In recent months, there have been conversations and public commentaries on the nature, purpose, meaning, and trustworthiness of university rankings. The fact that there are these expressions of interests and voicing of questions is, in and of itself, a good thing. Parents, prospective and registered pupils, policymakers, philanthropists, and the general public all have a vested interest in a university’s ranking even when they may not express those interests in the word ‘ranking’.
In a June 30, Gleaner article, ‘The illusion of excellence’, Phillip Patterson highlights some concerns about university rankings. The core of his argument is that rankings do not measure indicators they ought to measure such as the analytical competencies of graduates and their depth of mathematical and scientific understanding. He contends, therefore, that as a result of the fact that these variables are not measured, “… a university may enjoy impressive international reputation while weaknesses quietly emerge within its educational foundations”.
The timing of Patterson’s piece is curious, coming two weeks after the latest rankings report by the Times Higher Education organisation. This latest THE report shows that the UWI, which previously ranked in the top 4 per cent, is now ranked among the top 3.6 per cent of the best universities in the world. The UWI first entered the ranking arena in 2018, and on debut, landed in the top 5 per cent (which is its strategic objective). Over the eight-year period, the UWI has moved up and down but always within the top 5 per cent. Its current 3.6 per cent overall ranking is the best it has achieved.
While Patterson raises some fair questions, I wonder if the objective of his article is a critique of the achievement of the UWI. Being in the top 3.6 per cent is an unquestionably significant, especially competing with the best universities in the world and doing exceptionally well.
BROADER CONTEXT
There are about 37,000 recognised universities globally.This number does not include colleges, institutes, and polytechnics. In order to be ranked, universities must meet qualifying threshold.
The University of the West Indies (UWI) is the only Caribbean university that has qualified to enter the global rankings arena. Under the THE’s criteria, only about 2,000 universities quality to be ranked. This approximate 2,000 (2,191 in the 2025 ranking) is about 5 per cent of the global population of universities. In other words, only about 5 per cent of universities qualify to be ranked, and the THE’s ranking reaches universities in about 115 countries.
A quick Google search will reveal that university ranking dates back about a century, having begun in the early 1900s. In this early period, the ranking was designed to compare the pedigree of universities and was domestic in focus. The process was largely subjective, and the criteria were not developed consultatively and tested empirically. This problem of subjectivity was addressed in later rankings efforts beginning in the 1960s when scientific assessments were used.In the 1980s, U.S. News and World Report entered the fray when in 1983, it issued its first annual ranking publication “America’s Best Colleges”. The criteria focused on variables such as student-to-faculty ratios, proportion of full-time staff, graduation rates, and faculty salaries, etc.
The last 20 years have seen the introduction of global rankings with ranking agencies such as the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS), and Times Higher Education (THE). These are regarded as the top three, globally.
Each ranking organisation uses different metrics. THE uses the widest set of indicators. The methodologies used by these organisations, though having differences, are recognised as rigorous. Notwithstanding the rigour in these methodologies, they contain biases that work against small universities and universities in developing contexts that have less influence in policymaking, less access to larger research grants, and few international partnerships.
That the UWI ranks highly, therefore, despite the odds and disadvantages it faces is commendable. Its achievements augur well for the Caribbean region.
Is there a need to review ranking criteria?
THE ranking indicators fall into five categories, namely:
– Research quality, which covers citation impact, research excellence, and influence;
– Teaching and learning environment, which includes teaching reputation, doctorates awarded, staff-to-student ratio;
– Research environment, which includes reputation, income, and productivity
– International outlook, which includes proportion of international staff and students as well international co-authorships;
– Industry, which covers industry income and patents.
All universities that participate in the THE rankings are measured using the same yardstick. While Patterson is right, therefore, that ranking indicators do not include undergraduate students’ analytical competencies and their depth of mathematical and scientific understanding, it must be emphasised that this critique, to the degree applicable, is not unique to the UWI as are all his criticisms of ranking results.
The global ranking criteria have other weaknesses as they do not take account of various socio-economic factors that are peculiar to universities in developing countries, and in that regard, could be regarded as being overly biased and not sufficiently particularised or inclusive. But the playing field is what it is and universities that make it compete on the same level. There is no affirmative action or specialcase quota system.
It is the case that the Caribbean region has a post-colonial problem with competency in mathematics and science. This problem has several dimensions. In the first place, many of our best mathematicians and scientists migrate to better-paying jobs and opportunities outside of the region. Of those who remain, most do not work in the education sector. In addition, as Patterson notes, many students who enter university did not do as well as desired in mathematics and science. This is a real problem.
