A summary and update on recent research by the authors and others concerning rankings of Canadian universities is presented. Some specific data are reported in regard to the 2005 and 2006 ranking data published by Maclean's magazine. Some criticisms and difficulties with the use of rank-based data are outlined with regard to the issues of university selection and the interpretation of commonly used ranking indices. Also, aside from statistical and related matters, several implications of ranking exercises for the personal and academic welfare of Canadian students, at all educational levels, are described.
Boyer, P. (2003). College rankings exposed. Lawrenceville, NJ: Thomson-Peterson.
2.
Cramer, K.M., & Page, S. (2005a). Maclean's magazine university rankings: Balance between academic information and student welfare. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Charlottetown, Canada.
3.
Cramer, K.M., & Page, S. (2005b, Fall). Ranking universities: A moral issue with harmful effects. Academic Matters, 10-12.
4.
Cramer, K.M., & Page, S. (2005c, June). Student judgements of Maclean's magazine indices. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Charlottetown, Canada.
5.
Dowsett Johnson, A. (2005, Fall). Playing the ratings game. Academic Matters, 12-13.
6.
Dweck, C. (2002). Beliefs that make smart people dumb. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Why smart people can be so stupid (pp. 24-41). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
7.
Dweck, C., & Leggatt, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
8.
Everitt, B.S. (1993). Cluster analysis (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
9.
Landau, S., & Leese, M. (2001). Cluster analysis (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
10.
McLean, L. (2005). Student reactions to Maclean's university rankings: A student-based approach to choosing a university. Unpublished honours BA thesis, University of Windsor, Canada.
11.
Maclean's. (2006, September 4). Why universities should be graded too [Editorial], p. 2.
12.
Page, S. (1996). Rankings of Canadian universities, 1995: More problems in interpretation. Canadian Journal of Higher Education , 26, 47-58.
13.
Page, S. (1999). Rankings of Canadian universities: Statistical contrivance versus help to students. Canadian Journal of Education , 23, 452-457.
14.
Page, S., & Cramer, K.M. (2003). An update on the use of ranks in calibrating and marketing higher education. Journal of Marketing forHigher Education, 13, 87-101.
15.
Page, S., Cramer, K.M., & Page, L. (2002). Rankings of Canadian universities, 2002: Implications for students' academic welfare. Guidance and Counselling, 18, 93-99.
16.
Page, S., & Rosenthal, R. (1990). Sex and expectations of teachers and sex and race of students as determinants of teaching behavior and student performance. Journal of School Psychology, 28, 119-131.
17.
Provan, D., & Abercromby, K. (2000). University league tables and rankings: A critical analysis (Commonwealth Higher Education Management Service; Paper no. 30). Available at www.acu.ac.uk/chems/onlinepublications/976798333.pdf
18.
Siegel, S. (1959). Nonparametric statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
19.
Steele, C. (2004). Social identity threat: How it affects intellectual performance, development, intergroup relations, and what can be done about it. Invited address, Annual Meeting of the Jean Piaget Society, Toronto, Canada.
20.
Steele, C., & Aronson, J. (1998). Stereotype threat and the test performance of academically successful African Americans. In E. C. Jencks & E. Phillips (Eds.), The black-white test score gap (pp. 401-427). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association .
21.
Ward, J. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 58, 236-244.
