University Grants Committee rankings not meant to establish a pecking order

Rankings of tertiary institutions often grab attention. So it's no surprise that a recent exercise undertaken by the University Grants Committee (UGC) to gauge the research performance of our eight publicly funded institutions made headlines.

Debate focused on the way that a smaller percentage of submissions from University of Hong Kong's law faculty achieved the four-star "world-leading level" standing, or the three-star "internationally excellent" level, compared to its counterpart at Chinese University.

But the comparison of percentages failed to take into account the actual number of submissions. Forty-six per cent of University of Hong Kong's submissions made it to three or four stars, compared to Chinese University's 64 per cent. But 56 members of the University of Hong Kong staff produced research, compared to Chinese University's 26.

Moreover, the University Grants Committee exercise serves a higher purpose than ranking institutions.

The committee's chairman, Edward Cheng Wai-sun, says he hopes that the government and various other sectors, in the course of policymaking and promoting development, will consider the results of the Research Assessment Exercise 2014 and note Hong Kong's competitive advantages in research.

This will "identify areas with development potential in the short, medium and long run."