WENR

University Rankings: Australia

Posted By Eric Roach On In Accreditation and Quality Assurance,Archive,Asia Pacific,Original Research | Comments Disabled

On this page:

The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research

In November 2004, the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research [6] released a unique report [7] ranking Australian universities in terms of their international competitiveness and standing, as gauged by quantitative data and subjective data taken from leaders in both domestic and international higher education. The Melbourne Institute, in designing its study, has attempted to respond to a number of common criticisms leveled against ranking initiatives around the world. Most notably it has introduced an interesting methodological element designed to respond to the arbitrary nature by which quality indicators are normally weighted (see below).

The report — known as the Melbourne Institute Index — also seeks to provide suggestions as to what factors contribute to improving an institution’s international standing. The ultimate goal of the report and its rankings is to help Australian universities understand where they stand in relation to one another, and in relation to their international counterparts, so that efforts can be focused on improving their status and ability to compete more effectively for the best students and scholars worldwide. A second report was issued in November 2005.

Methodology

The results of the Institute’s survey are based on a mix of subjective opinions and quantitative data. The subjective findings are derived from two separate surveys, one sent out to deans at 39 Australian universities, and the other to 172 chief executive officers (vice-chancellors, presidents, rectors) from the world’s ‘best’ overseas universities (as identified by the Shanghai Jiaotong rankings). Quantitative data is derived from five different indicators: quality/international standing of staff, quality of graduate programs, quality of undergraduate entry, quality of undergraduate programs, resource levels.

The aim of the surveys is twofold: to introduce an element of peer review to the overall ranking and to establish the weighting that should be applied to the six overall indicators (with the survey results acting as the sixth indicator).

University CEOs from around the world were asked to rate each Australian university on a scale of 1 to 5 as compared to institutions in their continent. Australian deans (and New Zealand vice-chancellors) were asked to rate institutions in comparison to U.S. universities. The scales were calibrated using the results of the Shanghai study (for example, top 50 US = top 25 Europe= top 5 Asia = top 80 world.) Replies were received from 40 CEOs and 80 deans. Australian deans and New Zealand vice-chancellors were also asked to rank the top 10 Australian universities in order using as the criteria “international standing”.

Weighting

In response to a common criticism of university rankings — that criteria weightings are arbitrarily chosen by the researchers — all respondents were also asked what weights they would attribute to the six indicators when measuring international standing. The average weights suggested by foreign CEOs and Australian deans were very closely correlated and are as follows:

Scores for the five categories of quantitative data, which account for 92 percent of the overall rank, were established using previously published data. The international standing of academic staff was determined according to the volume and quality of their research output using data on publications, citations of those publications, peer recognition, and research income as tabulated by the Institute for Scientific Information [8] over a ten-year period from 1994 to 2004. The quality of graduate programs was assessed by tabulating doctoral completion and progression rates in addition to student review of their doctoral programs. At the undergraduate level, universities were assessed according to student tertiary entry scores, staff-student ratios, progression rates, continuation into higher studies, and student evaluations. Finally, resource levels were judged on a per student basis and a per staff member basis.

Results

Overall Ranking (2004)
Rank University Group Weighted Score
1 Australian National University Go8 100
1 University of Melbourne Go8 100
3 University of Sydney Go8 95
4 University of Queensland Go8 87
5 University of New South Wales Go8 85
6 Monash University Go8 76
6 University of Western Australia Go8 76
8 University of Adelaide Go8 70
9 Flinders University of South Australia IRUA 56
10 La Trobe University IRUA 55
11 Macquarie University IRUA 54
12 University of Tasmania – 53
13 University of Newcastle IRUA 52
14 Murdoch University IRUA 51
15 University of Wollongong – 50
16 Curtin University of Technology ATN 49
16 Griffith University IRUA 49
16 Queensland University of Technology ATN 49
19 Deakin University – 47
19 University of New England – 47
19 University of Technology, Sydney ATN 47
22 James Cook University – 46
22 Swinburne University of Technology – 46
24 University of South Australia ATN 44
25 RMIT University ATN 43
26 University of Canberra NGU 42
27 Charles Darwin University – 41
27 Edith Cowan University NGU 41
27 Victoria University NGU 41
30 Charles Sturt University – 39
30 Southern Cross University NGU 39
30 University of Western Sydney NGU 39
33 University of Ballarat NGU 38
34 Australian Catholic University NGU 37
34 Central Queensland University NGU 37
36 University of Southern Queensland NGU 36
37 University of Notre Dame, Australia – 32
37 University of the Sunshine Coast NGU 32

Source: The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research
Key: Go8: Group of Eight Universities; IRUA: International Research Universities Australia; ATN: Australian Technological Network; NGU: New Generation Universities.

Results of the 2005 report are available from: http://melbourneinstitute.com/publications/reports/MelbIndex.pdf [7]

Other Resources

Australian Universities Network

Australian Universities Network [9] provides a number of different rankings. Other than the Melbourne Institute Index, the tables are largely drawn from international rankings such as the Times Higher Education Supplement World University Rankings and a number of different international business school rankings.

Student Outcome Indicators for the Learning and Teaching Performance Fund

Also included is a league table ranking teaching performance as published in the Australian newspaper on August 12, 2005. The data is drawn from the Department of Education, Science and Training’s “Student Outcome Indicators for the Learning and Teaching Performance Fund,” which was commissioned to reward best-performing teaching universities with supplemental funding from the federal budget.

Hobsons Guides

Hobsons Guides publishes an annual ratings guide to Australian universities called the Good Universities Guide. Hobsons rates universities across a number of different indicators on a five-star scale. The findings are available to paid subscribers, although the methodology is outlined to non-subscribers. Most of the data is drawn from publicly available Department of Education, Science and Technology indicators.