THE ranking of higher education institutions started in 2003.
Today, there are 20 ranking systems globally, working on varying levels of perception.
While the objectives and values of these rankings vary, the general perception of the universities can be summarised as we do not like them, but love them when we are on them.
Many, especially in the developing countries, invest a vast amount of taxpayers' money into pushing selected universities up international rankings with very few tangible benefits.
Malaysia and China are among the countries in this ranking race.
The news headlines in national papers boasts the positive results, especially when one of our universities is in the top 100.
However, often the excitement lasts but a day. Such news goes to an inconspicuous corner of the paper, if at all published.
Any euphoria within the higher education circles dies off almost immediately.
Any reference to the achievement remains a tagline on the university website and promotional flyers.
Hence, it is no surprise that three Chinese universities are reportedly pulling out of the global ranking race.
They are Renmin University, Nanjing University and Lanzhou University.
They have withdrawn from all international university rankings, with official sources focusing on educational autonomy and education with Chinese characteristics.
In its 2022 World University Rankings, QS ranked Nanjing at number seven within China and 131 globally, Renmin at 38 within China and in the 600-650 bracket internationally, while Lanzhou is at 44 in China and the 750-800 range internationally.
Times Higher Education World University Rankings also ranked Nanjing the highest of the three, at 111 globally.
The decision to pull out of the rankings was because China believed it was time to develop world-class universities based on its own realities, conditions and characteristics.
Is there a lesson for Malaysia from this development?
Between 2007 and 2016 alone, the investment in five research universities stands at a shocking RM3.7 billion in addition to the annual allocations.
No other country except Malaysia debates the performance of Malaysian public universities in global rankings in Parliament.
Public universities, rather than serving regional aspirations, are caught up with the business of ranking.
Politicians continue to use this to erode whatever is left of institutional autonomy in the country. Our focus has not shifted.
The Higher Education Ministry asks public universities to bid for taxpayers' money to be second top-100 in the QS ranking. Perhaps, those in power should start asking what the Return on Investment (RoI) is for these ranking exercises.
The money could be better spent on other areas of society or higher education that provides better ROI.
The concern with investing in the ranking race is not limited to its lack of RoI, but rather the values purported by these exercises.
Often, these rankings include values that do not necessarily support building an education system based on the country's own identity and cultural norms.
They hinder our realities and do not help us carve our own higher education pathways.
Nevertheless, these ranking models are the surest way to ensure that the East echoes Western norms or that the South reflects the North's values.
Many have argued against these rankings. Now is the time to act.
The writer is a life member of PenDaPaT, a society for policy researchers in Malaysia, and Associate Professor at the University of Nottingham Malaysia