TBD

# Heads in the Clouds: Measuring the Implications of Universities Migrating to
Public Clouds

Tobias Fiebig1, Seda Gürses1, Carlos H. Gañán1, Erna Kotkamp1, Fernando
Kuipers1,
Martina Lindorfer5, Menghua Prisse1, Taritha Sari1 1TU Delft, Netherlands
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>5TU Wien, Austria
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
###### Abstract

With the emergence of mandatory remote education and work in universities due
to COVID-19, the ‘zoomification’ of higher education, i.e., the migration of
universities to the clouds, reached the public discourse. Ongoing discussions
reason about how this shift _will_ take control over students’ data _away_
from universities, and may ultimately prevent privacy from being an attainable
goal for researchers and students alike. However, there has been no
comprehensive measurement of universities’ use of public clouds and reliance
on Software-as-a-Service offerings to assess how far this migration has
already progressed.

In this paper, we perform a longitudinal study of the migration to public
clouds among universities in the U.S. and Europe, as well as institutions
listed in the Times Higher Education (THE) Top100 between January 2015 and
June 2021. We find that cloud-adoption differs between countries, with one
cluster (Germany, France, Austria, Switzerland) showing a limited move to
clouds, while the other cluster (U.S., U.K., the Netherlands, THE Top100)
frequently migrates universities’ core functions and services to public
clouds—starting long before the COVID-19 pandemic. We attribute this
clustering to several socio-economic factors in the respective countries,
including the general culture of higher education and the administrative
paradigm taken towards running universities.

We then analyze and interpret our results, finding that the implications reach
beyond individuals’ privacy towards questions of academic independence and
integrity.

##  1 Introduction

Over the past decade, we have seen a shift in IT operations towards the use of
cloud infrastructures [59, 85]. Instead of running IT services with on-site
teams and on infrastructure owned by organizations, services are now often
deployed on public cloud infrastructure. Especially for web services, the
model of using Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) has become prominent. However,
this operational paradigm shift also leads to a change in control. While,
before, user data would remain on infrastructure controlled by an
organization, this data is now stored and processed by an external operator.

For universities using cloud infrastructures, this leads to hard challenges.
These stretch from limiting their ability to audit or implement privacy by
design, e.g., privacy guarantees ensured through technical means, or ensure
privacy-as-compliance, e.g., in terms of following privacy regulations [25,
98], to impacting a universities’ ability to obtain meaningful informed
consent when they employ cloud operators. Over the past year, for example,
much debacle surrounded the use of Zoom as the now de facto standard for
remote lectures. Zoom only started to systematically attend to privacy and
security concerns raised by educational institutions when pressure was handed
down to the company from investors [58]. Still, universities that adopted Zoom
for their lectures practically reduced students’ consent choices to either
using Zoom, and having their personal data processed by Zoom, or not
participating in lectures.

The infrastructural and data control acquired by companies like Zoom have a
knock on effect on academic freedom. In 2020, Zoom ultimately prevented
faculty and students at New York University from conducting a guest
lecture—incidentally on censorship by Zoom and other tech companies—using
their Zoom license [68]. The question hence expands beyond _‘what private data
do universities share with cloud platforms,’_ to include _‘in what way can
these cloud platforms use their infrastructural position and data practices to
influence academic processes in universities.’_

The adoption of educational technology (’ _EdTech_ ’), i.e., the use of
“market-facing digital technologies in education” [63], has already prompted
critical studies from the social sciences, warning about blurring lines
between public educational institutions and private corporations as a threat
to academic self-governance [63, 81, 89, 49]. Despite these concerns for
privacy and academic freedom, there are no comprehensive measurements of _how_
reliant universities are on public cloud infrastructures. Hence, in this
paper, we address this gap by measuring cloud adoption in universities over
the past six years in seven countries (the U.S., the U.K., Germany,
Switzerland, Austria, the Netherlands, and France) and in the Times Higher
Education (THE) Top100. We do this by measuring universities’ hosting on cloud
platforms as well as their use of cloud-based email providers; cloud-based
learning management systems (LMS); and, cloud-based video and lecturing tools.

We find that universities in the Netherlands, the U.K., the U.S. and those in
the THE Top100 are significantly more prone to depend on cloud
infrastructures, while especially those in France and Germany rely far more on
in-house services. We attribute these differences to a diverse set of socio-
economic factors, including a historically different understanding of _what_
higher education means, the university functions (research, education,
administration) the IT infrastructure is commonly aligned with, and the value
placed on academic independence in these countries. Furthermore, we observe
that universities’ migration to centralized cloud infrastructures
(Google/Amazon/Microsoft) does not show a clear pandemic effect as observed
for the Internet as a whole [33]. The notable exception here are video
conferencing tools (apart from Skype-for-Business), where we see a clear
uptick of adoption across the board, _except_ for the U.S., where especially
Zoom adoption was on the rise years before the pandemic.

In summary, we make the following contributions:

  * •

We are the first to map out the cloud dependence of universities in Europe,
the U.S., and the THE Top100, and find that this is an ongoing process that
predates the COVID-19 pandemic.

  * •

We document severe _differences_ in cloud adoption between countries and trace
this back to fundamental differences in how these countries approach
university IT and higher education.

  * •

We demonstrate how an increasing reliance on cloud infrastructure may
ultimately prevent privacy from being an attainable goal in universities.

  * •

We find that questions of data and infrastructure control have implications
beyond privacy, including threatening academic freedom as a core value of
universities.

Structure: In sec:background, we provide an overview of university IT. We
introduce our general methodology in sec:method, and present an overview of
cloud use in sec:overview. Next, we zoom into universities’ use of cloud-based
email solutions (sec:email), cloud-based learning management systems
(sec:lms), and their use of cloud-based video communication and lecturing
tools (sec:zoom). Finally, we contextualize our findings and provide
recommendations for researchers and universities in sec:discussion, and
conclude in sec:conclusion.

##  2 University IT

Generally speaking, universities are _organizations_ with a _purpose_ or
_function_ , which can be supported by IT pillars [97]. Commonly, these major
functions are: (1) _Education_ , (2) _Research_ , and to enable these two, (3)
_Administration_ [86]. Note that while these functions may seem intuitively
discrete, they partially overlap, also in the tools and applications used to
address the needs associated with each function.

In terms of cloud adoption, universities look towards cloud infrastructure as
a way to reduce their own IT investments, and potentially even a chance to
free up and monetize assets bound there, e.g., IPv4 addresses [70, 3]. While
the use of specific tools may lead the university to enter into agreements
with a multitude of companies, many of these tools themselves are hosted on
one of the three largest cloud platforms: The offerings of Google, Amazon EC2,
and Microsoft Azure.

###  2.1 Education

IT infrastructure for education includes all tools that enable students to
learn. Traditionally, this means all systems used for assessment and learning
management systems (LMS), as for example Moodle [14]. While educational
software for remote teaching already received attention before the COVID-19
pandemic in the context of blended learning and MOOCs (Massive Open Online
Courses), COVID-19 increased the importance of learning infrastructure like
video chat tools and streaming solutions, as well as examination and
proctoring software. In most universities, these tools are offered
institution-wide as centralized services, usually with the support of a
central IT department. In addition, specific programs might need additional
infrastructure, e.g., a program on system and network engineering may also
need dedicated server rooms and networking labs [15], often offered in a
decentralized manner.

Several vendors offer cloud-based LMS (see sec:lms), which allow universities
to outsource one of their largest (in terms of users) systems to an SaaS
provider. Even though tools for self-hosted remote lectures exist, the common
perception, especially since COVID-19, associates remote lecturing mainly with
Zoom, and—to a lesser extent—other cloud-based platforms like Microsoft Teams
and WebEx. Similarly, proctoring solutions—already a concept of questionable
ethics [23]—that became prominent during the COVID-19 pandemic are almost
exclusively provided as cloud-hosted services.

###  2.2 Research

In contrast to educational tooling, research IT infrastructure is often more
dependent on the individual needs of researchers, and therefore tends to be
decentralized. Applications here range from the—in our field—common
experimental systems (IoT test labs, network measurement infrastructure, and
machines vulnerable to certain exploits) to IT systems used to control a
diverse set of research instruments, such as electron microscopes or chemical
processing lines. In addition, super computing capabilities [38], data
storage/open data platforms [111], and research software that support
quantitative and qualitative methods, e.g., survey and statistical analysis
tools [71] are often centrally provided.

Cloud services can replace both types of research infrastructure. Researchers
may use Platform-as-a-Service infrastructure for running measurement and
experimental systems, and especially GPU supported compute is often outsourced
to cloud platforms. Furthermore, universities may opt to use outsourced and
cloud-hosted instances of survey and interview platforms to provide this
service to their researchers. Especially Amazon’s Mechanical Turk has become a
common tool in human factors and human subject related work, ranging from the
social sciences to usable security and privacy [72].

###  2.3 Administration

The administrative function of a university entails all services and
operations needed by a university to _support_ (not execute) its primary
functions for education and research. This means budgeting and accounting
tools, HR systems including personnel management databases and applicant
management systems, and—arguably—also student application management.
Furthermore, this entails foundational services like email, and the operation
of a universities’ network. Similarly, telephony and business communication
tools—before the pandemic tools like Skype-for-Business (SfB), Microsoft
Sharepoint, as well as Microsoft Teams and other video chat solutions that now
overlap with educational tooling— _traditionally_ fall into this category.

Applications for specific use cases (hiring, student admission, finance and
accounting) are inherently complex and highly business critical. Hence,
outsourcing allows universities to not only reduce the needed local expertise
to run these tools, but also allows the outsourcing of responsibility in case
these tools become inoperable. Especially for highly business critical
applications, as for example email (see sec:email) or security management,
cloud setups promise higher reliability.

##  3 Methodology Overview

In this section, we describe our general methodology in terms of the dataset
we use and which institutions we selected. We describe the more specific
aspects of our methodology for the individual services in the corresponding
sections.

###  3.1 Selection of Institutions

To investigate cloud usage in higher education institutes, we focus on
universities (PhD awarding institutions) in the global north, specifically the
U.S., Germany, Switzerland, Austria, the U.K., the Netherlands and France. In
addition, we also include the institutions listed in the Times Higher
Education Top100 for 2020 [90]. Please see app:domains-.8 for the full list of
institutions and corresponding domains for each category.

For the U.S., we selected all R1 [19] and R2 [20] universities based on the
Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, as also
referenced in the corresponding Wikipedia article [102]. For the remaining
countries, i.e., for Germany [104], the U.K. [107], Switzerland [105], Austria
[103], France [101], and the Netherlands [106], we utilized the corresponding
Wikipedia pages listing universities. We argue that Wikipedia is a
sufficiently reliable source for this information, given the general nature of
this information, and that we manually investigated each listed university to
identify their associated domain name(s). Furthermore, we do not claim
completeness, but instead try to estimate a lower bound with our measurements,
see sec:limitations. If a university uses multiple domains, or used a
different domain in the past—especially common in France due to a history of
reorganization of the university system—we check all domains and aggregate the
results under the name of the institution.

Thereafter we filtered out all institutions for which we did not see at least
ten distinct names in at least one month within our six year dataset. We do
this to ensure that our data is not influenced by institutions into which we
only have limited visibility. In total, this lead to the following exclusions:
_(i)_ In the Netherlands the Theological University Apeldoorn, a small topic-
specific university with no considerable IT infrastructure  _(ii)_ For France,
16 domains, all of which belong to other listed institutions and are remnants
from before the merging processes of French universities in the late 1990s and
early 2000s  _(iii)_ In the U.K., 28 domains, 27 of which belong to
universities that are included in the dataset with other domains they
predominantly use, e.g., `ox.ac.uk.` being used instead of `oxford.ac.uk.` and
the remaining one being the Courtauld Institute of Art  _(iv)_ For Austria
four domains, one of which is a secondary domain for the University of
Salzburg, which is included via its mainly used domain `uni-salzburg.at`, and
three small private Universities in Vienna.

Table 1: List of data fields in the Farsight SIE dataset. Field Name |  Description | Example
---|---|---
count |  Number of times the unique tuple of rrname/rrtype/bailiwick/rdata has been seen. | 12
time_first |  Unix timestamp of the first occurrence of the unique tuple during the data slice. | 1422251650
time_last |  Unix timestamp of the last occurrence of the unique tuple during the data slice. | 1422251650
rrname |  Requested name in the DNS. | www.example.com
rrtype |  Requested RRtype of the query. | A
bailiwick |  Zone authoritative for the DNS reply. | example.com
rdata |  List of all responses received in a single query. | ["93.184.216.34"]

###  3.2 Dataset

We use the Farsight Security Information Exchange (SIE) dataset [32] to
measure (1) to what extent universities depend on cloud infrastructure, and,
(2) how this dependency developed over time.

The Farsight SIE dataset is collected via recursive resolvers of ISPs.
Collaborating ISPs can install a sensor, which sends all DNS cache misses [64,
52] of their clients to Farsight. Farsight explicitly chose to only collect
cache misses and filters additional data that might reveal the identity of
individual clients, thereby limiting the chance of accidentally collecting
personally identifiable information (PII) [32]. Nevertheless, we handled the
data following established best practices [4].

In our study, we use a historic dataset spanning from January 1, 2015 to June
30, 2021 in per-month slices. The dataset contains all cache misses observed
by participating DNS resolvers during this timeframe, where a unique cache
miss is defined by the tuple of `<rrname, rrtype, bailiwick, rdata>` (see
tab:data). As we only receive cache misses, we cannot make statements about
the _popularity_ of names seen in the Farsight SIE dataset. Therefore, we
focus our analysis on establishing a lower bound on the use of cloud
resources, or, to put it into more practical terms, we determine _if_ an
organization utilizes specific cloud resources, but not _how much_ they
utilize it.

In comparison to actively collected large-scale DNS datasets, for example,
OpenINTEL [41, 74], the Farsight dataset enables us to look _deeper_ into the
DNS tree of individual organizations. As we see all names that were requested
by clients behind DNS recursors participating as sensors, we can see
application-specific names (e.g., `application.example.com.`) that are not
part of the set of names gathered by active measurement platforms (as prior
knowledge on these names is necessary). At the same time, this also means that
we might miss specific names or institutions, as the corresponding DNS
resources have not been requested by a client behind a sensor contributing to
the Farsight SIE dataset. However, this does not pose a problem in the context
of our objective to identify a _lower bound_ of cloud usage in universities,
as those records we _do_ observe are certainly there.

For a complete discussion of the limitations in our dataset, how we address
them, and what impact they have on how our results should be interpreted,
please see sec:limitations.

Figure 1: Overview of universities’ use of ‘the Big Three’ cloud providers
(Amazon, Google, Microsoft) from January 2015 to June 2021.

