Review April 20Th 2021 Written by: Dr. Eliran Zered | Approved by: Yuval Vurgan International Rankings of Academic Institutions—Abstract Abstract This document was written for the Knesset Education, Culture and Sports Committee following a discussion held in June 2020 on the place of Israeli universities in international rankings. The document will present a general background on the subject and will describe five major international rankings: the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), also known as the Shanghai Ranking; the Times Higher Education World University Rankings; the QS World University Rankings; the CWTS Leiden Ranking; and the SCImago Institutions Rankings. It will also present criticisms that have been expressed regarding the academic rankings, in terms of both methodology and, more fundamentally, their effects on the world of higher education. It will then review the placement of the Israeli universities in the five rankings over the years and present the positions of the Council for Higher Education (CHE) and of some of the universities themselves regarding the international rankings. At the committee's request, we have also included an appendix with economic data on the investment in higher education in Israel as compared to the OECD countries, as background for the discussion on the state of higher education in Israel. National rankings and comparisons of academic institutions were already common in the early twentieth century, but the first ranking that compared institutions on the international level, the Chinese Shanghai rankings, initially appeared in 2003. Other rankings appeared later, chief among them—alongside the Shanghai Ranking—the British Times ranking and the QS ranking, which first appeared in 2004. Each of the rankings has its own approach and research methods to examine the qualities of institutions of higher education around the world. The rankings examined in this document generally emphasize the research aspect of universities. Leiden is based almost exclusively on bibliometric rankings, Shanghai emphasizes various aspects of research excellence, and research comprises at least half of the scores in the Times and SCImago rankings. The Times ranking also emphasizes the quality of teaching and the SCImago ranking also accounts for Research & Information Center www.knesset.gov.il/mmm 2 | International Rankings of Academic Institutions—Abstract popularity and networking. The QS rankings place their main emphasis on reputation surveys among academics and employers. Criticisms of the rankings versus the benefits attributed to them As the rankings gained in popularity and influence and in use by students, universities, investors, and educational policy professionals, criticisms began to surface questioning the validity of the rankings and their ability to serve as a means of decision-making. The criticisms can be divided into two types: Methodological criticisms—Many doubts have been raised regarding the validity of the various parameters that the rankings examine; this is especially true of the subjective components and surveys, but also applies to the seemingly objective parameters related to scientific achievement. There are even questions regarding how to measure bibliometric data on the number of publications and quotations, such as whether it is possible to compare areas with different levels and methods of publicity (articles, conferences, books) and whether these data reflect all of an institution's work or even its academic quality. A fundamental criticism of the nature of the rankings' influence on the higher education system—This criticism states, among other things, that the rankings create a uniform set of parameters to test institutions of higher education around the world, thereby reducing the different institutions' varying, complex, and context-dependent aims to a superficial matter. It has also been suggested that there is very little mobility in the rankings of the leading institutions and that the rankings highlight 1% of the institutions of higher education in the world. According to this suggestion, it is generally the same wealthy, large, veteran, English- speaking institutions that lead the lists, with the rankings reinforcing this reality by increasing the prestige of these institutions and thereby allowing them to raise more money and attract the most accomplished students and staff. The other institutions are forced to adjust to the same standards and shift resources to meet them at the expense of other goals, even as their chances of actually competing with the leading institutions are extremely low. Despite their harsh critiques of the rankings, even the critics note the importance of the rankings in contributing to the creation of a system of transparency and accountability for institutions of higher education, which have traditionally enjoyed prestige, autonomy, and great freedom. They believe the rankings are sparking an important discussion about the quality of higher education and the proper ways of measuring and evaluating it. Some argue that the rankings create healthy competition that motivate institutions and governments to encourage and improve research, to invest in it, and to develop new methods of measuring and evaluating Research & Information Center www.knesset.gov.il/mmm 3 | International Rankings of Academic Institutions—Abstract quality. Researchers note that because the rankings are here to stay, we need to find ways to improve them, increase awareness of the need to use them with caution, and deal with the consequences they might have for higher education. It has also been suggested that the criticisms have led to the improvement of the rankings themselves, their methods of measurement, and their level of transparency. Effects of the use of rankings Studies cite evidence as to the impact of the international rankings on systems of higher education around the world and on decision-making by institutions and states. In some countries, institutions of higher education have been merged, and strategic plans have been launched to have institutions rank among the leaders. Various countries use the rankings to determine recognition of degrees and institutions, grant scholarships, conduct academic collaborations, and even set conditions for immigration standards. In the United States, several states use the rankings to set performance thresholds for the universities in their jurisdictions and to determine pay grades. Several countries have approached the rankings companies for advice on improving the rankings of the institutions of higher education within their borders. There is also evidence of attempts by institutions to improve their ranking by using various methods to manipulate the results, for example, in reports on students and faculty. Rankings of Israeli institutions In Israel, the issue of the international rankings of the country's academic institutions is periodically placed on the public agenda. In a discussion of the topic held in June 2020 in the Knesset Education, Culture and Sports Committee, the results of the QS ranking were presented, which showed that the Israeli universities had dropped several slots in the rankings. The representatives of the universities criticized the credibility of the rankings, both on methodological grounds and due to the fact that it is produced by a commercial company that engages in consulting and academic placement of students and faculty. Representatives of the CHE presented a similar critique and noted that the Israeli universities had achieved impressive results given their limited budget. A review of the positions of the Israeli universities in the five aforementioned rankings suggests that the Hebrew University, Tel Aviv University, the Technion, and the Weizmann Institute are the country's leading institutions. The general trend emerging from most of the rankings of almost all the Israeli universities is a gradual decline in recent years. Some of the universities have seen sharper drops in their ranking (the Technion in the Times rankings and Ben- Research & Information Center www.knesset.gov.il/mmm 4 | International Rankings of Academic Institutions—Abstract Gurion University in the QS rankings) and some have seen their ranking rise (the Technion and the Weizmann Institute in the Shanghai rankings). In order to examine Israel's position with respect to other countries in terms of the place of the country's universities in the rankings, the document presents data regarding the number of universities in every country that ranked among the top 200 institutions in the Shanghai and Times rankings. This presentation should be considered with extreme caution because there are significant differences between countries in terms of the number of universities; the countries leading the rankings generally have dozens or hundreds of institutions of higher education. The Shanghai rankings have four Israeli institutions among the top 200, and Israel ranks alongside Belgium in places 12–13 among countries. The Times rankings include only one Israeli university (Tel Aviv University) among the top 200 institutions, which places Israel 26th among all countries and 21st among OECD countries. Because of the differences in scale between countries, we also present data on the countries' ranking relative to their population size. Using this measure, Israel ranks fourth among countries on the Shanghai rankings. Policy in Israel and comments from the institutions The CHE noted in its response to the inquiry from