EPAAv20n21 Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ Manuscript received: 10/14/2010 Facebook: /EPAAAAPE Revisions received: 03/20/2012 Twitter: @epaa_aape Accepted: 05/20/2012 education policy analysis archives A peer-reviewed, independent, open access, multilingual journal Arizona State University Volume 20 Number 21 July 30th 2012 ISSN 1068-2341 Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the T i m e s H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n Rankings Amadu Jacky Kaba Seton Hall University USA Citation: Kaba, A.J. (2012). Analyzing the Anglo-American hegemony in the Times Higher Education Rankings. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20 (21). Retrieved [date], from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/847 Abstract: This study analyzes the 2009 Times Higher Education-QS top 200 universities in the world. Based on this analysis the study claims that the THS reflects the phenomenon of Anglo-American hegemony. The United States with 54 universities and the United Kingdom with 29 dominated the THS. In addition, six out of every ten universities on the top 200 list were located in countries that were at one time partly or fully colonized by the United Kingdom. This study identifies a number of factors that contributed to a country having at least one university ranked on the list: Age of an institution, endowment of an institution, the size of a nation’s population, gross domestic products (GDP) and GDP per capita, level of international trade (exports/imports), colonial heritage and language. Keywords: Higher education; world-class universities; rankings; hegemony. Analizando la hegemonía anglo-americana en los rankings de educación superior de la revista T i me s Hi g h e r E du c ati o n Resumen: Este estudio analiza el ranking de las 200 mejores universidades en el mundo de la revista Times Higher Education-2009. En base a este análisis, el estudio encontró que la THS refleja el fenómeno de la hegemonía angloamericana. Los Estados Unidos con 54universidades y 29 dominó Edu ca tio n P olicy An alysi s Ar chi ve s Vol. 20 No. 21 2 el Reino Unido con la THS. Además, seis de cada diez universidades de la lista de los 200 mejores se encuentran en países que estaban parcial o completamente colonizado por el Reino Unido. Entre los factores citados por su contribución a un país que había al menos una universidad en el top 200 lista son los siguientes: Edad de la institución, la provisión de una institución del tamaño de la población de una nación, el producto interno bruto (PIB) y el PIB per cápita a nivel de comercio internacional (exportaciones/importaciones), la herencia colonial, y el lenguaje (Inglés). Palabras clave: Educación superior; universidades de clase mundial; rankings; hegemonía. Analisando a hegemonia anglo-americana nos Rankings da Educação Superior da T i me s H i g h e r E du c ati o n Resumo: Este estudo analisa o ranking das 200 melhores universidades do mundo da Revista Times Higher Education-do ano de 2009. Com base nesta análise, o estudo afirma que a THS reflete o fenômeno da hegemonia anglo-americana. Os Estados Unidos com 54 universidades e o Reino Unido com 29 dominou a THS. Além disso, seis em cada dez universidades na lista das 200 melhores foram localizadas em países que foram parcial ou totalmente colonizados pelo Reino Unido. Entre os fatores citados por contribuir para que um país tivesse pelo menos uma universidade classificada na lista das 200 melhores estão: Idade de uma instituição, dotação de uma instituição, o tamanho da população de uma nação, produto interno bruto (PIB) e PIB per capita, nível de comércio internacional (exportações/importações), a herança colonial, e o idiomas (Inglês). Palavras-chave: Ensino superior; universidades de classe mundial; rankings; hegemonia. Introduction On October 7, 2009, the Chronicle of Higher Education in the United States published on its “Ticker” web page a short article titled: “American Universities – and Oxford – Slip in Latest ‘Top 200’ List.” The article was referring to the 2009 “Times Higher Education-QS [Quacuarelli Symonds Ltd.] World University Rankings 2009 Top 200 World Universities”.1 According to the Chronicle article, the U.S. has 32 institutions in the top 100 and 54 overall in the top 200, four short of the 58 in 2008. Four of the top six positions went to British institutions and the University of Oxford, was replaced in fourth place by University College London (The Ticker, 2009). There have been many scholarly and newspaper and magazine publications discussing various aspects of college or university ranking reports such as the Times Higher Education-QS top 200 world universities rankings, the annual U.S. News and World Report College Rankings (U.S. only), Shanghai Jiaotong world university rankings, Maclean’s annual university rankings, and Newsweek Global Universities rankings. According to Salmi and Saroyan (2007): “At this point, there are no fewer than 30 noteworthy rankings, ranging from broad rankings of national universities, such as Maclean’s and U.S. News and World Report, to comprehensive international rankings, such as the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) and Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU)…” (p. 79). Some of these scholarly articles express concern as to why such ranking reports are relevant since they do not include various kinds of prominent colleges and universities. Other scholarly publications are critical of the methodology utilized in producing such ranking reports. Yet, there are other scholarly articles that actually provide important analysis of the institutions ranked in such studies (Charon & Wauters, 2008; Clark, 2007; “College Rankings Criticized,” 2007; Cramer & Page, 2007; Kamara, 2007; Lang & Zha, 2004; Larsen, 2003; Mohrman, 2008; Standifird, 2005). 1 See Appendix A for the full rankings, including country and regional locations of each ranked institution; also see the following link for the list of ranked institutions as presented by Times Higher Education-QS [Quacuarelli Symonds Ltd.: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/Rankings2009-Top200.html). Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the Times Higher Education 3 In a criticism of U.S. News and World Report College Rankings, it is noted that: “…such ratings are biased against historically Black institutions…” and that it focuses on “…financial resources, selectivity and peer assessment as indicators of which schools are most privileged, not which are best” (“College Rankings Criticized,” 2007, p. 1). Writing about Maclean’s rankings of tens of universities in Canada, Cramer and Page (2007) point out that, “The Maclean’s rankings are reported in the idiom of winners and losers, with multiple references to where the best and brightest students may be found” (p. 5). Writing about the dilemma that institutions face whether to recognize the U.S. News and World Report College Rankings, Standifird (2005) notes that: …each year, schools throughout the USA seek to downplay the results while simultaneously attempting to create a positive spin for their position on the list. Like it or not, the US News and World Report…has become one of the premium benchmarks for ranking institutions of higher education within the USA (p. 233). According to Larsen (2003): “While many in higher education question the validity of college rankings, the reality is that rankings do, indeed, have significant impact” (p. 155). In an article discussing the gradual impact of college or university rankings studies in Europe, Charon and Wauters (2008) write that rankings of universities are inevitable because they help students determine which institutions to attend or for researchers to determine where they want to work, or administrators to learn of the strengths and weaknesses of their institutions. That in recent decades the phenomenon of rankings itself in various areas of life such as athletics, academia or financial institutions has become accepted across the world due to the need for comparative information (p. 62). Salmi and Saroyan (2007) also conducted a comprehensive study of this topic of university rankings by examining their numbers and characteristics, factors responsible for their creation, and arguments for both the positive and negative implications of ranking academic institutions, including the issue of Anglo-American hegemony or dominance. The article by Salmi and Saroyan (2007) presents information illustrating one aspect of Anglo-American hegemony—the imitation or emulation of those who seek to influence or control you. In this instance, increasing numbers of countries are attempting to imitate the higher education systems of the United States and the United Kingdom so that they could be elevated by an arm of these two powerful nations (the media), who serve as agents of influence for their nations. In an article comparing Canadian and Chinese universities, Lang and Zha (2004) note that: “Comparison and emulation are components critical in institutional strategic planning. Peer comparisons can provide a basis for the rational evaluation of differences and of similarities among institutions, and of identifying relative strengths, weaknesses, and possible opportunities or niches” (p. 341). The Anglo-American hegemony in higher education becomes even more entrenched when a great nation such as China publically seek to emulate American and European (especially British) universities. For example, Mohrman (2008) discusses the Chinese government’s intentions or efforts to emulate the positive characteristics of the prestigious universities in North America and Europe so that its research universities could be internationally recognized. As a result, rankings of universities across the world are useful because they would help in reform efforts by pointing to positive characteristics of universities considered great and highly ranked (p. 29; also see Ying & Niancai, 2008). One important observation of reports or studies ranking colleges and universities is that they tend to focus on different variables thereby causing certain institutions to be ranked in different order, while other institutions might be ranked in one report or study but not ranked at all in other studies. For example, Appendix A includes both the 2009 Times Higher Education-QS top 200 world Edu ca tio n P olicy An alysi s Ar chi ve s Vol. 20 No. 21 4 universities rankings and the 2010 U.S. News and World Report College Rankings focusing on the 54 U.S. institutions ranked in the Times Higher Education-QS rankings. Next to the U.S News and World Report rankings in Appendix A is ranking of the U.S. public or state institutions on the list (in parenthesis with an asterisk next to it, comprising 26 (48.1% of the 54 total U.S. institutions).2 According to Appendix A, Harvard University and Yale University are ranked Number 1 and Number 3 respectively in both reports. However, while Princeton University is ranked Number 1 in the U.S. News and World Report rankings, it is ranked Number 8 in the Times Higher Education-QS rankings. While Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and California Institute of Technology are tied at Number 4 in the U.S. News and World Report rankings, they are ranked Number 9 and 10 respectively in the Times Higher Education-QS rankings (Appendix A). In a table (Table 1) of her study, Mohrman (2008) presents the 2006 rankings of colleges and universities by three ranking studies or reports: (1) Shanghai Jiaotong, based in China; (2) the Times Higher Education- QS; and (3) Newsweek Global Universities. Harvard was ranked Number 1 by all three, while University of Cambridge was ranked Number 2 by both Shanghai Jiaotong and Times Higher Education-QS, but ranked Number 6 by Newsweek Global Universities. Also, Stanford University was ranked Number 3 by Shanghai Jiaotong, but Number 6 by Times Higher Education-QS, and Number 2 by Newsweek Global Universities (p. 44). These differences in rankings are a result of the variables or criteria examined by each study. For example, Times Higher Education-QS, which published its first report in 1994, focuses on the following seven variables or criteria by giving an institution a highest grade of 100: Peer Review Score, Employer Review Score, Staff/Student Score, Citations/Staff Score, International Staff Score, International Students Score, and Overall Score.3 These criteria may be different from other rankings studies or publications. For example, for the U.S. News and World Report College Rankings, Morse and Flanigan (2009, August 19) present a detailed breakdown of the percentage points given to each of the variables or indicators they utilized: Donations by alumni (5%); Performance on graduation rates (5%, but this was limited to national universities and liberal arts colleges); Selectivity of students (15%); Resources for faculty (20%); Retention (20% for national universities and liberal arts colleges and also 20% for master’s and baccalaureate colleges); and Peer Assessment (25%).4 In addition, one major difference between the Shanghai rankings versus the Times Higher Education is that the second one uses opinions from experts in selected countries. Another important issue regarding criteria is that both rankings consider mostly English publications to measure the impact of the research they conduct. Therefore as we shall soon learn an English-speaking country has more advantage over another whose mother tongue is not English. The reasons then for utilizing the “Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings 2009 Top 200 World Universities” is: to explain how these high number and proportion of colleges and universities from the United Kingdom and the United States combined show that these institutions are a major contributing factor for the visible Anglo-American hegemony in the past 100 years, including in military, politics (such as two votes among five permanent members of the UN Security Council), economy (such as the World Trade Organization); as already cited above, 2 “Best Colleges: Top Public Schools: National Universities,” U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved on November 27, 2009 from:http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-top-public. 3 “Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings 2009: Top 200 World Universities,” Times Higher Education Supplement (UK). Retrieved on October 8, 2009 from: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/Rankings2009-Top200.html. 4 Morse, Robert., and Flanigan, Sam (2009, August, 19). “How We Calculated the College Rankings,” U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved on October 11, 2009 from:http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-colleges/2009/08/19/how-we-calculate-th… Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the Times Higher Education 5 numerous respected scholarly journals have published articles that focused or included analysis of Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings. This means that while there might be legitimate criticisms of their methodologies for selecting institutions, the work is useful to the point where it must be analyzed in articles published in recognized or respected journals; and this study does not focus on the actual rankings of colleges or universities, but the fact that an institution is actually on the list. There is a strong case to be made that college and university ranking reports are not the best way to judge or measure the effectiveness of higher education institutions. However, one can also argue that regardless of how they got selected or their rank order, the 200 institutions on the Times Higher Education-QS world university rankings are highly productive and are considered ‘World- Class’ institutions (Deem et al., 2008; Lang, 2005; Mohrman, 2008, p. 42-45). A substantial number of the institutions being examined in this study (especially those in the United States and the United Kingdom, such as Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford and Oxford have the largest endowments. Most of them have not just world-class medical degree programs, but also world class hospitals attached to them. The political, economic, religious, and military elites in most countries of the world are trained at these institutions (Brezis & Crouzet, 2004; Swartz, 2008). For example, the current president of the United States, Barack Obama, was educated at two of these institutions (Columbia University and Harvard University) in the top 200 list and was a professor at another for many years (the University of Chicago). In addition, most parents all over the world do all they can to send their daughters and sons to these top 200 ranked institutions primarily because of their leading academic programs (Gose, 2000, p. A52). Also, a very high number or all of these institutions have become international universities, educating the elites of the