##  4 Universities and Public Clouds

In this section, we provide a first overview of universities’ reliance on
cloud infrastructure of the ‘Big Three‘ (Amazon, Google, and Microsoft). We
want to understand to which extent names under universities’ domains point
toward these infrastructures, regardless of their popularity. This way, we do
not only capture the most frequented names—for example the main website, or
resources commonly used by students—but also capture, e.g., HR and
administration tools, along with systems used for research. Hence, in this
section, we look at whether universities have _at least one_ name under one of
their domains that points to each of the three providers above.

###  4.1 Methodology

To identify universities’ hosting in cloud infrastructure, we first collect
all `A`, `AAAA`, and `CNAME` resource records (RRs) for each university domain
from the dataset. We then try to resolve all `CNAME` RRs from the dataset of
the corresponding month in which they were observed. If we are unable to
resolve a `CNAME` to an IPv4 or IPv6 address, we match RRs for products
regularly hosted in certain infrastructure to IP addresses of the
corresponding hoster. For example, we will consider `CNAME`s like
www.example.com. IN A ec2-203-0-113-25.compute-1.amazonaws.com. as a resource
hosted by Amazon.

Subsequently, we use the Team Cymru bulk DNS service to associate the
identified IP addresses’ announcing Autonomous System (AS). Note that we
performed this resolution on July 7, 2021 and Team Cymru does not offer a
historic WHOIS service. Hence, our data may over-report _historic_ cloud
usage, with numbers becoming more reliable the closer we get to the current
date. Nevertheless, the error we may incur with this is an _over-reporting_
error, i.e., historic numbers may seem higher than they are, while an
_increase_ over time is unlikely to be caused by this, as cloud providers
accumulate addresses and do not trade them away, given the increasing IPv4
address exhaustion [70].

###  4.2 Results

We present an overview of our findings in fig:public_clouds. On a macroscopic
level, we already see major differences between institutions from different
countries. Having at least one system located at a major cloud provider is
common for the U.S., the U.K., and the Netherlands. The THE Top100 also show a
pattern similar to that of the U.S.. Cloud usage in these three countries and
the THE Top100 shows a high share of using services hosted at Amazon. For the
other two major cloud operators (Google, Microsoft), we find that the U.S.
developed towards a situation where all of the three major operators are used
at universities at the same time, rising from 79 institutions (30.38%) in
January 2015 to 217 (83.46%) in June 2021. For the Netherlands and U.K., we
see a lower share of Google over time, starting at 30 (26.09%) of all
institutions for the U.K. and 4 (21.05%) for the Netherlands in January 2015,
reaching 61 (53.04%) for the U.K. and 8 (42.11%) for the Netherlands in June
2021. Instead, contrary to the U.S., where commonly all three major providers
are used, a combination of Amazon and Microsoft based hosting is more common
for the Netherlands and U.K..

France, Germany and Austria form a clear contrast to this picture. All three
of these countries have a lower cloud usage, with less than 50% of
universities relying on cloud providers for any services (2 (2.47%) to 41
(50.62%) for Germany, 10 (13.51%) to 25 (33.78%) for France, and 0 to 14
(41.18%) for Austria from January 2015 to June 2021). Finally, Switzerland,
starting at 5 (35.71%) in January 2015 and reaching 10 (71.43%) in June 2021
developed from a middle ground between these two clusters towards the first
one.

Note that the uptick of Microsoft-related cloud infrastructure use for German
universities in June 2021 relates to names like
`(lync)autodiscover.example.com` pointing to Microsoft Azure addresses
occurring. Without this increase, Germany was at at least 24 (29.63%) of
institutions using public cloud infrastructure in November 2020. We
conjecture, also see sec:zoom, that this connects to the wider introduction of
Microsoft Office 365, or activation of new features in an existing MS Teams
installation (the specific name is a necessary condition for using Skype-for-
Business use, but _may_ also occur for an Office365 or Microsoft Teams
deployment). See, for example, an announcement of the Ruhr University in
Bochum [78].

In general, we find that cloud infrastructure dependence across all sampled
countries is on the rise. However, in the Netherlands, the U.S., the THE
Top100, and the U.K., we find that this increase occurs on a high level, i.e.,
especially U.S., U.K., Dutch, and THE Top100 universities already frequently
used cloud infrastructure before the start of our measurement period on
January 2015. Nevertheless, we do find an increase in the number of cloud
providers used for these countries.

We note that we _do not_ find a ‘pandemic effect’ [33] in the use of cloud
infrastructure across institutions. Instead, the migration of higher education
seems to be an ongoing process that started more than five years ago.
Furthermore, we find that the use of cloud resources fundamentally differs
between countries. We revisit this pattern in our discussion in
sec:discussion, as we can observe similar effects for other facets of cloud
infrastructure as well.

Figure 2: Overview of email providers used by universities between January
2015 and June 2021.

##  5 Cloud-Based Email Infrastructure

In this section, we investigate universities’ use of cloud-based email
infrastructure. Email is arguably one of _the_ most essential services on the
Internet for professional communication. It regularly carries significant PII,
when students have questions on courses, or seek advice in professional and
personal matters. It serves as the transport for grades and course
assignments, but also job applications, research data, academic discourse, and
ideas.

While there are—commonly unused (or unusable) [82]—methods to encrypt emails
to ensure contents remain confidential, security, reliability, and control are
also significant dimensions of using email in this context. Email is a common
gateway for attackers to convince users to install malware [99] and extract
credentials [28]. Hence, spam and malware filtering are common services
offered by outsourced email platforms, and usually a significant selling point
in moving to cloud-based email providers [26]. However, as Patrick Breyer, a
member of the European Parliament, recently noted this also means that the
operator gets in control of which emails are and which are not delivered to
users.111“Incredible: Microsoft decides which e-mail Members of the European
Parliament get to read in their inbox. It’s called Outlook spam filter and
cannot be disabled.”, Patrick Breyer, MEP,
https://twitter.com/echo_pbreyer/status/1363854606132858882 (February, 22,
2021) Given the strict inbound rules of major providers, which can lead to
false positives [62, 35], this means that universities relying on these
services may not only outsource their email service, but also the decision
about which emails reach their faculty and students.

Table 2: Overview of selected MX domains. Operator |  MX Domains
---|---
Microsoft |  outlook.com, hotmail.com
Google |  google.com, googlemail.com, smtp.goog
Proofpoint |  pphosted.com
Cisco |  iphmx.com
Other |  trendmicro.eu, messagelabs.com, schlund.de, spamfighters.net, mailcontrol.com, spamhero.com, emailsrvr.com, mailspamprotection.com, fireeyecloud.com, mailanyone.net, secureserver.net, mailgun.org, icritical.com, barracudanetworks.com

###  5.1 Methodology

To identify whether universities use a cloud-based mail service, we
investigate their `MX` records. Note, that we only measure who handles
_inbound_ email for a university. Their user mail access and mail storage may
be handled on-site or via another cloud-based solution. Still, this means that
all mail to this institution flows via the identified service operator.

To identify the used operators, we broadly follow the methodology of Henze et
al. [40]. We first check if, for any of the second-level domains (SLDs) of a
university (see app:domains-.8) any of the `MX`records points to a domain
associated with a cloud-based email provider (see tab:mx-names). If we do not
find an `MX` record for any of the SLDs, we decent further down the DNS tree.
This happens, for example, if an institution has dedicated sub-domains for
email, similar to using `staff.example.com.` and `students.example.com.` Only
if the SLD does not have an `MX` record, we consider the university as using a
cloud provider if at least one of their third-level domains’ `MX` records
matches a known cloud provider.

In addition, we also check whether a university uses Proofpoint’s email
security solution. Proofpoint’s solution can either be used as a hosted
solution where mail is redirected via Proofpoint’s servers, similar to
products from Cisco, or via an appliance installed on-site that uploads mails
and attachments for analysis to the Proofpoint cloud. We identify hosted
setups via their MX records, and indirectly measure appliance usage by
evaluating universities’ DMARC [51] records. If the `rua` or `ruf` of a
university points to an email address under `emaildefense.proofpoint.com.`, we
assume that this university uses Proofpoint’s appliance based services.

If we do not find an `MX` record that points to hosts under a cloud providers’
domain, or a DMARC record indicating the use of Proofpoint, we count the
institution as ‘Other/Private’. We acknowledge, that this approach may under-
match the number of cloud providers we find. Furthermore, if we are unable to
observe an `MX` record for an institution included in our dataset for a given
month, we mark this as ‘No MX.’

###  5.2 Results

When looking at the results of our measurements, we find that they align with
our observations from sec:overview. The U.S., the U.K., the Netherlands, and
the THE Top100 are again the countries with the most frequent use of cloud-
based email providers, reaching 78 (67.83%) for the U.K., 51 (51.00%) for the
THE Top100, and 10 (52.63%) for the Netherlands in June 2021.

The Netherlands form an interesting case here, as we see an increase in
Microsoft based mail hosting between late 2018 and early 2020. A closer
investigation reveals that, during this time, several universities already
considered a migration to Microsoft products for their main domains. As for
early adopters, Utrecht University had been using Gmail for its students (not
measured, as it is for the subdomain students.uu.nl), while using a self-
hosted solution for staff. In 2018, they then decided to migrate students’ and
staff’s email to Microsoft to create a common platform and—as mentioned in
their press release—improve ‘security’ [93]. We assume that this relates to
concerns about google in the context of the GDPR. Similarly, Nyenrode
University migrated to Microsoft as part of a larger strategy to unify their
IT infrastructure [109]. The larger increase in 2019 then may connect to a
letter from the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security sent to parliament,
that essentially notes that privacy concerns regarding Microsoft cloud
products have been resolved in negotiation [36]. This letter is than, for
example, explicitly cited by TU Eindhoven, as a reason why earlier concerns
about privacy and security no longer apply, and they now migrate their email
infrastructure to Microsoft [92].

In the U.S., a total of _five_ companies control email services for 204
(78.46%) of all R1 and R2 universities in 2020. Again, Germany and France have
a lower use of cloud resources, with neither of those countries exceeding 20%
in June 2021 (2 (2.47%) for Germany and 6 (8.11%) for France). Both Austria
and Switzerland see a higher adoption of cloud-based email services than
Germany and France among universities, with 3 (21.43%) for Switzerland, and 7
(20.59%) for Austria in June 2021, with both of them staying well below 50%
adoption. We see a slight upward trend in cloud email service adoption in the
U.S. and the THE Top100, and a notable increase in the U.K. (from 67 (58.26%)
in January 2015 to 78 (67.83%) in June 2021). For the remaining countries,
adoption of cloud email services seems to stagnate over the measurement
period.

The two most prominent operators are Google, most likely with their classroom
product—a work-suite containing email, document handling and integration with
Chrome Books—as well as Microsoft with their cloud-hosted
Exchange/Office365/Teams product. Other cloud providers only play a notable
role in the U.K., where they occupy 11.30% of the market in June 2021. The
most prominent smaller cloud providers here are FireEye and Trend Micro.
Furthermore, we find that Proofpoint as a product is most prominent in the
U.S. and major institutions in the THE Top100, where we see the service being
used by 19 (appliance)/29 (hosted) (7.31%/11.15%) and 10 (appliance)/10.00%
(hosted) (10.00%/10.00%) institutions in June 2021 respectively. We also see a
slow move into the Dutch market by this company, where between September 2019
and June 2021 the first three organizations deployed the product.

Figure 3: Overview of cloud-hosted Learning Management Systems used by
universities from January 2015 to June 2021.

##  6 Cloud-Based Learning Management Systems

In this section, we take a look at universities’ use of cloud-based Learning
Management Systems (LMS). Learning management systems are—as most academics
should be familiar with—online tools that allow lecturers to manage and
automate courses, reaching from course registration, via providing course
contents, to assessment and examination of enrolled students. As such, these
systems provide some of the core functionality of what a university _does_. It
also means that these systems hold some of the most sensitive data a
university stores on their students: Grades, course deliverables, and overall
study performance.

Putting these systems into cloud infrastructure potentially provides access to
this confidential data to unauthorized entities, e.g., via the cloud act [77].
At the same time, it also prevents students from effectively consenting to
their data being processed by cloud companies, as an opt-out is only possible
by _not_ studying at a university using one of these products. Furthermore,
these systems are also especially susceptible if a cloud provider decides to
enforce their own policies and principles. If, for example, a U.S.-based LMS
provider decides to enforce U.S. sanctions against citizens of specific
countries for an LMS, including customers outside the U.S., it can effectively
dictate which students a university enrolls by controlling the ‘means of
study.’ Given the precedent of GitHub [1] restricting accounts for developers
located in Crimea, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Syria to comply with U.S.
trade sanctions this is by far no hypothetical scenario.

###  6.1 Methodology

In our measurements we focus on the four largest providers of cloud-based LMS:
Brightspace (Desire2Learn, brightspace.com), Courseleaf (courseleaf.com),
Blackboard (blackboard.com), and, Canvas (Instructure, instructure.com). What
these tools have in common is that they provision their services by having a
name in a university’s zone pointing a `CNAME` to their own infrastructure.
For example: canvas.example.com. IN CNAME example-com.instructure.com. Hence,
to measure whether a university uses one of these LMS, we have to check
whether we find a `CNAME` with a target that is below one of the domains used
by the above cloud LMS. Naturally, we do not see whether and which on-site
LMS, like Moodle, a university uses, or if it uses—for example—a locally
hosted version of Blackboard.

###  6.2 Results

We find that cloud-hosted LMS are mostly relevant in the U.S., the U.K., and
the Netherlands. We find no instances of cloud-hosted LMS in Germany, France,
and Austria. In Switzerland, we only find a single Canvas instance at the
University of St. Gallen, which has been in operation since January 2019. We
revisit the question what universities in these countries are then using
_instead_ in sec:discussion. For the THE Top100, we find that the use of
cloud-hosted LMS is mostly related to U.S. universities. In fact, 36 of the 57
universities in the THE Top100 that use a cloud-based LMS in June 2021 are
U.S. universities, while U.S. universities only make up 40 universities in the
THE Top100. The remaining 21 institutions using cloud-based LMS in the THE
Top100 are from the Netherlands (6), the U.K. (6), Canada (3), Australia (2),
Hong Kong (2), Singapore (1), and Sweden (1). Courseleaf seems to be
exclusively catering to the U.S. market, as we find no instances outside of
the U.S..

For all four groups which we find to be using cloud-based LMS, we find a
steady growth over time between January 2015 to June 2021: in the U.S. from 87
(33.46%) to 184 (70.77%), in the U.K. from 15 (13.04%) to 59 (51.30%), in the
Netherlands from 5 (26.32%) to 13 (68.42%), and in the THE Top100 from 24
(24.00%) to 57 (57.00%).

Note that the use of LMS ties in with our observations in sec:overview. While
the cloud instances of Blackboard are hosted on Microsoft Azure, those for
Brightspace, Courseleaf, and Instructure are located in Amazon EC2.

