Unraveling the Paradox in Composite University Rankings

Abstract

Composite university rankings have become increasingly prevalent in higher education, aiming to provide comprehensive assessments of institutional performance across multiple dimensions. However, these rankings often present a paradoxical scenario where universities excelling in certain aspects may be disadvantaged by the composite nature of the rankings. This study delves into the paradoxes inherent in composite university rankings, seeking to understand the underlying factors and implications for higher education stakeholders. Drawing on insights from ranking methodologies, institutional theory, and stakeholder perspectives, this research investigates how diverse criteria and weighting schemes used in composite rankings can lead to unintended consequences and distortions in the evaluation of universities. Through a combination of qualitative analysis, case studies, and stakeholder interviews, the study explores scenarios where universities may excel in specific areas but receive lower overall rankings due to the weighting of other factors. Furthermore, the research examines the impact of composite rankings on university strategies, resource allocation, and institutional priorities. By providing a nuanced understanding of the paradoxes in composite university rankings, this study aims to inform policymakers, institutional leaders, and ranking agencies on strategies for improving the validity, transparency, and utility of ranking systems in higher education. The findings have implications for university governance, academic decision-making, and the public perception of institutional quality and excellence.