world. As Marginson (2007) notes, these institutions: “…have gained unprecedented visibility and immediacy in the global era. Their degrees and research carry exceptional credibility, and the leading group are household names: Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, Caltech, Columbia, Princeton, Chicago, Yale, and Cornell in the United States and Cambridge and Oxford in the United Kingdom” (p.10). Cantwell and Maldonodo-Maldonado (2009) also present this account of how emerging nations, including those in the Arab and Muslim world take the Times Higher Education and other world university rankings very seriously: that in 2006 ministers of higher education from Islamic nations met in Kuwait City and that on their agenda was to discuss how they could come up with a plan to have up to ten of their universities ranked in the top 100 in the Shanghai Jiao Tong University rankings or the Times Higher Education Supplement rankings. This fact, according to the authors was very troubling to the ministers because not a single one of their universities was ranked in the top 100 of these two publications mentioned above. The ministers believed that to be a competitive rapid high-tech world economy, they needed world-class universities such as those ranked in those two publications mentioned (p. 296-297). Cantwell and Maldonado-Maldonado (2009) also explained similar efforts in Mexico (p. 298- 300). In these two examples they are actually aiding in the Anglo-American hegemony because they aspire to have their universities become like those highly ranked universities in the United States and the United Kingdom. This claim is also observed by Kumar and Verma (2009, p. 62). This form of Anglo-American hegemony is what Lo (2011) calls “Soft Power” in an article that examines the issue of hegemony in world higher education system. According to Lo (2011), Western academic techniques and methods emphasize its superiority over middle and lower income nations, and as a result, these non-Western nations are indirectly influenced to emulate higher education policies of these dominant powers, especially the United States and United Kingdom — weak sovereignty. These Western nations may not even be aware of their hegemonic activities or Edu ca tio n P olicy An alysi s Ar chi ve s Vol. 20 No. 21 6 beliefs. Lo (2011) concludes by noting of “…the soft‐power perspective as an alternative way to explain why non‐Western countries are willing to follow the Anglo‐American paradigm to develop their higher education systems” (p. 209). As a result, it is useful to provide an in-depth analysis of these top 200 institutions and the nations, territories or entities in which they are located. This study presents an examination of the factors responsible for the inclusion or exclusion of colleges and universities in the top 200 world university rankings. The study utilized the world regional and sub-regional breakdown of the planet by the United Nations Statistics Division to determine whether all nations in those regions and sub-regions have equal number of colleges and universities represented in the top 200 list (also see Marginson, 2007, p. 13). Among the factors examined are the nation in which a ranked university is located; the total population of the nation, the sub-region and region; the Gross Domestic Products (GDP) and GDP per capita of the nation, sub-region and region; their 2009 United Nations Human Development rank; their 2008 trade figures (exports and imports); and the year 2007 Endowment figures for U.S. institutions on the list. Methodology I decided to take a more thorough examination of the institutions on the list for any interesting information. I decided to utilize the United Nations Statistics Division’s classification of the regions and sub-regions of the world to determine which nations, territories or entities have at least one institution in the top 200 list. The UN Statistics Division broke down the world into five main regions (Africa, Americas, Asia, Europe, and Oceania) and 21 sub-regions: 5 for Africa; 3 for the Americas; 5 for Asia; 4 for Europe; and 4 for Oceania (Please see Appendix B). I counted 237 nations, territories and entities on the list and I added Taiwan to Asia because the UN did not include it but it is geographically located in Eastern Asia for a total of 238: 57 (23.9%) in Africa; 53 (22.3%) in the Americas; 52 (21.8%) in Europe; 51 (21.4%) in Asia; and 25 (10.5%) in Oceania. I entered into Excel spreadsheet the regions, sub-regions and only nations or entities with institutions in the top 200 world university rankings, number of institutions, percent of sub-region, region, and world. I also added the following variables: the 2008 and 2009 population of Country; the 2008 GDP, and Per capita GDP; their 2008 exports and imports, including per capita; and 2007 endowments figures for the U.S. institutions on the list. Furthermore, for the 54 U.S. institutions on the list, they were broken down into the states which have institutions listed and the states were broken down into the four main geographic regions of the country (Northeast, Midwest, South and West). Their 2008 population, GDP and GDP per capita were also provided for each of the 25 U.S. states (with Washington, D.C. as a state equivalent). Endowment figures for 2007 were presented for 52 of the 54 U.S. institutions on the list. I identified and recorded all of the 54 institutions in the 2010 U.S. News and World Report College Rankings. For Canada, a breakdown was done for all of its 13 provinces to determine which ones had at least one institution in the top 200 world universities list. For those provinces, their 2008 population, GDP and GDP per capita figures (in Canadian dollars) are presented. Finally, a table was created representing nations in Asia with Chinese majority populations, with institutions in the top 200 list. A table was created representing European Unions nations with institutions among the top 200 list. Finally, a table was created representing the United Kingdom and nations that were at one time in history part or all of their territories or land were partly or fully colonized by the United Kingdom. It is useful to note that both the 2008 and 2009 CIA World Factbooks were utilized from October 8, 2009 to December 4, 2009. Before examining the statistics, Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the Times Higher Education 7 it is first important to conceptualize the word hegemony and its relations to Anglo-American dominance. Conceptualizing Anglo-American Hegemony A careful and substantial time of research on the concept of “hegemony” in academic or scholarly articles result in three interconnected observations. The first observation is that a very high proportion of the articles on hegemony identified the late Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937) as one of the first scholars to conceptualize that word (also see Boothman, 2008). The second observation is that a substantial number of academic articles examined the concept of hegemony by linking it with Anglo-American dominance or imperialism. Third, the word hegemony has been conceptualized to understand many different phenomena, focusing on Western nations, especially the United States and the United Kingdom as the two entities that are dominating the world. For example, hegemony is examined through international media domination (Consalvo, 1998, pp.64-65; Gunn, 2006, pp. 559-576), political/military imperialism (Bill, 2001; Buckel & Fischer-Lescano, 2009; Kumar & Verma, 2009; Sementelli, 2005), cultural domination (Ashbolt, 2007; Jiang, 2011), and hegemony in comparative higher education (Collins and Rhoads, 2010; Mohrman 2008; Marginson, 2007; Olaniran & Agnello, 2008; Watson, 2009). Examining Anglo-American hegemony in international higher education, Collins and Rhoads (2010) point to their concern pertaining to the influence of the World Bank (which is almost always headed by an American) and universities in the developing world. Pointing to what they consider a new form of global hegemony through the forms of “neocolonial” and “neoliberal” policies that bring developing countries in the line of thinking about higher education as it is done in the United States and European nations, particularly the United Kingdom. Collins and Rhoads (2010) add that “ We see both ideas—neocolonialism and neoliberalism—as deriving to a great extent from the global economic interests of powerful nations like the United Kingdom and the United States…” (p. 182; also see Olaniran & Agnello, 2008, p. 71). Writing about challenges facing Chinese scholars in China, Mohrman (2008) points out that the importation into China of the research and publication pressure at top United States and United Kingdom universities puts enormous pressure on Chinese scholars, although they help to improve quality “… of higher education in China, but at the same time feel that they are victims of a kind of Western academic hegemony that they cannot refuse” (p. 39). Marginson (2007) writes of the world-wide influence of Ivy League institutions and American hegemony: “In policy circles everywhere, idealized templates of the Ivy League private university and the customer-focused commercial provider have an unprecedented sway….Every nation wants to have its own Harvard, although none can replicate the domestic conditions that have made U.S. higher education powerful. (Ironically, if all nations follow American templates, this will strengthen, not weaken, American hegemony.)” (p. 14). Watson (2009) notes of the increasing internationalization of higher education, with increasing adaptation of similar academic policies across nations, and that this trend “… inked to a growing hegemony regarding the ‘scientization’ of society, and of higher education itself” (p. 432). Based on the research cited above, for this study, Anglo-American hegemony can be explained as both the United States and the United Kingdom using different methods to influence other nations to conform to or emulate the ways that these two powerful nations view the world and how they carry out policies, including functions of higher education institutions, approaches to political (their form of Democracy) and economic systems (Capitalism), or religious beliefs (Christianity and specifically Protestant Christianity). Both the United States and the United Kingdom are aided by their massive and influential media (including the Times Higher Education Edu ca tio n P olicy An alysi s Ar chi ve s Vol. 20 No. 21 8 Supplement) in achieving their goals or objectives through rational persuasion of other nations, threats or coercion, or war if necessary. General Findings and Analysis World One would expect that since there are at least 238 nations, territories and entities in the world, there would be an almost equal distribution of the top 200 universities among almost all of these nations. However, one must not think that this will be a common expectation, especially within the field of higher education. Table 1 below helps to explain the Anglo-American hegemony of international higher education. Table 1 shows that only 32 (13.4% of 238) nations had at least one institution ranked in the top 200 ranked universities. Table 1 also shows the number and percentage of universities by each nation listed, the world regional location of each nation, and the rank of each nation on the 2009 United Nations Human Development Index. The United States and the United Kingdom dominated the list, with 54 (27%) and 29 (15%) universities respectively. A high majority of these 32 nations are ranked in the top 50 (out of over 190 nations total) of the 2009 UN Human Development Index (Table 1). The total population of these 32 nations as of July 2009 was 3.87 billion (57% of 6.79 billion world total) (Compiled and Computed based on data in the CIA World Factbook, 2009). It is useful to note that population size of a nation should not be given too much emphasis because both China and India had over 2.3 billion people in 2008, but had a total of only 8 combined universities on the list, while both the United States and the United Kingdom had a total population of less than 370 million in 2008, but had 83 combined universities on the list. Also, the Netherlands with 16.7 million people had more universities on the list (11) than Germany with over 80 million people with 10 universities. Table 2 below attempts to highlight the combined economic might of these 32 nations grouped in their world geographic regions. According to Table 2, the total population in July 2008 of these 32 nations was 3.84 billion (57.2% of 6.71 billion world total). Their total GDP as of 2008 was $54.132 trillion (77.2% of the Gross World Products of $70.14 trillion). Their average GDP per capita in 2008 was $14,112. The per capita Gross World Products in 2008 was $10,500 (Compiled and computed by author from Table 2). Europe has the highest total number of universities (85), followed by the Americas (66) and Asia (36). Table 2 also shows that although Europe (529 million people) and the Americas (447 million people) have far smaller populations than Asia (2.8 billion people), their GDPs are very high: $16 trillion for Europe; $17.3 trillion for the Americas; and $19.37 trillion for Asia. This is a very important factor that could have contributed to Europe and the Americas having more ranked universities than Asia and the rest of the world. Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the Times Higher Education 9 Table 1 Top 200 Universities by nation, region and 2009 UNDP Human Development Rank. (N =32 Nations) Nation Institutions (N) % World Region UN HDI Rank 2009* United States 54 27 Americas 13 United Kingdom 29 15 Europe 21 Canada 11 5.5 Americas 4 Japan 11 5.5 Asia 10 Netherlands 11 5.5 Europe 6 Germany 10 5 Oceania 22 Australia 9 4.5 Europe 2 China 6 3 Asia 92 Switzerland 6 3 Europe 9 Belgium 5 2.5 Europe 17 France 5 2.5 Europe 8 Hong Kong 5 2.5 Asia 24 Sweden 5 2.5 Europe 7 South Korea 4 2 Asia 26 Denmark 3 1.5 Europe 16 Israel 3 1.5 Asia 27 New Zealand 3 1.5 Oceania 20 India 2 1 Asia 134 Ireland 2 1 Europe 5 Norway 2 1 Europe 1 Russia 2 1 Europe 71 Singapore 2 1 Asia 23 Austria 1 0.5 Europe 14 Finland 1 0.5 Europe 12 Greece 1 0.5 Europe 25 Italy 1 0.5 Europe 18 Malaysia 1 0.5 Asia 66 Mexico 1 0.5 Americas 53 South Africa 1 0.5 Africa 129 Spain 1 0.5 Europe 15 Taiwan 1 0.5 Asia na Thailand 1 0.5 Asia 87 Total 200 100 Source: UN Human Development Index are from, Human Development Report 2009 – HDI rankings. Retrieved on October 26, 2009 from: http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/; The University rankings data are compiled from, “Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings 2009: Top 200 World Universities,” Times Higher Education Supplement (UK). Retrieved on October 8, 2009 from: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/Rankings2009-Top200.html. Edu ca tio n P olicy An alysi s Ar chi ve s Vol. 20 No. 21 10 Table 2 Regional and Sub-Regional Breakdown of the 2009 Times Higher Education-QS World University Top 200 Rankings, Number of institutions, percent of Region and World, Population, GDP and GDP per Capita (2008) Region University % of Population GDP Per Capita GDP (N) World ($Billion) Asia 36 18 2,786,135,792 19,370.20 6,952 Europe 85 42.5 528,844,294 16,040 30,330 Oceania 12 6 25,180,770 919.5 36,516 Americas 66 33 446,992,736 17,310 38,725 Africa 1 0.5 48,782,756 492.2 10,100 Source: See Appendix B for “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions,”; The University rankings data are compiled from (THE, 2009) Populations total GDPs and GDP per capita are compiled and computed from the 2008 and 2009 CIA World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ Breakdown of Institutions by Regions and Sub-Regions Europe Table 3 presents European nations with at least one university ranked in the 2009 Times Higher Education-QS top 200 universities and also the GDP and GDP Per Capita of each nation listed. Due to the large number of universities from the United Kingdom (29), the six nations of Northern Europe (61 million people) had the largest number of Universities (42), followed by the six nations of Western Europe (189 million people), with 38 universities. Northern Europe also had the highest GDP Per Capita $38,368, followed by Western Europe, $35,657. This GDP Per Capita gap could be a contributing factor as to why Northern Europe had the highest number of universities in the top 200 (Table 3). Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the Times Higher Education 11 Table 3 Regional and Sub-Regional Breakdown of the 2009 Times Higher Education-QS World University Top 200 Rankings, Number of institutions, percent of Region and World, Population, GDP and GDP per Capita: Europe Region & SubRegion University Number % of SubRegion % of Region % of World Population 2008 est. GDP 2008 est. $Billion GDP Per Capita 2008 est. Europe 85 100 42.5 528,844,294 16,040 30,330 Northern Europe 42 49.4 21 89,787,380 3,445 38,368 United Kingdom 29 69 34.1 14.5 61,113,205 2,236 36,700 Sweden 5 11.9 5.9 2.5 9,059,651 345.1 38,200 Denmark 3 7.1 3.5 1.5 5,500,510 204.1 37,200 Ireland 2 4.8 2.3 1 4,203,200 189 45,500 Norway 2 4.8 2.3 1 4,660,539 276.3 59,500 Finland 1 2.4 1.2 0.5 5,250,275 194 37,000 Western Europe 38 44.7 19 189,332,633 6,751 35,657 Netherlands 11 28.9 12.9 5.5 16,715,999 673.5 40,500 Germany 10 26.3 11.8 5 82,329,758 2,925 35,500 Switzerland 6 15.8 7.1 3 7,604,467 318.1 42,000 Belgium 5 13.2 5.9 2.5 10,414,336 390.2 37,500 France 5 13.2 5.9 2.5 64,057,792 2,113 33,300 Austria 1 2.6 1.2 0.5 8,210,281 331.2 40,400 Southern Europe 3 3.5 1.5 109,388,642 3,572.80 32,661 Greece 1 33.3 1.2 0.5 10,737,428 343.8 32,100 Italy 1 33.3 1.2 0.5 58,126,212 1,827 31,400 Spain 1 33.3 1.2 0.5 40,525,002 1,402 34,600 Eastern Europe 2 2.3 1 140,041,247 2,271 16,100 Russia 2 100 2.3 1 140,041,247 2,271 16,100 Source: “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions”; THE, 2009; 2008 and 2009 CIA World Factbook. Americas With only 3 nations (Canada, Mexico and the United States), the Americas represent the region with the second highest number of institutions, 66 (33% of the world) (Table 4). However, the United States and Canada (Northern America) accounted for all but one of those 66 ranked universities. Since geographically, the United States and Canada are very big nations, their data are broken down according to regions (United States) and provinces (Canada) (Table 4A) and also separated from Latin America and the Caribbean. For example, the State of California has almost as many institutions (9) ranked in the top 200 as Germany (10) (Table 4b). Mexico, grouped in Central America is the only other nation with one institution ranked (Table 4c). These three nations in all of the Americas with at least one university ranked in this study also comprise the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Edu ca tio n P olicy An alysi s Ar chi ve s Vol. 20 No. 21 12 Table 4 Sub-Regional Breakdown of the 2009 Times Higher Education-QS World University Top 200 Rankings, Number of institutions, percent of Region and World, Population, GDP and GDP per Capita: Northern America Sub-Region University Number % of Region % of World Population 2008 GDP 2008 $Billion GDP Per Capita $2008 est. Northern America 65 98.5 32.5 337,037,336 15,743 46,710 LAC 1 1.5 0.5 109,995,400 1,567 14,300 Total 66 100 33 447,032,730 17,310 Source: 2008 and 2009 CIA World Factbook; The Population figures for Canadian provinces and territories are extracted from “Table 2. Quarterly demographics estimates: July 1, 2008,” Statistics Canada. Retrieved on October 31, 2009. http://www.statean.gc.ca./daily-uotidien/081219/t081219b2-eng.htm; The Canadian GDP and GDP per capita figures are in Canadian dollars. The Canadian GDP figures were extracted from: “Gross domestic product, expenditure-based, by province and territory: 2008,” Statistics Canada. Retrieved on October 31, 2009 from: http:///www40.statcan.gc/101/cst01/cst01/econ15-eng.htm. I then divided the total GDP of each Canadian Province by its total population to get the GDP per capita; The GDP and GDP per capita figures for the U.S. states are from: “Economic Slowdown Widespread Among States in 2008,” 2009, June 2. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce; The Population figures for the U.S. states are extracted from “State Rankings -- Statistical Abstract of the United States: Resident Population -- July 2008. Retrieved on October 31, 2009 from: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ranks/rank01.xls; THE, 2009. Table 4A Canada (and its Provinces) Breakdown of the 2009 Times Higher Education-QS World University Top 200 Rankings, Number of institutions, percent of Region and World, Population, GDP and GDP per Capita: Northern America University Number % of SubRegion % of Region % of World Population 2008 GDP 2008 $Billion GDP Per Capita $2008 est. Canada 11 19.9 16.7 5.5 33,212,696 1,303 39,200 Newfoundland & Labrador 507,895 31.458 61,938 Prince Edward Island 139,818 4.716 33,730 Nova Scotia 938,310 34.209 36,458 New Brunswick 747,302 27.288 36,515 Quebec (18.2% of 11total) 2 3.1 3 1 7,750,504 301.479 38,898 Ontario (45.4%) 5 7.7 7.6 2.5 12,928,996 587.905 45,472 Manitoba 1,207,959 50.886 42,126 Saskatchewan 1,015,985 64.323 63,311 Alberta (18.2%) 2 3.1 3 1 3,585,142 291.662 81,353 British Columbia (18.2%) 2 3.1 3 1 4,381,603 199.214 45,466 Yukon 33,144 2.000 60,343 Northwest Territories 43,283 5.419 125,199 Nunavut 31,448 1.497 47,602 Source: 2008 and 2009 CIA World Factbook; THE, 2009. GDP and GDP per capita figures for the provinces are in Canadian dollars. Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the Times Higher Education 13 Table 4B United States (and its 50 States and Washington, D.C.) Breakdown of the 2009 Times Higher Education-QS World University Top 200 Rankings, Number of institutions, percent of Region and World, Population, GDP and GDP per Capita: Northern America University Number % of SubRegion % of Region % of World Population 2008 GDP2008 $Billion GDP Per Capita $2008 est. United States 54 83.1 81.8 27 303,824,640 14,440 47,500 Northeast (33.3% of 54) 18 27.7 27.3 9 New York (9.2% of 54) 5 7.7 7.6 2.5 19,490,297 964.755 49,499 Massachusetts (7.4%) 4 6.1 6.1 2 6,497,967 312.476 48,088 Pennsylvania (7.4%) 4 6.1 6.1 2 12,448,279 443.669 35,641 New Jersey (3.7%) 2 3.1 3 1 8,682,661 390.350 44,957 Connecticut (1.8%) 1 1.5 1.5 0.5 3,501,252 177.717 50,758 New Hampshire (1.8%) 1 1.5 1.5 0.5 1,315,809 50.553 38,420 Rhode Island (1.8%) 1 1.5 1.5 0.5 1,050,788 38.126 36,283 West (22.2%) 12 18.5 18.2 6 California (16.7%) 9 13.8 13.6 4.5 36,756,666 1,546.25 42,064 Arizona (1.8%) 1 1.5 1.5 0.5 6,500,180 210.235 32,343 Colorado (1.8%) 1 1.5 1.5 0.5 4,939,456 203.024 41,102 Washington (1.8%) 1 1.5 1.5 0.5 6,549,224 264.633 40,407 Midwest (22.2%) 12 18.5 18.2 6 Illinois (5.5%) 3 4.6 4.5 1.5 12,901,563 516.144 40,006 Indiana (5.5%) 3 4.6 4.5 1.5 6,376,792 209.903 32,917 Ohio (3.7%) 2 3.1 3 1 11,485,910 385.559 33,568 Michigan (1.8%) 1 1.5 1.5 0.5 10,003,422 326.123 32,601 Minnesota (1.8%) 1 1.5 1.5 0.5 5,220,393 217.028 41,573 Missouri (1.8%) 1 1.5 1.5 0.5 5,911,605 193.775 32,779 Wisconsin (1.8%) 1 1.5 1.5 0.5 5,627,967 198.324 35,239 South (22.2%) 12 18.5 18.2 6 Texas (5.5%) 3 4.6 4.5 1.5 24,326,974 925.505 38,044 Georgia (3.7%) 2 3.1 3 1 9,685,744 329.482 34,017 Maryland (3.7%) 2 3.1 3 1 5,633,597 220.865 39,205 North Carolina (3.7%) 2 3.1 3 1 9,222,414 329.418 35,719 Tennessee (1.8%) 1 1.5 1.5 0.5 6,214,888 210.216 33,825 Virginia (1.8%) 1 1.5 1.5 0.5 7,769,089 324.505 41,769 Washington, D.C. (1.8%) 1 1.5 1.5 0.5 591,833 126,407 Source: 2008 and 2009 CIA World Factbook; THE, 2009. Edu ca tio n P olicy An alysi s Ar chi ve s Vol. 20 No. 21 14 Table 4C Sub-Regional Breakdown of the 2009 Times Higher Education-QS World University Top 200 Rankings, Number of institutions, percent of Region and World, Population, GDP and GDP per Capita: Latin America and the Caribbean Sub-Region University Number % of Region % of World Population 2008 GDP 2008 $Billion GDP Per Capita $2008 est. Latin America & Caribbean 1 1.5 0.5 109,995,400 1.567 14,300 Central America 1 1.5 0.5 109,995,400 1,567 14,300 Mexico 1 1.5 0.5 109,995,400 1,567 14,300 South America 0 0 0 0 0 0 Caribbean 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: 2008 and 2009 CIA World Factbook; THE, 2009. Asia Asia is the world region with the third highest number and proportion of institutions among the top 200 list, with 36 (18% of the world) in 10 nations. The total population of the 10 Asian nations on the list as of July 2009 was 2.814 billion (72.7% of 3.87 billion, but 41.4% of 6.79 world population) (Compiled and Computed Based on data in the 2009 CIA World Factbook). Their total population in July 2008 was 2.79 billion (72.7% of 3.84 billion, but 41.6% of 6.71 billion world total). Their total GDP as of 2008 was $19.370 trillion (35.8% of $54.132 trillion, but 27.6% of $70.14 trillion Gross World Products). Their average GDP per capita in 2008 was $6,952. Table 5 Regional and Sub-Regional Breakdown of the 2009 Times Higher Education-QS World University Top 200 Rankings, Number of institutions, percent of Region and World, Population, GDP and GDP per Capita: Asia. Region & SubRegion University Number % of SubRegion % of Region % of World Population 2008 GDP 2008 est. $Billion GDP Per Capita $2008 est. Asia 36 100 18 2,786,135,792 19,370.00 6,952 Eastern Asia 27 75 13.5 1,535,651,934 14,691.00 9,567 Japan 11 40.7 30.5 5.5 127,288,416 4,340.00 34,100 China 6 22.2 16.7 3 1,330,044,544 7,992.00 6,000 Hong Kong 5 18.5 13.9 2.5 7,018,636 307.3 43,800 South Korea 4 14.8 11.1 2 48,379,392 1,338.00 27,700 Taiwan 1 3.7 2.8 0.5 22,920,946 713.7 31,100 South East Asia 4 11.1 2 95,375,595 1,171.80 12,286 Singapore 2 50 5.5 1 4,608,167 237.9 51,600 Malaysia 1 25 2.8 0.5 25,274,132 385.2 15,200 Thailand 1 25 2.8 0.5 65,493,296 548.7 8,400 South Asia 2 5.5 1 1,147,995,904 3,304.00 2,900 India 2 100 5.5 1 1,147,995,904 3,304.00 2,900 Western Asia 3 8.3 1.5 7,112,359 203.4 28,600 Israel 3 100 8.3 1.5 7,112,359 203.4 28,600 Central Asia 0 0 0 0 0 Source: “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions,”; THE, 2009; 2008 and 2009 CIA World Factbook. Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the Times Higher Education 15 Of the four sub-regions of Asia, Eastern Asia has the highest number and proportion of institutions 27 (75% of region and 13.5% of world) in 5 nations. South Eastern Asia has the second most number of institutions, 4 (11.1% of region and 2% of world) in 3 nations: Singapore, 2 (50% of sub-region, 5.5% of region, and 1% of world); 1 each for Malaysia and Thailand (25%, 2.8%, and 0.5%). Western Asia is the sub-region with the third highest number of institutions, 3 (8.3% of region and 1.5% of world). All 3 institutions are in Israel (100% of sub-region, 8.3% of region and 1.5% of world). Finally, India is the only country with 2 institutions (5.5% of region, and 1% of world) representing South Asia (Table 5). Oceania Oceania is the world region with the fourth highest number of institutions among the top 200 list. Of the four sub-regions of Oceania, only one has all 12 institutions on the list (100% of region and 6% of world), representing 2 nations (Australia and New Zealand): Australia, 9 (75% of sub-region, 75% of region, and 4.5% of world); and New Zealand, 3 (25% of sub-region, 25% of region, and 1.5% of world) (Table 6). Table 6 Education-QS World University Top 200 Rankings, Number of institutions, percent of Region and World, Population, GDP and GDP per Capita: Oceania Region & SubRegion University Number % of SubRegion % of Region % of World Population 2009 GDP 2008 est. $Billion GDP Per Capita 2008 est. Oceania 12 100 6 25,180,770 919.5 36,516 Australia & New Zealand 12 100 100 6 25,180,770 919.5 36,516 Australia 9 75 75 4.5 21,007,310 802.9 38,200 New Zealand 3 25 25 1.5 4,173,460 116.6 27,900 Melanesia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Micronesia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polynesia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions,”; THE, 2009; 2008 and 2009 CIA World Factbook. Africa Finally, of the five sub-regions of Africa, only 1 (Southern Africa) has a country (South Africa) with an institution on the list (100% each of sub-region and region, and 0.5% of World). South Africa’s total population as of July 2008 was 48.8 million. Its GDP in 2008 was $492.2 billion (0.9% of $54.132 trillion) (Table 7). Edu ca tio n P olicy An alysi s Ar chi ve s Vol. 20 No. 21 16 Table 7 Regional and Sub-Regional Breakdown of the 2009 Times Higher Education-QS World University Top 200 Rankings, Number of institutions, percent of Region and World, Population, GDP and GDP per Capita: Africa Region & SubRegion University Number % of SubRegion % of Region % of World Population 2008 GDP est.2008 $Billion GDP Per Capita 2008 est. Africa 1 100 0.5 48,782,756 492.2 10,100 Southern Africa 1 100 0.5 48,782,756 492.2 10,100 South Africa 1 100 100 0.5 48,782,756 492.2 10,100 Source: “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions,”; THE, 2009; 2008 and 2009 CIA World Factbook. Chinese Majority Entities/Nations There are 14 institutions in the top 200 all located in 4 nations in Asia where Chinese comprise the majority (40% of Asia region and 7% of world): China, 6; Hong Kong, 5; Singapore, 2; and Taiwan, 1. Their total population as of July 2008 was 1.365 billion (48.9% of 2.79 billion Asia total, but 20.3% of 6.71 billion world population). Their total GDP as of 2008 was $9.251 trillion (17.1% of $54.132 trillion, but 13.2% of $70.14 trillion Gross World Products), and their GDP per capita in 2008 was $6,779 (Table 8). Table 8 Breakdown of Chinese Majority Nations/Entities in the 2009 Times Higher Education-QS World University Top 200 Rankings, Number of institutions, percent of Region and World, Population, GDP and GDP per Capita Region & SubRegion University Number % of Region % of World Population 2008 GDP est.2008 $Billion GDP Per Capita $ 2008 est. Chinese Majority Nations/Entities 14 40 7 1,364,592,293 9,250.90 6,779 China 6 17.1 3 1,330,044,544 7,992.00 6,000 Hong Kong 5 14.3 2.5 7,018,636 307.3 43,800 Singapore 2 5.7 1 4,608,167 237.9 51,600 Taiwan 1 2.9 0.5 22,920,946 713.7 31,100 Source: “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions,”; THE, 2009; 2008 and 2009 CIA World Factbook. European Union Table 9 illustrates the wealth and influence of European Union nations, which are translated or exhibited in their combined relative large number of universities ranked in the top 200 of this study. Of the 16 European nations with institutions in the top 200 rankings, 13 (81%, but 40.6% of 32 nations on the list) are members of the 27-member European Union. These 13 nations have a total of 75 institutions ranked in the top 200 list (88.2% of 85 Europe total, and 37.5% of world total). Their total population as of July 2008 was 376 million (71.1% of the 528.9 million Europe total, but 5.6% of 6.71 billion world total). Their total GDP as of 2008 was $13.174 trillion (82.1% of $16.040 trillion Europe total, but 18.8% of $70.14 trillion Gross World Products), and their GDP per capita was $ 35,045 (Table 9). Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the Times Higher Education 17 Table 9 Breakdown of European Union Nations in the 2009 Times Higher Education-QS World University Top 200 Rankings, Number of institutions, percent of Region and World, Population, GDP and GDP per Capita Region & SubRegion University Number % of Region % of World Population 2008 GDP 2008 est. $Billion GDP Per Capita 2008 est. European Union 75 87.1 37 375,916,221 13,173.90 35,045 United Kingdom 29 34.1 14.5 60,943,912 2,236 36,700 Netherlands 11 12.9 5.5 16,645,313 673.5 40,500 Germany 10 10.6 4.5 82,369,552 2,925 35,500 Belgium 5 5.9 2.5 10,403,951 390.2 37500 France 5 5.9 2.5 64,057,792 2,113 33,300 Sweden 5 5.9 2.5 9,045,389 345.1 38,200 Denmark 3 3.5 1.5 5,484,723 204.1 37,200 Ireland 2 2.3 1 4,156,119 189 45,500 Austria 1 1.2 0.5 8,205,533 331.2 40,400 Finland 1 1.2 0.5 5,244,749 194 37,000 Greece 1 1.2 0.5 10,722,816 343.8 32,100 Italy 1 1.2 0.5 58,145,320 1,827 31,400 Spain 1 1.2 0.5 40,491,052 1,402 34,600 Source: “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions,”; THE, 2009; 2008 and 2009 CIA World Factbook. Discussion Just as there are many questions as to why in a world of at least 238 nations, territories or entities and 6.79 billion people in July 2009, only 32 nations representing 3.9 billion people had at least one institution ranked in the top 200 universities in this study, there are also many answers for this phenomenon. What are the factors responsible for this phenomenon? Does a nation’s total population contribute to its chances of having one or more institutions ranked in the top 200 universities? Does the wealth of a nation such as GDP or GDP per capita, or the total endowment of an institution contribute to inclusion on the list? Does having a world-class faculty increases the chance of an institution being ranked in the top 200 of world universities? Does religion or religious denomination play a role? What about the number of years of existence of an institution, does it contribute to being among the top 200 universities? What about the year of independence of a nation or its colonial heritage? Or does colonial heritage contribute to being ranked in the top 200 of world universities? Finally, does language contribute, specifically, the language of instruction of a particular institution? (There is considerable evidence as we shall see later that suggest that yes, language, especially English is a major factor). In attempting to answer some of these questions, it will become apparent that issues such as power, geopolitics and hegemony of some countries, especially the United Kingdom and the United States, will