LettersWestern-centric university rankings overlook Asia’s rise
Readers discuss the Centre for World University Rankings methodology, the plan for bigger flats in Northern Metropolis, and the Bangladeshi PM’s visit to China
Fully 60 per cent of CWUR’s scoring model is built on long-term, cumulative metrics. By counting alumni achievements over generations and faculty lifetime achievements, CWUR is structured to measure university achievements from a specific period of history when the US-led West was at its economic and geopolitical peak.
It heavily rewards American institutions like Harvard, which boasts a centuries-old head start and benefited from the migration of elite European scientists during World War II, alongside the immense capital generated when the West was the epicentre of the first three industrial revolutions.
CWUR measures the world as it was, not the current state we live in, nor the clear trend and direction in which the global landscape is moving. A younger university in Asia that enjoyed none of those historical windfalls is fundamentally locked out of competing on this uneven playing field, regardless of its current excellence.
This systemic tilt is further baked into CWUR’s definition of academic distinction and success (35 per cent of the score). The ranking primarily recognises prestigious international honours originating in the West, such as the Nobel Prize and Fields Medal. Meanwhile, premier milestones in the Global South are largely absent. Being named an academician to the Chinese Academy of Sciences, or receiving Singapore’s President’s Science and Technology Award, carries zero weight in this framework.