Figure 4: Overview of video chat solutions used by universities between
January 2015 and June 2021.

##  7 Zoom et al.

Tools for video chatting and VoIP solutions have already carried longstanding
significance in professional communications, especially in the form of Skype-
for-Business (SfB). However, with the emergence of COVID-19, these
tools—especially Zoom—have gained significant public attention, with academic
core activities—teaching, research meetings, and conferences—heavily relying
on these tools. In fact, the discussion around the reliance of universities
and education on commercial infrastructure often frames this as the
‘zoomification’ of education. Also, as mentioned in sec:introduction, Zoom—as
one of the more prominent video chat platforms—has been a source of incidents
around the issue of academic freedom [68].

Hence, in this section, we review universities’ reliance on centralized/cloud-
hosted video chat solutions. Following our reflection on universities’ IT
setups in sec:background, we look at traditionally more business-focused
toolchains—Skype-for-Business, Cisco WebEx, and Adobe Connect—but also the
(relative) newcomer Zoom. Finally, we also estimate the use of Microsoft
Teams, however, due to the way it is implemented, we are limited to an upper-
bound estimate in this case.

###  7.1 Methodology

To identify universities’ use of centralized video chat solutions, we follow
three different approaches, based on the platform we are looking at. For Zoom
(zoom.us), Cisco WebEx (webex.com), and Adobe Connect (adobeconnect.com), we
follow the naming scheme of these services for clients to match universities
to names under these domains. Specifically, we check if we find a RR under
these services’ domains that starts with (1) the second-level domain of a
university, (2) the full domain name of a university (second-level + top-level
domain) with dots replaced by hyphens, or (3) the second-level domain of a
university appended with `-live` (see tab:zoomperm). If we find a
corresponding name lookup in our dataset during a month, we consider a
university as using this service during that month. In addition, we also
consider a university as using Zoom if we observe a `TXT` record that starts
with `ZOOM_verify`, i.e., a Zoom domain verification token. To get an
indication of the reliability of this approach, we manually verified all Zoom
links we encountered via the page branding and used Single-Sign-On (SSO)
system. Among the 363 Zoom links we identified, 12 (3.31%) were incorrectly
attributed to an organization or could not be verified through other channels,
e.g., if a Zoom sub-domain does not use a university’s SSO, but the university
itself links to that Zoom domain in its documentation.

Table 3: Overview of permutations on university domain names checked below zoom.us, webex.com, and adobeconnect.com for the example of Zoom. Input | Permutation |  Resulting Service Domain
---|---|---
`example.com` | Second Level |  `example.zoom.us`
| Dot Replacement |  `example-com.zoom.us`
|  SLD + `-live` |  `example-live.zoom.us`

To establish if a university uses SfB, we check for required DNS entries when
operating SfB [61], specifically `lyncdiscover.example.com`, with
`example.com` being replaced by a university’s domain. Note that this overlaps
with the prior product name of SfB, Microsoft Lync.

Finally, we check for universities which _may_ be using Microsoft Teams.
Unlike SfB, Microsoft Teams does not require special DNS entries that make its
use uniquely identifiable [60], even though using the voice components of
Teams is common, which requires the same DNS entries as SfB [61]. However, to
be able to use Microsoft Teams, an operator still has to set a Microsoft cloud
verification token of the form `MS=ms12345678`. Even though the presence of
this record does not mean a site _does_ use Microsoft Teams—it may be using a
cloud-hosted Microsoft Exchange instance or Office365 as well—we also count
the number of sites using this token and report the number of _additional_
universities that may be _exclusively_ using Microsoft Teams, i.e., that _do
not_ use any of the other tools (SfB, Zoom, WebEx, Adobe Connect).

###  7.2 Results

Taking a macroscopic look at our data, we again see a similar segmentation as
with the previous cases of general cloud usage, email, and cloud-based LMS,
see fig:zoom. We see a heavy adoption of SfB (from 2015 to 2021) in the
Netherlands (one with a large increase mid-2015 to 10 (52.63%)), the U.S. (110
(42.31%) to 178 (68.46%)), the U.K. (9 (7.83%) to 65 (56.52%)) and the THE
Top100 (30 (30.00%) to 68 (68.00%)). At the same time we see close to no SfB
instances in France, and limited adoption in the remaining countries with 5
(35.71%) in Switzerland, 11 (32.35%) in Austria, and 25 (30.86%) in Germany.
Note that in Germany we observed an increase of 20 institutions using SfB
between November and December 2020, most likely due to the introduction of
Microsoft Teams, which partially uses DNS entries overlapping with those for
SfB. We conjecture that this overall picture connects to different operational
paradigms between universities in these two clusters, also in terms of
administrative centralization (see sec:background), and we revisit this point
in our discussion in sec:discussion.

When we look at the adoption of the other three video chat platforms, we find
an interesting picture, also in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the
U.S., we find that the adoption of Zoom and—to a slightly lower extent—WebEx
has been an ongoing process that already started back in 2016 leading to 207
(79.62%) U.S. universities using Zoom and 92 (35.38%) using WebEx in June
2021. However, in comparison to December 2019 these numbers ‘only’ rose by 63
from 144 for Zoom and by 24 from 68 for WebEx, meaning that the pandemic
effect is not as large as in other countries, mostly due to the already high
adoption of Zoom in the U.S.. Adobe Connect, in general, has a market share
similar to WebEx, with 81 (31.15%) U.S. universities using it in June 2021. We
also note that U.S. universities seem to generally be using a multitude of
video chat solutions, with 106 (40.77%) using two, 74 (28.46%) three, and 20
(7.69%) all four of the surveyed tools in June 2021.

This effect can be—again—found to a similar extent in the THE Top100. Please
note that only 40 universities in the THE Top100 are U.S. universities. Here,
we also see a continuous adoption of Zoom starting in 2016, leading up to 77
(77.00%) institutions using Zoom in June 2021. We also observe an apparent
lack of a significant pandemic effect, and a large diversity of employed tools
across universities, with 42 using two, 25 three, and 5 all of the surveyed
video chat solutions.

With the remaining countries, we do see a pandemic effect, especially in terms
of Zoom adoption. While Zoom played essentially no role in European
universities before February 2020, its adoption quickly increased with the
sudden onset of remote teaching. Interesting observations here are that most
European universities are more discrete in their choice of video teaching
platform—either Zoom or WebEx, and that the onset of these tools was sudden,
i.e., within a month in the beginning of 2020. The only remarkable outlier
here is France, which shows a comparatively slow increase, which is
also—contrary to other European countries where we also observe an increase in
WebEx use—highly focused on Zoom. In the end, we find that in June 2021
Zoom/WebEx use in German universities is at 45 (55.56%)/37 (45.68%), in the
U.K. 50 (43.48%)/16 (13.91%), in the Netherlands 12 (63.16%)/1 (5.26%), in
Austria 13 (38.24%)/11 (32.35%), in Switzerland 11 (78.57%)/5 (35.71%), and in
France 29 (39.19%)/11 (14.86%).

Looking at the possible upper bound for universities using Microsoft Teams
_without_ using the SfB/voice and video chat component, we find that this
number is close to zero for the U.S. (6/2.31%), Germany (1/1.23%), and
Switzerland (0) in June 2021. In the U.K. (13/11.30%), the THE Top100
(5/5.00%), Austria (4/11.76%), and the Netherlands (2/10.53%) we see a modest
number of additional institutions that _might_ be using Microsoft Teams.
France is the only country where we find a comparatively large amount of
potential Microsoft Teams users who do not use _any_ of the other solutions of
SfB, with 14 (18.92%) institutions in June 2021. However, this difference is
relatively static over the past years, and likely not related to an increase
in Microsoft Teams adoption by universities not _already_ using Microsoft
cloud services (or providing access to Microsoft software licenses to users
from their domain) in the beginning of 2020.

Figure 5: Share of universities with at least one name containing ‘moodle’ or
‘studip’ for Germany and the U.S. (January 2015 to June 2021). Figure 6: Share
of universities with at least one BigBlueButton related DNS entry for Germany
and the U.S. (January 2015 to June 2021).

##  8 Discussion

In this section, we discuss the implications of our findings and provide
additional context and recommendations.

###  8.1 Cloud Adoption in Europe: The German Case

The differences we observe in sec:overview to sec:zoom beg the question what
digital learning tools universities use instead of cloud products, e.g., in
Germany. Hence, we look at the use of common self-hosted alternatives for LMS
(Moodle [14] and Stud.IP [5, 39]) and video chats (BigBlueButton [9]) in
Germany, which are reportedly deployed in 90% of higher education institutions
[21]. Self-hosted tools may—by default—not be necessarily more privacy
preserving than offerings of large cloud providers. However, _control_ over
data nevertheless remains with the university hosting them, and they are able
to audit and—if necessary—reconfigure and patch these tools to conform to
privacy regulations and requirements. This could, for example, be seen with
BigBlueButton, where the user group around German universities made
significant contributions towards the privacy preserving operation of
BigBlueButton once privacy limitations in its design became apparent [8, 42].

To estimate self-hosted LMS and BigBlueButton use in Germany and the U.S., we
count the number of universities that either have Moodle/Stud.IP or
BigBlueButton related names under their domain. For Moodle and Stud.IP, these
are names containing either `moodle` or `studip`. For BigBlueButton we check
for `bbb`, `bigbluebutton`, `scalelite` (the load balancer component of
BigBlueButton), and `greenlight` (a common BigBlueButton frontend).

We find that in June 2021 76.54% (62) of universities in Germany have Moodle
or Stud.IP related names vs. 37.31% (37.31%) in the U.S. for Moodle alone, see
fig:studip. Similarly, we find that 54 (66.67%) universities in Germany have
BigBlueButton related names under their domain, while this is the case for
less than 10% in the U.S., see fig:bbb. We see a clear pandemic effect for the
adoption of BigBlueButton in Germany, starting in February 2020.

Please note that our matching is fuzzy, as we might overmatch on hostnames
that contain these product names without running the associated service, while
we may also undermatch when universities host these tools under different
names. For example, in Germany, we often found BigBlueButton systems being
called `konferenz`, the German word for conference, explaining the difference
between our measured 54 and the 90% reported in the media [21].

We tie the higher share of self-hosting in German universities to multiple
factors:

  * •

Strong commitment to academic freedom and self-governance [30, 76] rooted in
the events of the ’68 student revolution [47].

  * •

Historic prevalence of university datacenters aligned with research and
education [87, 53].

  * •

Several institutions showing strong leadership in terms of self-sovereign
learning environments, as for example the University of Osnabrück with the
Center Virtuos [48], which has also significantly contributed to Stud.IP
and—since the onset of the pandemic—BigBlueButton open-source development.

  * •

A societal understanding of universities as _public_ infrastructures [7].

  * •

A collaborative and active operators community at German universities
supported by the DFN (German Research Network), leading to a strong exchange
about self-sovereign educational tooling [34].

These factors _may help_ explain the significant difference between Germany
and, other countries. However, we also find an uptick in cloud use in Germany
in December 2020. This may indicate that, with the COVID-19, universities are
starting to shift away from this paradigm (not just due to the sudden
introduction of cloud-based remote teaching tools), similar to the slow
introduction of Zoom in France (see sec:zoom), which—on a national level—also
implemented a strict ope-source software favoring policy [2].

###  8.2 Cloud Infrastructures and Power

The last decade has seen big tech companies, and especially Amazon and
Microsoft, honing in on cloud infrastructures as an alternative source of
growth to the somewhat saturated ad-based business [31, 94]. Growth for these
new markets relies on two effects: Realizing the value proposition of reducing
costs in terms of Capital Expenses (CapEx) and local Operational Expenses
(OpEx) for lower OpEx paid in service charges to a cloud provider, and—for
individual cloud providers—by attaining a market position that makes them ‘the
default’ platform to be used [100].

The increasing dependency of big tech on cloud computing for their financial
success means that the companies use political, economic and technical
resources to ensure that the clouds are the ‘default’ infrastructure in as
many domains as possible. Their political force is brought to bare using
international initiatives, e.g., New Pedagogies for Deep Learning is a global
partnership between the OECD, Gates Foundation, Pearson and Microsoft [108];
government partnerships, e.g., the U.K. government has incentivised schools to
opt for platforms that are both free to use and bundled up with government-
funded technical assistance [108]; and lobbying efforts [66]. Cloud providers
use economic mechanisms for the move to the cloud by mounting the benefits of
economies of scale, financing and physically migrating data to the cloud, and
by providing free services that can also bypass regular procurement rules.
Through their economic incentives, these companies can capture educational IT
either by providing storage, compute, communication platforms, or by becoming
the default infrastructure for smaller EdTech companies [46].

The trend of big tech monopolies shifting from _“being mere owners of
information, … to becoming owners of the infrastructures of society”_ [83] has
prompted an ongoing public discussion about the implications of this ‘platform
capitalism’ on different aspects of society [13, 22, 83], yet without zooming
in on its implications on higher education. At first sight, the political
economic advantages put forth by cloud companies make good fellows with the
economized management of universities. However, this also comes with power
shifts. Mirrlees and Alvi [63] argue that universities focus on cutting costs,
while allowing the big five (Apple, Alphabet/Google, Amazon, Microsoft,
Facebook) and a growing ecosystem of start-ups, e.g., in the area of MOOCs, to
compete with—and ultimately replace—public education. Most universities do not
have the economic or political power to insert their own values and interests
in such a market, unless they coordinate on these issues. The international
initiatives these companies support make up informal policy networks that
increasingly dominate educational policy [95]. Aside from potential impact on
democratic societies and educational values, these networks are likely to
promote certain forms of education, e.g., the individualised pursuit of
‘mastery’ enacted primarily through adaptive software, in favor of education
that, for example, promotes interpersonal dialogue and relations with others
[108]. In the bigger scheme of things, there are also concerns about ‘platform
imperialism:’ US-based companies providing the global digital infrastructure
could be used as a tool for ‘soft power’ and economic control that influences
global norms and values of digital cultures [44], including control over
curriculum and research activities.

###  8.3 Cloud Use vs. Academic Freedom

The increasing dependence of universities on cloud platforms for teaching,
communication, and research that we observed has serious implications in terms
of academic freedom. If education and research _depend_ on an external cloud
service, researchers may become bound to comply with requirements set by these
organizations. We could recently observe Google’s handling of Timnit Gebru’s
involvement in a paper not ‘deemed worthy for publication’ by the company
[67], as well with other instances of Google telling its researchers to put a
positive spin on ‘sensitive topics,’222Sensitive topics include the oil
industry, China, Iran, Israel, COVID-19, home security, insurance, location
data, religion, self-driving vehicles, telecoms and systems that recommend or
personalize web content. [27] or remove references to Google products [27].
One might argue that this concerns _employees_ of Google, but it also begs the
question of whether cloud operators could leverage their power over
universities to influence critical research in a similar way. In fact, Google
has already been in the spotlight for sponsoring favorable research that is in
line with its business and policy interests [65], both in the U.S. [17], and
Europe [18].333We note that the reports published as part of the _Google
Transparency Project_ [18, 17] by the Campaign for Accountability have also
drawn criticism as they seem to be largely funded by Google’s competitor
Oracle [75]. In the field of educational technology research particularly,
Mirrlees and Alvi [63] observed a lack of critical research, likely because of
_“…little incentive to ‘bite the hand that feeds’ ”_ [80].