directly impact the positioning of a number of some universities in these rankings. Also, it is very important to take into account national inequalities. Naturally in the rankings there are countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom that have in the rankings a very large number of universities, in comparison to other countries. However, these universities are not representative of the countries quantitatively, both higher education systems are complex, diversified and most of the higher education student Edu ca tio n P olicy An alysi s Ar chi ve s Vol. 20 No. 21 18 population never have and will attend these types of institutions. With these notes of caution in mind, let me attempt to answer some of these questions. Population One would expect that the larger a nation’s population, the more colleges and universities it is likely to have listed in the 2009 Times Higher Education-QS top 200 universities. That is not the case, however. Many other factors are at play. Quality of the education provided is a very important factor. Sweitzer and Volkwein (2009) point out that the prestige of a university, which is linked to quality, is an important factor that determines whether an institution is ranked in world rankings studies. As a result, smaller countries with substantial amount of research funding, distinguished faculty and highly selected students, could be in a better position to have their universities ranked, while very populous nations without universities with such characteristics, are not likely to be ranked in world rankings. According to Table 10 below, while to a great extent that could be the case for some nations, such as Japan and the United States, it is not the case for many others. On the other hand, according to Table 10, there are nations with relatively small populations, but have more institutions ranked in the top 200 than larger nations. For example, according to Table 10, the United States and Japan have 2009 populations of 307 million (4.6% of the world) and 127 million (1.9%), but have 27% and 5.5% of institutions among the top 200 respectively. India and China have populations of 1.17 billion (17.2% of world) and 1.34 billion (20% of world), but have 1% and 3% of institutions among the top 200 respectively. The United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, Hong Kong, Sweden Denmark, Israel, New Zealand, Ireland, Norway and Singapore have populations of 61.1 million (0.9% of world), 21.3 million (0.3%), 33.5 million (0.5%), 17.7 million (0.2%), 10.4 million (0.15%), 7 million (0.1%), 9 million (0.13%), 5.5 million (0.08%), 7.2 million (0.1%), 4.2 million (0.06%), 4.2 million (0.06%), 4.7 million (0.07%), and 4.7 million (0.07%) respectively. Yet they had the following proportions of institutions ranked: 14.5%; 4.5%; 5.5%; 5.5%; 2.5%; 2.5%; 2.5%; 1.5%; 1.5%; 1.5%; 1%; and 1% respectively (Table 10). Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the Times Higher Education 19 Table 10 32 nations With at Least One Institution Ranked in the 2009 Times Higher Education-QS World University Top 200, Population in 2009 and Percent of World, and Education Expenditure Nation Number of Institutions % Population 2009 est. % of World Education Expenditure as % of GDP 2005 United States 54 27 307,212,123 4.6 5.3 United Kingdom 29 15 61,113,205 0.9 5.6 Canada 11 5.5 33,487,208 0.5 5.2 (2002) Japan 11 5.5 127,078,679 1.9 3.5 Netherlands 11 5.5 16,715,999 0.2 5.3 Germany 10 5 82,329,758 1.2 4.6 (2004) Australia 9 4.5 21,262,641 0.3 4.5 China 6 3 1,338,612,968 20 1.9 (1999) Switzerland 6 3 7,604,467 0.11 5.8 Belgium 5 2.5 10,414,336 0.15 6 (2004) France 5 2.5 64,057,792 0.94 5.7 Hong Kong 5 2.5 7,055,071 0.1 3.9 (2006) Sweden 5 2.5 9,059,651 0.13 7.1 South Korea 4 2 48,508,972 0.7 4.6 (2004) Denmark 3 1.5 5,500,510 0.08 8.3 Israel 3 1.5 7,233,701 0.1 6.9 (2004) New Zealand 3 1.5 4,213,418 0.06 6.2 (2006) India 2 1 1,166,079,217 17.2 3.2 Ireland 2 1 4,203,200 0.06 4.7 Norway 2 1 4,660,539 0.07 7.2 Russia 2 1 140,041,247 2.1 3.8 Singapore 2 1 4,657,542 0.07 3.7 (2001) Austria 1 0.5 8,210,281 0.12 5.4 Finland 1 0.5 5,250,275 0.08 6.4 Greece 1 0.5 10,737,428 0.16 4.4 Italy 1 0.5 58,126,212 0.86 4.5 Malaysia 1 0.5 25,715,819 0.38 6.2 (2004) Mexico 1 0.5 111,211,789 1.6 5.5 South Africa 1 0.5 49,052,489 0.7 5.4 (2006) Spain 1 0.5 40,525,002 0.6 4.2 Taiwan 1 0.5 22,974,347 0.34 .. Thailand 1 0.5 65,905,410 0.97 4.2 Source: THE, 2009; 2008 and 2009 CIA World Factbook. Gross Domestic Products and Per Capita Gross Domestic Products Marginson (2007) presents data showing the link or correlation between GDP of nations and the positions of their colleges and universities in a top 100 world university rankings (p. 15-16). One might argue that the larger the amount of a nation’s gross domestic products (GDP) or GDP per capita, the more likely it could be in the position to have at least one college or university ranked in Edu ca tio n P olicy An alysi s Ar chi ve s Vol. 20 No. 21 20 the top 200. In fact, I found that in 2008, of the 14 nations in the world with a GDP of at least $1 trillion (6 in Europe, including Russia; 4 in Asia; and 4 in the Americas), only Brazil, with a population of 198.7 million in July 2009 (with GDP in 2008 of $1.998 trillion) did not have at least one institution ranked in the top 200. The logic is that nations with very high GDP and GDP per capita are in the position to strategically invest in certain universities and put them in the position to be ranked. It has been noted that the colonization process of a nation in the New World could lead to such nation’s universities not to be in a position to be ranked in the top 200 universities. Brazil is an example of such a nation. The Portuguese are said not to have had any specific interest in investing or building prominent universities, when compared to the Spaniards in Mexico, for example. As a result, the earliest Brazilian universities were established after independence in the early 1900s (Rezende, 2010; Franco & Morosini, 1992, p. 70). This leads to the debate as to whether it is governments in countries or the universities in those countries that are responsible to do what it takes to be ranked in the top 200. One cannot rush to claim that financing does not matter but even when a country may invest a lot of money in its universities this cannot guarantee it to automatically place a university in the top 200 rankings. The example presented above by Cantwell and Maldonado-Maldonado (2009, p. 296-297) of wealthy Arab and Islamic countries acknowledging the lack of universities from their countries in the top 200 and their goal of strategically investing huge sums of money in their universities to help them enter the top 200 illustrates that money does not always assure top ranking status. But one could also argue that money may have contributed to those universities that are ranked in the top 200. So, there may be nations with very large GDP but with only a few institutions ranked in the top 200. Russia, Italy and Spain, for example, have 2008 GDP of $2.271 trillion, $1.823 trillion, and $1.403 trillion respectively, but they have only 2, 1 and 1 institutions ranked respectively in the top 200. Thailand has a 2008 GDP per capita of $8,400, and a population of 66 million in July 2009, but has at least 1 institution ranked in the top 200. In addition to large amounts of GDP and GDP per capita, a visible effort to invest in higher education might be what it takes to be in the position to be ranked in the top 200. This has been the problem that India (with over 1 billion people) is experiencing. Writing about India’s economic progress, but its lack of serious investment in its higher education institutions, Altbach (2006) notes that decades ago India decided to utilize a policy of first investing relatively very little funding in education, and then “…spread its money widely, devoting only 0.37 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) to post secondary education…”. Even with its rising economy and the rapid pace of progress in higher education in Asia and elsewhere, India continues to invest little in higher education. The result is that India is not reaching its potential and that: “The absence of a significant group of world-class universities is perhaps the most serious impediment to India’s ambition to build a sophisticated knowledge-based economy…” (p. 49-50; also see Altbach, 2005). One could argue that a real commitment by a nation to invest a substantial amount of money into its education sector is a very good start to be in a position to have recognized universities. Table 10 presents education expenditure as percent of GDP for 31 of the 32 nations. Table 10 shows that most of these countries do make the effort to invest substantial amount of their GDP into their education sectors. The data is for the year 2005 for 20 of the 31 nations (excluding Taiwan) and for the remaining 11 nations, the years range from 1999 to 2006. According to Table 10, in 2005, the education expenditure for these nations ranged from a low of 1.9% in China to a high of 8.3% in Denmark (Table 10). Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the Times Higher Education 21 Total Exports and Imports of Goods and Services The ability of people in a particular nation to convince people around the world to buy their products and services is in many ways connected to the productivity of colleges and universities in that nation. That is because it is the colleges and university that contribute to train the workforce that is able to produce such goods and services. Today, nations that export or import tens of billions of dollars or hundreds of billions of dollars or a trillion dollars or more tend to be highly respected in international relations, belonging to exclusive economic organizations of nations. One can then argue that the 2008 data on trade (exports and imports) of the 32 nations with institutions among the top 200 universities may help us understand why these nations were able to have at least one institution ranked. Table 11 below examines the trade figures (exports and imports) of all 32 nations on the top 200 list for the year 2008. The table presents total exports and per capita exports and total imports and per capita imports, utilizing the 2008 population figures of those nations. For exports, according to Table 11, their combined population in 2008 was 3.84 billion (57.2% of 6.71 billion people in 2008) and their combined exports in 2008 was $12.446 trillion (77.6% of $16.040 total world exports). Their per capita export was $3,245 ($12.446 divided by 3.84 billion people in those nations in 2008). Their combined import in 2008 was $12.717 trillion (79.6% of $15.970 trillion total world imports) and their per capita import in 2008 was $3,315 ($12.717 divided by 3.84 billion people in the world). Tables 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 below examine trade figures for 2008 for the following regions: Europe, Americas, Asia, Oceania and Africa, respectively. The combined exports for Europe in 2008 was $5.914 trillion (47.5% of $12.446 trillion of 32 nations, but 36.9% of $16.040 world total exports) and their per capita exports was $11,183; For the Americas, $2.027 trillion ($16.3% and 12.6% respectively) and per capita exports of $4,535. For Asia, $4.197 trillion (33.7% and 26.2% respectively) and per capita exports of $1,506. For Oceania, $222 billion (1.8% and 1.4% respectively) and per capita exports of $8,780; and Africa (South Africa), $86.12 (0.7% and 0.5% respectively) and per capita exports of $1,765. For imports figures, the 16 European nations on the list had a combined import in 2008 of $5.723 trillion (45% of $12.717 trillion and 35.8% of $15.970 world total) and per capita import of $10,822. For the Americas, $2.841 trillion (22.3% of $12.717 trillion and 17.8% of $15.970 world total) and per capita import of $6,356. For Asia, $3.836 trillion (30.1% of $12.717 trillion and 24% of $15.970 trillion world total) and per capita import of $1,377. For Oceania, $227 billion (1.8% of $12.717 and 1.4% of $15.970 trillion world total) and per capita imports of $9,013. For Africa (South Africa), $90.57 billion (0.7% of $12.717 trillion and 0.6% of $15.970 world total) and per capita imports of $1,857 (Tables 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16). Edu ca tio n P olicy An alysi s Ar chi ve s Vol. 20 No. 21 22 Table 11 Total Exports and Imports and Rank of Goods and Services of 32 Nations With at Least One Institution Ranked in the 2009 Times Higher Education-QS Top 200 World Universities, and Population in 2008 Nation # of Institutions % Population 2008 est. Exports 2008 est. $Billion Per Capita $$ Rank Imports 2008 est. $Billion Per Capita $ Rank USA 54 27 303,824,640 1,277 4,203 25 2,117 6,968 24 UK 29 15 60,943,912 466.3 7,651 21 639.3 10,490 15 Canada 11 5.5 33,212,696 459.1 13,823 13 415.2 12,501 13 Japan 11 5.5 127,288,416 746.5 5,865 24 708.3 5,564 26 Netherlands 11 5.5 16,645,313 531.7 31,943 5 474.8 28,524 5 Germany 10 5 82,369,552 1,498 18,186 12 1,232 14,957 12 Australia 9 4.5 21,007,310 189.9 9,040 17 194.2 9,244 19 China 6 3 1,330,044,544 1,435 1,079 31 1,074 807 31 Switzerland 6 3 7,581,520 241.3 31,827 6 227.4 29,994 4 Belgium 5 2.5 10,403,951 371.5 35,708 4 387.7 37,265 3 France 5 2.5 64,057,792 601.9 9,396 16 692 10,803 14 Hong Kong 5 2.5 7,018,636 365.2 52,033 2 388.4 55,338 2 Sweden 5 2.5 9,045,389 185.9 20,552 10 167.8 18,551 9 South Korea 4 2 48,379,392 433.5 8,960 18 427.4 8,834 21 Denmark 3 1.5 5,484,723 114.9 20,949 9 116.4 21,223 7 Israel 3 1.5 7,112,359 57.16 8,037 19 64.4 9,055 20 New Zealand 3 1.5 4,173,460 31.19 7,473 22 32.76 7,850 23 India 2 1 1,147,995,904 187.9 164 32 315.1 275 32 Ireland 2 1 4,156,119 119.8 28,825 7 84.82 20,408 8 Norway 2 1 4,644,457 173.6 37,378 3 85.95 18,506 10 Russia 2 1 140,702,096 471.6 3,352 26 291.9 2,075 29 Singapore 2 1 4,608,167 342.7 74,368 1 309.6 67,185 1 Austria 1 0.5 8,205,533 179.1 21,827 8 179.2 21,839 6 Finland 1 0.5 5,244,749 96.62 18,422 11 87.51 16,685 11 Greece 1 0.5 10,722,816 29.14 2,718 27 93.91 8,758 22 Italy 1 0.5 58,145,320 546.9 9,406 15 546.9 9,406 18 Malaysia 1 0.5 25,274,132 198.7 7,862 20 154.7 6,121 25 Mexico 1 0.5 109,955,400 291.3 2,649 29 308.6 2,807 27 South Africa 1 0.5 48,782,756 86.12 1,765 30 90.57 1,857 30 Spain 1 0.5 40,491,052 285.9 7,061 23 415.5 10,261 17 Taiwan 1 0.5 22,920,946 254.9 11,121 14 236.7 10,327 16 Thailand 1 0.5 65,493,296 175.3 2,677 28 157.3 2,402 28 Total/Ave. 200 100 3,835,936,348 12,446 3,245 12,717 3,315 World 200 100 6,706,993,152 16,040 15,970 Source: THE, 2009; 2008 and 2009 CIA World Factbook. Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the Times Higher Education 23 Table 12 Total Exports and Imports and Rank of Goods and Services of European Nations With at Least One Institution Ranked in the 2009 Times Higher Education-QS Top 200 World Universities, and Population in 2008 Nation # of Institutions % Population 2008 est. Exports 2008 est. $Billion Per Capita $ Rank Imports 2008 est. $Billion Per Capita $ Rank UK 29 15 60,943,912 466.3 7,651 21 639.3 10,490 15 Netherlands 11 5.5 16,645,313 531.7 31,943 5 474.8 28,524 5 Germany 10 5 82,369,552 1,498 18,186 12 1,232 14,957 12 Switzerland 6 3 7,581,520 241.3 31,827 6 227.4 29,994 4 Belgium 5 2.5 10,403,951 371.5 35,708 4 387.7 37,265 3 France 5 2.5 64,057,792 601.9 9,396 16 692 10,803 14 Sweden 5 2.5 9,045,389 185.9 20,552 10 167.8 18,551 9 Denmark 3 1.5 5,484,723 114.9 20,949 9 116.4 21,223 6 Ireland 2 1 4,156,119 119.8 28,825 7 84.82 20,408 8 Norway 2 1 4,644,457 173.6 37,378 3 85.95 18,506 10 Russia 2 1 140,702,096 471.6 3,352 26 291.9 2,075 29 Austria 1 0.5 8,205,533 179.1 21,827 8 179.2 21,839 6 Finland 1 0.5 5,244,749 96.62 18,422 11 87.51 16,685 11 Greece 1 0.5 10,722,816 29.14 2,718 27 93.91 8,758 22 Italy 1 0.5 58,145,320 546.9 9,406 15 546.9 9,406 18 Spain 1 0.5 40,491,052 285.9 7,061 23 415.5 10,261 17 Total/Ave. 85 43 528,844,294 5,914.16 11,183 5,723.09 10,822 Source: THE, 2009; 2008 and 2009 CIA World Factbook. Table 13 Total Exports and Imports and Rank of Goods and Services of Nations in the Americas With at Least One Institution Ranked in the 2009 Times Higher Education-QS Top 200 World Universities, and Population in 2008 Nation # of Institutions % Population 2008 est. Exports 2008 est. $Billion Per Capita $ Rank Imports 2008 est. $Billion Per Capita $ Rank USA 54 27 303,824,640 1,277 4,203 25 2,117 6,968 24 Canada 11 5.5 33,212,696 459.1 13,823 13 415.2 12,501 13 Mexico 1 0.5 109,955,400 291.3 2,649 29 308.6 2,807 27 Total/Ave. 66 33 446,992,736 2,027 4,535 2,841 6,356 Source: THE, 2009; 2008 and 2009 CIA World Factbook. Edu ca tio n P olicy An alysi s Ar chi ve s Vol. 20 No. 21 24 Table 14 Total Exports and Imports and Rank of Goods and Services of Asian Nations With at Least One Institution Ranked in the 2009 Times Higher Education-QS Top 200 World Universities, and Population in 2008 Nation # of Institutions % Population 2008 est. Exports 2008 est. $Billion Per Capita $ Rank Imports 2008 est. $Billion Per Capita $ Rank Japan 11 5.5 127,288,416 746.5 5,865 24 708.3 5,564 26 China 6 3 1,330,044,544 1,435 1,079 31 1,074 807 31 Hong Kong 5 2.5 7,018,636 365.2 52,033 2 388.4 55,338 2 South Korea 4 2 48,379,392 433.5 8,960 18 427.4 8,834 21 Israel 3 1.5 7,112,359 57.16 8,037 19 64.4 9,055 20 India 2 1 1,147,995,904 187.9 164 32 315.1 275 32 Singapore 2 1 4,608,167 342.7 74,368 1 309.6 67,185 1 Malaysia 1 0.5 25,274,132 198.7 7,862 20 154.7 6,121 25 Taiwan 1 0.5 22,920,946 254.9 11,121 14 236.7 10,327 16 Thailand 1 0.5 65,493,296 175.3 2,677 28 157.3 2,402 28 Total/Ave. 36 18 2,786,135,792 4,196.86 1,506 3,835.90 1,377 Source: THE, 2009; 2008 and 2009 CIA World Factbook. Table 15 Total Exports and Imports and Rank of Goods and Services of Oceania Nations With at Least One Institution Ranked in the 2009 Times Higher Education-QS Top 200 World Universities, and Population in 2008 Nation # of Institutions % Population 2008 est. Exports 2008 est. $Billion Per Capita $ Rank Imports 2008 est. $Billion Per Capita $ Rank Australia 9 4.5 21,007,310 189.9 9,040 17 194.2 9,244 19 New Zealand 3 1.5 4,173,460 31.19 7,473 22 32.76 7,850 23 Total/Ave. 12 6 25,180,770 221.09 8,780 226.96 9,013 Source: THE, 2009; 2008 and 2009 CIA World Factbook. Table 16 Total Exports and Imports and Rank of Goods and Services of African Nations With at Least One Institution Ranked in the 2009 Times Higher Education-QS Top 200 World Universities, and Population in 2008 Nation # of Institutions % Population 2008 est. Exports 2008 est. $Billion Per Capita $ Rank Imports 2008 est. $Billion Per Capita $ Rank South Africa 1 0.5 48,782,756 86.12 1,765 30 90.57 1,857 30 Total/Ave. 1 0.5 48,782,756 86.12 1,765 90.57 1,857 Source: THE, 2009; 2008 and 2009 CIA World Factbook. Tables 17, 18, and 19 examine 2008 trade (exports and imports) figures for the Chinese Majority Nations, European Union and NAFTA nations on the list. For the four Chinese Majority Nations, their combined exports in 2008 were $2.398 trillion (19.3% of $12.446 trillion and 14.9% of $16.040 trillion) and their per capita exports were $1,757. Their combined imports in 2008 were $2,009 trillion (15.8% or $12.717 trillion and 12.6% of $15.970 trillion world total). Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the Times Higher Education 25 For the 13 European Union nations, their combined exports in 2008 were $5.028 trillion (40.4% of $12.446 trillion and 31.3% of $16.040 trillion world total) and their per capita exports were $13,374. Their combined imports were $5.118 trillion (40.7% of $12.717 trillion and 32% of $15.970 trillion world total) and their per capita import was $13,614. Table 17 Total Exports and Imports and Rank of Goods and Services of Chinese Majority Nations With at Least One Institution Ranked in the 2009 Times Higher Education-QS Top 200 World Universities, and Population in 2008 Nation # of Institutions % Population 2008 est. Exports 2008 est. $Billion Per Capita $ Rank Imports 2008 est. $Billion Per Capita $ Rank China 6 3 1,330,044,544 1,435 1,079 31 1,074 807 31 Hong Kong 5 2.5 7,018,636 365.2 52,033 2 388.4 55,338 2 Singapore 2 1 4,608,167 342.7 74,368 1 309.6 67,185 1 Taiwan 1 0.5 22,920,946 254.9 11,121 14 236.7 10,327 16 Source: THE, 2009; 2008 and 2009 CIA World Factbook. Table 18 Total Exports and Imports and Rank of Goods and Services of European Union Nations With at Least One Institution Ranked in the 2009 Times Higher Education-QS Top 200 World Universities, and Population in 2008 Nation # of Institutions % Population 2008 est. Exports 2008 est. $Billion Per Capita $ Rank Imports 2008 est. $Billion Per Capita $ Rank UK 29 15 60,943,912 466.3 7,651 21 639.3 10,490 15 Netherlands 11 5.5 16,645,313 531.7 31,943 5 474.8 28,524 5 Germany 10 5 82,369,552 1,498 18,186 12 1,232 14,957 12 Belgium 5 2.5 10,403,951 371.5 35,708 4 387.7 37,265 3 France 5 2.5 64,057,792 601.9 9,396 16 692 10,803 14 Sweden 5 2.5 9,045,389 185.9 20,552 10 167.8 18,551 9 Denmark 3 1.5 5,484,723 114.9 20,949 9 116.4 21,223 7 Ireland 2 1 4,156,119 119.8 28,825 7 84.82 20,408 8 Austria 1 0.5 8,205,533 179.1 21,827 8 179.2 21,839 6 Finland 1 0.5 5,244,749 96.62 18,422 11 87.51 16,685 11 Greece 1 0.5 10,722,816 29.14 2,718 27 93.91 8,758 22 Italy 1 0.5 58,145,320 546.9 9,406 15 546.9 9,406 18 Spain 1 0.5 40,491,052 285.9 7,061 23 415.5 10,261 17 Total/Ave. 75 38 375,916,221 5,027.66 13,374 5,117.84 13,614 Source: THE, 2009; 2008 and 2009 CIA World Factbook. For the three NAFTA nations, their combined exports in 2008 were $2.027 trillion ($16.3% $12.446 trillion and 12.6% of $16.040 trillion world total) and per capita exports of $4,535. Their combined imports in 2008 were $2.841 trillion (22.3% of $12.717 trillion and 17.8% of $15.970 world total) and per capita imports of $6,356 (Tables 17, 18, and 19). Edu ca tio n P olicy An alysi s Ar chi ve s Vol. 20 No. 21 26 Table 19 Total Exports and Imports and Rank of Goods and Services of NAFTA Nations With at Least One Institution Ranked in the 2009 Times Higher Education-QS Top 200 World Universities, and Population in 2008 Nation # of Institutions % Population 2008 est. Exports 2008 est. $Billion Per Capita $ Rank Imports 2008 est. $Billion Per Capita $ Rank United States 54 27 303,824,640 1,277 4,203 25 2,117 6,968 24 Canada 11 5.5 33,212,696 459.1 13,823 13 415.2 12,501 13 Mexico 1 0.5 109,955,400 291.3 2,649 29 308.6 2,807 27 Total/Ave 66 33 446,992,736 2,027 4,535 2,841 6,356 Source: THE, 2009; 2008 and 2009 CIA World Factbook. The significance of Tables 12 to 19 is to show that the high levels of international trade of these nations, regions and entities are directly connected to their universities ranked in the top 200 of this study. These universities in these nations contributed to those businesses that were involved in trade, just as those businesses might have contributed to those universities being ranked in the top 200. The universities educate or train the workforce of those businesses in those nations, while those businesses invest in those universities in many different ways, including research for professors and scholars, and scholarships for students. It is highly unlikely that these nations would have exported and imported such massive amounts of goods and services without the contributions of their ranked universities. Endowment of an Institution An institution’s endowment plays a crucial role in its chances to become recognized as a top rated or world-class entity. For example, according to Wangenge-Ouma and Langa (2010), “Financial resources are arguably the most important for the ‘survival’ of universities” (p.750). Institutions with large endowments may be recognized as top rated because relative to other institutions with inadequate endowments, parents, family members and students know that their Astronomy, biology, chemistry and physics laboratories, for example, have the most modern and sophisticated equipments or tools. The faculty members of these institutions also have the available research funding to focus on their projects and teaching (Poh, 2010, p. 71-72; also see Hawthorne, 2007). Table 20 tends to imply that the larger the financial amount of an institution’s endowment, the more likely that not only will it be ranked among the top 200 universities, but also ranked higher. Table 20 utilizes endowment figures for 2007 provided by the U.S. Department of Education for 52 of the 54 U.S. institutions ranked among the top 200 universities (data were not available for State University of New York, Stony Brook and the University of Arizona). For the public institutions of California, 6 of them are on the list, but direct endowment figures were provided for University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) ($975,295,000), and University of California, Berkeley ($837,011,000), but another figure of $6,439,436,000 was provided under the name University of California System, which may include the remaining institutions on the list: University of California, San Diego, University of California, Santa Barbara, University of California, Davis, and University of California, Irvine. The same is done with the University of Texas, Austin. The figure provided ($15,613,672,000) says University of Texas System, with University of Texas, Austin, the highest ranked of them all. The same was done for Texas A&M University, whereby the figure provided Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the Times Higher Education 27 ($6,590,300,000) says Texas A&M System, with Texas A&M University being the highest ranked of them all. The endowment data provided by the U.S. Department of Education were for the 120 institutions in the U.S. with the highest endowments. The total endowment of all 120 institutions in 2007 was $322.2 billion. The total endowment of the 52 of 54 U.S. institutions ranked in the top 200 Times Higher Education-QS study was $254 billion (78.8%). According to Table 20, six institutions or University systems have endowments of $10 billion or more in 2007: Harvard ($34.6 billion); Yale ($22.5 billion); Stanford ($17.2 billion); Princeton ($15.8 billion); University of Texas System ($15.6 billion); and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) ($10 billion) (Table 20 ; see Barrows, 2009). It is useful to note that two of the highest ranked and most prestigious institutions in the United Kingdom also have substantial amount of endowments. For example, it is noted on November 27, 2006 that: “The total figure for ‘Cambridge’ [Endowment] is currently around …4.1 billion, [British Pounds]…”5 According to the frequently asked questions section of its website, the University of Oxford reports that in 2007, its total endowments was around 3.4 billion British Pounds.6 It is useful to point out that the age of an institution could be linked to its ability to have relatively large endowment.7 It is important to note that the establishment of university endowments can be common in some nations but not in others. For example, this is a phenomenon that is more common in the United Kingdom and the United States primarily due to the historical ties of these two nations. 5 “University of Cambridge appoints Nick Cavalla of Man Global Strategies as Chief Investment Officer,” University of Cambridge News. Retrieved on November 27, 2009 from:http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/press/dpp/2006112701. 6 “FAQ,” Oxford Thinking: The Campaign for the University of Oxford. University of Oxford. Retrieved on November 29,2009 from:://www.campaign.ox.ac.uk/campaign/the_campaign/faq.html. 7 One could attempt to make an argument that the age of an institution might contribute to it being ranked in the top 200. That is because such an institution may have accumulated large financial endowments and may also have invested highly in recruiting talented professors or scholars, staff and students. Also, a system might have been established where older or senior scholars would mentor younger scholars throughout generations or centuries, thereby leading to a smooth transfer of ideas. However, there might be institutions that are relatively new but because of determination by a country or society the people in that society would do all they can to invest in those institutions. For example, on the institutions’ websites, the following institutions ranked in the top 200 have the following years of establishment: University of Oxford (1096); University of Cambridge (1209); Harvard University (1636); Yale University (1701); Princeton University (1746). However, one can also find institutions ranked among the top 200 that were established after World War II: University of Malaya (1949); Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi (1961); and the Hong Kong University of Science & Technology (1991). Edu ca tio n P olicy An alysi s Ar chi ve s Vol. 20 No. 21 28 Table 20 List of U.S. institutions ranked in Times Higher Education-QS Top 200 Universities in the World in 2009, U.S. News and World Report College Rankings for the U.S. Institutions on the List, 2010, their 2007 Endowments and rank of Endowments 2009 Rank 2010 U.S. News Rank Institution Endowment 2007 US $ Rank 1 1 Harvard University 34,634,906,000 1 3 3 Yale University 22,530,200,000 2 7 8 University of Chicago 6,204,189,000 13 8 1 Princeton University 15,787,200,000 4 9 4 MIT 9,980,410,000 6 10 4 California Institute of Technology 1,860,052,000 34 11 8 Columbia University 7,149,803,000 7 12 4 University of Pennsylvania 6,635,187,000 9 13 14 Johns Hopkins University 2,800,377,000 25 14 10 Duke University 5,910,280,000 15 15 15 Cornell University 5,424,733,000 18 16 4 Stanford University 17,164,836,000 3 19 27 University of Michigan 7,089,830,000 8 27 22 Carnegie Mellon University 1,115,740,000 64 31 16 Brown University 2,780,798,000 26 32 24 University of California, Los Angeles 975,295,000 78 32 12 Northwestern University 6,503,292,000 11 39 21 University of California, Berkeley 837,011,000 86 52 32 New York University 2,161,800,000 31 54 56 Boston University 1,101,386,000 68 61 39 University of Wisconsin-Madison 1,645,250,000 44 63 39 University of Illinois (UC) 1,515,387,000 47 73 12 Washington University in St Louis 5,567,843,000 16 76 35 University of California, San Diego* .. .. 76 47 University of Texas at Austin** .. .. 78 28 University of North Carolina (CH) 2,164,444,000 30 80 42 University of Washington 2,184,374,000 29 85 11 Dartmouth College 3,760,234,000 21 86 35 Georgia Institute of Technology 1,281,162,000 54 Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the Times Higher Education 29 Table 20 (continued) List of U.S. institutions ranked in Times Higher Education-QS Top 200 Universities in the World in 2009, U.S. News and World Report College Rankings for the U.S. Institutions on the List, 2010, their 2007 Endowments and rank of Endowments 2009 Rank 2010 U.S. News Rank Institution Endowment 2007 US $ Rank 87 61 Purdue University 1,786,592,000 36 90 17 Emory University 5,561,743,000 17 100 17 Rice University 4,669,544,000 19 105 61 University of Minnesota 2,804,466,000 24 106 42 University of California, SB* .. .. 108 42 University of California, Davis* .. .. 112 26 University of Southern California 3,715,272,000 22 114 56 University of Pittsburgh 2,254,379,000 28 119 41 Case Western Reserve University 1,841,234,000 35 120 47 Pennsylvania State University 1,590,000,000 45 122 53 University of Maryland, College Park 810,374,000 90 128 24 University of Virginia 4,370,209,000 20 129 23 Georgetown University 1,059,343,000 72 129 53 Ohio State University 2,338,103,000 27 140 17 Vanderbilt University 3,487,500,000 23 141 35 University of Rochester 1,726,318,000 38 160 28 Tufts University 1,452,058,000 48 161 46 University of California, Irvine* .. .. 166 102 University of Arizona .. .. 173 96 Stony Brook University .. .. 179 61 Texas A&M University*** .. .. 183 66 Rutgers 654,184,000 110 186 77 University of Colorado at Boulder 716,656,000 95 193 71 Indiana University Bloomington 1,556,853,000 46 199 20 University of Notre Dame 5,976,973,000 14 University of California System* 6,439,436,000 12 University of Texas System** 15,613,672,000 5 Texas A&M University System*** 6,590,300,000 10 Total 253,781,228,000 Source: The University rankings data are compiled from, .”Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings 2009: Top 200 World Universities,” Times Higher Education Supplement (UK). Retrieved on October 8, 2009 from: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/Rankings2009-Top200.html; The U.S. News and World Report Rankings data are compiled from, “Best Colleges: Top Public Schools: National Universities,”; “ U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved on November 27, 2009 from:http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-top-public; The endowment data are compiled and computed from, “Table 359. Endowment funds of the 120 colleges and universities with the largest endowments, by rank order: 2006 and 2007,” Digest of Education Statistics. U.S. