- Research
- 01/10/2015
TU/e drops considerably in Times ranking
TU/e is the biggest Dutch loser in the latest Times Higher Education university ranking. The British magazine puts TU/e in 176th position this year: a 32-position nosedive. Apart from Leiden (which went down three places), all other Dutch universities did better than last year. We now have twelve universities in the top-200 again, with Wageningen even making it into the top-50.
TU/e has dropped in the influential Times ranking despite the university’s total score being the same as last year’s. It even did much better on ‘citations impact’ (from 57.3 to 70.7 percent), but reputation scores for research and education have plunged (going from 15 to 11.4, and from 15 to 9, respectively). The percentage that’s awarded for research income from industry shows an especially striking drop, going from 99.9 to 57.3 percent. That percentage hardly counts towards the total score, however.
It’s unclear if institutes that are ranked higher than last year have only themselves to thank, as the methodology has changed slightly compared to last year. “It has led to remarkable changes in our ranking, which cannot be ascribed to the institutes’ performance exclusively”, say the creators. The quote seems to refer to TU/e as well, then.
For this year’s ranking, Times Higher Education (THE) checked a larger number of publications: over eleven million (six million last year). They’ve also counted slightly more citations: not 50 million, but 51. THE claims these changes have improved their analyses. On top of that, the number of universities that has been rated has doubled compared to last year, going from four hundred to eight hundred.
After a minor setback last year, the Netherlands once again scores well in the authoritative Times ranking. Following the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany, The Netherlands has the most universities that made it into the top-200. The THE editorial staff is impressed with the small country’s performance: “It punches well above its weight”.
Discussion