It may certainly be conceivable that a major cloud provider simply indicates
that a continued business relation with a university may not be desirable in
case the institution and its researchers continue to voice positions critical
of that cloud provider. That institution would then face the dilemma of either
‘aligning’ their researchers, or—suddenly—having to migrate essential services
like their LMS, email, or (currently essential) remote teaching setup away
from its current provider. Such a migration could easily cost millions while
severely interrupting research and teaching. And, hypotheticals aside, this
did already occur twice with Zoom [68].

Similar cases can be made for cloud operators enforcing their business rules
in terms of, e.g., global sanctions. A case similar to that of GitHub [1] may
effectively put universities in a position where they either bar their Iranian
(or any other potentially sanctioned country) students from attending the
university, or at least from using their digital learning environment.
Thereby, the centralization of power we currently observe may indeed
inadvertently threaten core functions of universities.

The ultimate question we have to ask here as academics is not whether cloud
operators _would_ use these powers. Instead, we have to ask ourselves if we
are willing to risk that they _could_ do this.

###  8.4 Privacy and Academia

The move to the cloud raises a number of concerns with respect to the
application of privacy by design or compliance. Past studies have shown that
educational institutions do not fare well in making transparent the data
collection and processing practices of cloud providers to their faculty, staff
and students [54, 57, 45]. This can, for example, happen when a university
implements a blanket privacy policy for all digital tooling, including all
cloud services. Depending on the diversity of data collection and processing
these services entail, privacy policies may become very generic, potentially
falling short of legal transparency requirements [73]. It may also not be
clear to the university what data is going to the cloud. Universities may
evaluate and make data agreements with cloud providers, but ensuring these are
effective can be a challenge. Aside from having vague privacy policies [50],
cloud services come with the promise of being plug-and-play, and recursively,
they leverage the benefit of service architectures, and often bundle dozens of
third parties [37]. As a result, even cloud service providers may fail to make
their data flows transparent. The promise of plug-and-play also means that
university IT departments are often not given the time or the resources to
evaluate these services. Even when they generate privacy evaluations, these
happen against the backdrop of digital branding efforts of the university and
the partnerships between public institutions and cloud providers [108], which
may trump privacy concerns.

In addition, when students, faculty and administrators access these services,
they are not asked for explicit consent. Universities can, for example in the
case of GDPR [98], use legitimate interest or performance of a contract to
justify all the data flows that come with cloud services. This means that
students and faculty may not have a (meaningful) option to opt-out of these
services. When there is an opt-out process, people may be incentivized not to
use them, e.g., reserving them for “severe cases” and with time and capacity
burdens for faculty and staff. When incentive structures are set up by-design
and by-policy to push people onto cloud infrastructures, it is hard to speak
of choice. Especially when their resources are limited, public education
institutions end up leveraging their structures to on-board students, faculty,
and staff as cloud service consumers [54].

If universities continue to outsource core functions to cloud platforms,
students will no longer have _a choice_ on whether they want to expose some of
their most private information—their academic development during their most
formative years—to these major cloud providers. Considering that these cloud
services are economically under pressure to monetize either the data they
collect (e.g., by creating a recruiting business [88]), or the infrastructural
dependency they create, the practices that are being established here are
concerning. Universities may have to consider whether it is ethical or legal
to create an environment where informed consent to data collection is,
essentially, no longer possible.

###  8.5 Universities as Enterprise Networks

In sec:zoom we observe a correlation between the early adoption of SfB and
universities’ general adoption of cloud platforms. Revisiting sec:background,
we noted that tools like SfB would be expected for _centralized_ enterprise IT
setups. Hence, we argue that SfB adoption can serve as a proxy to assess the
general operational paradigm of a university, i.e., if it is run more like an
_enterprise network_ or a _university network_.

This mechanic of administrative alignment of IT infrastructures with
administration leading to centralization and organizations _behaving_ in a
similar way is also a well documented effect in the field of Information
Systems (IS). DiMaggio and Powell [29] discuss how bureaucratization—via
coercive, memetic, and normative processes—leads to a structural alignment of
organizations within a market, see also Scott for a more recent comprehensive
reflection on these theories [79]. This institutional perspective was
transferred to the introduction of IT systems and their connection to
organizational change by Avgerou [6]. To synthesize, the findings from IS
indicate an effect in organizations where administrative alignment leads to IT
transformation as _a goal in in itself_ , lacking _“adequate legitimacy”[6]_,
without any _“contribution to the process of organizational change.”[6]_

Following SfB as a proxy, we conjecture that we observe an increased adoption
of cloud technology for countries in which the university system has seen a
stronger commoditization—the U.S., the U.K., the Netherlands, and THE
Top100—as also discussed by Bosetti and Walker [12]. In these countries,
organizational alignment lead to a situation where academic leaders governing
a body of scholars have been replaced by administrators and business managers
who oversee university operations. These new managers have imported and
integrated enterprise tools and culture into the heart of public education
institutions, leading towards greater cloud adoption.

###  8.6 Recommendations for Decentralization

Following our discussion of the impact of cloud usage among universities and
exploration of the Germany case study, we identified four recommendations for
researchers and universities to counteract these developments and preserve
academic freedom. Specifically, these are:

  * •

Invest Into Self-Hosted Open-Source Tools:  Tools to enable self-sovereign IT
operations for universities exist. By favoring Open Source during procurement
[21] and contributing to their development, universities can fill their role
as public infrastructures.

  * •

Local Capacity Building:  Using self-hosted tools heavily relies on local
capacity in terms of resources and skilled system operations departments
within universities. Hence, universities should build and sustain their local
IT departments.

  * •

Organize:  In the German case we saw the importance of collaboration (DFN) and
universities investing into open-source tools to provide these to other
universities with a smaller infrastructure focus (Virtuos). This way,
universities can attain scale-effects they are hoping to leverage by migrating
to public clouds.

  * •

Align IT Operations with Core Functions:  By aligning IT operations closer
with their core functions, i.e., teaching and research, universities can
refocus their IT from a purely supportive function to an element in which they
demonstrate leadership [48].

Especially the last point is crucial, as it begs the question what role
universities want to play in the development of our digital society: Do they
want to lead, or follow.

##  9 Limitations

Here we list the limitations of our work. The Farsight SIE dataset may not
contain all cloud related names, if these are not queried from a client behind
a sensor. While those instances of cloud hosting we identify are certainly
there, more universities may be using major cloud providers without it being
recorded in the dataset. Similarly, Farsight SIE only collects DNS cache
misses [32]. Hence, we cannot provide information on the popularity of the
names we observe. Furthermore, the number of universities among the surveyed
countries differs (14 in Switzerland, 260 in the U.S.). This may amplify the
effect of individual institutions’ choices in smaller countries. Our work
relies, in several places, on heuristics, e.g., in the identification of
Zoom/WebEx/Adobe Connect domains in sec:zoom, the use of Proofpoint’s email
security system, and the estimation of Moodle, Stud.IP, and BigBlueButton
instances in sec:discussion. To address this, we manually verified a set of
our heuristics, e.g., for Zoom in sec:zoom finding no significant error, and
outline the impact of these limitations in the corresponding sections.

Given the large effect sizes we observe, the general alignment of ratio
changes between smaller and larger countries, our additional spot-checks, and
our generally good coverage of domain names, we are confident that our results
paint an accurate picture of universities’ cloud use since January 2015.

##  10 Related Work

In this section, we discuss related work on measuring cloud infrastructures
and usage, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Internet, and discusses
the implications of public cloud infrastructure in the educational sector.

###  10.1 Cloud Infrastructure Measurements

Similar to us, Borgolte et al. [11] also use the Farsight SIE dataset to
identify domains pointing at cloud infrastructure. Jacquemart et al. [43]
performed their own active DNS measurements on the most popular domains
according to Alexa to measure the adoption of cloud services from 2013–2018.
Furthermore, Portier et al. [69] and van der Toorn et al. [91] identify cloud
service usage via `TXT` records. Streibelt et al. [84] and Calder et al. [16]
use the `EDNS0` extension to map cloud infrastructure. Henze et al. [40]
focused on the adoption of cloud-based email services and identified them
based on email headers on a dataset collected from mailing lists, spam traps,
and volunteer users. As we essentially conduct a form of targeted asset
discovery using a passive dataset, a comprehensive picture of recent related
work can also be obtained from Vermeer et al.’s taxonomy of asset discovery
techniques [96].

###  10.2 COVID-19 and the Internet

With the emergence of COVID-19, it became apparent that the continued lock-
down situation would have an extended effect on the Internet. As such, several
researchers studied this effect, including the increased utilization of cloud
based services. Feldmann et al. [33] studied the impact of COVID-19 through
the lens of a major Internet Exchange Point from a European perspective, while
Liu et al. [55] performed a similar study on changes in network traffic
patterns in the U.S.. Boettger et al. [10] provide a similar perspective from
the vantage point of the Facebook social network. Along the same lines, Lutu
et al. [56] investigate the impact of COVID-19 on mobile network traffic.

###  10.3 Educational Technology in the Cloud

Cohney et al. [24] perform a study into the privacy implications of virtual
classroom technology. Contrary to us, they root their evaluation of technology
use in a self-reported study among 49 educators in U.S. universities,
obtaining results similar to our Internet measurement data. In addition, they
also analyze privacy policies of common virtual classroom tools. Similar to
us, Komljenovic [49] theoretically analyzes the implications of the
progressing centralization and platformization of educational technology,
particularly noting the de-institutionalization of public education
accelerated by centralized platforms. Zeide and Nissenbaum [110]
analyze—before the COVID-19 pandemic—learner privacy in MOOCs and virtual
education, finding it to often violate established norms in terms of privacy
and education, supporting our assessment that the ‘zoomification’ of education
is a long-standing process predating the COVID-19 pandemic. Besides these
major related publications, several small-scale evaluations often limited to
specific tools (usually Zoom) were undertaken during the last year. For
brevity, we refer to the summary of Cohney et al. [24].

##  11 Conclusion

In this paper, we investigated the reliance of universities in seven countries
and in institutions listed in the Times Higher Education Top100 on cloud
infrastructure. We found that the continuous move to cloud infrastructures has
been an ongoing process for the past several years, and—apart from video
lecturing tools—not heavily influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic. Our results
also highlight that university systems highly differ in their susceptibility
to migrate to the cloud. We conjecture that this ties in with a multitude of
factors, including the academic and administrative culture, and the history of
university IT in the corresponding countries. Furthermore, we discuss the
potential impact of this progressing development on the very essence of
academic freedom.

In the end, as academics, we have to ask ourselves: Now that we know, do we
want this? If we are content with this development, we also have to ask
whether we can live with the broader implications we outline in
sec:discussion. If not, we have to find ways to counteract these developments,
by building and funding decentralized capabilities for independent research
and teaching infrastructure, learning from—certainly not perfect—cases like
Germany.

## Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by the European Commission through the H2020
program in project CyberSecurity4Europe (Grant No. #830929). Our work was
enabled by the use of Slack (hosted on Amazon EC2), Overleaf (hosted on Google
cloud infrastructure), GitHub (owned and hosted by Microsoft), and a self-
hosted BigBlueButton instance. We thank Farsight Security, Inc. for providing
access to the Farsight Security Information Exchange’s passive DNS data feed.
Without this data, the project would not have been possible. Any opinions,
findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are
those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their host
institutions, Farsight Security, Inc., or those of the European Commission.

