I do think social science-wise it’s so weak that you can’t take the results seriously”. 

A Reporter also claimed that QS has used the threat of legal action to try to silence critics. “QS has twice threatened publications with legal action when publishing my bona fide criticisms of QS. One was The Australian: in that case QS prevented my criticisms from being aired. The other case was University World News, which refused to pull my remarks from its website when threatened by QS with legal action”.

The QS World Universities Ranking, like other Universities Rankings, is in essence deficient in terms of social science, but QS has been criticized for more than just its unsound, questionable and unscientific Methodology:

1)     THES DID drop QS for Methodological Reasons. QS’ use of peer and industry surveys is highly questionable with very low response rate returns from huge number of unspecified respondents of unknown expertise.  Read the best explanation by QS’s former partner …  

2)     The Most Stinging Criticism is the Sale of Dubious QS-Star Ratings. One wonders which self-respecting University would “buy” QS-Stars and actually use them for Marketing.  Singapore NTU (39) and MIT (1) both have 5+QS-Stars. As did the Universities of Waterloo (169), Monash (70) and Queensland (43). However, the Universities of of Cambridge (2), Harvard (3), Stanford University (4), Caltech (5) … have only 5 QS-Stars.  Brackets contain QS 2014 Rankings.  Note the UNRELIBILITY of QS Rankings vs QS-Stars, and therefore their absurd claims to VALIDITY and Credibility.

3)     And the Highly Lucrative "Consultancy" to help Universities Rise Up the QS Rankings.  Need to say more regarding QS’ commercial rather than Academic or Quality motivation?

4)     QS offers "Opportunities" for Branding from just $80,000 with QS Showcase. Another QS’ innovative commercial “Value” Service if Academic Reputation of Excellence is not enough to attract students.

5)     QS Reputation Survey has Weak Protocols, as demonstrated by this case of blatant manipulation. An Irish University President has, AGAINST QS’ Expressed Rules, asked all faculty members and other academic employees at his institution to each recruit three people from other universities to register to vote in the survey of university reputations.  QS allows Universities to encouraging people to sign up for the QS peer review survey, as long as they don't suggest favoring any one institution. Now, how does this actually work, seriously? 

6)     Finally, QS's business practices (fined GBP 80,000 or US$ 128,648 for using unlicensed software) leave an awful lot to be desired. Maybe, it’s just bad planning, inadequate IT policies or simply a lack of awareness.  Clearly, an Integrity issue for any Company desiring its Products to be viewed with Respect and Credibility.  

Kopi Level - Green

Read Full Article with References:


Anonymous said...

Alamak, NTU, just like ICA, should have done more due diligence lah, difficult and impractical though it may be.

But anyway, since the strongest opposition party is still not ready to be govt, this should not be an issue for the PAP lah.

Tio bo, u say lah?

Anonymous said...

"But anyway, since the strongest opposition party is still not ready to be govt, this should not be an issue for the PAP lah."
Anon 8:52 am

Tiok. No issue.

And despite the due diligence done by bloggers and others, RB included.

Anonymous said...

What is the use of achieving top
top ranking when there is a
mismatch between the skills of U
graduates and what the society &
industries need.....

Anonymous said...

What is the use of top rankings when your graduates are only good for middle management positions and most suitable to be taxi drivers?

What is the point of top rankings when your graduates have to work for unranked university graduates and got kicked around, bestest, by those with fake degrees?

This is the biggest joke itself.

Anonymous said...

"What is the use of achieving top
top ranking when there is a
mismatch between the skills of U
graduates and what the society &
industries need....."
Anon 9:00 am

That depends on which graduates u are talking about.

And of course need not be 100%, even just 60% match is good enough already, whether in numbers or as skill sets.

Remember, there is no perfect match, numbers or percent, and least of all skills of U grads.

Anonymous said...

So is it OK only 60% of NTU grads have skills they are trained in that match what society and industries need?

And OK for the rest to have skills that can enable them to be taxi drivers only?

Anonymous said...

Whether it is skill matching, % of PR applications using genuine certs, or votes for the ruling party, I think I think 60% is a good and useful percentage.

Anonymous said...

Useless if its students could not find meaningful jobs. Only foreign students have secured jobs after graduation.

Anonymous said...

don't play play...

never look down on taxi drivers...

some on the road for decades and is not an easy job.....

seriously, those with at least
ten years of driving taxi should
be awarded with a Degree in
Driving and Safety Science......

worth considering.....

b said...

maybe it is a ranking based on amount of 'goodies' received from the universities.

Anonymous said...

Our money is being used to game this ranking.

Anonymous said...

Omfg ... papigs self gratification again?

Hsienloong ... knn hojinx pua cb

Anonymous said...

University rankings presuppose something called 'best'. But 'best' for what? The purpose of universities go beyond meeting the practical training needs of society; they are also about transforming societal outlooks and priorities and hence redefining needs. This is how universities contribute to society. Universities, after all, in the Western tradition began as monastic and cathedral schools where reflection and contemplation on societal issues and the preparation of individual for societal roles were the main preoccupations. A university education is not just about career and earnings but about how to live a good life.

Anonymous said...

When the top thinkers, ie university dons, think gaming rankings is more important than educating the students, what good can you expect from them?

Sick minds will do sick things.

Average minds will do average things.

Anonymous said...

With so mny sickos at the Top, all the Tops and Fame they yearn for cant be wholesome. They are pkain vainpots out for glory.