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved on October 26,2009 from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables_359.asp. Edu ca tio n P olicy An alysi s Ar chi ve s Vol. 20 No. 21 30 Colonial Heritage and the English Language My analysis of the 32 nations with institutions among the top 200, shows that there is a phenomenon of Colonial Heritage. One can make a clear case especially for the United Kingdom. It appears as if a number of nations that were at one time territories or nations partly or fully colonized by the United Kingdom are among these 32 nations. Table 21shows the United Kingdom and 11 nations whose territories or the nations themselves were at one time in history partly or fully colonized by the United Kingdom. The countries or entities are: Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Ireland, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, and the United States. Their combined population including the United Kingdom, in 2008 was 1.67 billion (24.9% of 6.71 billion world total). These 11 nations plus the United Kingdom have a total of 122 institutions (61%) among the top 200. Their combined GDP in 2008 was $24.017 trillion (44.4% of $54.132 and 34.2% of the $70.14 trillion world total) and their per capita GDP was $14,398 (Table 21). Language Language could be a potential contributor to an institution being included among the top 200 universities. This is especially so with the English language and it is a big part of the Anglo- American hegemony. Also, the importance of English in the scientific community has also produced many inequalities with respect to non-English speaking countries (Stiftel & Mukhopadhyay, 2007). This hegemony has been criticized in numerous academic studies or articles (Jiang, 2011; Salmi & Saroyan, 2007; Stiftel & Mukhopadhyay, 2007). By the end of the first decade of the 21st century, English has become the most influential language in academia, business and cultural entertainment. Sweeting and Vickers (2007) quoted a scholar as saying of the British that: “‘…most significant of all is the legacy of the school and university’ and in particular the role of English as an international language’” (p. 1). In a review of Wierzbicka (2006) book, English: Meaning and Culture, Raumolin-Brunberg (2008) notes that: “…Wierzbicka speaks about ‘Anglo’ English and ‘Anglo’ culture, referring to the language and culture of the traditional bases of English: the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. She claims that Anglo English, like any language, is a result of its history, during which specific cultural meanings have developed” (p. 462). Moussu and Llurda (2008) write about the influence of the English language around the world, specifically how non-native English speakers perceive their fluency in English (also see Kirkptrick, 2007; Rubdy & Saraceni, 2006). According to Altbach (2008), the dominance of the English language, especially as a language of academic instruction in dozens of nations is a post World War II phenomenon. Before that period, national languages were utilized by most nations as a language of instruction in universities. A similar pattern also emerged in terms of academic or scholarly publications, whereby English has emerged as the primary language utilized in such publications. Altbach (2008) concludes that without any real competition from another world language, the English language has now become the primary international language of academic instruction and publication: “Indeed, national academic systems enthusiastically welcome English as a contributor to internationalizing, competing, and becoming ‘world class.’” Colonialism (in Asia, including parts of China such as Hong Kong, Africa, the Middle East, the Caribbean, North and South America, and elsewhere) is a major factor for this phenomenon (p. 56-57). For example, some of the Asian nations with institutions ranked among the top 200 actually provide information on their institutions’ websites either only in English or both English and their national language. These Asian institutions and nations include; India Institute of Technology, Delhi, India; National Taiwan University, Taiwan; Universiti Malaya, Malaysia; Yonsei University, South Korea; and the Hong Kong University of Science & Technology, Hong Kong. This influence of the Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the Times Higher Education 31 English language as a language of academic instruction is observed even in other European Union nations. For example, according to Seidlhofer et al. (2006), over 90% of students in secondary schools in European Union nations study English (In most cases as their first foreign language). Seidlhofer et al. (2006) conclude that “whether chosen or mandatory, English is unquestionably the dominant language in secondary education…” (p. 3-4). Table 21 United Kingdom and nations at One Time in History that Had Territories Partly or Fully Colonized by the United Kingdom, Their Rankings in the 2009 THE-QS World University Top 200 Rankings, Population, GDP and GDP per Capita Countries University Number Population 2008 GDP 2008est. $Billion GDP Per Capita 2008 est. UK 29 60,943,912 2,236 36,700 Australia 9 21,007,310 802.9 38,200 Canada 11 33,212,696 1,303 39,200 Hong Kong 5 7,018,636 307.3 43,800 India 2 1,147,995,904 3,304 2,900 Israel 3 7,112,359 203.4 28,600 Ireland 2 4,156,119 189 45,500 Malaysia 1 25,274,132 385.2 15,200 New Zealand 3 4,173,460 116.6 27,900 Singapore 2 4,608,167 237.9 51,600 South Africa 1 48,782,756 492.2 10,100 United States 54 303,824,640 14,440 47,500 Total/Average 122 1,668,110,091 24,017.50 14,398 Source: THE, 2009; 2008 and 2009 CIA World Factbook. Table 22 Total Exports and Imports and Rank of Goods and Services of United Kingdom and Nations With Territories at One Time In History Partly or Fully Colonized by the United Kingdom With at Least One Institution Ranked in the 2009 THE-QS Top 200 World Universities, and Population in 2008 Nation # of Institutions % Population 2008 est. Exports 2008est $Billion Per Capita $ Rank Imports 2008 est. $Billion Per Capita $ Rank UK 29 15 60,943,912 466.3 7,651 21 639.3 10,490 15 USA 54 27 303,824,640 1,277 4,203 25 2,117 6,968 24 Canada 11 5.5 33,212,696 459.1 13,823 13 415.2 12,501 13 Australia 9 4.5 21,007,310 189.9 9,040 17 194.2 9,244 19 Hong Kong 5 2.5 7,018,636 365.2 52,033 2 388.4 55,338 2 Israel 3 1.5 7,112,359 57.16 7,964 19 64.4 9,042 20 New Zealand 3 1.5 4,173,460 31.19 7,473 22 32.76 7,850 23 India 2 1 1,147,995,904 187.9 164 32 315.1 275 32 Ireland 2 1 4,156,119 119.8 28,825 7 84.82 20,408 8 Singapore 2 1 4,608,167 342.7 74,368 1 309.6 67,185 1 Malaysia 1 0.5 25,274,132 198.7 7,862 20 154.7 6,121 25 South Africa 1 0.5 48,782,756 86.12 1,765 30 90.57 1,857 30 Total/Ave 122 61 1,668,110,091 3,781.07 2,267 4,802.05 2,879 Source: THE, 2009; 2008 and 2009 CIA World Factbook. Edu ca tio n P olicy An alysi s Ar chi ve s Vol. 20 No. 21 32 Table 22 presents 2008 trade (exports and imports) figures of these 12 nations. Their combined exports in 2008 were $3.781 trillion (30.4% of $12.446 trillion and 23.6% of $16.040 trillion total) and their per capita exports were $2,267. Their combined imports were $4.802 (37.8% of 12.717 trillion and 30.1% of $15.970 trillion world total) and their GDP per capita Imports were $2,879 (Table 22). Conclusion This study has illustrated that in the 2009 Times Higher Education—QS Top 200 Universities, there is a clear example of Anglo-American hegemony. This Anglo-American hegemony appears to be relatively successful, because increasing numbers of nations in the World, including China, Mexico, Quatar, Indonesia and Brazil are implementing Anglo-American type University structures or strategic plans. One possible reason why some of these nations seem to attempt to emulate the universities of the United States and the United Kingdom is that in increasing numbers of instances, the students, professors, scholars and administrators in those institutions are from China, India, the Middle East, Africa, etcetera. Among the most prominent professors or administrators at highly ranked universities in the United States and United Kingdom are not people of European ancestry. New York City in the United States and London, England are the two most racially/ethnically and culturally diverse entities in the world (Agarwal & Winkler, 1984; Finkelstein, 2010; Jasso, 2009; Kaba, 2011, 2004). This analysis points to factors that might have contributed to a nation having at least one university ranked in the top 200 world universities. Higher Gross Domestic Products (GDP) and GDP per capita were cited as contributing factors to a nation having at least one university ranked. The argument is that financing is an integral part of a university’s success, and relatively wealthy nations may be in the position to invest substantially in at least a selected number of their universities. Another factor cited as contributing to a nation having at least one university ranked in the top 200 is higher levels of trade (exports/imports). The argument here is that a nation’s universities contribute to its economic success because it is those institutions that educate or train the workforce and the civil servants who produce the goods and services of the country. Additional factors cited as contributing to a nation having at least one university ranked in the top 200 are population size of a nation, level of authoritarianism8, age of an institution, colonial heritage, endowment of an institution, and language (English). For developed nations such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Germany, a good argument can be made that their relatively large size contributed to them having many universities ranked in the top 200. However, that claim cannot be convincingly made for China and India. The age of an institution must be considered as a factor contributing to a nation having at least one university ranked in the top 200. This is because an old institution might have established a particular type of reputation, which attracts excellent students, administrators and professors and scholars. Also in the context of the United States and the United Kingdom, the older a university is the more likely that it has established large endowments. Colonial heritage was also noted as a factor because six out of every ten of the 200 universities are found to be linked to the United Kingdom either as a formal colony or as a country today where Queen Elizabeth of England is the ceremonial Head of State. This 8 Authoritarianism is a factor that can contribute to some nations having fewer universities ranked or not having a single university ranked at all. Authoritarian regimes tend to repress students, college administrators or professors because of their views increasing “Brain Drain” whereby the most educated or skilled citizen will flee such nations. Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the Times Higher Education 33 brings us to the English Language cited as a contributing factor for a nation to have at least one university ranked in the top 200. The data tend to illustrate that utilizing English as a medium of instruction and publishing in academic journals and books in English contributes to a nation having at least one university ranked. This study argues that the Times Higher Education world universities rankings are very influential and that one can clearly argue that it plays a very leading role in the Anglo-American hegemony in international higher education. The significant number of academic articles focusing on various important aspects of the Times Higher Education world universities rankings illustrates its international influence and reach. One can present an argument that the Times Higher Education world universities rankings have a number of interrelated or inter-connected policy implications. One such policy implication relates to its influence on individual students and their families consulting these rankings as a guide to determine which institution to attend. Another important policy implication is that these rankings influence universities all across the world to either revise their strategic plans or establish new ones in a way that would produce results that would meet the criteria of the Times Higher Education for potential inclusion in its rankings. One final important policy implication is that the Times Higher Education world universities rankings can influence governments and corporations in countries across the world to send their talented or brightest students to these top 200 universities to earn their undergraduate and graduate degrees. Part of the reason for such a policy is that when these students graduate and go back home, they can then represent their nations and corporations at important international political and economic summits or negotiations or meetings where their counterparts are also very likely to be graduates of these same universities. References Agarwal, V. B. & Winkler, D. R. (1984). Migration of professional manpower to the United States. Southern Economic Journal, 50, 814-830. Altbach, P. G. (2008). The imperial tongue: English as the dominating academic language. International Educator, 17, 56-59. Altbach, P. G. (2006). Tiny at the top. The Wilson Quarterly, 30, 49-51. Altbach, P. G. (2005). India: A world-class country without world-class higher education. International Educator, 14, 14-17. Ashbolt, A. (2007). Hegemony and the sixties: Observations, polemics, meanderings. Rethinking Marxism, 19, 208-220. Barrows, J. (2009). Success among the elite: What drives the growth of large endowments? Yale Economic Review 5(2), 6. Boothman, D. (2008). The sources for Gramsci's concept of hegemony. Rethinking Marxism, 20, 201- 215. Bill, J. A. (2001). The politics of hegemony: The United States and Iran. Middle East Policy, 8, 89-100. Brezis, E. S. & Crouzet, F. (2004). The role of higher education institutions: Recruitment of elites and economic growth. CESIFO Working Paper No. 1360. www.CESifo.de Buckel, S. & Fischer-Lescano, A. (2009). Preview Gramsci reconsidered: Hegemony in global law. Leiden Journal of International Law, 22, 437-454. Cantwell, B., and Maldonodo-Maldonado, A. (2009). Four stories: Confronting contemporary ideas about globalisation and internationalisation in higher education. Globalization, Societies and Education, 7, 289-306. Charon, A. & Wauters, J.-P. (2008). University ranking: a new tool for the evaluation of higher education in Europe. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, 23, 62-64. Edu ca tio n P olicy An alysi s Ar chi ve s Vol. 20 No. 21 34 Clark, H. R. (2007). How the U.S. News rankings affect American legal education. Judicature, 91, 80- 85. College Rankings Criticized. (2007). Journal of Development Education, 31, 40. Collins, C. S. & Rhoads, R. A. (2010). The World Bank, support for universities, and asymmetrical power relations in international development. High Education, 59, 181–205. Consalvo, M. (1998). Hegemony, domestic violence, and cops: A critique of concordance. Journal of Popular Film & Television, 26, 62-70. Cramer, K. M. & Page, S. (2007). Calibrating Canadian universities: Rankings for sale once again. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 22, 4-13. Deem, R., Mok, K. H., & Lucas, L. (2008). Transforming higher education in whose image? Exploring the concept of the ‘world-class’ university in Europe and Asia. Higher Education Policy, 21, 83-97. Finkelstein, M. J. (2010). Diversification in the academic workforce: The case of the US and implications for Europe. European Review, 18, S142-S156. Franco, M. E. D. P., & Morosini, M. C. (1992). Social pressures and university responses: The role of institutional evaluation. Higher Education Policy, 5, 70-72. Gose, Ben. (2000, January 14). Measuring the value of an ivy degree. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46, A52. Gunn, S. (2006). From hegemony to governmentality: Changing conceptions of power in social history. Journal of Social History, 39, 705-720. Hawthorne, L. (2007). Foreign credential recognition and assessment: An introduction. Canadian Issues, Spring, 3-13. Jasso, G. (2009). Ethnicity and the immigration of highly skilled workers to the United States. International Journal of Manpower. 30, 26-42. Jiang, Z. (2011). A research and counter-measures of English cultural hegemony in China. Asian Social Science, 7, 194-200. Joseph, J. (2002). Hegemony Analysis. London, UK: Routledge. Kaba, A. J. (2011). The status of Africa’s emigration brain drain in the 21st Century. Western Journal of Black Studies, 35, 187-207. Kaba, A. J. (2004). Africa’s migration brain drain: The costs and benefits to the continent. Chimera, 2, 19-30. Kamara, M. (2007). Are U.S. News’ Rankings inherently biased against black colleges. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 24, 8. Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for International Communication and English Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kumar, T. K. V. & Verma, A. (2009). Hegemony, discipline and control in the administration of police in colonial India. Asian Criminology, 4, 61-78. Lang, D. W. (2005). “World Class” or the curse of comparison?. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 35, 27-55. Lang, D. W., and Zha, Q. (2004). Comparing universities: A case study between Canada and China. Higher Education Policy, 17, 339-354. Larsen, P. V. (2003). Academic reputation: How U.S. News & World Report survey respondents form perceptions. The CASE International Journal of Educational Advancement, 4, 155-164. Lo, W. Y. W. (2011). Soft power, university rankings and knowledge production: distinctions between hegemony and self‐determination in higher education. Comparative Education, 47, 209-222. Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the Times Higher Education 35 Marginson, S. (2007). Global position and position taking: The case of Australia. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 5-32. Mohrman, K. (2008). The emerging global model with Chinese characteristics. Higher Education Policy, 21, 29-48. Moussu, L. & Llurda, E. (2008). Non-native English-speaking English language teachers: History and research, Language Teaching, 41, 348. Olaniran, B. A. & Agnello, M. F. (2008). Globalization, educational hegemony, and higher education,” Multicultural Education & Technology, 2, 68-86. Poh, L. C. (2010). Singapore betting on biomedical science. Issues in Science and Technology, 26, 69-74. Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (2008). English: Meaning and culture. Book Review. Language in Society, 37, 462-465. Rezende, S. M. (2010). Brazil: Challenges and achievements. Issues in Science and Technology, 26, 61-68. Rubdy, R. & Saraceni, M. (eds). (2006). English in the World: Global Rules, Global Roles. New York: Continuum Press. Salmi, J. & Saroyan, A. (2007). League tables as policy instruments: The political economy of accountability in tertiary education. In Global University Network for Innovation (GUNI), Higher education in the world. Accreditation for quality assurance: What is at stake? New York: MacMillan, pp. 79-96. Seidlhofer, B., Breiteneder, A., & Pitzl, M.-L. (2006). English as a lingua franca in Europe: Challenges for applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 3-34. Sementelli, A. J. (2005). Critical theory, institutions, and hegemony: Role obligated and the reconciliation of seemingly incompatible goals. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 8, 559-576. Standifird, S. S. (2005). Reputation among peer academic institutions: An investigation of the US News and World Report’s Rankings. Corporate Reputation Review, 8, 233-244. Stiftel, B., & Mukhopadhyay, C. (2007). Thoughts on Anglo-American hegemony in planning scholarship. Town Planning Review 78, 545-572. Swartz, D. L. (2008). Social closure in American elite higher education. Theory & Society, 37, 409-419. Sweeting, A. & Vickers, E. (2007). Language and the history of colonial education: The case of Hong Kong,” Modern Asian Studies, 41, 1-40. Sweitzer, K. & Volkwein, J. F. (2009). Prestige among graduate and professional schools: Comparing the U.S. News’ graduate school reputation ratings between disciplines. Research in Higher Education, 50, 812-836. The Ticker (2009) “American universities – and Oxford – slip in latest ‘Top 200’ List,” The Chronicle of Higher Education. The Ticker. Retrieved on October 8, 2009 from: http://chronicle.com/blog/The-Ticker/1/2/. Wangenge-Ouma, G. & Langa, P. V. (2010). Universities and the mobilization of claims of excellence for competitive advantage. Higher Education, 59, 749-764. Watson, P. (2009). Regional themes and global means in supranational higher education policy. Higher Education, 58, 419-438. Wierzbicka, A. (2006). English: Meaning and Culture. Oxford; Oxford University Press. Ying, C. & Niancai, L. (2008). Tracking the development of China’s top universities using scientometric indicators, 1997-2005. Frontiers of Education in China, 3, 415-428. Edu ca tio n P olicy An alysi s Ar chi ve s Vol. 20 No. 21 36 Appendices Appendix A List of all institutions ranked in Times Higher Education-QS Top 200 Universities in the World in 2009, U.S. News and World Report College Rankings for the U.S. Institutions on the list: 2010 (also under the U.S. News and World Report Rankings are rankings of the top U.S. public/state institutions in parenthesis with asterisk on the list), Country of Institutions, and World Region of Country 2009 Rank 2010 U.S. News Rank Institution Country World Regions SubRegion 1 1 Harvard University US Northern America 2 University of Cambridge UK Northern Europe 3 3 Yale University US Northern America 4 University College London UK Northern Europe 5 Imperial College London UK Northern Europe 5 University of Oxford UK Northern Europe 7 8 University of Chicago US Northern America 8 1 Princeton University US Northern America 9 4 Massachusetts Institute of Technology US Northern America 10 4 California Institute of Technology US Northern America 11 8 Columbia University US Northern America 12 4 University of Pennsylvania US Northern America 13 14 Johns Hopkins University US Northern America 14 10 Duke University US Northern America 15 15 Cornell University US Northern America 16 4 Stanford University US Northern America 17 Australian National University Australia Oceania/A &NZ Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the Times Higher Education 37 Appendix A (continued) List of all institutions ranked in Times Higher Education-QS Top 200 Universities in the World in 2009, U.S. News and World Report College Rankings for the U.S. Institutions on the list: 2010 (also under the U.S. News and World Report Rankings are rankings of the top U.S. public/state institutions in parenthesis with asterisk on the list), Country of Institutions, and World Region of Country 2009 Rank 2010 U.S. News Rank Institution Country World Regions SubRegion 18 McGill University Canada Northern America 19 27 (4)* University of Michigan US Northern America 20 University of Edinburgh UK Northern Europe 20 ETH Zurich (Swiss Federa/Institute of Technology) Switzerland Western Europe 22 University of Tokyo Japan Eastern Asia 23 King’s College London UK Northern Europe 24 University of Hong Kong Hong Kong Eastern Asia 25 Kyoto University Japan Eastern Asia 26 University of Manchester UK Northern Europe 27 22 Carnegie Mellon University US Northern America 28 Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris France Western Europe 29 University of Toronto Canada Northern America 30 National University of Singapore Singapore South Eastern Asia 31 16 Brown University US Northern America 32 24 (2)* UCLA US Northern America 32 12 Northwestern University US Northern America 34 University of Bristol UK Northern Europe 35 Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Hong Kong Eastern Asia 36 Ecole Polytechnique France Western Europe Edu ca tio n P olicy An alysi s Ar chi ve s Vol. 20 No. 21 38 Appendix A (continued) List of all institutions ranked in Times Higher Education-QS Top 200 Universities in the World in 2009, U.S. News and World Report College Rankings for the U.S. Institutions on the list: 2010 (also under the U.S. News and World Report Rankings are rankings of the top U.S. public/state institutions in parenthesis with asterisk on the list), Country of Institutions, and World Region of Country 2009 Rank 2010 U.S. News Rank Institution Country World Regions SubRegion 36 University of Melbourne Australia Oceania/A &NZ 36 University of Sydney Australia Oceania/A &NZ 39 21 (1)* University of California, Berkeley US Northern America 40 University of British Columbia Canada Northern America 41 University of Queensland Australia Oceania/A &NZ 42 Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne France Western Europe 43 Osaka University Japan Eastern Asia 43 Trinity College Dublin Ireland Northern Europe 45 Monash University Australia Oceania/A &NZ 46 Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong Eastern Asia 47 University of New South Wales Australia Oceania/A &NZ 47 Seoul National University South Korea Eastern Asia 49 University of Amsterdam Netherlands Western Europe 49 Tsinghua University China Eastern Asia 51 University of Copenhagen Denmark Northern Europe 52 32 New York University US Northern America 52 Peking University China Eastern Asia 54 56 Boston University US Northern America 55 Technical University of Munich Germany Western Europe 55 Tokyo Institute of Technology Japan Eastern Asia Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the Times Higher Education 39 Appendix A (continued) List of all institutions ranked in Times Higher Education-QS Top 200 Universities in the World in 2009, U.S. News and World Report College Rankings for the U.S. Institutions on the list: 2010 (also under the U.S. News and World Report Rankings are rankings of the top U.S. public/state institutions in parenthesis with asterisk on the list), Country of Institutions, and World Region of Country 2009 Rank 2010 U.S. News Rank Institution Country World Regions SubRegion 57 Heidelberg University Germany Western Europe 58 University of Warwick UK Northern Europe 59 University of Alberta Canada Northern America 60 Leiden University Netherlands Western Europe 61 University of Auckland New Zealand Oceania/A &NZ 61 39 (9)* University of Wisconsin-Madison US Northern America 63 Aarhus University Denmark Northern Europe 63 39 (9)* University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign US Northern America 65 Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Belgium Western Europe 66 University of Birmingham UK Northern Europe 67 London School of Economics UK Northern Europe 67 Lund University Sweden Northern Europe 69 Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology South Korea Eastern Asia 70 Utrecht University Netherlands Western Europe 70 University of York UK Northern Europe 72 University of Geneva Switzerland Western Europe 73 Nanyang Technological University Singapore South Eastern Asia 73 12 Washington University in St Louis US Northern America Edu ca tio n P olicy An alysi s Ar chi ve s Vol. 20 No. 21 40 Appendix A (continued) List of all institutions ranked in Times Higher Education-QS Top 200 Universities in the World in 2009, U.S. News and World Report College Rankings for the U.S. Institutions on the list: 2010 (also under the U.S. News and World Report Rankings are rankings of the top U.S. public/state institutions in parenthesis with asterisk on the list), Country of Institutions, and World Region of Country 2009 Rank 2010 U.S. News Rank Institution Country World Regions SubRegion 75 Uppsala University Sweden Northern Europe 76 35 (7)* University of California, San Diego US Northern America 76 47 (15)* University of Texas at Austin US Northern America 78 28 (5)* University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill US Northern America 79 University of Glasgow UK Northern Europe 80 42 (11)* University of Washington US Northern America 81 University of Adelaide Australia Oceania/A &NZ 82 University of Sheffield UK Northern Europe 83 Delft University of Technology Netherlands Western Europe 84 University of Western Australia Australia Oceania/A &NZ 85 11 Dartmouth College US Northern America 86 35 (7)* Georgia Institute of Technology US Northern America 87 61 (22)* Purdue University US Northern America 87 University of St Andrews UK Northern Europe 89 University College Dublin Ireland Northern Europe 90 17 Emory University US Northern America 91 University of Nottingham UK Northern Europe 92 Nagoya University Japan Eastern Asia Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the Times Higher Education 41 Appendix A (continued) List of all institutions ranked in Times Higher Education-QS Top 200 Universities in the World in 2009, U.S. News and World Report College Rankings for the U.S. Institutions on the list: 2010 (also under the U.S. News and World Report Rankings are rankings of the top U.S. public/state institutions in parenthesis with asterisk on the list), Country of Institutions, and World Region of Country 2009 Rank 2010 U.S. News Rank Institution Country World Regions SubRegion 92 University of Zurich Switzerland Western Europe 94 Free University of Berlin Germany Western Europe 95 University of Southampton UK Northern Europe 95 National Taiwan University Taiwan Eastern Asia 97 Tohoku University Japan Eastern Asia 98 Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich Germany Western Europe 99 University of Leeds UK Northern Europe 100 17 Rice University US Northern America 101 University of Oslo Norway Northern Europe 102 Hebrew University of Jerusalem Israel Western Asia 103 Durham University UK Northern Europe 103 Fudan University China Eastern Asia 105 61 (22)* University of Minnesota US Northern America 106 42 (11)* University of California, Santa Barbara US Northern America 107 Université de Montréal Canada Northern America 108 University of Basel Switzerland Western Europe 108 42 (11)* University of California, Davis US Northern America 108 Erasmus University Rotterdam Netherlands Western Europe 108 University of Helsinki Finland Northern Europe Edu ca tio n P olicy An alysi s Ar chi ve s Vol. 20 No. 21 42 Appendix A (continued) List of all institutions ranked in Times Higher Education-QS Top 200 Universities in the World in 2009, U.S. News and World Report College Rankings for the U.S. Institutions on the list: 2010 (also under the U.S. News and World Report Rankings are rankings of the top U.S. public/state institutions in parenthesis with asterisk on the list), Country of Institutions, and World Region of Country 2009 Rank 2010 U.S. News Rank Institution Country World Regions SubRegion 112 26 University of Southern California US Northern America 113 University of Waterloo Canada Northern America 114 56 (20)* University of Pittsburgh US Northern America 114 Tel Aviv University Israel Western Asia 116 Maastricht University Netherlands Western Europe 117 Université Pierre-et-Marie-Curie Paris VI France Western Europe 118 Queen’s University Canada Northern America 119 41 Case Western Reserve University US Northern America 120 Eindhoven University of Technology Netherlands Western Europe 120 47 (15)* Pennsylvania State University US Northern America 122 Freiburg University Germany Western Europe 122 53 (18)* University of Maryland, College Park US Northern America 124 City University of Hong Kong Hong Kong Eastern Asia 125 University of Otago New Zealand Oceania/A &NZ 126 Université Catholique de Louvain Belgium Western Europe 126 Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon France Western Europe 128 24 (2)* University of Virginia US Northern America 129 University of Aberdeen UK Northern Europe Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the Times Higher Education 43 Appendix A (continued) List of all institutions ranked in Times Higher Education-QS Top 200 Universities in the World in 2009, U.S. News and World Report College Rankings for the U.S. Institutions on the list: 2010 (also under the U.S. News and World Report Rankings are rankings of the top U.S. public/state institutions in parenthesis with asterisk on the list), Country of Institutions, and World Region of Country 2009 Rank 2010 U.S. News Rank Institution Country World Regions SubRegion 129 23 Georgetown University US Northern America 129 53 (18)* Ohio State University US Northern America 132 Technion – Israel Institute of Technology Israel Western Asia 132 University of Vienna Austria Western Europe 134 Pohang University of Science and Technology South Korea Eastern Asia 135 Cardiff University UK Northern Europe 136 University of Ghent Belgium Western Europe 137 University of Liverpool UK Northern Europe 138 Chulalongkorn University Thailand South Eastern Asia 138 University of Groningen Netherlands Western Europe 140 17 Vanderbilt University US Northern Europe 141 University of Rochester US Northern America 142 Keio University Japan Eastern Asia 143 McMaster University Canada Northern America 144 University of Bath UK Northern Europe 144 University of Bergen Norway Northern Europe 146 University of Cape Town South Africa Southern Africa 146 Humboldt University of Berlin Germany Western Europe Edu ca tio n P olicy An alysi s Ar chi ve s Vol. 20 No. 21 44 Appendix A (continued) List of all institutions ranked in Times Higher Education-QS Top 200 Universities in the World in 2009, U.S. News and World Report College Rankings for the U.S. Institutions on the list: 2010 (also under the U.S. News and World Report Rankings are rankings of the top U.S. public/state institutions in parenthesis with asterisk on the list), Country of Institutions, and World Region of Country 2009 Rank 2010 U.S. News Rank Institution Country World Regions SubRegion 148 Waseda University Japan Eastern Asia 149 University of Calgary Canada Northern America 149 Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen Germany Western Europe 151 University of Western Ontario Canada Northern America 151 Yonsei University South Korea Eastern Asia 153 Shanghai Jiao Tong University China Eastern Asia 154 University of Science and Technology of China China Eastern Asia 155 Kyushu University Japan Eastern Asia 155 Lomonosov Moscow State University Russia Eastern Europe 155 Wageningen University Netherlands Western Europe 158 Newcastle University UK Northern Europe 159 Technical University of Denmark Denmark Northern Europe 160 28 Tufts University US Northern America 161 46 (14)* University of California, Irvine US Northern America 162 Lancaster University UK Northern Europe 163 Indian Institute of Technology Bombay India South Asia 164 Queen Mary, University of London UK Northern Europe 165 VU University Amsterdam Netherlands Western Europe 166 102 (48)* University