Page 272 - Becoming Metric Wise

264 Becoming Metric-Wise

measurement of the quality of universities? Which methodology should
be used to attain the goals of such rankings? And what precisely are these
goals? These questions led to several international conferences such as the
UNESCO-CEPES conference (held in Warsaw, 2002) and the First
International Conference on World-Class Universities, (held in Shanghai,
2005). An International Rankings Expert Group (IREG) was brought
together consisting of top-level experts. IREG was involved in the Berlin
Principles on Ranking of Higher Education Institutions (Institute for
Higher Education Policy, 2006). This declaration was made in order to
promote good ranking practices. Yet, one may still wonder: is it possible
to compare universities on a world-wide scale, across continents, across
cultural and educational traditions? The idea itself that such a ranking
might be feasible can be considered as a consequence of the globalization
of university and higher education.

8.4.5 The Van Parijs Typology of University Rankings
In an elegantly argued essay Van Parijs (2009) makes a distinction between
three types of rankings.

The Market Model
According to this model the purpose of this type of list is to support the
market for higher education. This was, indeed, the original purpose of
the Shanghai Jiao Tong ranking. Its creators wanted to inform Chinese
students about which universities were the best places for going abroad to
study. In this model universities are ranked for the benefit of students,
considered as consumers of educational services provided by universities
and institutes of higher education. The market model type of list wants to
fill an information gap. Clearly a “one size fits all” approach can never
succeed. A solution for this problem is an interactive ranking in which
customers (students) may adapt weights of different indicators. For some
students the price of a university education must receive the highest
weight, for others the standing of the physics department or any other
department. Maybe even the “student life” in the neighboring city is an
indicator that should be weighted high. Of course, the language in which
the education is provided may be an indicator used to exclude certain
universities: few international students want to study in Dutch, or few
European students want to study in Chinese or Japanese. All this leads to
a phenomenon referred to by Van Parijs as “my rankings,” where each
ranking corresponds to the personal preference of one person. In order to