Supporting data for Hubbard et al., 'Levelling the Playing Field: The effect of including widening participation in university league tables', in press at International Review of Education.For analysis script see 10.6084/m9.figshare.12951278

The document consists of a Recommendation paper and an administrative response from Universities of The Netherlands. Short summary Universities of the Netherlands (UNL) has asked our expert group for an opinion on issues associated with university rankings in relation to Recognition & Rewards (R&R), a national programme in the Netherlands that aims to more broadly recognise and reward the work of academic staff (for more details on this initiative, see the position paper ‘Room for everyone’s talent’). We were also asked to propose solutions to these issues. As an expert group, we focus mainly on so-called league tables in the present opinion. These are one-dimensional university rankings that claim to reflect the overall performance of a university. Our opinion shows that league tables are unjustified in claiming to be able to sum up a university’s performance in the broadest sense in a single score. There is no universally accepted criterion for quantifying a university’s overall performance, and a generic weighing tool cannot do justice to a university’s strategic choice to excel in specific areas. Research, education, and impact achievements cannot be meaningfully combined to produce a one-dimensional overall score. Any attempt to do so will run into arbitrary and debatable decisions about how performance in these three core tasks should be weighted. Is research more important than education? Or is it the other way around? When a weighting system is applied that emphasises one of those core tasks, universities that excel in a different task are disadvantaged.

For the academic year of 2024/2025, the University of Oxford was ranked as the best university in the world, with an overall score of 98.5 according the Times Higher Education. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University followed behind. A high number of the leading universities in the world are located in the United States, with the ETH Zürich in Switzerland the highest ranked neither in the United Kingdom nor the U.S.

The data article presents the relationship between university league tables and teaching qualification in the UK. Data were collected from the university and subject league tables (Complete University Guide) and teaching qualification (The Higher Education Academy - HEA), and Higher Education Funding Council for England - Hefce), UK.

This dataset is about book subjects. It has 1 row and is filtered where the books is A guide to UK league tables in higher education. It features 4 columns: authors, books, and publication dates.

Data on the top universities for Education Studies in 2025.

The data stored includes: a) life-grids and transcripts from two hour semi-structured interviews pertaining to 98 students about their lives prior to university and their experience of university education and life in their first year (27=C, 23=D, 23=P, 25=S); b) transcripts relating to 31 of these students who became case study students and who were also interviewed about their second and third year education and experiences (6=C, 9=D, 9=P, 7=S); c) a survey of students from all three years of the degree with 769 returns from across the four institutions (210=C, 158=D, 163=P, 238=S) (48.5% 1st Year, 28.9% 2nd Year, 21.7% 3rd Year, .9% 4th Year); d) interviews with 12 seminar tutors who were interviewed about their teaching which was videoed (3=C, 3=D, 3=P, 3=S). Recent increases in the number of students attending universities appear to be accompanied by persistent inequities: poorer students go to less prestigious and well-resourced universities and, according to most league tables, receive a lower quality education. This project will question the assumption that education in higher status universities is necessarily better; and, will develop alternative definitions of 'quality' which allow that a university education is for personal growth and the public good, as well as for economic returns. The project will evaluate the comparative quality of teaching and learning in first degrees in sociology and allied subjects in four distinct universities by drawing on the work of the sociologist Basil Bernstein who argues that formal education disadvantages the already disadvantaged. By way of interviews with lecturers and students, case-studies, a survey, video-tapes of teaching, evaluation of student work and analysis of documents the research team will capture the relationship and interactions between students' lives and backgrounds; the degrees that they study; and the conditions in their universities. It is hoped that a better understanding of what should count as a good and just university education in different institutional settings will generate both debate and practical applications. The data partially constituted case-studies investigating the quality of university education in four UK departments that taught sociology related social sciences. The departments were given pseudonyms to reflect their character and were invited to participate on the basis of their position in the UK league tables. The sociology departments at Community (C) and Diversity (D) were in the bottom quadrille of the four major UK league tables throughout the period of study (2008-2012) and Prestige (P) and Selective (S) were in the top quadrille. We aimed to collect comparable data sets in each institution but they vary according to the composition of the student body and the slight variance in the number of students we managed to gain access to in each institution. The students were all volunteers who responded to requests for participants. The samples matched the distribution of students in each institution by gender, age, ethnicity, disability and social class reasonably well but mature, male and students with declared disabilities were slightly over-represented. Teachers were also volunteers teaching the modules selected for study.

Data on the top universities for Computer Science in 2025.

Data on the top universities for Law in 2025.

Context

2020 Indonesian University Ranking

Content

What are the most popular Universities in Indonesia? uniRank tries to answer this question by publishing the 2020 Indonesian University Ranking of 577 Indonesian higher-education institutions meeting the following uniRank selection criteria:

being chartered, licensed or accredited by the appropriate Indonesian higher education-related organization - offering at least four-year undergraduate degrees (bachelor degrees) or postgraduate degrees (master or doctoral degrees) - delivering courses predominantly in a traditional, face-to-face, non-distance education format

Aiming is to provide a non-academic League Table of the top Indonesian Universities based on valid, unbiased and non-influenceable web metrics provided by independent web intelligence sources rather than data submitted by the Universities themselves.

Credit to :https://www.4icu.org/id/

Data on the top universities for Medical and Health in 2025, including disciplines such as Medicine and Dentistry, and Other Health Subjects.

Data on the top universities for Engineering in 2025, including disciplines such as Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering, and Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering.

The number of students starting in Ivy League schools for the Class of 2028 (those beginning in the Fall of 2024), varied from school to school. Cornell University had the largest Class of 2028 among the Ivy League schools, with ***** enrolled students.

The HESA Student record is collected from subscribing Higher Education Providers (HEPs) throughout the devolved administrations of the United Kingdom. The data collected as part of the Student record is used extensively by various stakeholders and is fundamental in the formulation of: Funding, Performance Indicators, Publications (including UNISTATS), League tables.

The Student record collects individualised data about students active during the reporting period. A wide range of data items are collected, including: the student's entry profile and personal characteristics, module and course level data, funding information and qualifications awarded.

All HESA records are collected on the basis of the HESA reporting period that determines the time period that the data being returned relates to. This ensures consistency across the data streams collected. The reporting period is from 01 August year 1 to 31 July year 2, for example, the 2016/2017 Student record was collected in respect of the activity which took place between 01 August 2016 and 31 July 2017.

Further information on the HESA Student record can be found on the HESA website: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/collection/archive