Ratings at a price for smaller universities

For a certain kind of European, Asian or Latin American institution, the release of the world university rankings each autumn is an exercise in humiliation. Though often long established, and with good local reputations, these schools lack the endowments, research facilities and sheer size needed to compete with US and British powerhouses like Harvard, MIT, Cambridge and Stanford, writes DD Guttenplan for The New York Times.

So when Quacquarelli Symonds, the London-based company behind the QS World University Rankings, announced “a new initiative that gives universities the opportunity to highlight their strength” by paying a fee for the chance to be rated on a scale of one to five stars, the business case was obvious. But so, say critics, was the potential for conflicts of interest. The fees had already been announced in 2010, but the initiative was not introduced fully until this year.

Ben Sowter, head of the QS Intelligence Unit, which oversees both the ratings and the rankings, said there was no favouritism in QS’s system. “Just because accreditation agencies charge the universities, that doesn’t mean they are biased,” he said.
Full report on The New York Times site