Is webometrics THE major test or ONE of the various tests used in assessing a university?

Do NUC still rank Nigerian Universities?

Is the Higher Education Times (or whatever they call it) the final authority in assessing universities?

Is a third class UI/UNN/ABU/LASU/ESUT etc graduate better than a first class private university graduate e.g COVENANT/BABCOCK/MADONNA etc?

Personally I think the quality of a schools ALUMNI is the major test of a school's quality. Why? Because its has produced national/international achievers who have competed favorably with their counterparts from other universities in the labour market, whether in academic grade point, practical experience and know-how as well as communication skill.

What do you think?

I think I should contribute something but nothing, because its a mumu post.

.

Hmmmm

mat2d6boi:
I think I should contribute something but nothing, because its a mumu post.

Then why did you comment on a "mumu post"? How old are you? If you want cheap popularity, its definitely not going to be this way.

Kids using MB all over the place....

Lolz

Alumni success is not necessarily impacted by a university. E.g Covenant Uni or Babcock didn't make Simi n Davido stars, How did Gej attending UNIPORT make him the President of Nigeria? At best Alumni success would be one of the many indicators not the Only indiactor.
To rank a university one must first understand the purpose of a university which is to innovate, invent and educate. I believe rankings should be tailored around the core missions of a university which is founded on the mentioned pillars. Webometrics for instance ranks research only. Times Higher has a more holistic approach by ranking Teaching, Research, International outlook, Industry.

op doesn't understand English sef. the title of the thread should be -" what is the criteria for ranking universities" rather than that unclear title you gave the thread. how is it possible for one to measure an institution when it's not garri. shikena

Talking about Alunmi success and university rankings; we should try to establish the relationship between the alumni success and the university impact, and the number of successful alumni compared to the total number of graduates the university has produced. If you examine this, you'll understand that the term alumni success should simply be replaced with employ-ability. Alumni success is not a good statistical measure of a university performance. Majority of the schools that have good alumni record simply have produced more graduates both the good, the bad and the ugly among them. Mind you, statistically, a good alumni may not be a good representation of a school's graduate population, depending on the mean. How many of us know which school Donald Trump graduated from; this follows the matthew theory (browse more about); schools that have produced much graduates have more good graduates (even at lesser percentages), and are therefore continually perceived to produce better graduates than the schools that produce better graduates at even 90% turn out rate!

To me the best ranking parameters are employability, graduates' success rate in the labour market 5 years from graduation, Research works affiliated with universities, Nobel prizes affiliated with universities, field medals and other research oriented prizes, Teacher to student ratio, students'pass rate at final year (people should be worse at 100 level and better at final year after which those who the school didn't improve must have dropped out), Patents, Industrial products, Influence of the university on the students and graduates, web visibility of everything done in the school, transparency of the school (processes, result verification, application, etc) to internal and external context, teacher-student relationship.

Also, the biggest flaw of THE is the too much score placed on reputation. Before you ask why a school wasn't ranked among well performing universities by THE, you should first ask whether or not the school is worth being considered for ranking by their standard.

Lastly Caltech is a small school that that was founded many years after The University of Oxford, and have produced much lesser graduates than Oxford which presently ranks best in the world by THE, even though their alumni/students'success rate is alarming, their researches are ground breaking, their transparency is one of a kind and student to teacher ratio is next to none. You may be reading this and asking why is this one trying to compare the "GREAT" Oxford to one small school that nobody knows, but look at the bolded once again and think on it critically, do simple research if need be and tell me which of the two is a greater school. The less university rankings pay regard to sentiments, the better they become!

Statsocial:
Alumni success is not necessarily impacted by a university. E.g Covenant Uni or Babcock didn't make Simi n Davido stars, How did Gej attending UNIPORT make him the President of Nigeria? At best Alumni success would be one of the many indicators not the Only indiactor.
To rank a university one must first understand the purpose of a university which is to innovate, invent and educate. I believe rankings should be tailored around the core missions of a university which is founded on the mentioned pillars. Webometrics for instance ranks research only. Times Higher has a more holistic approach by ranking Teaching, Research, International outlook, Industry.

You nailed it man!

simplymat:
op doesn't understand English sef. the title of the thread should be -" what is the criteria for ranking universities" rather than that unclear title you gave the thread. how is it possible for one to measure an institution when it's not garri. shikena

Thanks....you have been noticed....

TheVictorious:

Talking about Alunmi success and university rankings; we should try to establish the relationship between the alumni success and the university impact, and the number of successful alumni compared to the total number of graduates the university has produced. If you examine this, you'll understand that the term alumni success should simply be replaced with employ-ability. Alumni success is not a good statistical measure of a university performance. Majority of the schools that have good alumni record simply have produced more graduates both the good, the bad and the ugly among them. Mind you, statistically, a good alumni may not be a good representation of a school's graduate population, depending on the mean. How many of us know which school Donald Trump graduated from; this follows the matthew theory (browse more about); schools that have produced much graduates have more good graduates (even at lesser percentages), and are therefore continually perceived to produce better graduates than the schools that produce better graduates at even 90% turn out rate!

To me the best ranking parameters are employability, graduates' success rate in the labour market 5 years from graduation, Research works affiliated with universities, Nobel prizes affiliated with universities, field medals and other research oriented prizes, Teacher to student ratio, students'pass rate at final year (people should be worse at 100 level and better at final year after which those who the school didn't improve must have dropped out), Patents, Industrial products, Influence of the university on the students and graduates, web visibility of everything done in the school, transparency of the school (processes, result verification, application, etc) to internal and external context, teacher-student relationship.

Also, the biggest flaw of THE is the too much score placed on reputation. Before you ask why a school wasn't ranked among well performing universities by THE, you should first ask whether or not the school is worth being considered for ranking by their standard.

Lastly Caltech is a small school that that was founded many years after The University of Oxford, and have produced much lesser graduates than Oxford which presently ranks best in the world by THE, even though their alumni/students'success rate is alarming, their researches are ground breaking, their transparency is one of a kind and student to teacher ratio is next to none. You may be reading this and asking why is this one trying to compare the "GREAT" Oxford to one small school that nobody knows, but look at the bolded once again and think on it critically, do simple research if need be and tell me which of the two is a greater school. The less university rankings pay regard to sentiments, the better they become!

Wow....I really appreciate these..employability is the word..thanks again

Statsocial:
Alumni success is not necessarily impacted by a university. E.g Covenant Uni or Babcock didn't make Simi n Davido stars, How did Gej attending UNIPORT make him the President of Nigeria? At best Alumni success would be one of the many indicators not the Only indiactor.
To rank a university one must first understand the purpose of a university which is to innovate, invent and educate. I believe rankings should be tailored around the core missions of a university which is founded on the mentioned pillars. Webometrics for instance ranks research only. Times Higher has a more holistic approach by ranking Teaching, Research, International outlook, Industry.

Well appreciated thanks