The Times High Education Supplement has recently placed Oxford and Cambridge in first and second place, respectively, among the best universities in the world.

The Times ranking is subject to the criticism that it seeks to lend objectivity to a question that is inherently subjective in nature: which is the best university in the world? For many, the answer to that question lies in the eyes of the beholder, and the range of factors used in identifying “the best” is substantial and not given to ready measurement.

Criticism

The Times ranking is also subject to the criticism that, among universities in the upper echelons of the academy, small changes in some factors, can from year to year lead to significant changes in the ranking. If a university is in first place this year, then in one year’s time, it is highly likely that the factors bringing it to the top ranking should be in place one year later, unless important structural changes occur at that university or at other, high ranking universities.

That said, the Times ranking has garnered international respectability and provides at very least a rough guide concerning the performance rating of the world’s leading institutions of higher studies. For this year, the Times survey has relied on the following criteria of assessment: (1) teaching (the learning environment), (2) research (volume, income and reputation), (3) citations (research influence), (4) international outlook (staff, students and research) and (5) industry income (knowledge transfer).

Research

The significant focus on research is to be noted: research considerations arise expressly in the context of at least three of the five criteria mentioned above: research, citations and international outlook. Moreover, research output will also be a factor in the other two criteria of assessment, namely, teaching and industry income. The teaching on offer at strong universities will be at the cutting edge of learning in a given field, and so, it will rely – by definition – on the latest research. So too industry income is almost invariably a function of research, for industry will rely on university researchers for information and methods that enhance industry output.

The significance of research is further emphasised in the survey. Specifically, the Times indicates that if the research output of a university amounted to fewer than 1,000 publications between 2013 and 2017 (with a minimum of 150 publications per year), the university “can be excluded” from the rankings. If 80 per cent or more of the research output of a university is within one subject area, then this university may also be excluded. Relatively small universities, and universities which concentrate heavily on their teaching mission may therefore be barred from entry at the starting gate.

The Times survey also allocates scores for each of the five criteria identified as follows: (1) teaching (30%), (2) research (30%), (3) citations (30%), (4) international outlook (7.5%) and (5) industry income (2.5%). Noticeably, if you change the scores allocated to the criteria, you may end up with a different rating for the various universities.

The Ranking

Starting with these criteria, and on the basis of methods that rely on the perception that academics have of individual universities and other factors, the top ten universities in the world, including Oxford and Cambridge (“Oxbridge”), are stated by the Times to be:

(1) Oxford

(2) Cambridge

(3) Stanford

(4) MIT

(5) CALTECH

(6) Harvard

(7) Princeton

(8) Yale

(9) Imperial College, London

(10) Chicago

This ranking prompts the easy question as to causation. What are the factors that cause Oxford and the other nine to be regarded as the best universities in the world? Together with all other universities in the top 10, Oxford is a large, well-funded, English-speaking university of considerable age. And it should not escape our notice that all top 10 universities are located either in England or the USA.

Reputation

But size, money, age and location, while important, do not tell the full story. In my view, reputation has a way of building on itself. Once a certain critical level of excellence is consistently reached, it assumes a self-perpetuating quality. To demonstrate this point, I should note that perhaps the strongest asset Oxford and Cambridge may have over non-top 10 universities is their reputation for attracting many of the strongest students in the United Kingdom. That reputation, combined with historical factors relating to colonialism, quality assurance, elitism and power, has also created a yearning on the part of some strong non-British students to go to Oxbridge. So, for example, Rhodes, Commonwealth, Marshall and other scholars routinely aspire for success at Oxford.

Now, if you get some of the strongest students from across the world, you have the reservoir for academic excellence as these students rise through the system and themselves become professors, lectures and tutors. The magnet thus possesses its own mechanism for success.

