Pressured by globalization and the increasing demand for public organisations to be accountable, efficient and transparent, university rankings have become an important tool for assessing the quality of higher education institutions. It is therefore important to carefully assess exactly what these rankings measure. In this paper, the three major global university rankings, The Academic Ranking of World Universities, The Times Higher Education and the Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings, are studied. After a description of the ranking methodologies, it is shown that university rankings are stable over time but that there is variation between the three rankings. Furthermore, using Principal Component Analysis and Exploratory Factor Analysis, we show that the variables used to construct the rankings primarily measure two underlying factors: a universities reputation and its research performance. By correlating these factors and plotting regional aggregates of universities on the two factors, differences between the rankings are made visible. Last, we elaborate how the results from these analysis can be viewed in light of often voiced critiques of the ranking process. This indicates that the variables used by the rankings might not capture the concepts they claim to measure. Doing so the study provides evidence of the ambiguous nature of university ranking's quantification of university performance.

中文翻译：

---

大学排名的纵向分析

在全球化和对公共组织负责任、高效和透明的需求日益增加的压力下，大学排名已成为评估高等教育机构质量的重要工具。因此，仔细评估这些排名所衡量的内容非常重要。本文对世界大学学术排名、泰晤士高等教育和Quacquarelli Symonds世界大学排名这三大全球大学排名进行了研究。在对排名方法的描述之后，可以看出大学排名随着时间的推移是稳定的，但三个排名之间存在差异。此外，使用主成分分析和探索性因子分析，我们表明，用于构建排名的变量主要衡量两个潜在因素：大学声誉及其研究绩效。通过将这些因素相关联并根据这两个因素绘制大学的区域总量，排名之间的差异变得显而易见。最后，我们详细说明了如何根据对排名过程经常发出的批评来看待这些分析的结果。这表明排名使用的变量可能无法捕捉他们声称要衡量的概念。这样做的研究为大学排名量化大学表现的模糊性提供了证据。排名之间的差异是可见的。最后，我们详细说明了如何根据对排名过程经常发出的批评来看待这些分析的结果。这表明排名使用的变量可能无法捕捉他们声称要衡量的概念。这样做的研究为大学排名量化大学表现的模糊性提供了证据。排名之间的差异是可见的。最后，我们详细说明了如何根据对排名过程经常发出的批评来看待这些分析的结果。这表明排名使用的变量可能无法捕捉他们声称要衡量的概念。这样做的研究为大学排名量化大学表现的模糊性提供了证据。