Suchergebnisse

Amy Chua, World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability Surjit S. Bhalla, Imagine There's No Country: Poverty, Inequality, and Growth in the Era of Globalization John Firor and Judith Jacobsen, The Crowded Greenhouse: Population, Climate Change, and Creating a Sustainable World Joel Perlmann and Mary C. Waters (eds.), The New Race Question: How the Census Counts Multiracial Individuals

Media rankings of universities have become common in many countries. Although frequently criticised by a range of commentators, media rankings are used by students in destinational decision-making, and by universities in their own marketing. By critically reading three prominent media ranking systems, several trends emerge. Asiaweek, U.S. News & World Report and Maclean's magazines each adopt an activist/investigative stance as a justification for their hierarchical rankings of higher educational institutions. Central to this position is an argument for opening up universities to public scrutiny, resulting in greater accountability to students, parents and taxpayers. However, an analysis of the data collection methodologies shows that these stakeholders are excluded from the evaluation process. Instead, all quantitative data is collected from university central administrations, and the subjective reputational surveys are completed by senior university staff and similarly empowered 'experts'. Rather than acting as intrusive tools of public accountability, the media rankings serve to reinforce existing conceptualisations of 'the university' and 'quality' as expressed by the tertiary sector's prominent players.