Assess the degree to which the ranking of universities can be objective and neutral.

Ranking of universities can be neutral and objective when it is appropriated for uses that
are different from the ones that informed its design. When classification has valid policy uses,
and its incorporation does not entail benefiting some institutions and disadvantaging others, then
it can be objective. It can also be neutral when developed by a legitimate, independent, and
widely accepted authority on higher education (McCormick & Borden, 2017). Due to the
independence of the authority, its practices are unlikely to be compromised, hence the neutrality
of the classifications. Another factor that affects the objectivity of classifications is face validity.
When institutions are grouped in line with intuitive sense whereby best-known universities are
grouped together, then the objectivity of such a classification is highly likely to be undisputed.
Explain how rankings of institutions of higher learning can be of use to individuals,
businesses, foundations, and the institutions themselves.
From a scholarly perspective, classifications can provide new insights into the function
and composition of the higher education system in a country. They can be used to investigate
how inputs and outputs flow (McCormick, 2013). Information from classifications can be used to
allocate resources that are scarce in a country. On the other hand, from a political standpoint, the
classification may be used to conceal contested decisions which can be placed under the pretext
of systematic objectivity. When the Carnegie classification system was put in place, it was
intended to help in research.
At the institutional level, classifications can be used as a roadmap and signal for
ambitious leaders and institutions. Since universities want to be ranked high, they are likely to

maintain quality and efficient systems as ranking atop is prestigious and good for business.
Classifications show the requirements to attain a higher status (McCormick, 2013). Thus, the
status-seeking effect accompanies classifications as universities aim to meet the threshold in
terms of doctoral-granting universities and earn the prestigious title. Thus, institutions can use
classifications to improve their systems. Some funding decisions are made based on
classifications (McCormick, 2013). Carnegie classifications were used in the allocation of grant
programs as some tied eligibility to certain classification categories.
Assess some limitations of rankings, supporting your thinking with examples.
Classifying institutions of higher learning can be less clear as institutional boundaries
become permeable and indistinct. With the introduction of online operations, remote learning,
franchises, and foreign installations, boundaries have become really permeable (McCormick &
Borden, 2017). A classification may be an accurate representation of the population of a certain
college or university, while the figures may be inaccurate at the institutional level. Data errors
are one of the limitations of rankings.
Also, there is usually a possibility of misclassification, especially if previously recorded
data is used, and it fails to capture recent changes within the institution. For example, an
institution may experience enrollment changes, or some of its programs may be eliminated, and
others added (McCormick & Borden, 2017). When this happens, data may take some time before
it is actually captured in the institution’s records leading to misclassification. The relevance of
classification remains for as long as the data captured is relatively stable. Any changes in data
affect the validity and relevance of the classification. The update cycle must be as regular as the
changes occur lest the classification becomes flawed.

References

McCormick, A. C. (2013). Classifying Higher Education Institutions: Lessons from the Carnegie
Classification Clasificación de las instituciones de educación superior: lecciones de la
Clasificación Carnegie. Pensamiento Educativo. Revista de Investigación: Educacional
Latinoamericana, 50, 65-75.
McCormick, A. C., & Borden, V. M. H. (2017). Higher education institutions, types and
classifications of. Encyclopaedia of international higher education systems and
institutions, https://doi. org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_22-1.