前不久，堪称留学风向标的2021年世界大学学科排行榜揭晓，这次排名再次引发热议。在一些关于排名主观性强、国际化衡量比重大、文科学校不占优势等不同声音中，建道ArchiDog特别采访了Quacquarelli Symonds (QS)公司，层层问答，揭开QS世界大学排名背后的真正面纱！
公司：Quacquarelli Symonds (QS)官网：https://www.topuniversities.com/ QS世界大学排名堪称留学风向标，与《泰晤士高等教育世界大学排名》、《U.S.News世界大学排名》、《ARWU世界大学学术排名》同为目前国际上较具公信力和代表性的四大大学排名。QS公司最初与《泰晤士高等教育》增刊合作，两者于2004-2009年期间联合发表《泰晤士高等教育-QS世界大学排名》。2010年后，QS公司以固有的方式继续公布自家的排行榜，泰晤士则采用新的方法，并自行推出《泰晤士高等教育世界大学排名》。目前，QS公司与爱思唯尔（信息分析公司）合作发布排名，榜单涵盖世界综合与学科，另有亚洲、新兴欧洲与中亚地区、拉丁美洲、阿拉伯地区、金砖五国共五个持不同准则的地区排名。
█ 我们知道QS世界大学排名是由英国一家国际教育市场咨询公司发布，最初和THE合作，现在独立出来，并成为了参与机构最多、世界影响范围最广的排名之一。QS排名获得如此大的权威性，您们觉得是取决于什么呢？
A：QS排名的核心竞争力在于拥有同类排名中最广泛、最彻底的评议调查。其中，在我们所有排名中都占比重的QS学术调查（QS Academic Survey），就包含了超过10万个学术反馈，这也使其成为全球最大的高校学术评估资源库。这个数字是泰晤士高等教育排名的十倍。此外，QS排名是几大主流高校排名中唯一考虑雇主意见的。近些年来，世界各地的学生越来越关注教育投资和就业反馈之间的关系，因此QS雇主调查（QS Employer Survey）提供了极具价值的参考。该调查涵盖了超过5万名招聘经理和首席执行官关于大学毕业生质量的意见。除此之外，我们多年来稳定的排名方法保证了逐年数据的可比性，为数百万的相关人员提供了有价值的参考数据。One key point is that our reputational surveys are the most extensive and thorough of their kind. The QS Academic Survey, the responses from which contribute to all of our ranking exercises, contains over 100,000 academic responses, making it the world’s largest repository of global academic sentiment regarding university quality. This is ten times as large as the response cohort used by Times Higher Education for their World University Rankings.In addition, QS is the only major ranking body that accounts for the opinions of employers. As students across the world become increasingly keen to understand the relationship between their educational investment and employment outcomes, the insights provided by the QS Employer Survey - which contains the opinions of over 50,000 hiring managers and CEOs about the quality of university graduates – are essential. In addition, the stability of our methodology and consequent comparability of year-on-year data also ensure that our rankings continue to provide value to the millions of stakeholders that consult them each year.█ 目前四大较为权威的世界排名有ARWU、THE、U.S.News和QS。ARWU主要依据论文和奖项，USNews则几乎都用学术指标说话，THE将学术和综合实力相结合。您认为QS排名的独特优势在哪里呢？适合什么样的人去关注呢？
A：如刚才所说， QS是唯一将就业能力作为关键衡量指标的高校排名机构。学生群体会依据这类评估做决策，因此排名必须为学生服务。我们认为，一个不能提供有关预期就业成果的排名不能真正有效地为全球学生群体服务。虽然ARWU对高校的研究结果进行了强有力的评估，但他们的指标——如诺贝尔奖得主和高影响力的论文——并没有说明一所大学是如何为学生的就业做准备的。当然，我们也在我们的评估中加入对研究产出和影响力的评估，因此QS排名也被高校领导和政府用于核心战略的参考和竞争的衡量标准。更重要的是，我们采用了一套非常清晰、一致的评估方法，使得评估信息既容易获得又与使用者的需求息息相关。As above: QS is the only major university ranking provider that measures employability as a key indicator of performance. Rankings must serve students, who use such independent assessments in their decision-making – and we believe that no ranking that fails to provide insight about prospective employment outcomes can truly serve the global student body. While ARWU does provide robust insight on research outcomes, their metrics – such as Nobel Prize winners and high-impact papers – says nothing about how well a university is preparing students for employment success. However, we also capture research productivity and impact across our portfolio, which means that our rankings are also used by university leadership and governments for key strategic insight and competitor benchmarking. Finally, we have a very clear, very consistent methodology, which combines ease of access with relevance to our stakeholders.█ 2021年的QS排名出来后，中国国内的关注度很高，但同时存在着一些质疑。QS排名标准包括六个关键指标：学术互评、师生比、教职员引文量、雇主评价、国际生比例、国际教职员比例，请问几个关键指标是如何敲定的，每一个指标代表着QS怎样的理念？