## References

  * [1] 1995parham  “A Message to GitHub”, 2019  URL: https://github.com/1995parham/github-do-not-ban-us
  * [2] Adrian Offerman  “Issues in open source procurement in the European public sector II”  Open Source Observatory, 2012  URL: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/open-source-observatory-osor/document/issues-open-source-procurement-european-public-sector-ii
  * [3] Aftab Siddiqui  “MIT Goes on IPv4 Selling Spree”, 2017  URL: https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2017/05/mit-goes-on-ipv4-selling-spree/
  * [4] Mark Allman and Vern Paxson  “Issues and Etiquette Concerning Use of Shared Measurement Data”  In _Proceedings of the 7th Internet Measurement Conference (IMC)_ ACM, 2007, pp. 135–140
  * [5] Hans-Jürgen Appelrath, Dietrich Boles, Norbert Kleinefeld, Ivan Marcos, Dennis Reil, Matthias Runge, Markus Schmees and Stefan Willer  “Einsatz des Open-Source-Lernmanagementsystems Stud. IP zur Unterstützung der Präsenzlehre der Universität Oldenburg”  In _Beiträge der 36. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Informatik eV (GI)_ Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V., 2006
  * [6] Chrisanthi Avgerou  “IT and Organizational Change: An Institutionalist Perspective”  In _Information Technology & People_ 13.4 MCB UP Ltd., 2000
  * [7] Marian Beise and Harald Stahl  “Public Research and Industrial Innovations in Germany”  In _Research Policy_ 28.4 Elsevier, 1999, pp. 397–422
  * [8] BigBlueButton  “BigBlueButton Privacy Documentation”  URL: https://docs.bigbluebutton.org/admin/privacy.html
  * [9] BigBlueButton  “Engage Your Online Students”  URL: https://bigbluebutton.org/
  * [10] Timm Boettger, Ghida Ibrahim and Ben Vallis  “How the Internet reacted to Covid-19: A perspective from Facebook’s Edge Network”  In _Proceedings of the 20th Internet Measurement Conference (IMC)_ ACM, 2020, pp. 34–41
  * [11] Kevin Borgolte, Tobias Fiebig, Shuang Hao, Christopher Kruegel and Giovanni Vigna  “Cloud Strife: Mitigating the Security Risks of Domain-Validated Certificates”  In _Proceedings of the 25th Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS)_ San Diego, CA, USA: Internet Society (ISOC), 2018
  * [12] Lynn Bosetti and Keith Walker  “Perspectives of UK Vice-Chancellors on Leading Universities in a Knowledge-Based Economy”  In _Higher Education Quarterly_ 64.1 Wiley Online Library, 2010, pp. 4–21
  * [13] Ingrid Brodnig  “Übermacht im Netz. Warum wir für ein gerechtes Internet kämpfen müssen”  Brandstätter, 2019
  * [14] Alex Büchner  “Moodle 3 Administration”  Packt Publishing Ltd., 2016
  * [15] Mark Burgess and Karst Koymans  “Master Education Programmes in Network and System Administration”  In _Proceedings of the 21st USENIX Large Installation System Administration Conference (LISA)_ , 2007, pp. 215–229
  * [16] Matt Calder, Xun Fan, Zi Hu, Ethan Katz-Bassett, John Heidemann and Ramesh Govindan  “Mapping the Expansion of Google’s Serving Infrastructure”  In _Proceedings of the 13th Internet Measurement Conference (IMC)_ ACM, 2013, pp. 313–326
  * [17] Campaign for Accountability  “Google Academics Inc.”, 2017  URL: https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/google-academics-inc
  * [18] Campaign for Accountability  “Google’s Academic Influence in Europe”, 2018  URL: https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/googles-academic-influence-in-europe
  * [19] Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education  “R1 Doctoral Universities”  URL: https://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/lookup/srp.php?clq=%7B%22basic2005_ids%22%3A%2215%22%7D
  * [20] Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education  “R2 Doctoral Universities”  URL: https://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/lookup/srp.php?clq=%7B%22basic2005_ids%22%3A%2216%22%7D
  * [21] Christian Füller  “Open-Source-Software an Universitäten: Angst vor Microsoft”  TAZ, 2020  URL: https://taz.de/Open-Source-Software-an-Universitaeten/!5686650/
  * [22] Wolfie Christl and Sarah Spiekermann  “Networks of Control. A Report on Corporate Surveillance, Digital Tracking, Big Data & Privacy”  Facultas, 2016
  * [23] Simon Coghlan, Tim Miller and Jeannie Paterson  “Good proctor or “Big Brother”? AI Ethics and Online Exam Supervision Technologies”  In _arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.07647_ , 2020
  * [24] Shaanan Cohney, Ross Teixeira, Anne Kohlbrenner, Arvind Narayanan, Mihir Kshirsagar, Yan Shvartzshnaider and Madelyn Sanfilippo  “Virtual Classrooms and Real Harms”  In _arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.05867_ , 2020
  * [25] Adrian Dabrowski, Georg Merzdovnik, Johanna Ullrich, Gerald Sendera and Edgar Weippl  “Measuring Cookies and Web Privacy in a Post-GDPR World”  In _Proceedings of the 14th Passive and Active Measurement Conference (PAM)_ , Lecture Notes in Computer Science  Springer, 2019, pp. 258–270
  * [26] Emmanuel Gbenga Dada, Joseph Stephen Bassi, Haruna Chiroma, Adebayo Olusola Adetunmbi and Opeyemi Emmanuel Ajibuwa  “Machine Learning for E-mail Spam Filtering: Review, Techniques and Trends”  In _Heliyon_ 5.6 Elsevier, 2019
  * [27] Paresh Dave and Jeffrey Dastin  “Google told its scientists to ’strike a positive tone’ in AI research - documents”, 2020  URL: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-google-research-focus-idUSKBN28X1CB
  * [28] Rachna Dhamija, J Doug Tygar and Marti Hearst  “Why Phishing Works”  In _Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI)_ Montréal, QC, Canada: ACM, 2006
  * [29] Paul J. DiMaggio and Walter W. Powell  “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields”  In _American Sociological Review_ JSTOR, 1983, pp. 147–160
  * [30] Michael Dobbins  “Einfluss der 68er-Studentenrevolte auf die politischen Strukturen deutscher Universitäten”  In _Forschung Frankfurt: Das Wissenschaftsmagazin der Goethe-Universität_ 35.1, 2018, pp. 96–98
  * [31] Markus Eurich, Andrea Giessmann, Tobias Mettler and Katarina Stanoevska-Slabeva  “Revenue Streams of Cloud-based Platforms: Current State and Future Directions”  In _Proceedings of the 17th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS)_ , 2011
  * [32] Farsight Inc.  “Farsight - Security Information Exchange (SIE)”  URL: https://www.farsightsecurity.com/solutions/security-information-exchange/
  * [33] Anja Feldmann, Oliver Gasser, Franziska Lichtblau, Enric Pujol, Ingmar Poese, Christoph Dietzel, Daniel Wagner, Matthias Wichtlhuber, Juan Tapiador, Narseo Vallina-Rodriguez, Oliver Hohlfeld and Georgios Smaragdakis  “The Lockdown Effect: Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Internet Traffic”  In _Proceedings of the 20th Internet Measurement Conference (IMC)_ ACM, 2020
  * [34] Fred Dixon  “BigBlueButton Road Map”, 2021  URL: https://opencast.beuth-hochschule.de/paella/ui/watch.html?id=0a8bf26f-732c-4250-b989-6127c6a322a8
  * [35] Google  “Prevent mail to Gmail users from being blocked or sent to spam”  URL: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81126
  * [36] Grapperhaus, F.B.J and Ollongren, K.H.  “Verificatie op de uitvoering van het overeengekomen verbeterplan met Microsoft”, 2019  URL: https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/brieven_regering/detail?id=2019Z13829&did=2019D28465
  * [37] Seda Gürses and Joris Hoboken  “Privacy after the Agile Turn”  In _The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Privacy_ , Cambridge Law Handbooks  Cambridge University Press, 2018, pp. 579–601
  * [38] Georg Hager and Gerhard Wellein  “Introduction to High Performance Computing for Scientists and Engineers”  CRC Press, 2010
  * [39] Kai-Christoph Hamborg, Melanie Brummerloh, Martin Gieseking and Jan Wegner  “Befunde zur Akzeptanz des Lernmanagement-Systems Stud. IP an der Universität Osnabrück”, 2014
  * [40] Martin Henze, Mary Peyton Sanford and Oliver Hohlfeld  “Veiled in Clouds? Assessing the Prevalence of Cloud Computing in the Email Landscape”  In _Proceedings of the 2017 Network Traffic Measurement and Analysis Conference (TMA)_ International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP), 2017
  * [41] Oliver Hohlfeld  “Poster: Operating a DNS-based Active Internet Observatory”  In _Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGCOMM Conference (SIGCOMM)_ ACM, 2018
  * [42] ichdasich  “[Privacy Issue] RAW recordings are created and stored, even if the meeting isn’t recorded”, 2020  URL: https://github.com/bigbluebutton/bigbluebutton/issues/9202
  * [43] Quentin Jacquemart, Clément Pigout and Guillaume Urvoy-Keller  “Inferring the Deployment of Top Domains over Public Clouds using DNS Data”  In _Proceedings of the 2019 Network Traffic Measurement and Analysis Conference (TMA)_ International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP), 2019
  * [44] Dal Jong Jin  “Digital Platforms, Imperialism and Political Culture”  Routledge, 2015
  * [45] Kyle ML Jones, Andrew Asher, Abigail Goben, Michael R Perry, Dorothea Salo, Kristin A Briney and M Brooke Robertshaw  ““We’re being tracked at all times”: Student perspectives of their privacy in relation to learning analytics in higher education”  In _Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology_ 71.9 Wiley Online Library, 2020, pp. 1044–1059
  * [46] Peter Judge  “Zoom makes multi-year commitment to AWS”  Data Center Dynamics, 2020  URL: https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/zoom-makes-multi-year-commitment-aws/
  * [47] Martin Klimke  “The Other Alliance: Student Protest in West Germany and the United States in the Global Sixties”  Princeton University Press, 2009
  * [48] Andreas Knaden and Martin Gieseking  “Organisatorische Umsetzung eines E-Learning-Konzepts einer Hochschule am Beispiel des Zentrums virtUOS der Universität Osnabrück”  In _Digitaler Campus: Vom Medienprojekt zur nachhaltigen Mediennutzung auf dem Digitalen Campus_ , 2003, pp. 36–73
  * [49] Janja Komljenovic  “The Rise of Education Rentiers: Digital Platforms, Digital Data and Rents”  In _Learning, Media and Technology_ Taylor & Francis, 2021, pp. 1–13
  * [50] Anantaa Kotal, Karuna Pande Joshi and Anupam Joshi  “ViCLOUD: Measuring Vagueness in Cloud Service Privacy Policies and Terms of Services”  In _Proceedings of the IEEE 13th International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD)_ , 2020, pp. 71–79
  * [51] Murray Kucherawy and Elizabeth Zwicky  “Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC)”, 2015  URL: http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc7489.txt
  * [52] David Lawrence, Warren Kumari and Puneet Sood  “Serving Stale Data to Improve DNS Resiliency”, 2020  URL: http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc8767.txt
  * [53] Volker Leib and Raymund Werle  “Wissenschaftsnetze in Europa und den USA: Die Rolle staatlicher Akteure bei ihrer Bereitstellung”  In _Modell Internet? Entwicklungsperspektiven neuer Kommunikationsnetze_ Campus Verlag, 1997, pp. 157–185
  * [54] Maria Lindh and Jan Nolin  “Information We Collect: Surveillance and Privacy in the Implementation of Google Apps for Education”  In _European Educational Research Journal_ 15.6 SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England, 2016, pp. 644–663
  * [55] Shinan Liu, Paul Schmitt, Francesco Bronzino and Nick Feamster  “Characterizing Service Provider Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States”  In _Proceedings of the 16th Passive and Active Measurement Conference (PAM)_ , Lecture Notes in Computer Science  Springer, 2021
  * [56] Andra Lutu, Diego Perino, Marcelo Bagnulo, Enrique Frias-Martinez and Javad Khangosstar  “A Characterization of the COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on a Mobile Network Operator Traffic”  In _Proceedings of the 20th Internet Measurement Conference (IMC)_ ACM, 2020
  * [57] Michael W. Marek and Stan Skrabut  “Privacy in Educational Use of Social Media in the US”  In _International Journal on E-Learning_ 16.3 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 2017, pp. 265–286
  * [58] Mathew Finnegan  “Zoom hit by investor lawsuit as security, privacy concerns mount”  Computerworld, 2020  URL: https://www.computerworld.com/article/3537193/zoom-hit-by-investor-lawsuit-as-security-privacy-concerns-mount.html
  * [59] Peter Mell and Tim Grance  “NIST Special Publication 800-145: The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing”, 2011
  * [60] Microsoft  “Add DNS records to connect your domain”  URL: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/admin/get-help-with-domains/create-dns-records-at-any-dns-hosting-provider
  * [61] Microsoft  “DNS requirements for Skype for Business Server”  URL: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/skypeforbusiness/plan-your-deployment/network-requirements/dns
  * [62] Microsoft  “Services for Senders and ISPs”  URL: https://sendersupport.olc.protection.outlook.com/pm/services.aspx
  * [63] Tanner Mirrlees and Shahid Alvi  “EdTech Inc: Selling, Automating and Globalizing Higher Education in the Digital Age”  Routledge, 2019
  * [64] Paul V. Mockapetris  “Domain names - implementation and specification”, 1987  URL: http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1035.txt
  * [65] Brody Mullins and Jack Nicas  “Paying Professors: Inside Google’s Academic Influence Campaign”  Wall Street Journal, 2017  URL: https://www.wsj.com/articles/paying-professors-inside-googles-academic-influence-campaign-1499785286
  * [66] Paul Nemitz  “Constitutional Democracy and Technology in the age of Artificial Intelligence”  In _Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences_ 376.2133 The Royal Society Publishing, 2018, pp. 20180089
  * [67] Nitasha Tiku  “Google hired Timnit Gebru to be an outspoken critic of unethical AI. Then she was fired for it.”  Washington Post, 2020  URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/23/google-timnit-gebru-ai-ethics/
  * [68] NYU-AAUP Executive Committee  “Statement from the NYU-AAUP on Zoom Censorship Today”, 2020  URL: https://academeblog.org/2020/10/23/statement-from-the-nyu-aaup-on-zoom-censorship-today/
  * [69] Adam Portier, Henry Carter and Charles Lever  “Security in Plain TXT: Observing the Use of DNS TXT Records in the Wild”  In _Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Detection of Intrusions and Malware & Vulnerability Assessment (DIMVA)_, 2019, pp. 374–395
  * [70] Lars Prehn, Franziska Lichtblau and Anja Feldmann  “When Wells Run Dry: The 2020 IPv4 Address Market”  In _Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies (CoNEXT)_ , 2020, pp. 46–54
  * [71] Elissa M. Redmiles, Yasemin Acar, Sascha Fahl and Michelle L. Mazurek  “A Summary of Survey Methodology Best Practices for Security and Privacy Researchers”, 2017
  * [72] Elissa M. Redmiles, Sean Kross and Michelle L. Mazurek  “How Well Do My Results Generalize? Comparing Security and Privacy Survey Results from MTurk, Web, and Telephone Samples”  In _Proceedings of the 40th IEEE Symposium on Security & Privacy (S&P)_ San Francisco, CA, USA: IEEE, 2019, pp. 1326–1343
  * [73] Joel R. Reidenberg, Jaspreet Bhatia, Travis D. Breaux and Thomas B. Norton  “Ambiguity in Privacy Policies and the Impact of Regulation”  In _Journal of Legal Studies_ 45.S2 University of Chicago Press Chicago, IL, 2016, pp. S163–S190
  * [74] Roland Rijswijk-Deij, Mattijs Jonker, Anna Sperotto and Aiko Pras  “A High-Performance, Scalable Infrastructure for Large-Scale Active DNS Measurements”  In _IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications_ 34.6, 2016, pp. 1877–1888
  * [75] Adam Rogers  “Google’s Academic Influence Campaign: It’s Complicated”, 2017  URL: https://www.wired.com/story/googles-academic-influence-campaign-its-complicated/
  * [76] Anne Rohstock  “Nur ein Nebenschauplatz: Zur Bedeutung der “68er”-Protestbewegung für die westdeutsche Hochschulpolitik”  In _Reform und Revolte: Politischer und gesellschaftlicher Wandel in der Bundesrepublik vor und nach 1968_ Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, 2011, pp. 45–60
  * [77] Marcin Rojszczak  “CLOUD act agreements from an EU perspective”  In _Computer Law & Security Review_ 38 Elsevier, 2020
  * [78] Ruhr Uni Bochum  “Bundesvertrag – Einführung von Office 365 (Projekt in Arbeit)”  URL: https://it-services.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/services/software/microsoft.html.de
  * [79] W. Scott  “Approaching Adulthood: The Maturing of Institutional Theory”  In _Theory and Society_ 37.5 Springer, 2008, pp. 427
  * [80] Neil Selwyn  “Technology and Education—Why It’s Crucial to be Critical”  In _Critical Perspectives on Technology and Education_ , 2015, pp. 245–255
  * [81] Neil Selwyn, Thomas Hillman, Rebecca Eynon, Giselle Ferreira, Jeremy Knox, Felicitas Macgilchrist and Juana M. Sancho-Gil  “What’s next for Ed-Tech? Critical hopes and concerns for the 2020s”  In _Learning, Media and Technology_ 45.1 Routledge, 2020, pp. 1–6
  * [82] Steve Sheng, Levi Broderick, Colleen Alison Koranda and Jeremy J Hyland  “Why Johnny Still Can’t Encrypt: Evaluating the Usability of Email Encryption Software”  In _Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS)_ USENIX Association, 2006
  * [83] Nick Srnicek  “Platform Capitalism”  Wiley & Sons, 2017
  * [84] Florian Streibelt, Jan Böttger, Nikolaos Chatzis, Georgios Smaragdakis and Anja Feldmann  “Exploring EDNS-Client-Subnet Adopters in your Free Time”  In _Proceedings of the 13th Internet Measurement Conference (IMC)_ ACM, 2013, pp. 305–312
  * [85] Jayachander Surbiryala and Chunming Rong  “Cloud Computing: History and Overview”  In _Proceedings of the IEEE Cloud Summit_ , 2019
  * [86] Carsten Svensson and Hans-Henrik Hvolby  “Establishing a Business Process Reference Model for Universities”  In _Procedia Technology_ 5 Elsevier, 2012, pp. 635–642
  * [87] Hermann Swalve, Erich Bruns, Horst Brandt and Peter Glodek  “Die Rolle des Anwenders aus der Sicht eines naturwissenschaftlichen Universitätsinstitutes”  In _Org. und Betrieb von DV-Versorgungssystemen_ Springer, 1995, pp. 253–262
  * [88] Sydney Johnson  “Invasive or Informative? Educators Discuss Pros and Cons of Learning Analytics”, 2017  URL: https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-11-01-invasive-or-informative-educators-discuss-pros-and-cons-of-learning-analytics
  * [89] Marko Teräs, Juha Suoranta, Hanna Teräs and Mark Curcher  “Post-Covid-19 Education and Education Technology ‘Solutionism’: a Seller’s Market”  In _Postdigital Science and Education_ 2.3 Springer, 2020, pp. 863–878
  * [90] Times Higher Education  “World University Rankings 2020”  Times Media  URL: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2020/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/100/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats
  * [91] Olivier Toorn, Roland Rijswijk-Deij, Tobias Fiebig, Martina Lindorfer and Anna Sperotto  “TXTing 101: Finding Security Issues in the Long Tail of DNS TXT Records”  In _Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Traffic Measurements for Cybersecurity (WTMC)_ , 2020, pp. 544–549
  * [92] TU Eindhoven  “ID first department to completely switch to Office 365”, 2019  URL: https://www.cursor.tue.nl/en/news/2019/juli/week-1/id-first-department-to-completely-switch-to-office-365/
  * [93] Utrecht University  “Your UU-Gmail account will be converted to a Solis email account on 1 August 2020”, 2019  URL: https://students.uu.nl/en/news/your-uu-gmail-account-will-be-converted-to-a-solis-email-account-on-1-august-2020
  * [94] José Van Dijck  “Seeing the Forest for the Trees Visualizing Platformization and Its Governance”  In _New Media & Society_ SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England, 2020, pp. 1461444820940293
  * [95] José van Dijck, Martijn de Waal and Thomas Poell  “The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World”  Oxford University Press, 2018
  * [96] Mathew Vermeer, Jonathan West, Alejandro Cuevas, Shuonan Niu, Nicolas Christin, Michel Eeten, Tobias Fiebig, Carlos Hernandez Ganan and Tyler Moore  “SoK: A Framework for Asset Discovery: Systematizing Advances in Network Measurements for Protecting Organizations”  In _Proceedings of the 6th IEEE European Symposium on Security & Privacy (EuroS&P)_ IEEE, 2021
  * [97] Gerrit Versteeg and Harry Bouwman  “Business Architecture: A New Paradigm to Relate Business Strategy to ICT”  In _Information Systems Frontiers_ 8.2 Springer, 2006, pp. 91–102
  * [98] Paul Voigt and Axel Bussche  “The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Practical Guide”  Springer, 2017
  * [99] Jingguo Wang, Tejaswini Herath, Rui Chen, Arun Vishwanath and H. Rao  “Research Article Phishing Susceptibility: An Investigation Into the Processing of a Targeted Spear Phishing Email”  In _IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication_ 55.4, 2012, pp. 345–362
  * [100] Richard Waters  “Best coast tech is top and looking to the clouds for growth”  Financial Times, 2016  URL: https://www.ft.com/content/3e11fdb8-5a49-11e6-9f70-badea1b336d4
  * [101] Wikipedia  “List of public universities in France”  Wikipedia  URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_universities_in_France
  * [102] Wikipedia  “List of research universities in the United States”  Wikipedia  URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_research_universities_in_the_United_States
  * [103] Wikipedia  “List of universities in Austria”  Wikipedia  URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_universities_in_Austria
  * [104] Wikipedia  “List of universities in Germany”  Wikipedia  URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_universities_in_Germany
  * [105] Wikipedia  “List of universities in Switzerland”  Wikipedia  URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_universities_in_Switzerland
  * [106] Wikipedia  “List of universities in the Netherlands”  Wikipedia  URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_universities_in_the_Netherlands
  * [107] Wikipedia  “List of universities in the United Kingdom”  Wikipedia  URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_universities_in_the_United_Kingdom
  * [108] Ben Williamson and Anna Hogan  “Commercialisation and Privatisation in/of Education in the Context of COVID-19”, 2020
  * [109] Wortell  “Nyenrode Business University: Connecting data sources in a unified way”, 2021  URL: https://customers.microsoft.com/en-au/story/1360699875743841506-nyenrode-business-university-higher-education-azure-en-netherlands
  * [110] Elana Zeide and Helen Nissenbaum  “Learner Privacy in MOOCs and Virtual Education”  In _Theory and Research in Education_ 16.3 SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England, 2018, pp. 280–307
  * [111] Anneke Zuiderwijk and Helen Spiers  “Sharing and Re-Using Open Data: A Case Study of Motivations in Astrophysics”  In _International Journal of Information Management_ 49 Elsevier, 2019, pp. 228–241

