University of Oregon and World Rankings
Iain More, University of Oregon Foundation Board Trustee
This is a slight updating of a paper I wrote in September 2011 and presented informally to the
University of Oregon Foundation Board in October. It incorporates some of the feedback and ideas I
have received since. It should be read in conjunction with the attached table on the UO’s position
relative to AAU universities in three world rankings.
Context
1. I have expressed concern about where the UO sits in world rankings (450-500 in the QS
ranking) and albeit with relatively low knowledge of University thinking and priorities, that the
importance of these is insufficiently acknowledged, or that if it is, the University is not
committing seriously enough to address the issue or does not have the resources to do so.
I believe that the University’s low rankings have/do not fairly represent/ed its quality.
In addition, with encouraging information on enrolment numbers and so increased ability to
be selective, plus the former President’s “academic achievement” response to the Register
Guard editorial on the UO’s potentially at-risk situation in the AAU, and the commitment to
increase graduate student numbers from 15% to 17% (still low, but in the right direction),
there is increased opportunity to lift our rankings.
I do not think it would be all that difficult to take some steps immediately that in the short-term
would make the UO’s rankings considerably more respectable. Bigger rises in the future are
likely to be possible with more investment.
When this is accomplished, I believe it will create a very positive message internally, which
will serve to enhance fundraising and so help underpin the University’s efforts with the
Legislature in 2013.
In the medium term, ranking and university performance are factors in the economy of the
State. The Portland Tribune carried a comment from one of the candidates for Mayor that too
many companies flew over Portland and invested in San Francisco and Seattle. Arguably the
University of Washington (ranked 56 in QS and Berkeley (ranked 26) are part of the reason.
A Governing Body for the UO and its potential impact on the University, its world ranking and
the State’s economy
2. The OUS system has been in place pretty much unchanged since 1929 and seems to me to
have outlived its usefulness, to be something that has been and still is highly controlling and
stifling of individual university initiative to the detriment of all the institutions and so the
State’s economy. The OUS seems to have created a group of reasonably good universities,
but no outstanding one. This is a bit of a cliche, but to me tight control of what universities can do,
how academic disciplines are shared out, without competition in the State seems very un-American;
the sort of thing Americans think is very European !
I can understand if there is concern about favouring the UO and the impact this would have on
smaller institutions like Western Oregon. But I believe much greater freedom and competition
among the 7 Oregon Universities would be healthy for all of them and economically beneficial.
If one looks back at the history of the OUS, in the early 1950’s the University of Oregon was the
only ‘university’ in the State. Subsequently it lost engineering to Oregon State and medicine to form
OHSU. Two crucial areas of income and presitge that almost all AAU universities possess.
1
Some of these tensions exist in Scotland too, where I live. The University of Edinburgh is ranked 22 in
the QS World Rankings, the result of sharp rises over the last 5 years. Any apparent favouring of it
causes some rumbles, but its prestige says something about Scottish Higher Education and spins off
benefits to the other universities, five of which are in the top 200 in the QS Rankings..
The nub of this is that without freedom to initiate, without a committed top-rank governing
body and the capacity to secure investment, the University of Oregon, and by default the
other universities will be severely constrained in advancing internationally.
3. Universities are the key to economic growth from businesses within the State, trade and
inward investment – US and overseas. I live in Scotland with a population of 5m, a bit bigger than
Oregon, but not so significantly. Foreign students “trade value” in 2010 was $700m. But the real key
is university research. Scotland has invested heavily in university education. Over 900 foreign-owned
companies now have bases in Scotland, including Motorola, Compaq, NEC, IBM and Sun
Microsystems. Over the nine-year period from 1991 to 2000, 742 inward investment projects were
undertaken in the region, leading to investment levels of $8,974m, and to the creation or
safeguarding of 112,431 jobs. Early indications are that in spite of the recession, this has increased
over the last 10 years. High-ranking universities and graduates are a key element in this success,
as they should be in Oregon.
Enhanced State investment is clearly desirable. I find the State of Oregon’s support of higher
education very disappointing. States like North Carolina have clearly benefited from investment in
higher education. This has been the case in Scotland too. Our government sees investment in
universities as key to attracting inward investment and economic growth.