A：对于每一项指标，我们都收集了大量可靠的数据。学术评估涵盖了100,000多个样本，且这个数字一直在增长。我们有来自世界各地的地域代表，接受我们调查的学者平均有20年的高等教育经历。 除此之外，我们的排名基于近五年的数据，可以最大限度地减少参考价值较低的偶然波动，以确保我们排名反映出的总体趋势更具有意义。简而言之，这些指标是我们认为的衡量高校质量的关键组成部分：研究的影响力、学术地位、就业能力成果、教学能力和全球视野。
We use robust datasets for all indicators. The Academic evaluation accounts for over 100,000 academic perspectives, and our sample size is growing all the time. We have geographic representation from across the world, and the academics responding to our survey have spent, on average, twenty years in higher education. Because we use five years of data, we minimize unnecessary, superficial volatility, and ensure that the trends that we are capturing are meaningful ones.In short: the indicators support our mission to capture what we believe to be the key components of university performance: research impact, academic standing, employability outcomes, teaching capacity, and a global outlook.█ QS排名的主要争议在于注重评议，行业人士的评价占了非常大的比重，学术互评和雇主评价占到了一半。而这两项衡量标准被很多人批评不客观。QS为什么注重主观的评价而并非客观的论文量等数字？您认为这种衡量方式有什么优缺点？
A：我们认为，一个好的社会调查既要包括可靠的定性指标，也要考虑定量指标。公众普遍有一种误解，认为只有两种类型的指标：不太可靠的“主观”指标和可靠的“客观”指标。但这种批评忽视了第三种重要指标——主体间性(Inter-subjectivity)。这是一种比简单的主观意见严格得多的评估指标，适用于一些只用客观数据无法解释的场合。换言之，随机询问一个人哪所大学最好确实是极其不严谨的。因为他们的看法不仅是非常主观，而且他们没有相关的专业知识储备。但我们所使用的学术和雇主评估与此大相径庭。首先，我们用充足的数据样本构建了稳健的主体间性指标，以确保结果可靠。其次，我们问的并不是随机的人，而是在这个领域有20年经验的专家。因此，我们认为，衡量大学质量的最佳方法是将客观和主体间指标相结合。QS排名是为学生服务的，高校老师发表的论文数量与他们提供给学生的教学质量和就业结果之间并没有什么直接关系。更重要的是，在某些特定方面中，客观指标是最可靠的(如研究影响力)，但在一些方面中，客观指标要么不存在，要么不是最可靠的评估标准。如果我们想向学生提供有关高校学术教育方面或雇主反馈方面有参考价值的信息，这种主体间性的衡量比简化的、肤浅的“客观”衡量更有价值。其他行业也有类似的例子。如果我想选择一家餐厅或度假目的地，定量指标可以提供“客观”的比较数据。然而，这些信息很可能并不比去过这些餐厅或度假目的地的同行人给出的评价有价值。因为这些人更能理解我的兴趣，同时具有相关领域的经验，能够提供有价值的见解。这也是为什么我们一直在推行主体间性和客观指标结合的评测方式，这样才能帮助学生们做出更明智的选择。QS排名中行业人士评议被应用于多项指标，我们认为这比客观数据更合理——学生获取的并非所谓“客观”的经验。更重要的是，学生们目前正面临着前所未有丰富的教育选择，可供选择的留学目的地之多让国际学生们感到眼花缭乱。QS排名的重要意义就在此，提供了经过高效筛选后的客观指标和主体间性的指标结合后的可靠参考依据。如果没有我们提供的这种综合的主体间性排名和评分数据，学生们就只参考纯粹主观的、有偏见的观点:例如高校宣传内容、家长和老师的建议、学长姐学习生活中的轶事。但我们认为，学生参考一个通过征询数万名学者意见得出的数据，要比他们从家长或高校宣传中得到的信息要靠谱得多。We believe that good social science research needs to take into account robust qualitative metrics as well as quantitative ones. In addition, there is a tendency for the general public to erroneously assume that there are only two types of metrics: flimsy ‘subjective’ ones and robust ‘objective’ ones. However, this criticism fails to account for the importance of inter-subjective indicators in understanding human institutions. Inter-subjectivity is an essential third type of indicator in this field: a category of measurement that is far more rigorous than simple subjective opinion but is more suitable for phenomena that cannot purely be captured via ‘objective’ indicators.In other words: it is correct that it is not rigorous to ask one random person about their opinions on the world’s best universities, because, not