###  .1 Investigated Institutions in Austria

  1. 1.

Akademie der Bildenden Künste Wien: akbild.ac.at

  2. 2.

Anton Bruckner Privatuniversistät: bruckneruni.at

  3. 3.

Bertha von Suttner Privatuniversität: suttneruni.at

  4. 4.

Central European University: ceu.edu

  5. 5.

Danube Private University: dp-uni.ac.at

  6. 6.

Graz University of Technology: tugraz.at

  7. 7.

Jam Music Lab - Privatuniversität für Jazz und Popularmusik Wien:
jammusiclab.com

  8. 8.

Johannes Kepler Universität Linz: jku.at

  9. 9.

Karl Landsteiner Privatuniversität für Gedundheitswissenschaften: kl.ac.at

  10. 10.

Katholische Privatuniversistät Linz: ku-linz.at

  11. 11.

Kunst Uni Graz: kug.ac.at

  12. 12.

Kunst Universität Linz: ufg.ac.at

  13. 13.

Medizinische Universität Graz: medunigraz.at

  14. 14.

Medizinische Universität Innsbruck: i-med.ac.at

  15. 15.

Medizinische Universität Wien: meduniwien.ac.at

  16. 16.

Modul University Vienna: modul.ac.at

  17. 17.

Montanuniversität Leoben: unileoben.ac.at

  18. 18.

Paracelsus Medizinische Privatuniversität: pmu.ac.at

  19. 19.

Privatuniversität Schloss Seeburg: uni-seeburg.at

  20. 20.

The Tyrolean Private University: umit.at

  21. 21.

University of Graz: uni-graz.at

  22. 22.

University of Innsbruck: uibk.ac.at

  23. 23.

University of Klagenfurt: uni-klu.ac.at

  24. 24.

University of Vienna: univie.ac.at

  25. 25.

Universität Mozarteum Salzburg: moz.ac.at

  26. 26.

Universität Salzburg: uni-salzburg.at

  27. 27.

Universität für Bodenkultur Wien: boku.ac.at

  28. 28.

Universität für Musik und Darstellende Kunst Wien: mdw.ac.at

  29. 29.

Universität für Weiterbildung Krems: donau-uni.ac.at

  30. 30.

Universität für angewandte Kunst Wien: dieangewandte.at

  31. 31.

Veterinärmedizinische Universität Wien: vetmeduni.ac.at

  32. 32.

Vienna University of Economics and Business: wu.ac.at

  33. 33.

Vienna University of Technology: tuwien.ac.at

  34. 34.

Webster Vienna Private University: webster.ac.at

###  .2 Investigated Institutions in France

  1. 1.

Institut Catholique de Lyon: ucly.fr, univ-catholyon.fr

  2. 2.

Institut Catholique de Paris: icp.fr

  3. 3.

Institut Catholique de Toulouse: ict-toulouse.fr

  4. 4.

Institut National Universitaire Champollion: univ-jfc.fr

  5. 5.

La Rochelle Université: univ-larochelle.fr

  6. 6.

Sorbonne Université: paris-sorbonne.fr, sorbonne-universite.fr, univ-paris4.fr

  7. 7.

Universität Paris 8 Vincennes-Saint-Denis: univ-paris8.fr

  8. 8.

Universität Paris III Sorbonne Nouvelle: univ-paris3.fr

  9. 9.

Universität des Oberelsass: uha.fr

  10. 10.

Université Blaise Pascal Clermont-Ferrand II: univ-bpclermont.fr

  11. 11.

Université Bordeaux Montaigne: u-bordeaux-montaigne.fr

  12. 12.

Université Bretagne Sud: univ-ubs.fr

  13. 13.

Université Catholique de Lille: univ-catholille.fr

  14. 14.

Université Catholique de l’Ouest: uco.fr

  15. 15.

Université Claude-Bernard-Lyon-I: univ-lyon1.fr

  16. 16.

Université Francois Rabelais de Tours: univ-tours.fr

  17. 17.

Université Grenoble Alpes: u-grenoble3.fr, ujf-grenoble.fr, univ-grenoble-
alpes.fr, upmf-grenoble.fr

  18. 18.

Université Jean-Monnet-Saint-Etienne: univ-st-etienne.fr

  19. 19.

Université Jean-Moulin-Lyon-III: univ-lyon3.fr

  20. 20.

Université Lille Nord de France: cue-lillenorddefrance.fr, univ-lille.fr,
univ-lille1.fr, univ-lille2.fr, univ-lille3.fr, univ-littoral.fr

  21. 21.

Université Lumière Lyon 2: univ-lyon2.fr

  22. 22.

Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne: pantheonsorbonne.fr, univ-paris1.fr

  23. 23.

Université Paris 2 Panthéon-Assas: u-paris2.fr

  24. 24.

Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée: univ-mlv.fr

  25. 25.

Université Paris-Nanterre: parisnanterre.fr, u-paris10.fr, univ-paris10.fr

  26. 26.

Université Paris-Sud: u-psud.fr

  27. 27.

Université Paul Cézanne Aix-Marseille III: univ-cezanne.fr

  28. 28.

Université Paul Sabatier Toulouse III: univ-tlse3.fr, ups-tlse.fr

  29. 29.

Université Savoie Mont Blanc: univ-savoie.fr

  30. 30.

Université Savoie-Mont-Blanc: univ-smb.fr

  31. 31.

Université Sorbonne Paris Nord: univ-paris12.fr, u-pec.fr

  32. 32.

Université Toulouse 1 Sciences Sociales: univ-tlse1.fr, ut-capitole.fr

  33. 33.

Université ToulouseJean Jaurès: univ-tlse2.fr

  34. 34.

Université d’Angers: univ-angers.fr

  35. 35.

Université d’Artois: univ-artois.fr

  36. 36.

Université d’Avignon et des Pays de Vaucluse: univ-avignon.fr

  37. 37.

Université d’Orléans: univ-orleans.fr

  38. 38.

Université d’Evry: univ-evry.fr

  39. 39.

Université de Bordeaux: u-bordeaux.fr, u-bordeaux1.fr, u-bordeaux4.fr

  40. 40.

Université de Bourgogne: u-bourgogne.fr

  41. 41.

Université de Caen Basse-Normandie: unicaen.fr

  42. 42.

Université de Cergy-Pontoise: cyu.fr, u-cergy.fr

  43. 43.

Université de Franche-Comté: univ-fcomte.fr

  44. 44.

Université de Haute Bretagne Rennes 2: univ-rennes2.fr

  45. 45.

Université de La Réunion: univ-reunion.fr

  46. 46.

Université de Limoges: unilim.fr

  47. 47.

Université de Lorraine: univ-lorraine.fr

  48. 48.

Université de Lyon: universite-lyon.fr

  49. 49.

Université de Montpellier: umontpellier.fr, univ-montp1.fr, univ-montp2.fr,
univ-montp3.fr

  50. 50.

Université de Nantes: univ-nantes.fr

  51. 51.

Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis: unice.fr

  52. 52.

Université de Nmes: unimes.fr

  53. 53.

Université de Paris: univ-paris5.fr, univ-paris7.fr, univ-paris-diderot.fr,
u-paris.fr

  54. 54.

Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour: univ-pau.fr

  55. 55.

Université de Perpignan Via Domitia: univ-perp.fr

  56. 56.

Université de Picardie Jules Verne: u-picardie.fr

  57. 57.

Université de Poitiers: univ-poitiers.fr

  58. 58.

Université de Provence Aix-Marseille I: univ-provence.fr

  59. 59.

Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne: univ-reims.fr

  60. 60.

Université de Rennes 1: univ-rennes1.fr

  61. 61.

Université de Rouen: univ-rouen.fr

  62. 62.

Université de Strasbourg: u-strasbg.fr, unistra.fr

  63. 63.

Université de Toulon: univ-tln.fr

  64. 64.

Université de Valenciennes: univ-valenciennes.fr

  65. 65.

Université de Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines: uvsq.fr

  66. 66.

Université de la Mediterranée Aix-Marseille II: univmed.fr

  67. 67.

Université de la Nouvelle-Calédonie: unc.nc

  68. 68.

Université de la Polynésie francaise: upf.pf

  69. 69.

Université de technologie de Compiègne: utc.fr

  70. 70.

Université des Antilles et de la Guyane: univ-ag.fr

  71. 71.

Université du Havre: univ-lehavre.fr

  72. 72.

Université du Maine: univ-lemans.fr

  73. 73.

Université d’Aix-Marseille: univ-amu.fr

  74. 74.

Université d’Auvergne Clermont-Ferrand: uca.fr, u-clermont1.fr

###  .3 Investigated Institutions in Germany

  1. 1.

Brandenburgische Technische Universität: b-tu.de

  2. 2.

Europa-Universität Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder): euv-ffo.de

  3. 3.

FU Berlin: fu-berlin.de

  4. 4.

FernUni Hagen: fernuni-hagen.de

  5. 5.

Friederich-Alexander University Erlangen: fau.de

  6. 6.

HU Berlin: hu-berlin.de

  7. 7.

Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf: hhu.de

  8. 8.

Jacobs University Bremen: jacobs-university.de

  9. 9.

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology: kit.edu

  10. 10.

Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt: ku.de

  11. 11.

RWTH Aachen: rwth-aachen.de

  12. 12.

Ruhr Uni Bochum: ruhr-uni-bochum.de

  13. 13.

TU Berlin: tu-berlin.de

  14. 14.

TU Braunschweig: tu-braunschweig.de

  15. 15.

TU Chemnitz: tu-chemnitz.de

  16. 16.

TU Clausthal: tu-clausthal.de

  17. 17.

TU Darmstadt: tu-darmstadt.de

  18. 18.

TU Dortmund: tu-dortmund.de

  19. 19.

TU Dresden: tu-dresden.de

  20. 20.

TU Freiberg: tu-freiberg.de

  21. 21.

TU Hamburg: tuhh.de

  22. 22.

TU Ilmenau: tu-ilmenau.de

  23. 23.

TU Munich: tum.de

  24. 24.

Uni Augsburg: uni-augsburg.de

  25. 25.

Uni Bamberg: uni-bamberg.de

  26. 26.

Uni Bayreuth: uni-bayreuth.de

  27. 27.

Uni Bielefeld: uni-bielefeld.de

  28. 28.

Uni Bonn: uni-bonn.de

  29. 29.

Uni Bremen: uni-bremen.de

  30. 30.

Uni Duisburg/Essen: uni-due.de

  31. 31.

Uni Erfurt: uni-erfurt.de

  32. 32.

Uni Flensburg: uni-flensburg.de

  33. 33.

Uni Frankfurt: uni-frankfurt.de

  34. 34.

Uni Freiburg: uni-freiburg.de

  35. 35.

Uni Giessen: uni-giessen.de

  36. 36.

Uni Goettingen: uni-goettingen.de

  37. 37.

Uni Greifswald: uni-greifswald.de

  38. 38.

Uni Halle (Saale): uni-halle.de

  39. 39.

Uni Hamburg: uni-hamburg.de

  40. 40.

Uni Hannover: uni-hannover.de

  41. 41.

Uni Heidelberg: uni-heidelberg.de

  42. 42.

Uni Hohenheim: uni-hohenheim.de

  43. 43.

Uni Jena: uni-jena.de

  44. 44.

Uni Kaiserslautern: uni-kl.de

  45. 45.

Uni Kassel: uni-kassel.de

  46. 46.

Uni Kiel: uni-kiel.de

  47. 47.

Uni Koblenz: uni-koblenz-landau.de

  48. 48.

Uni Koeln: uni-koeln.de

  49. 49.

Uni Konstanz: uni-konstanz.de

  50. 50.

Uni Leipzig: uni-leipzig.de

  51. 51.

Uni Luebeck: uni-luebeck.de

  52. 52.

Uni Magdeburg: ovgu.de

  53. 53.

Uni Mainz: uni-mainz.de

  54. 54.

Uni Mannheim: uni-mannheim.de

  55. 55.

Uni Marburg: uni-marburg.de

  56. 56.

Uni Muenchen: uni-muenchen.de

  57. 57.

Uni Münster: uni-muenster.de

  58. 58.

Uni Oldenburg: uni-oldenburg.de, uol.de

  59. 59.

Uni Osnabrueck: uni-osnabrueck.de, uos.de

  60. 60.

Uni Paderborn: uni-paderborn.de

  61. 61.

Uni Passau: uni-passau.de

  62. 62.

Uni Regensburg: uni-regensburg.de

  63. 63.

Uni Reutlingen: reutlingen-university.de

  64. 64.

Uni Rostock: uni-rostock.de

  65. 65.

Uni Saarbruecken: uni-saarland.de

  66. 66.

Uni Siegen: uni-siegen.de

  67. 67.

Uni Speyer: uni-speyer.de

  68. 68.

Uni Stuttgart: uni-stuttgart.de

  69. 69.

Uni Trier: uni-trier.de

  70. 70.

Uni Tuebingen: uni-tuebingen.de

  71. 71.

Uni Ulm: uni-ulm.de

  72. 72.

Uni Vechta: uni-vechta.de

  73. 73.

Uni Weimar: uni-weimar.de

  74. 74.

Uni Witten/Herdecke: uni-wh.de

  75. 75.

Uni Wuerzburg: uni-wuerzburg.de

  76. 76.

Uni Wuppertal: uni-wuppertal.de

  77. 77.

Univ. d. Bundeswehr Munich: unibw.de

  78. 78.

Univ. d. Kuenste Berlin: udk-berlin.de

  79. 79.

Universität Lüneburg: leuphana.de

  80. 80.

Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg: hsu-hh.de

  81. 81.

Zeppelin University: zu.de

###  .4 Investigated Institutions in Switzerland

  1. 1.

EPFL: epfl.ch

  2. 2.

ETH Zürich: ethz.ch

  3. 3.

FernUni Schweiz: fernuni.ch

  4. 4.

Graduate Institute Geneva: graduateinstitute.ch

  5. 5.

Universita della Svizzera italiana: usi.ch, unisi.ch

  6. 6.

University Basel: unibas.ch

  7. 7.

University Bern: unibe.ch

  8. 8.

University Fribourg: unifr.ch

  9. 9.

University Geneva: unige.ch

  10. 10.

University Lausanne: unil.ch, idheap.ch

  11. 11.

University Luzern: unilu.ch

  12. 12.

University Neuchatel: unine.ch

  13. 13.

University St. Gallen: unisg.ch

  14. 14.

University Zürich: uzh.ch

###  .5 Investigated Institutions in the Netherlands

  1. 1.

Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam: eur.nl

  2. 2.

Maastricht School of Management: msm.nl

  3. 3.

Maastricht University: maastrichtuniversity.nl

  4. 4.

Nyenrode Business Universiteit: nyenrode.nl

  5. 5.

Open Universiteit: ou.nl

  6. 6.

Protestantse Theologische Universiteit: pthu.nl

  7. 7.

Radboud Universiteit: ru.nl

  8. 8.

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen: rug.nl

  9. 9.

TIAS School for Business and Society: tias.edu

  10. 10.

Technische Universiteit Delft: tudelft.nl

  11. 11.

Technische Universiteit Eindhoven: tue.nl

  12. 12.

Tilburg University: uvt.nl

  13. 13.

Universiteit Leiden: leidenuniv.nl, universiteitleiden.nl

  14. 14.

Universiteit Twente: utwente.nl

  15. 15.

Universiteit Utrecht: uu.nl

  16. 16.

Universiteit van Amsterdam: uva.nl

  17. 17.

Universiteit voor Humanistiek: uvh.nl

  18. 18.

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam: vu.nl

  19. 19.

Wageningen Universiteit & Research: wur.nl

###  .6 Investigated Institutions in the THE Top100 (Alphabetical)

  1. 1.

Australian National University: anu.edu.au

  2. 2.

Boston University: bu.edu

  3. 3.

Brown University: brown.edu

  4. 4.

California Institute of Technology: caltech.edu

  5. 5.

Carnegie Mellon University: cmu.edu

  6. 6.

Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin: charite.de

  7. 7.

Chinese University of Hong Kong: cuhk.edu.hk

  8. 8.

Columbia University: columbia.edu

  9. 9.

Cornell University: cornell.edu

  10. 10.

Dartmouth College: dartmouth.edu

  11. 11.

Delft University of Technology: tudelft.nl

  12. 12.

Duke University: duke.edu

  13. 13.

ETH Zurich: ethz.ch

  14. 14.

Emory University: emory.edu

  15. 15.

Erasmus University Rotterdam: eur.nl

  16. 16.

Georgia Institute of Technology: gatech.edu

  17. 17.

Harvard University: harvard.edu

  18. 18.

Heidelberg University: heidelberg.edu

  19. 19.

Humboldt University of Berlin: hu-berlin.de

  20. 20.

Imperial College London: imperial.ac.uk

  21. 21.

Johns Hopkins University: jhu.edu

  22. 22.

KU Leuven: kuleuven.be

  23. 23.

Karolinska Institute: ki.se

  24. 24.

King’s College London: kcl.ac.uk

  25. 25.

Kyoto University: kyoto-u.ac.jp

  26. 26.

LMU Munich: uni-muenchen.de

  27. 27.

Leiden University: universiteitleiden.nl, leidenuniv.nl

  28. 28.

London School of Economics and Political Science: lse.ac.uk

  29. 29.

Lund University: lu.se

  30. 30.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology: mit.edu

  31. 31.

McGill University: mcgill.ca

  32. 32.

McMaster University: mcmaster.ca

  33. 33.

Michigan State University: msu.edu

  34. 34.

Monash University: monash.edu, monash.edu.au

  35. 35.

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore: ntu.edu.sg

  36. 36.

National University of Singapore: nus.edu.sg

  37. 37.

New York University: nyu.edu

  38. 38.

Northwestern University: northwestern.edu

  39. 39.

Ohio State University (Main campus): osu.edu

  40. 40.

Paris Sciences et Lettres PSL Research University Paris: psl.eu

  41. 41.

Peking University: pku.edu.cn

  42. 42.

Penn State (Main campus): psu.edu

  43. 43.

Princeton University: princeton.edu

  44. 44.

Purdue University West Lafayette: purdue.edu

  45. 45.

RWTH Aachen University: rwth-aachen.de

  46. 46.

Seoul National University: snu.ac.kr

  47. 47.

Sorbonne Université: univ-paris4.fr, sorbonne-universite.fr

  48. 48.

Stanford University: stanford.edu

  49. 49.

Sungkyunkwan University (SKKU): skku.edu

  50. 50.

Technical University of Munich: tum.de

  51. 51.

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology: ust.hk

  52. 52.

The University of Chicago: uchicago.edu

  53. 53.

The University of Queensland: uq.edu.au

  54. 54.

The University of Tokyo: u-tokyo.ac.jp

  55. 55.

Tsinghua University: tsinghua.edu.cn

  56. 56.

UCL: ucl.ac.uk

  57. 57.

UNSW Sydney: unsw.edu.au

  58. 58.

University of Amsterdam: uva.nl

  59. 59.

University of Basel: unibas.ch

  60. 60.

University of Bristol: bris.ac.uk

  61. 61.

University of British Columbia: ubc.ca

  62. 62.

University of California, Berkeley: berkeley.edu

  63. 63.

University of California, Davis: ucdavis.edu

  64. 64.

University of California, Irvine: uci.edu

  65. 65.

University of California, Los Angeles: ucla.edu

  66. 66.

University of California, San Diego: ucsd.edu

  67. 67.

University of California, Santa Barbara: ucsb.edu

  68. 68.

University of Cambridge: cam.ac.uk

  69. 69.

University of Edinburgh: ed.ac.uk

  70. 70.

University of Freiburg: uni-freiburg.de

  71. 71.

University of Glasgow: gla.ac.uk

  72. 72.

University of Groningen: rug.nl

  73. 73.

University of Helsinki: helsinki.fi

  74. 74.

University of Hong Kong: hku.hk

  75. 75.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: illinois.edu

  76. 76.

University of Manchester: manchester.ac.uk

  77. 77.

University of Maryland, College Park: umd.edu

  78. 78.

University of Melbourne: unimelb.edu.au

  79. 79.

University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: umich.edu

  80. 80.

University of Minnesota: umn.edu

  81. 81.

University of Montreal: umontreal.ca

  82. 82.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: unc.edu

  83. 83.

University of Oxford: ox.ac.uk

  84. 84.

University of Pennsylvania: upenn.edu

  85. 85.

University of Science and Technology of China: ustc.edu.cn

  86. 86.

University of Southern California: usc.edu

  87. 87.

University of Sydney: sydney.edu.au

  88. 88.

University of Texas at Austin: utexas.edu

  89. 89.

University of Toronto: utoronto.ca

  90. 90.

University of Tübingen: uni-tuebingen.de

  91. 91.

University of Warwick: warwick.ac.uk

  92. 92.

University of Washington: wustl.edu

  93. 93.

University of Wisconsin-Madison: wisc.edu

  94. 94.

University of Zurich: uzh.ch

  95. 95.

Utrecht University: uu.nl

  96. 96.

Wageningen University & Research: wur.nl

  97. 97.

Washington University in St Louis: uw.edu

  98. 98.

Yale University: yale.edu

  99. 99.

Ecole Polytechnique: polytechnique.edu

  100. 100.

Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne: epfl.ch

###  .7 Investigated Institutions in the United Kingdom

  1. 1.

Abertay University: abertay.ac.uk, tay.ac.uk

  2. 2.

Aberystwyth University: aber.ac.uk

  3. 3.

Anglia Ruskin University: anglia.ac.uk

  4. 4.

Aston University: aston.ac.uk

  5. 5.

Bangor University: bangor.ac.uk

  6. 6.

Bath Spa University: bathspa.ac.uk

  7. 7.

Birkbeck University of London: bbk.ac.uk, birkbeck.ac.uk

  8. 8.

Birmingham City University: bcu.ac.uk, uce.ac.uk

  9. 9.

Bournemouth University: bournemouth.ac.uk

  10. 10.

Brunel University London: brunel.ac.uk

  11. 11.

Canterbury Christ Church University: cant.ac.uk

  12. 12.

Cardiff Metropolitan University: uwic.ac.uk, cardiffmet.ac.uk

  13. 13.

Cardiff University: cardiff.ac.uk, cf.ac.uk

  14. 14.

City University of London: city.ac.uk

  15. 15.

Coventry University: coventry.ac.uk

  16. 16.

Cranfield University: cranfield.ac.uk

  17. 17.

De Montfort University: dmu.ac.uk

  18. 18.

Durham University: dur.ac.uk, durham.ac.uk

  19. 19.

Edinburgh Napier University: napier.ac.uk

  20. 20.

Glasgow Caledonian University: gcal.ac.uk

  21. 21.

Goldsmiths University of London: gold.ac.uk, goldsmiths.ac.uk

  22. 22.

Harper Adams University: harper-adams.ac.uk

  23. 23.

Heriot-Watt University: hw.ac.uk

  24. 24.

Imperial College London: ic.ac.uk, imperial.ac.uk

  25. 25.

Institute of Cancer Research: icr.ac.uk

  26. 26.

Keele University: keele.ac.uk

  27. 27.

King’s College London: kcl.ac.uk

  28. 28.

Kingston University: king.ac.uk, kingston.ac.uk

  29. 29.

Lancester University: lancaster.ac.uk, lancs.ac.uk

  30. 30.

Leeds Beckett University: lmu.ac.uk

  31. 31.

Liverpool John Moores University: livjm.ac.uk

  32. 32.

London Business School: london.edu

  33. 33.

London Metropolitan University: londonmet.ac.uk

  34. 34.

London School of Economics: lse.ac.uk

  35. 35.

London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine: lshtm.ac.uk

  36. 36.

London South Bank University: lsbu.ac.uk

  37. 37.

Loughborough University: lboro.ac.uk, loughborough.ac.uk

  38. 38.

