世界大学排名新军

　　l、Shanghai Ranking

　　The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), also known as the Shanghai Ranking, is one of the annual publications of world university rankings. The league table was originally compiled and issued by Shanghai Jiao Tong University in 2003, making it the first global university ranking with multifarious indicators.

　　世界大学学术排名（ARWU），也被称为上海排名，是世界大学排名的年度出版物之一。 2003年上海交通大学最初编制和发布了排名表，使其成为全球第一个多种指标参照的大学排名。

　　

　　ll、History

　　Since 2009, ARWU has been published and copyrighted annually by Shanghai Ranking Consultancy, an organization focusing on higher education that is not legally subordinated to any universities or government agencies. In 2011, a board of international advisory consisting of scholars and policy researchers was established to provide suggestions.

　　The publication currently includes global league tables for institutions as a whole and for a selection of individual subjects, alongside independent regional Greater China Ranking and Macedonian HEIs Ranking.

　　自2009年以来，ARWU每年由上海软科咨询公司授权公布，该组织专注于高等教育，与任何大学或政府机构都没有隶属关系。 2011年，建立了由学者和政策研究人员组成的国际咨询委员会提供建议。此排名囊括了世界性综合及学科榜单，后也添加了独立的地区性《两岸四地大学排名》及《马其顿高校排名》。

　　

　　lll、Influences

　　ARWU is regarded as one of the three most influential and widely observed university rankings, alongside QS World University Rankings and Times Higher Education World University Rankings. It has received positive feedback for its objectivity and methodology, but draws wide criticism as it fails to adjust for the size of the institution, and thus larger institutions tend to rank above smaller ones.

　　上海排名，即《世界大学学术排名》与QS世界大学排名QS World University Rankings 和泰晤士高等教育世界大学排名 Times Higher Education World University Rankings一起获评为是世界三大最具影响力的大学排行榜。其因以客观数值作为准则而获得赞赏，但其也因忽视了人文学科与教学素质而受到批评。

　　

　　lV、Reception

　　A survey on higher education published by The Economist in 2005 commented ARWU as "the most widely used annual ranking of the world's research universities."

　　In 2010, The Chronicle of Higher Education called ARWU "the best-known and most influential global ranking of universities". EU Research Headlines reported the ARWU's work on 31 December 2003: "The universities were carefully evaluated using several indicators of research performance."

　　University of Oxford Chancellor Chris Patten has said "the methodology looks fairly solid …… it looks like a pretty good stab at a fair comparison." Philip G. Altbach named ARWU's 'consistency, clarity of purpose, and transparency' as significant strengths.

　　While ARWU has originated in China, the ranking have been praised for being unbiased towards Asian institutions, especially Chinese institutions.

　　《世界大学学术排名》获不同机构及人士的赞赏。《经济学人》杂志及《高等教育纪事报》分别于2005及2010年，赞赏上海排名为“世界研究型大学最看重的年度评核”以及“最著名及具影响力的世界大学排名”。牛津大学校监彭定康及澳大利亚国立大学前校长伊恩·丘博曾就此排名的准则作出过评价：前者认为有关统计方式“扎实及公平”；后者表示“上海交大排名迅速流传至世界各地”及“给予了重要的研究表现与声誉比较”。波士顿学院金融教授菲利普·G.·阿特巴赫亦摘文提及上海排名以“合理、目标清晰及透明度高”为优点。欧盟委员会在2003年12月31日以头条新闻报道了ARWU“使用若干科研表现指标对大学进行认真评价”。伦敦大学教育学院的 Simon Marginson教授认为ARWU的优点之一在于“遵守了学术研究的规范”。这个排名避免了其他大学排名中，多元化之类的“政治正确”的干扰，单纯衡量学术能力，是更加合理的。

　　

　　V、Criticism

　　The ranking has been criticised for "relying too much on award factors" thus undermining the importance of quality of instruction and humanities. A 2007 paper published in the journal Scientometrics found that the results from the Shanghai rankings could not be reproduced from raw data using the method described by Liu and Cheng.

　　A 2013 paper in the same journal finally showed how the Shanghai ranking results could be reproduced. In a report from April 2009, J-C. Billaut, D. Bouyssou and Ph. Vincke analyse how the ARWU works, using their insights as specialists of Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM).

　　Their main conclusions are that the criteria used are not relevant; that the aggregation methodology has a number of major problems; and that insufficient attention has been paid to fundamental choices of criteria.

　　The ARWU researchers themselves, N.C. Liu and Y. Cheng, think that the quality of universities cannot be precisely measured by mere numbers and any ranking must be controversial.

　　They suggest that university and college rankings should be used with caution and their methodologies must be understood clearly before reporting or using the results. ARWU has been criticised by the European Commission as well as some EU member states for "favouring Anglo-Saxon higher education institutions".

　　正如其他大学排行榜一样，《世界大学学术排名》也受到一定的批评。其指标与权重被指过于“依赖国际奖项的多寡”，此弊病使之“重理工及研究、轻人文及教学素质”。一篇在2007年刊登于《计量科学》的论文批评此榜单经不起验证，因为研究者无法以公开的数据及统计方式得出一式一样的结果；但同一平台另一篇于2013年发表的文章却表示可以得出相同结果。2009年的一份报告（由数位使用多目标决策方式研究上海排名的学者所发表）显示，此排行榜的指标及权重存有谬误，以及处理数据的方式有待改善。欧盟委员会的一些成员国（尤其是法国）批评上海排名准则“偏袒英语国家的高校”，并未能顾及欧洲大陆的高等教育体系。

　　举报/反馈