In addition to being a very important day for Catholics, August 15 has also for several years been the date of the publication of the famous Shanghai Ranking of World Universities. Don't dream, this edition only confirms what we already knew, namely the undivided domination of the Anglo-Saxons in this field since they take the first 12 places. Obviously note that the Americans are the big winners, taking 17 of the first twenty places and monopolizing the entire podium. In fact, the Shanghai ranking it's a bit like the Olympic Games, everyone participates, but it's always the Americans who win and France has to settle for seventh or eighth place...
 

A contested ranking!

 
What always amuses me with the rankings and particularly with that of Shanghai, is that those who are not or poorly represented there always find a way to say that these rankings are worthless! In this case, the problem with this Chinese classification lies, according to its detractors, in the criteria used.
It is true that it is mainly focused on research, particularly in the exact sciences, to the detriment of training, taking into account the success of students and the human and social sciences. I remind you for the record that the 6 criteria discussed are:

• the number of Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (this is roughly the equivalent of a Nobel for mathematics) among alumni
• their number among researchers
• the number of researchers cited in top journals in 21 fields, the number of articles published in “Nature” and “Science”, those indexed in Science Citation Index-Expanded and Social Science Citation Index
• previous results weighted by the number of full-time researchers on the site.

When we see that most of the Nobel Prizes are won by Americans or, at least by researchers working in American universities, we cannot really be surprised by the result... Could the French, once again, be bad players by harshly criticizing him? Perhaps a little, but it is important to understand that this ranking particularly handicaps the French system with its research organizations. It is therefore, in my opinion, very important to putting the Shanghai ranking into perspective and I think that the Minister of Higher Education and Research, Geneviève Fioraso, is right to point out that it can in no way “be a tool for steering policy in terms of higher education and research” .
 

Towards a European solution?

In fact, I suddenly realize that I haven't been very fair... Indeed, with the notable exception of the United Kingdom, no European country has managed to do well. It turns out that if France does not play the leading roles, it is not ridiculous either... So, even if it is true that our country only places 20 higher education institutes in the top 500, compared to 37 for Germany (and 150 for the United States…), it is good to point out that 3 schools are in the top 100.
It is not a panacea, but it is more than other European countries except Germany (4 institutes in the top 100) and the United Kingdom (9). You know what they say: “when I look at myself, I feel sorry for myself. When I compare myself, I console myself! »
In any case, European countries have apparently agreed to create U-Multirank, the future European ranking multi-criteria which must establish a map of the European higher education and research system using numerous indicators. This is undoubtedly good news for universities that are almost absent from the Shanghai ranking like the Sorbonne to take only a symbolic example. However, this mapping is a huge task which should not be completed before 2013, i.e. 10 years after the creation of the Chinese rankings.
 

In conclusion…

I think once again that we should not pay so much attention to these rankings which can in no way be perfect! Let's wait and see if the Europeans will do better than Shanghai, but I'm not sure...