[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-598623-105":59,"doc-detail-598623-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","the-sophistry-of-university-rankings-implications-for-learning-and-student-welfare","The Sophistry of University Rankings - Implications for Learning and Student Welfare","","Presents a data-based examination of Maclean’s rankings of Canadian universities, focusing on cluster and other analyses of 2007 and 2008 data. Shows that universities relate to one another differently than their formal classifications and final rank ordering in the Maclean’s system. Identifies pitfalls in ranking procedures stemming from invalid and unreliable relationships among indices. Argues that, despite publicity, the system offers limited practical value to students and may produce unintended consequences for students’ intellectual and personal well-being.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/the-sophistry-of-university-rankings-implications-for-learning-and-student-welfare/598623/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/the-sophistry-of-university-rankings-implications-for-learning-and-student-welfare/598623.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"awa","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What data does the paper analyze regarding Maclean’s university rankings?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It analyzes Maclean’s ranking data for 2007 and 2008, using cluster and related analyses.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How does the paper characterize relationships between ranking indices and final ranks?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"It finds many indices are internally inconsistent and not reliably related to each other or to final rankings, with significant index–rank relationships varying by university type.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Why does the paper argue that ranking exercises can affect student welfare?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"It concludes that, beyond limited practical usefulness for students, ranking exercises may have unintended but potentially serious consequences for students’ intellectual and personal well-being.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},598623,1792176180,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":29,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},3985747858093,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","27  \nThe Sophistry of University Rankings: Implications for  \nLearning and Student Welfare  \nStewart Page & Kenneth M. Cramer  \nUniversity of Windsor  \nLaura Page  \nTrent University  \nWe present a data-basedperspective concerning the recent Maclean’s magazine rankings of Canadian universities, including cluster and other analyses of the 2007 and 2008 data. Canadian universities empirically resemble and relate to each other in a manner different from their formal classification and final rank ordering in the Maclean’s system. Several pitfalls in ranking procedures, related to invalid and unreliable relationships among indices underlying the final ranks, are outlined, along with relevant findings from previous studies. In their present format, although they have become increasingly publicized and promoted, data based on the Maclean’s system are of limited practical use to students. Perhaps more important, ranking exercises have unintended though potentially serious consequences in terms of the intellectual and personal well-being of students.  \nIntroduction  \nI npNubolivsehmbeds201087thandandD1ec9emthber 20annual08ra,Maclnkingesano’sf  \nCanadian universities. Indeed, the ranking of universities has become a popular exercise with which to assess and promote higher education in North America (e.g., Bruneau & Savage, 2001; Cramer & Page, 2007; Page & Cramer, 2002, 2003; Page, Cramer, & Page, 2008; Provan & Abercromby, 2000) . The rank-  \ning approach is similar to that used by publications such as Consumer Reports, in which goods or services are assigned scores, and then assigned relative rank standings.  \nIn this paper, we summarize our examination of the 2007 and 2008 ranking data, and present implications of ranking exercises for the issue of student welfare.  \nRanking Procedures  \nFor this exercise, Maclean’s classifies universities (N = 47) into three types: Medical/Doctoral universities (N = 15), which contain medical schools and have large graduate departments; Comprehensive universities (N = 11), which have no medical schools but may have graduate programs, and Primarily Undergraduate universities (N = 21) .  \nThe Maclean’s ranking data have always reflected six main measures: Student Body (including indices of student ability); Classes (including indices of class size and percentage of classes taught by tenured faculty); Faculty (indices of faculty members’academic characteristics; Finance (indices of budget parameters and student services; Library (indices assessing holdings); and Reputation (indices based on alumni support and a reputational survey) . Pooledover the six measures, Maclean’s has typically used a total of 24 indices for Medical/Doctoral universities, 23 for Comprehensive universities, and 22 for Primarily Undergraduate universities. For 2007 and 2008, however, rankings were reduced to 14, 13, and 13 indices respectively, though were still grouped within the above six measures. Details about each index are available in every Maclean’s annual university rankings issue.  \nMaclean’s compiles preliminary data for each index separately, computes a weighted sum of points, then constructs an overall rank, with standings reported separately within each university type. In the 2007 data, McGill ranked highest in the Medical/ Doctoral category. For Comprehensive schools, the University of Victoria ranked highest. For Undergraduate schools, Acadia and Mount Allison tied for highest. For 2008, McGill, Simon Fraser, and Mount Allison ranked highest in these categories, respectively.  \nIn previous studies, we have examined the Maclean’s ranking parameters and published data, including the extent to which the indices were intercorrelated and related to the overall final rankings assigned. We also have examined the degree to which higher-ranking universities were reliably different from those of lower rank. We have found consistently that the main measures and component indices  \nused by Maclean’s are internally inconsisten","cbCaiqZeAxecqy3s","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiqZeAxecqy3s","pdf",110195,"English","# Introduction\n# Ranking Procedures\n# Observations: 2007 and 2008 Ranking Data","[{\"question\":\"What data does the paper analyze regarding Maclean’s university rankings?\",\"answer\":\"It analyzes Maclean’s ranking data for 2007 and 2008, using cluster and related analyses.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the paper characterize relationships between ranking indices and final ranks?\",\"answer\":\"It finds many indices are internally inconsistent and not reliably related to each other or to final rankings, with significant index–rank relationships varying by university type.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the paper argue that ranking exercises can affect student welfare?\",\"answer\":\"It concludes that, beyond limited practical usefulness for students, ranking exercises may have unintended but potentially serious consequences for students’ intellectual and personal well-being.\"}]","The Sophistry of University Rankings - Implications for Learning and Student Welfare | PDF",1792087276,15]