China Subject Ratings 2021: a Chinese view of excellence

Browse the full results of the China Subject Ratings 2021

When we launched the first version of our China Subject Ratings last year, we hoped to provide insight into the strengths of universities in China from a specifically Chinese perspective – by building in the structure of subjects within China.

We believed that it was important for Chinese universities to understand their performance within this structure, but we also believed it was important that they could do so in an objective way that allowed them to also understand how other universities across the world would perform if measured to the same standards.

Within our traditional World University Rankings, Chinese universities are rising rapidly, this year breaking into the top 20 for the first time. Deeper analysis shows they are performing well across most of the 11 subjects that make up the ranking.

Chinese universities have also been compared within China using the more familiar 111 subjects specified by the Ministry of Education (MoE). However, this classification of subjects is unique to China and it has therefore not been easy to use it to make global comparisons.

To address this, Times Higher Education created a global rating system for universities across the world using the Chinese MoE subjects. It was launched in a trial format last year so we could gather feedback to improve the rating.

Since then, the MoE has re-emphasised its commitment to higher education evaluation in China, a move that we believe will help to further strengthen the growth and success of Chinese universities. Of particular interest is the focus on a truly Chinese approach to excellence, while at the same time ensuring that this is accompanied by success on the world stage.

The broad approach to the merits of universities, reaching beyond research and into areas of social responsibility, culture and heritage, and international cooperation is something that will serve China and Chinese universities well.

Following feedback from universities, we have worked to improve our own evaluations, which will enable us to release the second edition of the rating on 11 May 2021. We hope that this will address some of the key areas of concern.

Understanding reputation

Last year, the research and teaching reputation scores were based solely on our global reputation survey, which when translated to the 111 subjects gave some results that were weaker than we hoped. To address this, we conducted a China-specific survey, which yielded more than 12,000 valid responses; this has provided us with a far more accurate picture of reputation within China. Only published academics who have been cited in other papers were invited to participate.

Inclusion in subjects

Originally, we gave ratings to universities if they produced research in a subject, even if that subject was not taught by the university. Feedback clearly showed that we should only score universities where they teach subjects. To rectify this, we reached out to universities to gather precise information on courses taught. We received information on 90 out of the 91 Chinese universities ranked in the World University Rankings 2021.

Measuring research

We have also improved the way bibliometrics – the outputs from research – are assessed and we have refined the way the grades are calculated. Bibliometrics are especially important, and we have decided to keep to a direct mapping approach rather than adopt an artificial intelligence-based approach. Our reasoning is simple – although an AI approach can offer some advantages in terms of accuracy, to do so requires strong training data. It also has the distinct disadvantage that it is impossible for observers to understand how individual decisions have been made. This is an area we will keep a careful eye on as the science develops.

Overall insights

We are interested in how our analysis compares with that of other organisations within China. We would expect some areas of similarity, but also some differences. On analysis, we saw that our ratings are similar to China Academic Degrees and Graduate Education Development Center (CDGDC) grades in many cases, but there can be differences for two key reasons. First, the CDGDC grades were released in 2017 and Chinese universities have improved markedly in the four years since, as can be seen in the World University Rankings. Second, we are comparing universities around the world, so the “class size” we are comparing against is much broader than just China. This means we can understand the excellence of Chinese universities on that broader stage.

We are honoured that so many Chinese institutions have taken the time to submit data about their universities, have given feedback about our trial last year, and have supplied their detailed subject-level course information. We are also grateful to all the academic authors who participated in the survey.

We hope you will join us for the launch of the 2021 China Subject Ratings on 11 May and that the ratings provide a useful additional insight into the performance of Chinese universities.

David Watkins is head of data science at Times Higher Education. Duncan Ross is chief data officer at Times Higher Education.