Tutorial system

At the same time, the Oxford tutorial system builds on the magnetism of reputation. At Oxford, in particular, teaching through the tutorial system is highly individualised. Each tutorial will have a tutor – normally an expert in her or his field – conducting classes with one or two, or in rare cases, three students. Each student may have one or two tutorials per week, and that, in the area of non-practical subjects, constitutes the class attendance requirement for the student.

The system is rigorous. The undergraduate is required to produce at least one essay per week for the tutorial. The tutor will expect the student to undertake voluminous reading for this essay, and each tutorial will be given over to the reading of the student’s essay and a discussion on the finer points of the week’s reading assignment. This system cultivates the habits of reading and writing, encourages the development of independent thought, and forces the undergraduate to defend an intellectual position for every week of the semester.

Some tutors may well find the Oxford tutorial system tiresome, but it works well for the independent-minded student. For the tutor, it may be a bit boring to have students reading similar essays to her throughout the course of a week. Some years ago, an Oxford student referring to the style of his tutor, mentioned his distress that in the midst of his (profound) essay on Mill’s Harm Principle, he was faced with the tutor’s question: “so, would you like your coffee black or white?”

The good tutor will know when to push stronger students to greater heights of analysis and when to guide others to points that they have missed in their independent reading. The good tutor will also inculcate the reading then writing habit among his students. As a result of this habit, the Oxford graduate will be prepared to undertake the necessary research and writing to promote first rate scholarship.

Reading for degree

At Oxford, then, you quite literally read for your degree – sometimes by the river, sometimes in the park if you are not allergic to grass, usually in the library, the laboratory or in your room. Reading for senior members of the university (but not students) could also take place on Parson’s Pleasure, a small island in one of the tributaries of Oxford, known to be a nudist area.

The emphasis on independent reading is also reflected in the length of each term: you have eight weeks of tutorials per term, and then, for the other six weeks, you have a vacation break during which you would be wise to catch up on additional reading. For, at the start of each term, you are obliged to take an examination to satisfy your tutors: these examinations, called “Collections” in some colleges are usually at the level of the final examination you will be called upon to master.

The tutorial system at Oxford (and to some extent Cambridge) is to be contrasted with lecture-based systems at most other universities in Britain and the USA. In lecture-based systems, also in place at UTech, Ja and UWI, the lecturer is expected to cover the universe of topics for a subject, so that student notes come to reflect a significant portion of what is to be addressed in examinations. The lecture system is then supplemented by tutorials, with perhaps up to 15 students. In these tutorials, students are invited to participate.

The late Douglas Hall, Professor Emeritus of UWI, was among the critics of student performance in tutorials at UWI in his later years (see, eg, Journal of West Indian History Vol 35, No 1). The problem with the lecture system, even when supplemented by tutorials, is that some students may “hide” when there are 15 students to be guided. No hiding is allowed in the Oxford system. Arguably, the lecture-based system provides students with a good overview of the entire syllabus, but it does not encourage independent thought and analysis to the same extent as the Oxford approach.

Collegiate system

Another feature of Oxford is its collegiate structure. Oxford has 38 separate colleges and six permanent private halls; each college is an independent entity which pursues courses of study at various levels. The colleges vary in size and financial endowment, but are all committed to intellectual advancement. There is also some degree of competition across colleges. Each year the so-called Norrington Table evaluates student performance in undergraduate final examinations on a college basis. Presumably, if a powerhouse college is perceived to be underperforming in the examination system, measures will be put in place to rectify the situation. Cambridge also has a collegiate structure with 31 colleges.

The collegiate system also means that selection of students to Oxford is done by individual colleges, and not by the central university. The central university is responsible for the setting of examination papers and central library access to the Bodleian and other libraries; but aside from that, it entirely possible for a student to have no interaction with the central university from matriculation through to graduation three years later.