FOREIGN investors are creating more jobs in Scotland than anywhere else in Europe and at levels
not seen since the start of the recession, according to new figures. Ernst & Young's latest UK
attractiveness survey, which analyses inward investment and the attitudes of global investors, shows
Scotland attracted 69 foreign direct investment (FDI) projects last year - a 35 per cent increase on the
2009 figure - creating more than 4,000 jobs. Significant projects included the creation of 700 jobs at
Hewlett-Packard's Erskine plant and Stena Line's new ferry port facility at Loch Ryan which employed
400. London was the only region of the UK to draw a greater number of projects, with 289, but they led
to fewer jobs than those north of the Border.
Below is a current example of a governing body in Scotland taking strategic leadership, rightly or
wrongly depending on where you sit. The University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, a middle-ranking
(ranked 265 in the QS World Rankings – the UO is 450-500) Scottish university created in the
1960’s, is eliminating some humanities and social science departments to create the following.
The Technology and Innovation Centre at Strathclyde (TIC) will bring together 850 academics,
researchers and project managers from the University and its leading industrial partners to work sideby-side in a state of the art building in the heart of Glasgow.
Together, they will find solutions to challenges in sectors central to economic regeneration in Scotland
and further afield, including power and energy, photonics and sensors, advanced engineering,
pharmaceutical manufacturing and bio-nano systems.
Developed with industry, for industry, the Technology and Innovation Centre is already attracting
interest from major international companies, and its first partners include Scottish and Southern
Energy, Scottish Power and the Weir Group. At £89m ($142m), the project is the University’s singlebiggest investment in research capacity and has attracted financial backing from Scottish Enterprise
and the Scottish Funding Council.
Out of this, in In May 2012 Strathclyde University announced the creation of the £9m ($14.4m)
Fraunhofer Centre for Applied Photonics. Fraunhofer Gesellschaft is Europe’s largest applicationoriented research organization. The Centre will cover a variety of sectors including security,
healthcare, energy and transport. A third of the investment came from Fraunhofer with the rest from
the Scottish Funding Universities and Colleges Council and an inward investment agency.
2
4. There is an argument, which I believe may have an impact on investment, that there is a need
to shift the balance on what is important for the University, altering external perceptions,
making academic success and standing a clearly important matter for alumni.
I do not knock the success of Duck Football and other sports and their impact on the University and
alumni, but the externally focused information is heavily about that. The recent capital expenditure
on high quality buildings and the fact that last year about 40% of UO donations from 9,000 donors
went to athletics tend to create a particular impression of University priorities. Perception is a
significant factor at the Legislature and among donors and arguably academic achievement is seen
to be less of a priority than athletic achievement.
World University Rankings
5. There are three main rankings: QS World University Rankings (published in the United States
by US News & World Report as the "World's Best Universities”); the Times Higher Education
World University Rankings (separated from QS in 2009) and the Association of World
University Rankings (AWRU), All three are important.
The three systems have a somewhat different emphasis in the criteria they use. All are praised and
criticised. Peer review is less important to the Times than QS. The AWRU is seen to place “too much
emphasis on research indicators and Nobel Prize Winners and does not measure the quality of
teaching or the quality of humanities.” The Times goes up to only 300 top universities so the UO
does not appear (yet!). QS go up to 700 and AWRU to 500.
My assessment is that the QS is the most international and widely recognised, including by student
applicants.
According to QS
The rankings provide:
 A comparative tool to help prospective international students shortlist potential universities on a
global scale
 A rudimentary map of the international higher education landscape, which can, and has been
used as a component in both institutional and government strategic decision making
The rankings are based on four key pillars: research, teaching, employability, and
internationalisation.
Six distinctive indicators make up the methodology:
 Academic Reputation
 Employer Reputation
 Faculty/student ratio
 Citations per faculty
 International faculty
 International students
3
T
The University of Oregon in the Rankings
6. The UO in the recently published 2011 QS World Rankings sits at 450-500. Low enough that it
is in a range rather than having an actual rank. Of the AAU universities the UO is bottom.
