 |
|
Home
> University of Alberta opts out of Maclean's rankings
> What specific criticisms do you have of the rankings?
Let's first explain how the magazine's ranking works. There are six categories with 24 sub-categories in which the 15 medical/doctoral universities are ranked. Each category represents a specific percentage of the overall ranking. For instance, the entering grades of universities comprise 13 per cent of the overall ranking, and the combination of student experiences with class size and first-year classes taught by tenure-track faculty makes up 17 per cent of the ranking. In other words, the overall ranking is an artificially weighted compilation of artificially scored rankings from each of the 24 sub-categories.
Now, let's look specifically at a category to which Maclean's gives one of its highest percentages, the 16-per-cent reputation category.
Each year Maclean's sends a survey to high school principals and guidance counsellors, university officials, corporate heads, CEOs and recruiters at corporations across the country. Last year, they arrived at the reputational ranking based on a survey response of less than 12 per cent. Regardless that the University of Alberta placed fourth overall, our question remains, how can they rank a university's reputation when less that 12 per cent of those surveyed responded?
Another suspect category is the student body and its sub-category of average entering grade, which is given 13 per cent of the overall ranking. Here the magazine assumes that all entering grades are equal. We have made it clear on a number of occasions that each province is different and to assume, for example, that 80 per cent universally translates into an 'A' across the board is erroneous. In Quebec, for example, CEGEP completion grades are not in percentage terms, and have to be artificially translated. In British Columbia, 86 per cent is considered an 'A' while in Alberta and Ontario a grade of 80 per cent earns students an 'A'. The standards for achieving particular grades are not the same across the provinces.
Another category we take issue with is the group of library measures. Two of them measure resources applied to library development as proportions: for library as a proportion of overall operating expenditures; and for library acquisitions as a proportion of library expenditures. We argue that a high proportion of miniscule resources will not yield a great library. If one took this approach with some of the major American universities, Harvard would land at or near the bottom of the ranking.
We're also concerned with elements of the university experience that aren't included in the rankings. Maclean's rankings, developed in 1990, don't reflect the transformation taking place at modern research-intensive universities. The rankings don't address the extra-curricular activities, peer engagement, research experiences for students, athletics, or the depth and breadth of curriculum that truly enrich the student experience.
Frequently Asked Questions
|
|
|
