Seriously, Singapore NTU is Number One University; but ….

Seriously, Singapore NTU is Number One University; but …. 

The United Nations agency, UNESCO, challenged the validity and reliability, and therefore the usefulness, of University Rankings.

Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in Singapore has secured top placing on a league table of the world's best young universities.  It has overtaken Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, who was No. one for the past two years, according to London-based educational consultancy Quacquarelli Symonds (QS). Of what value to Singapore is this NTU “achievement”?

Well, any good researcher would know that you will get what you measure, instead of what you want to claim the measure to mean.  So, what exactly does QS Ranking mean?

The United Nations agency, UNESCO, challenged the validity and reliability, and therefore the usefulness, of University Rankings:

“Global university rankings fail to capture either the meaning or divers qualities of a university or the characteristics of universities in a way that values and respects their educational and social purposes, missions and goals. At present, these rankings are of dubious value, are underpinned by questionable social science, arbitrarily privilege particular indicators, and use shallow proxies as correlates of quality.”

Indeed, Universities Ranking is itself conceptually problematic.  It embraced an “idealised” model of University to be achieved and in so doing generalize the failure of most Universities to achieve it.  The World-Class University has NEVER existed as a concept, or as an empirical reality. The status of “World-Class University” as the gold standard is the normative social construct of the rankers themselves.

In fact, even QS cautions against the use of the QS Ranking beyond its simple methodology and purpose “to serve the student consumer. Rankings allows the consumer to see how institutions stand against other universities." Adding: "As it became apparent that more and more undergraduate students were looking to study abroad, there was a need for an international comparison. We did not come about it from the point of view of an academic exercise with metrics."

This is a confession admitting to the fact that QS Rankings evolve around the metrics used to devise the tables including citations and peer review. The Rankers did not build their QS Rankings on any solid or vigorous foundation that would withstand the penetrative professional scrutiny of the Academics or Research Institutions which now used them to position themselves in spite of the lack of validity and reliability of these measures. Therein lies its fundamental conceptual and methodological flaw, confirming that the QS Ranking is therefore irrelevant and immaterial for any serious educational policy purpose.

In fact, QS rankers themselves were surprised at "the extent to which governments and university leaders use the rankings to set strategic targets. We at QS think this is wrong. Rankings are (just) a relative measure - if other universities do better and move up, you have to go faster." 
It is just plain mindless stupidity, I may add.

QS Rankings are akin to nothing more than a Market Consumers Survey, much like how marketing agencies rank the Apple iPhone with other handphones by Blackberry, Nokia, ZTE, Samsung, Sony, Motorola, Lenovo and HTC. 

Whither NTU’s Impact on Singapore?  NTU President and University Management, as well as the Ministry of Education, should be more concerned about the need to increase NTU’s, and other universities’, contributions to society, instead of obsessing with the ranking game. 

Kopi Level - Green 

Read Full Post with References:


Anonymous said...

What is the use of NTU being no.1 but most uni places are given to outsiders. Local still have to compete to get jobs after graduation whereas foreign graduates usually have jobs waiting for them.

Anonymous said...


Any school is to educate and to enlighten. A good school is one that produces folks with integrity and propriety and not to compete for ranking or reputation. All good schools need no ranking like all good folks need no praise.

Anonymous said...

When people in academia thinking like geylang, what can you expect?

Anonymous said...

According to GE 2011 rankings;
PAP is the number one political party in Singapore.

b said...

NTU or NUS made those rankings looked ridiculous and silly. We all know their graduates are no better than third world countries graduates who even beat them in the employment market.

Anonymous said...

Paying so much for asses to be in charge. So sad.

Anonymous said...

from Robert C H Chia (LinkedIn)
26 September 2014 13:44

Good on you Michael. I am afraid the obsession with rankings detracts from the true role of universities as sites of contemplation and reflection on the problems and concerns of the world of human affairs

Veritas said...

The best way to rank university in natural science, using a rule of thumb is how many of her faculties and alumni got

1) Nobel
2) Field Medals
3) Turing prize

To see how elitist it is, how many alumni and faculties are

1) elected representatives
2) CEOs
3) Billionaires
4) Generals
5) top civil servants

The rest of the rankings are all BS.

Anonymous said...

AnonymousSeptember 27, 2014 10:37 pm
HLP is the only place to "protest" without ending with the "whole machinery all over protesters' heads and what have YEW"?

Have YEW not heard of the "HAMAS" "using children, women and old folks " as human shield against "missiles" ?

As much as it is not right to "frighten" special needs kids with "sound from a protest ", would it have made sense to hold such a charity event say in "ISIS controlled territory in IRAQ AND SYRIA " and "blame the whole world " if the "kids" are frightened?

Similarly, if YEW would not make sense to hold a children's charity in "war zone ", does it make sense to have it at a "protest site "?

Unless the intention is similar to "HAMAS" to use the "kids" as "human shield "?

Who is more "EVIL" ?

Pls KEE CHIU if YEW have the answer?