only is their opinion subjective, they have no relevant knowledge or expertise.This criticism does not hold water for the academic and employer evaluations we use, however. First: the critical mass achieved in our surveys ensures that the conclusions drawn are reliable, and constitute a robust inter-subjective indicator. Second: we are not asking random people, but experts with twenty years of experience in the sector.We maintain, therefore, that the best method of measuring university quality is to use a variety of objective and inter-subjective metrics. This is particularly important because we are a ranking that serves students, and there is no meaningful relationship between the number of papers produced by a university’s faculty and the quality of learning experience they offer students or the quality of employment outcome. It is important that people understand that there are specific spheres in which objective metrics are optimal (such as research impact), but there are also spheres in which objective metrics are either non-existent or are not optimal ways of capturing things of value. If we want to provide students with meaningful information about the academic standards at their university, or to understand how employers regard each university’s graduates, this type of inter-subjective metric is far more valuable than reductive, ostensibly - ‘objective’ ones.There are analogies from other sectors in which this holds true. If I am trying to choose a restaurant or holiday destination, an insights service could choose to provide ‘objective’ comparative data. However, it is likely that this information would tell me less of value than robust peer evaluation of those restaurants, or those holiday destinations: a critical mass of people, who understand my interests, and who have the relevant experience to provide meaningful insight. In reality, we use a combination of inter-subjective and objective metrics all the time, and doing so drives more informed choices. Peer review exists across sectors as a source of insight on quality, and we believe that its use is appropriate here – in large part, because students are not accessing an ‘objective’ experience.By the way, there is a very important way in which our carefully-selected mix of objective and inter-subjective indicators creates a superior product – and that is that students are currently being bombarded with more available educational choices than ever before. The array of available study destinations is particularly dizzying for prospective international students. In the absence of the sort of independent performance comparison we provide – that rankings and ratings provide - students would only have subjective, biased perspectives to guide them: university marketing content, parental and teacher advice, the occasional anecdote of a former student. While these truly subjective inputs can, of course, be valuable.█ 关于QS排名的另一大争议集中于对衡量国际化这一指标的方式片面。有人提到QS排名国际化的衡量标准仅限于国际生和国际教职员比例，忽略了不同大学的地域性差异。U.S.News衡量标准中纳入了区域性学术研究声望，您如何看待QS对国际化这一标准的衡量?（QS在选择参与者的时候，包含不小的“选择性偏差”——英联邦国家的问卷占所有问卷的32%，美国仅占10%，亚洲国家占12%。……）