The UO is also bottom of AAU universities in the AWRU – 201-300. It is not ranked in the
Times.
I have produced a table (Table 1 attached) of AAU universities and associated rankings in QS 2011
(UO 450-500), AWRU 2011 (UO 201-300) and Times 2010 (UO not ranked), plus where they sit in
the QS Rankings 2005-2010. The UO has been 437 (2005), 437 (2006), 351 (2007), 373 (2008), 389
(2009), 401-450 (2010), 450-500 (2011).
In the same table I also looked at a few universities who might be seen to be peers and who other
than Missouri Columbia, were not AAU members.
Nebraska - recently demoted from the AAU and consistently lowly ranked if ranked at all.
Not ranked in 2005, 2006, 2007; then 501+ (2008), 401-450 (2009 and 2010), and in 2011 – 401-450
- slightly higher than the UO.
Arizona State - 270 (2005), 270 (2006), 221 (2007), 260 (2008), 309 (2009), 335 (2010), and 336
(2011). Washington State’s rankings are a bit lower than Arizona State’s but better than the UO.
University of Washington, hardly a peer, has been pretty consistently around 75-80.
Missouri Columbia has been relatively close to the UO in the QS for a couple of years – 401-450
(2009 and 2010). Previously it was 246 (2005), 246 (2006), 381 (2007), 389 (2008). I do not know
this, but arguably with going down to 401-450 it decided to do something about it and in 2011 it is
371, not yet where it was previously, but on an upward curve.
I have also produced tables in descending order for QS, AWRU and the Times (Tables 2, 3, 4). The
UO is bottom in both QS and AWRU and not ranked in the Times. I view this as cause for concern.
7. The QS rankings (AWRU and Times do not go low enough to cover the UO) can be broken down
by academic area or discipline, revealing strengths and weaknesses. Below are a few
examples of the UO’s ranking (the areas are QS-defined):
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Arts & Humanities – 314, Natural Sciences – 291, Engineering & IT (presumably in the UO
case – IT only) – 440, Social Science & Management – 306, Life Sciences – 163.
Life Sciences – 150 (only ranking given)
Arts & Humanities – 268, Life Sciences – 264 (only rankings given)
Arts & Humanities – 228, Life Sciences – 301-350 (only rankings given)
Arts & Humanities – 252, Life Sciences – 345 (only rankings given)
In 2007 the year when the UO had its overall best ranking – 351, it had rankings in all five QS
areas. In 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 when its overall ranking was in decline – 373, 389, 401450, 450-500, it got ranked in only two areas and at least on Life Sciences was on a downward
track from a pretty respectable high in 2007 of 163.
Breaking the rankings down by subject for 2011, the UO has six subjects in 151-200 –
Computing/IT, Biological Sciences, Geography Area Studies, Psychology, Sociology, and Modern
Languages.
4
Arguably this area/subject information is revealing and has some grounds for
encouragement for the UO. We have areas of relative strength.
Improving our ranking
8. The key thing for me is that I do not believe that 450-500 accurately reflects the UO’s quality,
and so we have potential to move up. Paul Elstone and I have talked about this. He went to the
University of Liverpool ranked 141. He sees it as good quality UK research-university – it is in the
Russell Group, which is roughly the equivalent of the AAU, but not 300 places better than Oregon.
What steps might be taken to lift our rankings? I address this below (following the Case Study). But
first it might be helpful to illustrate with a case study, a case study of serious commitment. This is
probably not for us in terms of what we might want to, can or afford to do, but relatively speaking
elements of what has happened at Edinburgh should be able to be applied to the UO.
An example - Case Study: The University of Edinburgh
This not to suggest that the UO should compare itself to Edinburgh, which has a lot of advantages:
age; all disciplines including medicine and engineering; a very attractive and highly rated city. But
Edinburgh wanted to move up the rankings and took steps. I know the University well and know and
the Director of Communications and Marketing, with whom I met to discuss the importance
Edinburgh attached to rankings and what it did about them.
He pointed out that Edinburgh was hardly alone in doing this. Other UK and US universities were
doing the same thing.
