Education: Tables: it all depends what you put in ...
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The arbitrary nature of league tables is illustrated in a little exercise undertaken by Professor Roger Williams, vice-chancellor of Reading University.
You might think the official rankings of institutions for research carried out by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) would be a fairly clear-cut business. But Professor Williams shows they aren't. It all depends what data you feed in and what kind of information you want to get out.
After the 1996 research assessment exercise (RAE) he looked at the different ways that league tables could be constructed and found that the table showing Reading in the worst light was the one ranking institutions according to the average grade of all staff members entered for the exercise. This was the table published by several newspapers, including the Independent the day after the results of the RAE were announced. It showed Reading in 31st position, after removing specialist institutions such as Cranfield and the School of Oriental and African Studies.
He then constructed another table, allowing for the fact that universities entered differing proportions of their staff, and averaging grades for all staff, regardless of whether they were entered for the RAE. This calculation showed Reading in 28th position.
Third, he looked at a table showing research power as calculated by the newsletter Research Fortnight. It added up all the departmental scores for an institution and ranked them after standardising Oxford at 100. By this criterion, Reading came in with a very respectable 19th position.
After the RAE results were turned into research grants, another table was compiled showing the money universities received for research. Again Reading came 19th in a league table.
Finally Professor Williams ranked universities by the percentage of their total Hefce grant received that went into teaching and research. This, he says, could be called "research intensity". By this measure, Reading came 12th.
So, the university is 31st, 28th, 19th or 12th, depending on what information you feed in. Professor Williams believes no single league table can show definitively how universities perform. It all depends on the indicator you use. "I am wary of simplistic indicators," he says. "And I think some of these tables around today are too simplistic."
Lucy Hodges
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments