In today's pursuit of global integration, almost all universities are striving to gain international reputation, hoping to get a higher ranking in the world university rankings. However, some colleges and universities do the opposite, bravely say no to "foreign rankings" and proudly announce their withdrawal from the world university rankings.

It is of great significance for NPC, Nantah and Lanzhou to withdraw from the ranking of international universities.

According to media reports, China Renmin University decided not to participate in the evaluation of international university ranking institutions. Subsequently, Nanjing University and Lanzhou University also responded one after another and announced their withdrawal from the world university rankings.

Once the news was disclosed, it caused an uproar. Many people raised their hands in favor and put forward the slogan that "education in China cannot be measured by western standards". This move is worth learning from other universities.

Did universities really "fall out" of the international university rankings?

See if there is Lanzhou University in the QS World University Rankings, and you will know the answer. Looking up the QS World University Rankings in 2022, Lanzhou University ranked 75 1-800 in the world. Then, didn't Lanzhou University "decide not to participate" long ago? In fact, the so-called "withdrawal" means that the university announces that it will no longer cooperate with the ranking agencies and will no longer provide data to the ranking agencies, rather than ranking that it will no longer be included in the list. As for the "withdrawal point" of Nanjing University, according to the school, there is no mention of "withdrawal point" at all, but "international ranking is no longer regarded as an important construction goal for school development and discipline construction".

Universities do not provide data to ranking institutions, nor will they affect university rankings because of ranking institutions. Because most of the data used by ranking institutions are obtained from open channels, they can be "verified". Ranking institutions process these data according to their own quotas and weights, score universities and get rankings. Universities use whatever data they give, which affects the credibility of rankings.

Then why do ranking institutions need to cooperate with universities and hope that universities can provide data? This is the "survival way" of some ranking institutions. Cooperation with universities not only publicizes the importance of rankings to universities, but also shows the society that rankings are valued by universities. More importantly, some rankings regard ranking as business. The explicit rule is to provide universities with "advice and guidance" on how to improve their rankings, while the implicit rule is to engage in "money-and-name transactions" to help universities revise their data and improve their rankings.