The Principal (President), Professor Tim O’Shea, saw the University’s international ranking as
very important and has taken a personal interest.
He saw it would have impact on:






The quality of undergraduate students the University recruited, particularly international
students who want to know where a university sits in the rankings. Overseas students are
also financially important for their fees and as graduates, their donations. The ranking is a
key part of the pack to applicants.
Numbers and quality of postgraduate students, who are influential in recruiting top-rate
academic staff.
The quality of academic staff and the research money they bring with them.
Ability to develop relationships with top-rated universities – for example Edinburgh and
Stanford.
Fundraising. Other than Oxford and Cambridge, Edinburgh has probably been the most
ambitious and successful of the UK universities.
Perception. Almost all visitors to the University know its ranking. Each year more
importance is attached to the ranking by students, staff and visitors.
As a result a serious commitment has been made over the last nine years (without making it a
publicly-declared goal internally or externally) to moving the University up the rankings. It
was 50th and is now 20th. The strategy involved:


For the first years, monthly meetings of a senior management group chaired by the
Principal. These are now annual.
Assignment of some of the time of university analysts to work on what was needed to
advance in the rankings, to understand the weightings, what other universities do and what
actions were needed.
5








Engagement with the advisors, compilers and others associated with the QS and other
rankings, individually, at conferences, essentially a lobbying effort.
Recognition that international media presence and profile was an influence – perception
mattered.
The University set up an international press team; hired additional core staff from the
Toronto Globe and Mail and the China Daily (has several additions including a US one).
Recognition that graduate-employer comment was a key criterion in ranking.
Before the annual employer survey, the University sent a brochure to all employers
extolling the talent of its graduates.
Made sure that Careers Advisory Staff were engaged not just in their normal role of helping
students find jobs, but as advocates of the University with employers. Edinburgh is ranked
15th in the World Rankings in employer rating.
Made sure that every citation, research paper etc is recorded. [The UK Research
Assessment undoubtedly helps this.]
Given a special assignment to a Vice Principal to deal with the one area Edinburgh is not
doing well in – student assessment of academic staff feedback.
What the UO might consider doing
9. This is a mixture of short and longer-term ideas. To implement them will require resources –
human and financial.




If he does not have it already, The Vice Provost for International Affairs to be given
the clout and resources to pull together the University’s significant and very good
but disparate international activities, including implementing a significant rise in its
world rankings.
Find a donor who will fund the project of lifting the UO up the rankings, including
support for international university relationship initiatives.
Engage with the rankers in QS and AWRU.
Look at the ranking criteria and make sure the UO does its best to give the most
supportive, positive information.
Employers (10% of evaluation):
- Make sure that employers of UO graduates are included on the list used by the
ranking organisations.
Since-2007,
institutions
haveofbeen
invitedoftoUO
submit
lists of Edinburgh
employers produces
for us (QS)
to invite to
Inform
employers
the quality
graduates.
a booklet
participateand
in the
Employer
Survey. In 2010,
that invitation was extended to lists of
does
an information-giving
survey.
academics
also.Careers
Since employers
are encouraged
to list
number
institutions,
the risk of
- Make
Service advocates
for the UO
asawell
as a of
service
for graduating
bias towards
the
submitting
institution
is
minimal,
nonetheless
submissions
are
screened
students.
and sampling applied where any institution submits more than 400 records. In 2011, over
200 institutions supplied lists contributing over 60,000 employer contacts.
Faculty and peer review (40% of evaluation)
- Get UO academics to become active in “Academic Reputation” – this is 40% of
the criteria.
In 2010, QS initiated an Academic Signup process to enable the thousands of
interested academics we meet each year to actively signal their interest in
participation. Volunteers are screened to ensure institutions are not using the signup
process to unduly influence the position of their own or rival institutions. Over 2,700
academics have signed up since the process was launched in February 2010.
6
Research citations (20% of evaluation)
- Make sure that research citations are complete and if possible consistent with the
ones the rankers use - SciVerse Scopus in the case of QS.