A：我们并不认为这种方法是片面的。虽然不同高校确实处在不同的地区背景下，但重点是去排除地域环境的影响来衡量学校的学术和人才。它也用来衡量一所大学的国际参与度和品牌实力。此外，我们认为，对于任何国际排名,重要的是一个指标是否具有国际评比的意义 (例如,不能用一个高校在免费午餐方面的花销作为排名依据,因为在它更适用于英国学校,在那里免费校餐是一个公认的衡量贫困的指数)。我们的两个国际化指标都满足了这些目标。We do not believe that this approach is one-sided. While it is true that universities do operate in subtly-different regional contexts, the point is to measure how well universities are doing when it comes to looking beyond their own domestic environment for academic and student talent. It is also to measure the strength of a university’s international engagement and brand strength. Finally, it is important, for any global ranking, to use indicators that facilitate meaningful international comparison (one could not, for example, use the percentage of a university’s intake that are on free school meals for a global ranking, as this indicator is most-applicable to British institutions, where access to Free School Meals is a well-established index of deprivation). Our two internationalization indicators meet all of these goals.█ 这些衡量标准是否更适用于理工科而非文科，譬如人文艺术学科今天的排名，前十位都是英美高校，如何应对英语国家在这一方面具有先天优势这一问题？
A：英语是学术界的通用语言，中国大学在我们的研究指标方面蓬勃发展的事实表明，英语国家在这方面的优势并非是不可逾越的。在如今全球化的高校系统中，在如今翻译服务触手可得的情况下，在英语期刊上发表文章是一个高校用来提高国际知名度的合理的途径。English is the academic lingua franca, and the fact that Chinese universities are thriving in terms of our research performance metrics indicates that the advantage, insofar as it exists, is hardly insuperable. In a global higher education sector, and in a world in which translation services are easy to access, getting published in English-language journals is a reasonable expectation for those wishing to raise the international visibility of their work.█ QS的主要调查方式似乎是问卷的形式，但根据研究，问卷的应答率不到1％，且这其中也许选择回复邮件、电话调查的往往是职级较低、空闲时间较多的学者，而非我们想象中的“学术大佬”。收集数据的过程对QS来说困难吗？一般来说需要花费多久的时间？
A：我们特有的QS学术调查的回应数量在持续增加，这说明我们的评估仍保持着高水平的参与度。每一年，我们的收到的反馈数据都更上一层楼，同时保持着与来自世界各地高校教师的高水平合作。没有证据能够表明，“职位较低、空闲时间较多的学者”在受访者中所占比例过高。相反，如前所述，受访者的平均任职经验是20年。49%的受访者都达到了教授职位，14.1%是系主任或校长和副校长。因此，我们有可靠的定量证据证明QS评估是基于来自世界各地的合格的高级学者的反馈。The continued increase in responses to our proprietary QS Academic Survey indicates that we are continuing to enjoy high levels of engagement with our survey. We are getting higher levels of response during each annual cycle, and we continue to enjoy high levels of co-operation from university faculty across the world. We have uncovered no evidence that ‘scholars with lower ranks and more free time’ are disproportionately represented among respondents. On the contrary, as mentioned before, the average level of experience among respondents is twenty years. 49% of respondents have professorial positions, and a further 14.1% are either Head of Department or are Presidents and Vice-Chancellors. We have, therefore, compelling quantitative evidence that our surveys are receiving responses from well-qualified, senior academics across the world.█ QS排名采取Scopus资料库的数据，而师生比例、国际师资占比、国际学生占比等项目数据，都是由各大学提供。过程中有很多可操作空间。数字该怎么报，似乎也有很多可能性。QS怎样验证数据的真实性、准确性、透明性及标准统一性？
