VARSITY EDITORIAL
Page 11
“Stand up for Science” rallies highlight disturbing changes to research funding
Vol. CXXXIV, No. 04
University of Toronto’s Student Newspaper Since 1880
23 September, 2013
U of T has been falling in one prominent international ranking and rising in another for years. The Varsity investigates the methodology of university ranking systems
Liza Agrba and Teodora Avramov VARSITY STAFF
In the latest annual qs (Quacquarelli Symonds) World University Rankings report, the University of Toronto climbed two spots, from 19 to 17. Some senior university administrators have expressed uncertainty about the accuracy and comprehensiveness of university ranking systems. The Varsity asked a number of experts to discuss their take on the metrics and methodologies behind two of the most prominent rankings: qs World University Rankings, and Times Higher Education World University Rankings (the). In an interview with The Varsity, U of T president David Nay-
lor cautioned that while U of T’s strength in ranking tables is encouraging, students should take these rankings with a grain of salt: “It’s obviously very hard to boil institutions as complex as universities down to a single number,” he said. McGill University’s principal, Suzanne Fortier, expressed similar concerns. “These aren’t very accurate scientific studies, so the margin of error is big,” she said. While U of T has steadily climbed qs tables for the past four years, the opposite trend is apparent in the tables. “This doesn’t reflect the fact that we’re getting better or worse, it reflects the fact that two different ranking agencies use two different sets of measures,” said Naylor. He
stated that inconsistency across different ranking schemes, due to their varying metrics, is part of what makes them difficult to interpret. qs and the collaborated until 2010, when the made a dramatic change in its ranking scheme, choosing to partner instead with Thomson Reuters. “We moved from six weak indicators to thirteen more balanced and comprehensive indicators,” Phil Baty, the editor at large and rankings editor, told The Varsity.
Naylor expressed suspicion about this proxy, stating that longerterm measures, such as the degree to which students value their university education several years after graduating, are a far better measure of teaching excellence than student–faculty ratio. This ratio accounts for 20 per cent of the overall score in qs, and 4.5 per cent of the overall score in the. The latter system uses a number of other measures to make up the total 30 per cent weight of this category, includMEASURES OF TEACHING AND ing an academic reputation surLEARNING ENVIRONMENT vey and the ratio of doctorate to Some ranking systems use the bachelor’s degrees. ratio of students to faculty memBen Sowter, head of research at bers as a proxy for measuring the qs, acknowledged that the proxy quality of a university’s teach- is not ideal: “Teaching qualing and learning environment. ity, from our viewpoint, is about
more than having a charismatic lecturer. It is about the environment, and a key part of that is access to academic support. I think student–faculty ratio is reasonable proxy measure for this. That is not to say that I am satisfied with it though. We would consider other measures on the provision that they are globally available, sufficiently discerning, and not too responsive to external influences,” he said. Baty expressed that in his view, a heterogeneous approach to measuring teaching quality is essential. “A staff–faculty ratio is an exceptionally crude instrument for judging teaching quality — does the number of waiters in a res-
CONTINUED PG 7
THE SCIENCE FAIR GROWS UP
Read our coverage of the first Toronto Science Festival in this week’s Science