Mixed-Integer Programming Model for Ranking Universities: Letting Universities Choose the Weights
Abstract
Regardless of the shortcomings and criticisms of world university rankings, these metrics are still widely used by students and parents to select universities and by universities to attract talented students and researchers, as well as funding. This paper proposes a new mixed-integer programming model for ranking universities. The new approach alleviates one of the criticisms -- the issue of the ``arbitrariness'' of the weights used for aggregation of the individual criteria (or indicators) utilized in the contemporary rankings. Instead, the proposed model uses intervals of different sizes for the weights and lets the universities themselves ``choose'' the weights to optimize their position in the rankings. A numerical evaluation of the proposed ranking, based on the indicator values and weights from the Times Higher Education World University Ranking, is presented.
References
Times higher education university ranking, 2021. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/ [Accessed 26th Apr 2021].
Alcantud, J., de Andres Calle, R., and Torrecillas, M. Hesitant fuzzy worth: An innovative ranking methodology for hesitant fuzzy subsets. Applied Soft Computing 38 (2016), 232-243.
Amsler, S., and Bolsmann, C. University ranking as social exclusion. British Journal of Sociology of Education 33 (2012), 283-301.
Benito, M., Gil, P., and Romera, R. Funding, is it key for standing out in the university rankings? Scientometrics 121 (2019), 771-792.
Bezanson, J., Edelman, A., Karpinski, S., and Shah, V. Julia: a fresh approach to numerical computing. SIAM Review 59 (2017), 65-98.
Billaut, J., Bouyssou, D., and Vincke, P. Should you believe in the shanghai ranking? Scientometrics 84 (2009), 237-263.
Collins, F., and Park, G. Ranking and the multiplication of reputation: reflections from the frontier of globalizing higher education. Higher Education 72 (2016), 115-129.
Corrente, S., Greco, S., and Slowinski, R. Robust ranking of universities evaluated by hierarchical and interacting criteria. In Huber S., Geiger M., de Almeida A. (eds) Multiple Criteria Decision Making and Aiding. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science (2019), pp. 145-192.
da Silva, R. F., Hvattum, L. M., and Glover, F. Combining solutions of the optimum satisfiability problem using evolutionary tunneling. MENDEL Journal 26 (2020), 23-29.
Daraio, C., and Bonaccorsi, A. Beyond university rankings? generating new indicators on universities by linking data in open platforms. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68 (2017), 508-529.
Daraio, C., Bonaccorsi, A., and Simar, L. Rankings and university performance: A conditional multidimensional approach. European Journal of Operational Research 244 (2015), 918-930.
Dobrota, M., Bulajic, M., Bornmann, L., and Jeremic, V. A new approach to the qs university ranking using the composite i-distance indicator: Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67 (2016), 200-211.
Dunning, I., Huchette, J., and Lubin, M. Jump: a modeling language for mathematical optimization. SIAM Review 59 (2017), 295-302.
Garcia, F., Guijarro, F., and Oliver, J. A multicriteria goal programming model for ranking universities. Mathematics 9 (2021), 459.
GUROBI. Gurobi optimizer 8.0, 2021. http://www.gurobi.com/ [Accessed 26th Apr 2021].
Johnes, J. University rankings: What do they really show? Scientometrics 115 (2018), 585-606.
Kauppi, N. The global ranking game: narrowing academic excellence through numerical objectification. Studies in Higher Education 43 (2018), 1750-1762.
Kuah, C., and Wong, K. Efficiency assessment of universities through data envelopment analysis. Procedia Computer Science 3 (2011), 499-506.
Kudela, J. Social distancing as p-dispersion problem. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 149402-149411.
Kudela, J., and Popela, P. Two-stage stochastic facility location problem: Ga with benders decomposition. MENDEL 21 (2015), 53-58.
Kudela, J., Smejkalova, V., Somplak, R., and Nevrly, V. Legislation-induced planning of waste processing infrastructure: A case study of the czech republic. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 132 (2020), 110058.
Lages, J., Patt, A., and Shepelyansky, D. Wikipedia ranking of world universities. The European Physical Journal B 89 (2016), 69.
Liu, N., and Cheng, Y. The academic ranking of world universities. Higher Education in Europe 30 (2005), 127-136.
Loyola-Gonzalez, O., Medina-Perez, M., Valdez, R., and Choo, K.-K. A contrast pattern-based scientometric study of the qs world university ranking. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 206088-206104.
Lynch, K. Control by numbers: new managerialism and ranking in higher education. Critical Studies in Education 56 (2015), 190-207.
Marginson, S. University rankings and social science. European Journal of Education 49 (2014), 45-59.
Moed, H. A critical comparative analysis of ve world university rankings. Scientometrics 110 (2017), 967-990.
Olcay, G., and Bulu, M. Is measuring the knowledge creation of universities possible?: A review of university rankings. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 123 (2017), 153-160.
Paruolo, P., Saisana, M., and Saltelli, A. Ratings and rankings: voodoo or science? Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) 176 (2013), 609-634.
Piro, F., and Sivertsen, G. How can differences in international university rankings be explained? Scientometrics 109 (2016), 2263-2278.
Rahnamayan, S., Mahdavi, S., Deb, K., and Bidgoli, A. Ranking multi-metric scientific achievements using a concept of pareto optimality. Mathematics 8 (2020), 956.
Saisana, M., d'Hombres, B., and Saltelli, A. Rickety numbers: Volatility of university rankings and policy implications. Research Policy 40 (2011), 165-177.
Soh, K. Misleading university rankings: cause and cure for discrepancies between nominal and attained weights. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 35 (2013), 206-214.
Soh, K. What the overall doesn't tell about world university rankings: examples from arwu, qswur, and thewur in 2013. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 37 (2015), 295-307.
Waltman, L., Calero-Medina, C., Kosten, J., Noyons, E., Tijssen, R., van Eck, N., van Leeuwen, T., van Raan, A., Visser, M., and Wouters, P. The leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63 (2012), 2419-2432.
Williams, H. Logic and Integer Programming. Springer, Verlag, 2009.
Wu, H.-Y., Chen, J.-K., Chen, I.-S., and Zhuo, H.-H. Ranking universities based on performance evaluation by a hybrid mcdm model. Measurement 45 (2012), 856-880.
Copyright (c) 2021 MENDEL
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
MENDEL open access articles are normally published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ . Under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license permitted 3rd party reuse is only applicable for non-commercial purposes. Articles posted under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license allow users to share, copy, and redistribute the material in any medium of format, and adapt, remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose. Reusing under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license requires that appropriate attribution to the source of the material must be included along with a link to the license, with any changes made to the original material indicated.
