|
Koleksi Khas Digital
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Full Text : |
| LETTERS Calls for Malaysian universities to withdraw from global university rankings on the grounds that they are commercial in nature and "profit-driven" may sound appealing, but they are ultimately simplistic and risk distorting the national higher education policy discourse.
Criticism of rankings deserves to be heard. However, rejecting the entire international ranking system without distinguishing between the tool itself and its misuse represents a hasty conclusion.
The real issue is not the existence of global university rankings such as the QS World University Rankings, Times Higher Education (THE), or the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), but rather how universities and policymakers interpret, manage, and utilise them. Placing the blame solely on rankings ignores the reality that many of the weaknesses being criticised stem from internal institutional governance.
RANKINGS AN EVALUATION TOOL
Global university rankings were never designed to replace educational missions or determine national policy directions. They are comparative instruments that enable universities to assess their relative performance within an increasingly competitive global higher education ecosystem.
Indicators such as teaching quality, research output, citations, graduate employability, and international networks are neither foreign nor inherently capitalist concepts. In fact, these elements are explicitly emphasised in national policy documents, including the Malaysia Education Blueprint (Higher Education).
Therefore, rejecting rankings on the basis that they "do not reflect local realities" raises a critical question: are we genuinely prepared to evaluate institutional performance objectively, or are we simply comfortable relying on inward-looking standards defined among ourselves?
THE "PROFIT-DRIVEN" CLAIM REQUIRES A BALANCED PERSPECTIVE
It is undeniable that university rankings are administered by international organisations that charge fees for certain services. However, framing the entire ranking system as being motivated solely by profit is an unbalanced argument.
Many other professional mechanisms, such as accreditation, quality audits, and certification also involve costs, yet they are not wholesale rejected on commercial grounds.
The more pertinent question is how universities choose to use ranking data. If institutions opt to manipulate data, pursue cosmetic metrics, or neglect the real quality of teaching and learning, such failures reflect weaknesses in governance and leadership, not flaws inherent in the ranking systems themselves.
RANKINGS AND THE CULTURE OF ACCOUNTABILITY
One aspect often overlooked by critics is the role of rankings in strengthening accountability. The requirement to report consistent, auditable, and internationally comparable data compels universities to improve data management systems, performance monitoring, and evidence-based decision-making.
Without such external evaluation requirements, universities risk operating within a "comfort zone," where success is loosely defined and weaknesses are easily rationalised. In the context of public governance, transparency and comparability, these are not threats to university autonomy; rather, they are prerequisites for strengthening public trust.
RESEARCH, QUALITY, AND RELEVANCE
Criticism that rankings overemphasise publications and citations is frequently repeated. However, the fundamental question is whether the real issue lies in the emphasis on research quality, or in the inability of institutions to provide an ecosystem that supports high-quality and relevant research.
If rankings encourage universities to enhance international collaboration, promote interdisciplinary research, and generate knowledge with greater impact, their effects are aligned with national imperatives to strengthen innovation and the knowledge-based economy. High-quality research is not an external agenda; it is central to a well-functioning university.
GLOBAL ASPIRATIONS AND NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES ARE NOT CONTRADICTORY
Another common misconception is the assumption that global aspirations conflict with national responsibilities. In reality, universities that perform well globally typically also play significant roles in local and national development.
Ranking positions should be viewed as positive outcomes of sustained efforts to enhance educational quality, produce competitive graduates, and contribute to the resolution of national challenges; not as an end in themselves.
Completely rejecting rankings risks sending a signal that Malaysian universities are choosing to retreat from global competition rather than systematically and strategically addressing their weaknesses.
UNIVERSITY RANKINGS AS A STRATEGIC TOOL TO STRENGTHEN GENUINE INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE
The participation of Malaysian universities in global university rankings should not be viewed as an end goal, but rather as a strategic tool to strengthen genuine institutional performance in a holistic and sustainable manner.
With clear and measurable indicators, universities can align their institutional strategic plans with the forthcoming Malaysia Higher Education Plan 2026–2035 and broader national development aspirations.
Nevertheless, universities must remain vigilant to ensure that pressures to improve ranking positions do not lead to data manipulation or cosmetic reporting practices.
Therefore, universities must strengthen ethical and integrity-based data governance, ensuring that all submitted information is accurate, consistent, and reflective of actual performance.
More importantly, universities must maintain a balance between global aspirations and national responsibilities.
In conclusion, the participation of Malaysian universities in global rankings should continue in a strategic, ethical, and balanced manner.
Professor Dr Ismi Arif Ismail
Universiti Putra Malaysia
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times |
| This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research. |