Editorial: Rankings to the benefit of all students

Academics often take a dim view of competition in education, though they compete keenly and globally for recognition in their field and the rewards of positions at the best universities. The competition they dislike is any kind that requires them to impress the public and potential students rather than their peers. It is that sort of competition that the Government has introduced by tying some of its tertiary funding to each university's research performance.

The official publication of the rankings has been held up by a court injunction sought by Auckland and Victoria universities, who are questioning the validity of a British comparison. But the rankings already seem widely known. Auckland University has scored highest, as it would have expected, though the fact will be a revelation to the rest of the country.

All the university cities hold their local institution in high esteem and few New Zealanders, if asked which of their universities was the best, could have answered with better than a guess. Undergraduate students in this country have been inclined to go to the university nearest to them or to move to their preferred city, rather than chose an institution for its pre-eminence in their desired field. They had no ready way of knowing how well each institution rated in their area of interest.

They are a long way from knowing still, but at least the overall research performance rankings are a start. After Auckland comes Canterbury, followed by Victoria and Otago, with Waikato, Massey and Lincoln below and the newest to be granted university status, Auckland University of Technology, trailing the field.

The rankings are based on an assessment for the Government's Tertiary Education Commission of all 5770 academic staff in 22 institutions, so it ought to be possible to publish comparisons by subject too. That would be more meaningful for students seeking to study with the best in their field. Overall rankings of the institutions are bound to hide some underperforming faculties within them.

Contribution to original research of course is only one function of a university. Teaching is equally important and it is also to be the subject of official rankings. Some of those on the lower rungs of the research ladder might place more emphasis on their pedagogic appeal than the papers their staff have published. Many prospective students will value teaching more highly, especially if they are seeking a practical professional qualification.

It will be interesting to see, therefore, how much the rankings for teaching quality vary much from those for research. Possibly, the most prolific producers of good original work are also the types whose enthusiasm for their subject makes them effective teachers of it. However, there are no guarantees that the correlation is universally sound.

The research ranking will be used to allocate only 10 per cent of universities' combined state research grants this year, rising to 20 per cent next year and all of it in 2006. The system is a welcome departure from the egalitarian ethos that has dominated tertiary grants for so long. It now means the state is investing in proven performance rather than trying to bring non-performers up to speed. Investing in quality is vital to the country's pursuit of a "knowledge economy".

It will be up to the lower-ranked institutions to lift the research performance of their staff if they aspire to a greater share of the public research fund. But they need not take that option. Those that chose to invest in excellent teaching should have equal, if not greater, appeal to students. Ultimately, the system now beginning should vastly improve the knowledge available to the seekers of tertiary education, and that can only be of benefit to them.