Lectures

This takes us back to lectures. At Oxford, lectures and large group seminars, at both undergraduate and graduate levels, are normally organised by the central university through individual faculties. But because learning is built around tutorials organised by the colleges, lectures are not always popular. As a part of this, we should note that the lecture offered in Oxford tend not to cover the entire subject. So, if you are studying Contract Law, for instance, an expert in the field will be invited to give lectures, say, on Offer and Acceptance. That may be it for lectures in the term on Contract Law.

Where the experts are engaging, there is much to be gained from attending lectures organized by the central university. Mr J W Davies on “Recent Developments in Contract and Tort” was always memorable just before examinations, while Ronald Dworkin on “What Law Is” and Ian Brownlie on the Nicaragua Case were world authorities at the height of their powers explaining concepts to students.

At the teaching level, Cambridge lectures tended, in my student days, to be more directly related to the syllabus and to examinations than those within Oxford. Thus, in Cambridge of the 1980s, Derek Bowett, one of the highest authorities in international law, offered lectures for the year on the principles of the subject, from the elementary parts on to the technicalities.

Students at both Oxford and Cambridge generally have meals in hall, and reside in hall (or in College houses) for at least one year of their studies. This, together with the fact that teaching is organised primarily around college tutoring, usually generates stronger loyalty to individual colleges than to the central university. And, if your college experience has been positive, then you will be inclined, as an alum to support your college first, and then, perhaps, your university.

Cultural expectations

Another factor which explains the pre-eminence of Oxford and Cambridge in intellectual matters concerns cultural expectations. If you are a student in Oxbridge, one of the first questions a stranger will ask you is “what are you reading?” You may interpret this to be an inquiry into your course of study, or, you could take it as an opening to discuss a book or recent intellectual pursuit which has engaged your attention. And, if you are a lecturer (a “fellow” or a “don”), the first question is likely to be “what are you working on now?” For this question, the expectation is that the respondent will enter into a discussion on research in progress.

Cultural expectations also arise with respect to publications. The typical Oxford reading list will contain references to works by Oxford authors as a matter of course. If there are no references by your tutor, this may call for an explanation within the system. In the midst of a tutorial, I once cited an author for a proposition; my tutor smiled and suggested that this was a good source even though the quoted author had competed unsuccessfully against my tutor for the position now held by the tutor. There is a substantial expectation that you publish to make progress.

There is also a strong expectation that the college will be a place for the circulation and cultivation of ideas. Political, business and scientific leaders visit Oxbridge colleges frequently, and bring students up to date on developments in particular fields of practice. But the academics are left to define for themselves the ideas they wish to pursue. The notion that a central body should seek to direct academics in their areas of study is anathema to good universities.

All Souls College

Oxford also underlines its commitment to research and publications through its All Souls College. At All Souls College, the fellows are employed and salaried not for teaching, but for research. Each year, by competitive examination, I guess one or two fellows are selected for this college. Some professorial appointments are also linked to All Souls, and some appointments linked to the professions. All Souls fellows are not required to undertake the teaching commitments that fellows in other college must pursue. They are in the main dedicated to research and publications, and by their fruits we shall know them.

In addition to All Souls, most colleges appoint research fellows to help drive their mission. A research fellow will usually be given the opportunity to work for three years on various projects, and without significant teaching responsibilities. Needless to say, there will be a strong expectation that the research fellow’s output will help to raise the standing of the college.

It used to be said – at the anecdotal level – that Oxford’s strengths rested with the humanities while Cambridge had the edge in the hard sciences. This is not easy to measure, and in any event, it was a broad generalisation, which carried several exceptions. Today, one has the impression that both universities are ready for the fight of staying on top.

Finally, as intimated above, academic ranking is likely to turn primarily on research and publications. From among the three main functions of the university – teaching, research and public service – the main area of interest for universities in the Caribbean should be clear.

In my experience, Caribbean teachers match the best in the world as teachers: this may be part of our tradition of public speaking and advocacy. And for public service, we have placed ourselves in a respectable position. Research is the frontier for greater effort.

Stephen Vasciannie is President of the University of Technology, Jamaica.