A：对于需要高校方自行上报的所有指标，我们一直以来为世界各地的高校提供明确的定义来收集数据（并将这些规则翻译成本地语言，以确保避免歧义）。 在排名领域，我们在数据收集标准的清晰性方面，一直处于领先地位。我们采用多种质量把控手段来识别不符合规范的可疑数据。例如，如果某个高校上报的国际学生或师生比例相比去年高得多，我们的质量把控进程就会发出警报。我们还参考一系列的第三方资源以验证教职员工和学生的数据。此外，在研究影响力方面，我们选择了独立的机构- Elsevier’s Scopus -来验证研究数据的可靠性。We continue to provide institutions across the world with clear data definitions (with terms translated into local languages to ensure that ambiguity is avoided) for all metrics that require self-report. In the rankings space, we have been a pioneer in terms of trying to foster clear data collection expectations.We have a number of quality control processes in place that are effective ways to identify suspicious divergences from existing performance norms – for example, our quality control processes will sound the alarm if an institution reports a far higher proportion of international students or a far-superior staff-student ratio in the space of a year. We also make reference to a range of third-party sources to verify staff and student data, while we have carefully-chosen an independent body – Elsevier’s Scopus – to verify research impact data.█ 今年的QS排名，英美大学整体排名急速下滑，亚洲大学的表现越来越亮眼，中国大学获得了不俗的成绩。这样的结果是否客观？是否代表着中国大学教育资源平台的上升？您们认为导致这样的原因是什么？
A：这样的结果提供了有力且独立的证据，根据我们的具体绩效指标，中国大学在全球舞台上正在变得更具竞争力。英国和美国的大学正日益受到资金问题和不利的政治环境的阻碍。另一方面，中国花了20年时间对大学进行明智的战略投资，并努力成为全球研究的领导者。在我们的排名中，我们始终发现，在财政和政治上得到政府支持的大学排名都在不断上升。The result provides strong independent evidence that, according to our specific performance metrics, Chinese universities are becoming more competitive on the global stage. Universities in the United Kingdom and the United States are being increasingly hampered by funding issues and unfavorable political environments. On the other hand, China has spent two decades making a sensible strategic investment in its universities, and in becoming a global research leader. Across our rankings, we consistently see that universities that are supported by their governments – financially and politically – are rising up the rankings.
█ 之前人民网发文总结中国高等教育蓬勃发展的同时，特别提到两个重要的世界大学排名体系：QS世界大学排名，US News世界大学排名，官方主流媒体凸显世界大学排名的重要性，以前并不多见。QS排名一定程度上成为了国内的教育评定指标。您认为中国高校想要在QS中提升排名，或者想要跻身排名当中需要在哪方面进行突破和努力？
A：在过去的十年里，中国大学在提高科研效率方面做得很好。他们的下一个目标是提高研究的影响力。他们还应该努力确保他们的教育经验能为学生成功就业做好准备。方法有:(a) 将行业经验融入课程，(b) 创建以工作为导向的课程，以及(c)确保他们与行业保持密切联系，并在校园内拥有强大的雇主。Chinese universities have done a wonderful job, over the last decade, at improving research productivity. Their next goal, to improve their performance in terms of research impact. They should also work to ensure that their educational experiences prepare students for successful employment outcomes by (a) incorporating industry experience into courses, (b) created work-oriented curricula, and (c) by ensuring that they maintain close links with industry and a strong employer presence on campus.█ 在QS排名中，老牌学校的优势地位比较稳固，而中间排名的高校则波动较大。这一特点在今年的排名结果尤为明显。去年2020年的疫情对教育领域冲击较大，您们认为教育排名与时代事件之间会有着怎样的关系呢？今年的排名反应了什么样的趋势？
A：我们排名所用的数据是在5年内收集的，因此疫情尚未影响到今年的结果。要看到疫情的影响还需要几年时间。今年的排名反映了过去十年中国、新加坡、俄罗斯、马来西亚的大学在教育投资和全球参与方面的情况，以及日本和法国多年来对教育投资不足的情况。The data that contributes to our rankings were collected over a five-year period, so the pandemic has not influenced this year’s outcomes yet. It will take a few years before the effect of the pandemic can be seen in our rankings. This year’s ranking reflects the last decade of educational investment and global engagement from universities in China, Singapore, Russia, Malaysia, and the years of underinvestment in Japan and France.█ QS的商业模式包含承办研讨会、学术活动、出售QS Stars的大学评级服务等等。这也会影响到学校的排名吗？如何平衡资本的运转和客观的学术实力？
