TABLE 1
FROM:
Learning to Live with League Tables and Ranking: The Experience of Institutional Leaders
Ellen Hazelkorn
BACK TO ARTICLETable 1. Perception of how LTRS impact on key stakeholders
| Examples | |
|---|---|
| Benefactors/Sponsorships |  'It totally depends on the rank' 'I think all will tend to go for the best in the rank' 'They feel reassured supporting us' 'To date only universities have benefitted' 'Benefactors don't want to be associated with losers, they want their image to be associated with winners only' |
| Collaborators/Partners | 'Willingness to join common programme' 'Good for reputation at international level' |
| Current/Future Faculty | 'Increases awareness about the importance of publishing high quality research' 'Easier to induce improvement with the department head whose rankings are declining' 'Stimulus to compare research output and teaching quality' 'Recruitment will be easier because of good reputation' 'Make standards for appointment/promotion more clear and transparent' |
| Employers | 'Degree holders from universities with good reputation have better chances to get a job (and vice versa)' 'Employers get the signal of quality' 'They feel reassured. Those not open to us become more receptive' |
| Government | 'Repetition of negative reputation' 'Accreditation is easier' 'Less pretext for obstacles, more doors opened' 'May believe simplistic picture' 'Local government is inclined to spend additional money for an excellent university' |
| Students/Parents | 'More students are willing to come to the campus' 'High profile students usually apply to high profile universities' 'Particularly in the international market where status and prestige are considered in decision-making...' 'Pride (actively shown e.g. in public forums)' 'Advise their children to go to highly ranked universities' |
Source: Adapted from Hazelkorn (2007).
