"Is the ratio of servers to customers in a restaurant a good proxy for the quality of the food?"

This was one of the rather scathing rhetorical questions posed by a US academic when I invited readers of the US online publication Inside Higher Ed to critique our old World University Rankings methodology ().

He was referring to our use of staff-to-student ratios (SSRs) as a proxy indicator of teaching quality in the old rankings (2004-09). Some 20 per cent of the overall ranking relied on SSR counts.

"To think that such a ratio could signify 'teaching quality' shows how serious a problem we face with rankings that privilege the availability of a metric over its validity," the academic said.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

He is, of course, right. The same point was made in a paper from the Russian Rectors' Union, handed to me by Victor Sadovnichiy, president of Moscow State University, earlier this month.

It argues that "good teachers always have a lot of students, bad teachers have few".

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

SSR figures are also easy to manipulate and hard to verify.

David Graham, provost of Concordia University in Canada, opened the web discussion by highlighting research that shows that a ratio of anywhere from 6:1 to 39:1 can be achieved with the same institution's data.

But as teaching is a fundamental part of what universities do, an indicator of teaching quality is essential to a well-balanced ranking.

We are asking about teaching quality in our reputational survey for the 2010 rankings, and the use of SSR figures is under review - but we accept that our previous 20 per cent weighting for such a crude indicator was simply not appropriate.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