A：我们的排名运作是相当独立的，一个机构不可能仅仅通过购买QS的服务来提高他们的排名表现。我们收集我们的数据，对其进行客观地分析，从而获得可靠且独立的比较结果。同样，QS Stars也是独立的运作的，这使我们能够比排名更详尽的记录大学的质量。然而，我们已经为QS stars建立了明确的标准来对大学进行评估，这意味着整个过程也可以公平和独立地进行。这些标准对所有大学都是一致的，不会因为不同的评估而发生变化。然而，我们并不认为承办研讨会、学术活动和咨询服务有什么问题。我们的网站有超过1.47亿的访问者，我们拥有与全球学生社区紧密联系的渠道。同样，我们拥有数百万大学的表现数据点，我们相信我们在为大学提供基准服务和比较见解方面也处于独特地位。我们不仅仅是一个排名机构; 我们是一个绩效合作伙伴，目标是帮助大学和学生发挥他们的潜力，为他们提供实现目标所需的洞察力和资源。我们可以简单地对大学进行排名，而不做任何其他事情，但这样一来，无论是学生还是大学都不会从我们能提供的见解、机会和专业知识中受益。Our rankings operation is proudly independent, and there is no possibility for an institution to improve its ranking performance simply by purchasing QS services. We collect our data, analyze it objectively, and produce a robust independent comparison as a result. Similarly, QS Stars is also an independent operation, which allows us to capture university quality in far-richer detail than is possible in a ranking. However, we have clearly-established criteria for QS Stars, against which universities are evaluated, and this means that the process can also be conducted fairly and independently. These criteria are consistent across all universities, so do not change from evaluation to evaluation do not apologize, however, for also offering universities conferences, student engagement services, and consultancy services. With over 147 million visitors to our website, we have uniquely-strong access to the global student community. Similarly, with millions of data points on university performance at our fingertips, we believe that we are also uniquely placed to provide benchmarking services and comparative insights to universities. We are not simply a ranking organization; we are a performance partner, whose goal is to help both universities and students fulfill their potential by providing them with the insights and resources necessary to achieve their goals. We could simply rank universities and do nothing else, but then neither students nor universities would benefit from the additional insights, access, and expertise we can offer them.█ 随着QS排名越来越成为普遍共识，QS排名一定程度上影响到了文化输出、资源再配置和整体风向等等，QS排名一定程度上牵动着更大范围的活动，您们对于这样的关联怎么看，有没有可能大学排名成为一种话语体系，未来牵动更大经济活动和人群流动？
A：我们不建议人们仅仅根据排名来做决定。高等教育的世界是很复杂的，我们通过排名所捕捉到的六个方面只反映了该领域的一部分。然而，我们希望成为政府、学生、雇主和大学的绩效合作伙伴, 所以我们将继续努力以确保我们的数据稳定、独立和可靠，以便这些主要利益相关者可以放心地选择我们的排名来制定他们的决策。
We do not suggest that people make decisions solely on ranking performance. The world of higher education is a complex place, and the six aspects of performance we capture via our ranking only illuminate part of that landscape. However, we maintain that we want to be a performance partner to governments, students, employers, and universities – and so we will continue working to ensure that our data is robust, independent, and reliable so that when these key stakeholders do choose to use our rankings in shaping their decision making, they can do so with confidence.