of Arizona US Northern America Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the Times Higher Education 45 Appendix A (continued) List of all institutions ranked in Times Higher Education-QS Top 200 Universities in the World in 2009, U.S. News and World Report College Rankings for the U.S. Institutions on the list: 2010 (also under the U.S. News and World Report Rankings are rankings of the top U.S. public/state institutions in parenthesis with asterisk on the list), Country of Institutions, and World Region of Country 2009 Rank 2010 U.S. News Rank Institution Country World Regions SubRegion 166 University of Sussex UK Northern Europe 168 University of Lausanne Switzerland Western Europe 168 Nanjing University China Eastern Asia 168 Saint-Petersburg State University Russia Eastern Europe 171 University of Barcelona Spain Southern Europe 171 Hokkaido University Japan Eastern Asia 173 96 (43)* Stony Brook University US Northern America 174 University of Bologna Italy Southern Europe 174 KTH, Royal Institute of Technology Sweden Northern Europe 174 University of Tsukuba Japan Eastern Asia 177 University of Antwerp Belgium Western Europe 177 University of Athens Greece Southern Europe 179 61 (22)* Texas A&M University US Northern America 180 Universiti Malaya Malaysia South Eastern Asia 181 Indian Institute of Technology Delhi India South Asia 182 Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen Germany Western Europe 183 66 (26)* Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey US Northern America 184 University of Karlsruhe Germany Western Europe 185 University of Gothenburg Sweden Northern Europe Edu ca tio n P olicy An alysi s Ar chi ve s Vol. 20 No. 21 46 Appendix A (continued) List of all institutions ranked in Times Higher Education-QS Top 200 Universities in the World in 2009, U.S. News and World Report College Rankings for the U.S. Institutions on the list: 2010 (also under the U.S. News and World Report Rankings are rankings of the top U.S. public/state institutions in parenthesis with asterisk on the list), Country of Institutions, and World Region of Country 2009 Rank 2010 U.S. News Rank Institution Country World Regions SubRegion 186 77 (34)* University of Colorado at Boulder US Northern America 186 University of Göttingen Germany Western Europe 188 University of Canterbury New Zealand Oceania/A &NZ 189 Macquarie University Australia Oceania/A &NZ 190 National Autonomous University of Mexico Mexico Central America 191 Université Libre de Bruxelles Belgium Western Europe 191 University of Reading UK Northern Europe 193 University of Bern Switzerland Western Europe 193 71 (29)* Indiana University Bloomington US Northern America 195 Hong Kong Polytechnic University Hong Kong Eastern Asia 196 University of Leicester UK Northern Europe 196 Simon Fraser University Canada Northern America 198 Chalmers University of Technology Sweden Northern Europe 199 20 University of Notre Dame US Northern America 200 University of Twente Netherlands Western Europe Source: “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions,”; THE, 2009; The numbers in parenthesis with the asterisk next to them are the ranking of the U.S. Public or State Universities: “Best Colleges: Top Public Schools: National Universities,” ;” U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved on November 27, 2009 from:http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-top-public. Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the Times Higher Education 47 Appendix B. Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings Nations, Territories and Entities plus Taiwan (N=238) Africa (n=57) Eastern Africa (n=19) Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Reunion, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mayotte. Middle Africa (n=9) Angola, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and Sao Tome & Principe Northern Africa (n=7) Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Sudan, Tunisia and Western Sahara Southern Africa (n=5) Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland Western Africa (n=17) Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Cote d’Ivoire, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo and Saint Helena. Americas N=53 Latin America and the Caribbean (n=48) Caribbean (n=26) Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Haiti, Jamaica, Martinique, Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles, Puerto Rico, Saint-Barthélemy, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Martin (French part), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, United States Virgin Islands, Central America (n=8) Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama South America (n=14) Argentina, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Falkland Islands (Malvinas), French Guiana, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of). Northern America (n=5) Bermuda, Canada, Greenland, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, United States of America Asia (N=51) Central Asia (n=5) Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan Eastern Asia (n=8) Edu ca tio n P olicy An alysi s Ar chi ve s Vol. 20 No. 21 48 China, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China, Macao Special Administrative Region of China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Japan, Mongolia, Republic of Korea, Taiwan* (As noted in the methodology, I added Taiwan to Eastern Asia) Southern Asia (n=9) Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka South-Eastern Asia (n=11) Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Viet Nam Western Asia (n=18) Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Cyprus, Georgia, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Occupied Palestinian Territory (Gaza and the West Bank), Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Yemen. Europe (N=52) Eastern Europe (n=10) Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Ukraine. Northern Europe (n=17) Åland Islands, Channel Islands, Denmark, Estonia, Faeroe Islands, Finland, Guernsey, Iceland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Southern Europe (n=16) Albania, Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Gibraltar, Greece, Holy See, Italy, Malta, Montenegro, Portugal, San Marino, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Western Europe (n=9) Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Switzerland. Oceania (N= 25) Australia and New Zealand (n=3) Australia, New Zealand, Norfolk Island. Melanesia (n=5) Fiji, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu. Micronesia (n=7) Guam, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau Polynesia (10) American Samoa, Cook Islands, French Polynesia, Niue, Pitcairn, Samoa, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Wallis and Futuna Islands Source: “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings” Retrieved on November 15, 2009 from: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm. Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the Times Higher Education 49 Appendix C Four Geographic Regions of the United States (N=51) Northeast (n=9) Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont. Midwest (n=12) Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North, Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin. South (n=17) Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia. West (n=13) Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming. Source: “Summary Social, Economic, and Housing Characteristics: 2000 Census of Population and Housing,” (2003, June). Selected Appendixes: 2000. PHC-2-A. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau. Edu ca tio n P olicy An alysi s Ar chi ve s Vol. 20 No. 21 50 About the Author Dr. Amadu Jacky Kaba Seton Hall University Email: kabaamad@shu.edu Amadu Jacky Kaba is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Seton Hall University, in the Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work. Prior to returning to Seton Hall University in 2005, he worked (Post-Doctoral Fellowship) with the renowned Social Scientist, Professor Ali A. Mazrui, teaching and conducting research in the Social Sciences both at Binghamton University, State University of New York, and Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, from July 2002 to June 30, 2005. Kaba earned all of his degrees from Seton Hall University: B.A. in Political Science in 1997; Masters in Public Administration in 1998; and Ph.D. in Higher Education Leadership, Management and Policy in May 2002. education policy analysis archives Volume 20 Number 21 July 30th 2012 ISSN 1068-2341 Readers are free to copy, display, and distribute this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, it is distributed for non- commercial purposes only, and no alteration or transformation is made in the work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/. All other uses must be approved by the author(s) or EPAA. EPAA is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School of Education at Arizona State University Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada de Revistas Científicas, Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO Education Research Complete, ERIC, H.W. WILSON & Co., QUALIS A2 (Brazil), SCImago Journal Rank; SCOPUS, SOCOLAR (China). Please contribute commentaries at http://epaa.info/wordpress/ and send errata notes to Gustavo E. Fischman fischman@asu.edu Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the Times Higher Education 51 education policy analysis archives editorial board Editor Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Associate Editors: David R. Garcia (Arizona State University), Stephen Lawton (Arizona State University) Rick Mintrop, (University of California, Berkeley) Jeanne M. Powers (Arizona State University) Jessica Allen University of Colorado, Boulder Christopher Lubienski University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign Gary Anderson New York University Sarah Lubienski University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin, Madison Samuel R. Lucas University of California, Berkeley Angela Arzubiaga Arizona State University Maria Martinez-Coslo University of Texas, Arlington David C. Berliner Arizona State University William Mathis University of Colorado, Boulder Robert Bickel Marshall University Tristan McCowan Institute of Education, London Henry Braun Boston College Heinrich Mintrop University of California, Berkeley Eric Camburn University of Wisconsin, Madison Michele S. Moses University of Colorado, Boulder Wendy C. Chi* University of Colorado, Boulder Julianne Moss University of Melbourne Casey Cobb University of Connecticut Sharon Nichols University of Texas, San Antonio Arnold Danzig Arizona State University Noga O'Connor University of Iowa Antonia Darder University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign João Paraskveva University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Laurence Parker University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign Chad d'Entremont Strategies for Children Susan L. Robertson Bristol University John Diamond Harvard University John Rogers University of California, Los Angeles Tara Donahue Learning Point Associates A. G. Rud Purdue University Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Felicia C. Sanders The Pennsylvania State University Christopher Joseph Frey Bowling Green State University Janelle Scott University of California, Berkeley Melissa Lynn Freeman* Adams State College Kimberly Scott Arizona State University Amy Garrett Dikkers University of Minnesota Dorothy Shipps Baruch College/CUNY Gene V Glass Arizona State University Maria Teresa Tatto Michigan State University Ronald Glass University of California, Santa Cruz Larisa Warhol University of Connecticut Harvey Goldstein Bristol University Cally Waite Social Science Research Council Jacob P. K. Gross Indiana University John Weathers University of Colorado, Colorado Springs Eric M. Haas WestEd Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder Kimberly Joy Howard* University of Southern California Ed Wiley University of Colorado, Boulder Aimee Howley Ohio University Terrence G. Wiley Arizona State University Craig Howley Ohio University John Willinsky Stanford University Steve Klees University of Maryland Kyo Yamashiro University of California, Los Angeles Jaekyung Lee SUNY Buffalo * Members of the New Scholars Board Edu ca tio n P olicy An alysi s Ar chi ve s Vol. 20 No. 21 52 archivos analíticos de políticas educativas consejo editorial Editor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editores. Asociados Alejandro Canales (UNAM) y Jesús Romero Morante (Universidad de Cantabria) Armando Alcántara Santuario Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM México Fanni Muñoz Pontificia Universidad Católica de Perú Claudio Almonacid Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, Chile Imanol Ordorika Instituto de Investigaciones Economicas – UNAM, México Pilar Arnaiz Sánchez Universidad de Murcia, España Maria Cristina Parra Sandoval Universidad de Zulia, Venezuela Xavier Besalú Costa Universitat de Girona, España Miguel A. Pereyra Universidad de Granada, España Jose Joaquin Brunner Universidad Diego Portales, Chile Monica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Argentina Damián Canales Sánchez Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación, México Paula Razquin UNESCO, Francia María Caridad García Universidad Católica del Norte, Chile Ignacio Rivas Flores Universidad de Málaga, España Raimundo Cuesta Fernández IES Fray Luis de León, España Daniel Schugurensky Universidad de Toronto-Ontario Institute of Studies in Education, Canadá Marco Antonio Delgado Fuentes Universidad Iberoamericana, México Orlando Pulido Chaves Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, Colombia Inés Dussel FLACSO, Argentina José Gregorio Rodríguez Universidad Nacional de Colombia Rafael Feito Alonso Universidad Complutense de Madrid, España Miriam Rodríguez Vargas Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, México Pedro Flores Crespo Universidad Iberoamericana, México Mario Rueda Beltrán Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM México Verónica García Martínez Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco, México José Luis San Fabián Maroto Universidad de Oviedo, España Francisco F. García Pérez Universidad de Sevilla, España Yengny Marisol Silva Laya Universidad Iberoamericana, México Edna Luna Serrano Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, México Aida Terrón Bañuelos Universidad de Oviedo, España Alma Maldonado Departamento de Investigaciones Educativas, Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados, México Jurjo Torres Santomé Universidad de la Coruña, España Alejandro Márquez Jiménez Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM México Antoni Verger Planells University of Amsterdam, Holanda José Felipe Martínez Fernández University of California Los Angeles, USA Mario Yapu Universidad Para la Investigación Estratégica, Bolivia Analyzing the Anglo-American Hegemony in the Times Higher Education 53 arquivos analíticos de políticas educativas conselho editorial Editor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editores Associados: Rosa Maria Bueno Fisher e Luis A. Gandin (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul) Dalila Andrade de Oliveira Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brasil Jefferson Mainardes Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Brasil Paulo Carrano Universidade Federal Fluminense, Brasil Luciano Mendes de Faria Filho Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brasil Alicia Maria Catalano de Bonamino Pontificia Universidade Católica-Rio, Brasil Lia Raquel Moreira Oliveira Universidade do Minho, Portugal Fabiana de Amorim Marcello Universidade Luterana do Brasil, Canoas, Brasil Belmira Oliveira Bueno Universidade de São Paulo, Brasil Alexandre Fernandez Vaz Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brasil António Teodoro Universidade Lusófona, Portugal Gaudêncio Frigotto Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Pia L. Wong California State University Sacramento, U.S.A Alfredo M Gomes Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Brasil Sandra Regina Sales Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Petronilha Beatriz Gonçalves e Silva Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Brasil Elba Siqueira Sá Barreto Fundação Carlos Chagas, Brasil Nadja Herman Pontificia Universidade Católica –Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Manuela Terrasêca Universidade do Porto, Portugal José Machado Pais Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal Robert Verhine Universidade Federal da Bahia, Brasil Wenceslao Machado de Oliveira Jr. Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brasil Antônio A. S. Zuin Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Brasil