Mais
uma vez o jornal Público não se coibe de promover hoje um ranking da treta, o QS World University Rankings. Ou
talvez no jornal Público não saibam que o ranking Shanghai, é o único ranking mencionado num documento da Comissão Europeia sobre excelência cientifica. Ou
talvez no jornal Público não saibam aquilo que conhecidos académicos, como o conhecido catedrático David Blanchflower, ou o catedrático da universidade de Oxford Simon Marginson, escreveram, em termos nada elogiosos sobre o ranking QS. Vide aqueles 8 reproduzidos na parte final deste post.
PS - É importante recordar que o famigerado QS World University Rankings é produzido pela firma Quacquarelli Symonds, que foi fundada por um Italiano espertalhaço de nome Nunzio Quacquarelli, quando andou a fazer o seu MBA, firma essa que ganha milhões a vender (aos incautos) estrelas e outros serviços de aconselhamento, sobre como subir nos rankings. Vide email de 2018, https://www.docdroid.net/uniDTYH/vice-reitor-docx onde comentei o facto da Universidade de Coimbra ter sido um dos pagantes desse caro serviço, apesar de muito ironicamente isso não ter impedido logo a seguir que essa universidade caisse no ranking Shanghai. Email esse que na altura até foi divulgado pelo Carlos Fiolhais no seu blog.
-David
Blanchflower in an article for the New Statesman entitled "The QS Rankings
are a load of old baloney"
"This ranking is complete rubbish and nobody should place any credence in it.The results are based on an entirely flawed methodology that underweights the quality of research and overweights fluff"
-Simon
Marginson, professor of higher education at University of Oxford:
"I will not discuss the QS ranking because the methodology is not sufficiently robust"
-Fred
L. Bookstein, Horst Seidler, Martin Fieder and Georg Winckler in the journal
Scientometrics:
"There are far too many anomalies in the change scores of the various indices
-Isidro
F. Aguillo, Judit Bar-Ilan, Mark Levene, José Luis Ortega in the journal
Scientometrics:
"The QS is based on a not large and not representative enough survey that means the results are biased towards certain countries
-H.
Jons and M. Hoyler in the Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional
Geosciences
"The QS ranking was also criticized for the low response rates of the review surveys and for a general lack of methodological transparency
-V. Safon in the journal Scientometrics:
"the majority of the received questionnaires come from English-speaking countries, clearly favoring their universities
"This ranking is complete rubbish and nobody should place any credence in it.The results are based on an entirely flawed methodology that underweights the quality of research and overweights fluff"
"I will not discuss the QS ranking because the methodology is not sufficiently robust"
"There are far too many anomalies in the change scores of the various indices
"The QS is based on a not large and not representative enough survey that means the results are biased towards certain countries
"The QS ranking was also criticized for the low response rates of the review surveys and for a general lack of methodological transparency
"the majority of the received questionnaires come from English-speaking countries, clearly favoring their universities
-Mu-Hsuan
Huang in the journal Research Evaluation:
"the statistic data adopted by QS Rankings should be further questioned.
Andrejs Rauhvargers in Global University Rankings and their Impact- Report II:
"QS admits that a university may occasionally be nominated as excellent and ranked in a subject in which it “neither operates programmes nor research”
"the statistic data adopted by QS Rankings should be further questioned.
"QS admits that a university may occasionally be nominated as excellent and ranked in a subject in which it “neither operates programmes nor research”