█ 今天教育越来越被重视，甚至被认为是固化阶级的工具，应当如何看待QS排名？我们建筑教育每年都有一大批优秀的学生出国深造，您会为他们提供什么样的建议？
A：我们建议学生们对自己的教育和职业未来做出谨慎的选择，并努力确保他们对潜在的学习目的地尽可能持开放态度。我们知道雇主喜欢有国际学习经历的毕业生，所以即使在国内机构表现良好，也有很强的出国留学的理由。We’d advise students to make carefully informed choices about their educational and professional futures and to try and ensure that they are as open-minded as possible about potential study destinations. We know that employers like graduates with international study experience, so the argument to study abroad can be strong even when domestic institutions are performing well.█ QS一定程度上反映了学校的声誉，而这与科研资助息息相关。对于学校而言，自我包装、搞好公关，有助于吸引更多的资本，从而投入科研、提升学术能力。如何看待排行榜和高等教育之间的反馈与循环关系？这样的世界大学的排名对于高等教育带来的更多是利还是弊？
A：我们坚持认为负责任地使用排名是可能且必要的。它们对大学的表现呈现了非常具体的印象。当然，它们也并没有捕捉到一切有价值的东西。但是，对于任何在领域的争夺资源的实体，尤其是那些提供的服务需要大量资金投资的机构，，排名的独立质量保证都至关重要。我们相信，尤其是学生，将从这种独立的质量保证过程中受益匪浅。在面对如家长或老师的建议，或大学营销信息这些带有偏见或真正主观的来源时，这使得他们能够诉诸于独立的信息来源。我们还允许大学在颂扬自己的特殊优点时能够诉诸于独立资源，从而对自己的营销活动承担更大的责任。We maintain that it is possible and necessary to use rankings responsibly. They shine very specific lights on university performance; they do not capture everything that is of value, of course. But independent quality assurance is essential in any sector that has entities competing for resources, and when institutions are offering a service that requires so much financial investment. We believe that students, in particular, derive significant benefit from this independent quality assurance process – which enables them to appeal to independent sources when faced with biased or truly subjective sources such as parental or teacher advice, or university marketing messages. We also allow universities to be more responsible in their own marketing, by being able to appeal to independent sources when extolling their own particular virtues.█ 10多年前，世界大学排名刚刚诞生的时候，很多人都不看好它。因为事实上大学非常的复杂多样，以至于很难通过若干简单指标进行全球性的对比。但如今这种排名却充满了生命力，牢牢占据各类媒体的醒目之处。您认为为什么大学排名会在全球范围内引发如此热烈的追捧？它是不是增加了国家之间以及国际之间的竞争压力，又怎样潜移默化地影响了国家的政策制定以及院校行为？
A：排名提供了其他方法无法轻易提供的洞察力。当然，在某种程度上，人们只是简单地认为列表和等级制度很令人信服，但我们的排名是根据数据缺口而创建的。政府、学生和机构都想了解他们的机构与全球同行相比如何，并且在排名出现之前没有这样可靠的服务。再次强调，排名并不是衡量一切有价值的东西。关键在于，它们提供了用其他方式难以获得的见解。除此之外，人们对本国的高等教育系统进行了合理的投资，也理所当然地渴望了解这些重要机构的表现如何。我们认为，在一个日益全球化的世界里，大学之间不可避免地要相互竞争。他们在竞争生源(学生通常一次只上一所大学)。他们在竞争行业资金(这不是无限的资源)。他们在竞争政府研究补助金，而政府的经费是有限制的。尽管我们也认识到大学也是高度合作的场所，但不可避免的是，它们正在寻求获取有限的资源。因此，站在我们的角度理想的最终目标是提供见解从而推动有效的资源分配，。Rankings provide insight that cannot easily be provided by other means. There is of course an extent to which people simply find lists and hierarchies compelling in general, but our rankings were created in response to a data gap. Governments, students, and institutions alike wanted to understand how their institutions compared to global peers, and there was no such reliable service available prior to the advent of rankings. Again, the point is not that rankings measure everything of value. The point is that they provide insights that are difficult to attain in other ways.Beyond this, people are rightly invested in their nation’s higher education system and are rightfully keen to know how well these essential institutions are performing. We believe that, in an increasingly globalized world, universities are inevitably in competition with one another. They are in competition for students (students typically only attend one university at a time). They are in competition for industry funding (which is not an unlimited resource). They are in competition for government research grants, which are not unlimited. While we also recognize that universities are highly collaborative places, too, it is unavoidably true that they are seeking to acquire limited resources. We are therefore of the position that seeks to provide the insights that can drive efficient resource allocation is a desirable end goal.可关注QS中国官方微博 @QS世界大学排名
完整排名请查阅QS全新中国官网 www.qschina.cn
可关注QS中国官方微博 @QS世界大学排名
完整排名请查阅QS全新中国官网 www.qschina.cn