Student/faculty ratio (20% of evaluation)
- The UO’s 31:1 ratio was not good and now at 35:1 is worse. The University of
Washington is 12:1, Florida's 21/1, Wisconsin and Ohio State University are 13/1,
North Carolina, Illinois, Michigan, Berkeley and Virginia from 14/1 to 15/1, and
Texas at Austin is 18/1. This really has to improve.
International student (5%) and International faculty numbers (5%)
- The huge increase in international student enrolment (up 85% since 2005-06)
has got to be helpful,

Take advantage of QS Benchmarking Service
Comparative information helps improve institution ranking
WHAT IS BENCHMARKING?
Benchmarking in the corporate world has been around since 1989. However, there is an
increasing need for universities worldwide to approach business more inline with corporates.
Benchmarking services offer universities an insight into their rankings position with expert
recommendations for improvement. Published rankings are only the surface of performance
evaluation. Benchmarking can and will provide a deeper insight into performance relative to
selected peer institutions.
HOW DOES IT WORK?
Each university that requests a benchmarking report selects those peers they want to be
evaluated against. The QSIU then uses particular criteria and methodologies to determine how
that individual university compares against its competitors. Each report contains trend data on
ranking positions, and is designed to assist client universities to better understand why they are at
 a Try
to develop
anthe
international
relationship
with
reasonably
comparable
universityon for
particular
point in
World University
Rankings
andawhat
areas they
should concentrate
or other prestigious
strategic
partnership.
I know
thefor
UK
best
and can
advise
improvement.
These solutions
help
universities toClearly
establish
a feel
best
practice
within
the
and help
a little.
Twotoexamples
be – Dundee
and Loughborough.
chosen
area
and also
promote might
continuous
improvement.
University relationship
This is likely to be in multiple ways including student and academic staff exchange and
department/institute collaboration.
A reasonably serious effort was made with the University of Dundee a few years ago.
There is an unusual, strong historical relationship between Dundee (the City), and Oregon
(the State); most of the serious inward investment to Oregon after it became a state came
from Dundee, from wealthy, still existing, families through the Oregon and Washington
Trust that became the Alliance Trust (now a large investment trust).
There has been very fleeting contact with Loughborough University, the University I went
to before coming to the University of Oregon. This is the UK’s top sports university. It has
7
facilities for elite and other athletes that even the UO would be impressed by. It has also
managed to establish high academic rankings. It has Engineering but not Medicine. There
are strong connections to Nike because of sponsorship of individual elite athletes like
Sebastian Coe, Global Advisor to Nike and Chairman of the 2012 Olympic Committee, and
Paula Radcliffe.

Think creatively about how to develop medicine or medically related activities, or
promote existing ones and moving from that base. The UO has existing activity in
Molecular Biology, Nanoscience, Physiology, and is working with Sacred Heart Hospital
through Oregon Heart & Vascular Institute and another project. It does relevant work in the
humanities.
UK universities without medical schools but recognising the wealth they bring in started
post-graduate medical courses (medicine is a undergraduate degree in the UK). They built
up a portfolio, started to get research money and is most if not all cases ended up with a
medical degree course.
Perhaps there is an Oregon parallel. In the 1970’s OSU lobbied hard and successfully to
offer a joint Veterinary Medicine degree with WSU and Idaho, using the existing WSU
degree as the base. The OSU College of Veterinary Medicine now graduates its own
students.

Raise the UO’s international profile.
I am delighted with the articles in the Oregonian and Guard but if you are an international
alumnus it still seems Oregon is a bit parochial. Clearly international profile influences
rankings.

Shift the balance on what is important for the University, altering external
perceptions, making academic success and standing a clearly important matter for
alumni.
I do not want to knock the success of Duck Football and other sports and their impact on
the University and alumni, but the preponderance of information from the UOAA and
elsewhere is about that. The recent capital expenditure on high quality and arguably
needed buildings and the fact that last year about 40% of UO donations went to athletics
from 9,000 donors tend to create a particular impression of University priorities.
Perception is a significant factor at the Legislature and among donors and arguably
academic achievement is seen to be less of a priority than athletic achievement.
Iain More
23rd June 2012
8