Manchester Metropolitan University: mmu.ac.uk

  39. 39.

Middlesex University: mdx.ac.uk

  40. 40.

Newcastle University: ncl.ac.uk, newcastle.ac.uk

  41. 41.

Northumbria University: northumbria.ac.uk, unn.ac.uk

  42. 42.

Nottingham Trent University: ntu.ac.uk

  43. 43.

Open University: open.ac.uk

  44. 44.

Oxford Brookes University: brookes.ac.uk

  45. 45.

Queen Margaret University: qmuc.ac.uk

  46. 46.

Queen Mary University: qmw.ac.uk, qmul.ac.uk

  47. 47.

Queen’s University Belfast: qub.ac.uk

  48. 48.

Robert Gordon University: rgu.ac.uk

  49. 49.

Royal Academy of Music: ram.ac.uk

  50. 50.

Royal Central School of Speech and Drama: cssd.ac.uk

  51. 51.

Royal College of Art: rca.ac.uk

  52. 52.

Royal Holloway: rhbnc.ac.uk, rhul.ac.uk, royalholloway.ac.uk

  53. 53.

School of Oriental and African Studies: soas.ac.uk

  54. 54.

Sheffield Hallam University: shu.ac.uk

  55. 55.

Staffordshire University: staffs.ac.uk

  56. 56.

Swansea Uniiversity: swan.ac.uk, swansea.ac.uk

  57. 57.

Teesside University: tees.ac.uk

  58. 58.

Ulster University: ulst.ac.uk, ulster.ac.uk

  59. 59.

University College London: ioe.ac.uk, ucl.ac.uk, ulsop.ac.uk

  60. 60.

University of Aberdeen: abdn.ac.uk

  61. 61.

University of Bath: bath.ac.uk

  62. 62.

University of Bedfordshire: beds.ac.uk

  63. 63.

University of Birmingham: bham.ac.uk, birmingham.ac.uk

  64. 64.

University of Bradford: brad.ac.uk, bradford.ac.uk

  65. 65.

University of Brighton: brighton.ac.uk, bton.ac.uk

  66. 66.

University of Bristol: bris.ac.uk, bristol.ac.uk

  67. 67.

University of Buckingham: buckingham.ac.uk

  68. 68.

University of Cambridge: cam.ac.uk

  69. 69.

University of Central Lancashire: uclan.ac.uk

  70. 70.

University of Derby: derby.ac.uk

  71. 71.

University of Dundee: dundee.ac.uk

  72. 72.

University of East Anglia: uea.ac.uk

  73. 73.

University of East London: uel.ac.uk

  74. 74.

University of Edinburgh: eca.ac.uk, ed.ac.uk, edinburgh.ac.uk

  75. 75.

University of Essex: essex.ac.uk, sx.ac.uk

  76. 76.

University of Exeter: ex.ac.uk, exeter.ac.uk

  77. 77.

University of Glasgow: gla.ac.uk, glasgow.ac.uk

  78. 78.

University of Gloucestershire: glos.ac.uk

  79. 79.

University of Greenwich: gre.ac.uk, greenwich.ac.uk

  80. 80.

University of Hertfordshire: herts.ac.uk

  81. 81.

University of Huddersfield: hud.ac.uk

  82. 82.

University of Hull: hull.ac.uk

  83. 83.

University of Kent: kent.ac.uk, ukc.ac.uk

  84. 84.

University of Leeds: leeds.ac.uk

  85. 85.

University of Leicester: le.ac.uk, leicester.ac.uk

  86. 86.

University of Lincoln: lincoln.ac.uk

  87. 87.

University of Liverpool: liv.ac.uk, liverpool.ac.uk

  88. 88.

University of Manchester: man.ac.uk, manchester.ac.uk, mcc.ac.uk, umist.ac.uk

  89. 89.

University of Northampton: northampton.ac.uk

  90. 90.

University of Nottingham: nott.ac.uk, nottingham.ac.uk

  91. 91.

University of Oxford: ox.ac.uk

  92. 92.

University of Plymouth: plym.ac.uk, plymouth.ac.uk

  93. 93.

University of Portsmouth: port.ac.uk

  94. 94.

University of Reading: rdg.ac.uk, reading.ac.uk

  95. 95.

University of Roehampton: roehampton.ac.uk

  96. 96.

University of Salford: salford.ac.uk

  97. 97.

University of Sheffield: shef.ac.uk, sheffield.ac.uk

  98. 98.

University of South Wales: newport.ac.uk

  99. 99.

University of Southampton: soton.ac.uk, southampton.ac.uk

  100. 100.

University of St Andrews: st-and.ac.uk, st-andrews.ac.uk

  101. 101.

University of Stirling: stir.ac.uk

  102. 102.

University of Strathclyde: strath.ac.uk

  103. 103.

University of Sunderland: sund.ac.uk, sunderland.ac.uk

  104. 104.

University of Surrey: surrey.ac.uk

  105. 105.

University of Sussex: sussex.ac.uk, susx.ac.uk

  106. 106.

University of Wales Trinity Saint David: lamp.ac.uk

  107. 107.

University of Warwick: warwick.ac.uk

  108. 108.

University of West London: tvu.ac.uk

  109. 109.

University of Westminster: westminster.ac.uk, wmin.ac.uk

  110. 110.

University of Wolverhampton: wlv.ac.uk

  111. 111.

University of Worcester: worc.ac.uk

  112. 112.

University of the Arts London: arts.ac.uk, linst.ac.uk

  113. 113.

University of the West of England Bristol: uwe.ac.uk

  114. 114.

University of the West of Scotland: paisley.ac.uk

  115. 115.

Universiy of York: york.ac.uk

###  .8 Investigated Institutions in the United States

  1. 1.

Air Force Institute of Technology Graduate School of Engineering & Management:
afit.edu

  2. 2.

American University: american.edu

  3. 3.

Arizona State University: asu.edu

  4. 4.

Arkansas State University: astate.edu

  5. 5.

Auburn University: auburn.edu

  6. 6.

Azusa Pacific University: apu.edu

  7. 7.

Ball State University: bsu.edu

  8. 8.

Baylor University: baylor.edu

  9. 9.

Binghamton University: binghamton.edu

  10. 10.

Boise State University: boisestate.edu

  11. 11.

Boston College: bc.edu

  12. 12.

Boston University: bu.edu

  13. 13.

Bowling Green State University: bgsu.edu

  14. 14.

Brandeis University: brandeis.edu

  15. 15.

Brigham Young University: byu.edu

  16. 16.

Brown University: brown.edu

  17. 17.

CUNY City College: cuny.edu

  18. 18.

California Institute of Technology: caltech.edu

  19. 19.

Carnegie Mellon University: cmu.edu

  20. 20.

Case Western Reserve University: case.edu

  21. 21.

Catholic University of America: catholic.edu

  22. 22.

Central Michigan University: cmich.edu

  23. 23.

Chapman University: chapman.edu

  24. 24.

Claremont Graduate University: cgu.edu

  25. 25.

Clark Atlanta University: cau.edu

  26. 26.

Clark University: clarku.edu

  27. 27.

Clarkson University: clarkson.edu

  28. 28.

Clemson University: clemson.edu

  29. 29.

Cleveland State University: csuohio.edu

  30. 30.

College of William and Mary: wm.edu

  31. 31.

Colorado School of Mines: mines.edu

  32. 32.

Colorado State University: colostate.edu

  33. 33.

Columbia University: columbia.edu

  34. 34.

Cornell University: cornell.edu

  35. 35.

Dartmouth College: dartmouth.edu

  36. 36.

DePaul University: depaul.edu

  37. 37.

Delaware State University: desu.edu

  38. 38.

Drexel University: drexel.edu

  39. 39.

Duke University: duke.edu

  40. 40.

Duquesne University: duq.edu

  41. 41.

East Carolina University: ecu.edu

  42. 42.

East Tennessee State University: etsu.edu

  43. 43.

Eastern Michigan University: emich.edu

  44. 44.

Emory University: emory.edu

  45. 45.

Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University: famu.edu

  46. 46.

Florida Atlantic University: fau.edu

  47. 47.

Florida Institute of Technology: fit.edu

  48. 48.

Florida International University: fiu.edu

  49. 49.

Florida State University: fsu.edu

  50. 50.

Fordham University: fordham.edu

  51. 51.

Gallaudet University: gallaudet.edu

  52. 52.

George Mason University: gmu.edu

  53. 53.

George Washington University: gwu.edu

  54. 54.

Georgetown University: georgetown.edu

  55. 55.

Georgia Institute of Technology: gatech.edu

  56. 56.

Georgia Southern University: georgiasouthern.edu

  57. 57.

Georgia State University: gsu.edu

  58. 58.

Hampton University: hamptonu.edu

  59. 59.

Harvard University: harvard.edu

  60. 60.

Howard University: howard.edu

  61. 61.

Idaho State University: isu.edu

  62. 62.

Illinois Institute of Technology: iit.edu

  63. 63.

Illinois State University: illinoisstate.edu

  64. 64.

Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis: iupui.edu

  65. 65.

Indiana University Bloomington: indiana.edu

  66. 66.

Iowa State University: iastate.edu

  67. 67.

Jackson State University: jsums.edu

  68. 68.

Johns Hopkins University: jhu.edu

  69. 69.

Kansas State University: k-state.edu

  70. 70.

Kennesaw State University: kennesaw.edu

  71. 71.

Kent State University at Kent: kent.edu

  72. 72.

Lehigh University: lehigh.edu

  73. 73.

Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College: lsu.edu

  74. 74.

Louisiana Tech University: latech.edu

  75. 75.

Loyola Marymount University: lmu.edu

  76. 76.

Loyola University Chicago: luc.edu

  77. 77.

Marquette University: marquette.edu

  78. 78.

Marshall University: marshall.edu

  79. 79.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology: mit.edu

  80. 80.

Mercer University: mercer.edu

  81. 81.

Miami University: miamioh.edu

  82. 82.

Michigan State University: msu.edu

  83. 83.

Michigan Technological University: mtu.edu

  84. 84.

Mississippi State University: msstate.edu

  85. 85.

Missouri University of Science and Technology: mst.edu

  86. 86.

Montana State University: montana.edu

  87. 87.

Montclair State University: montclair.edu

  88. 88.

Morgan State University: morgan.edu

  89. 89.

New Jersey Institute of Technology: njit.edu

  90. 90.

New Mexico State University: nmsu.edu

  91. 91.

New York University: nyu.edu

  92. 92.

North Carolina A & T State University: ncat.edu

  93. 93.

North Carolina State University: ncsu.edu

  94. 94.

North Dakota State University: ndsu.edu

  95. 95.

Northeastern University: northeastern.edu

  96. 96.

Northern Arizona University: nau.edu

  97. 97.

Northern Illinois University: niu.edu

  98. 98.

Northwestern University: northwestern.edu

  99. 99.

Nova Southeastern University: nova.edu

  100. 100.

Oakland University: oakland.edu

  101. 101.

Ohio State University[4]: osu.edu

  102. 102.

Ohio University-Main Campus: ohio.edu

  103. 103.

Oklahoma State University: okstate.edu

  104. 104.

Old Dominion University: odu.edu

  105. 105.

Oregon State University: oregonstate.edu

  106. 106.

Pennsylvania State University: psu.edu

  107. 107.

Ponce Health Sciences University: psm.edu

  108. 108.

Portland State University: pdx.edu

  109. 109.

Princeton University: princeton.edu

  110. 110.

Purdue University: purdue.edu

  111. 111.

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute: rpi.edu

  112. 112.

Rice University: rice.edu

  113. 113.

Rochester Institute of Technology: rit.edu

  114. 114.

Rockefeller University: rockefeller.edu

  115. 115.

Rowan University: rowan.edu

  116. 116.

Rutgers University: rutgers.edu

  117. 117.

SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry: esf.edu

  118. 118.

Saint Louis University: slu.edu

  119. 119.

San Diego State University: sdsu.edu

  120. 120.

Seton Hall University: shu.edu

  121. 121.

South Dakota State University: sdstate.edu

  122. 122.

Southern Illinois University: siue.edu, siu.edu, siumed.edu

  123. 123.

Southern Methodist University: smu.edu

  124. 124.

Stanford University: stanford.edu

  125. 125.

Stevens Institute of Technology: stevens.edu

  126. 126.

Stony Brook University: stonybrook.edu

  127. 127.

Syracuse University: syracuse.edu

  128. 128.

Temple University: temple.edu

  129. 129.

Tennessee State University: tnstate.edu

  130. 130.

Tennessee Technological University: tntech.edu

  131. 131.

Texas A&M University: tamu.edu

  132. 132.

Texas A&M UniversityCorpus Christi: tamucc.edu

  133. 133.

Texas A&M UniversityKingsville: tamuk.edu

  134. 134.

Texas Christian University: tcu.edu

  135. 135.

Texas Southern University: tsu.edu

  136. 136.

Texas State University: txstate.edu

  137. 137.

Texas Tech University: ttu.edu

  138. 138.

The New School: newschool.edu

  139. 139.

Thomas Jefferson University: jefferson.edu

  140. 140.

Tufts University: tufts.edu

  141. 141.

Tulane University: tulane.edu

  142. 142.

University at Albany: albany.edu

  143. 143.

University at Buffalo: buffalo.edu

  144. 144.

University of Akron Main Campus: uakron.edu

  145. 145.

University of Alabama: ua.edu

  146. 146.

University of Alabama at Birmingham: uab.edu

  147. 147.

University of Alabama in Huntsville: uah.edu

  148. 148.

University of Alaska Fairbanks: uaf.edu

  149. 149.

University of Arizona: arizona.edu

  150. 150.

University of Arkansas: uark.edu

  151. 151.

University of Arkansas at Little Rock: ualr.edu

  152. 152.

University of California, Berkeley: berkeley.edu

  153. 153.

University of California, Davis: ucdavis.edu

  154. 154.

University of California, Irvine: uci.edu

  155. 155.

University of California, Los Angeles: ucla.edu

  156. 156.

University of California, Merced: ucmerced.edu

  157. 157.

University of California, Riverside: ucr.edu

  158. 158.

University of California, San Diego: ucsd.edu

  159. 159.

University of California, Santa Barbara: ucsb.edu

  160. 160.

University of California, Santa Cruz: ucsc.edu

  161. 161.

University of Central Florida: ucf.edu

  162. 162.

University of Chicago: uchicago.edu

  163. 163.

University of Cincinnati: uc.edu

  164. 164.

University of Colorado Boulder: colorado.edu

  165. 165.

University of Colorado Colorado Springs: uccs.edu

  166. 166.

University of Colorado Denver: ucdenver.edu

  167. 167.

University of Connecticut: uconn.edu

  168. 168.

University of Dayton: udayton.edu

  169. 169.

University of Delaware: udel.edu

  170. 170.

University of Denver: du.edu

  171. 171.

University of Florida: ufl.edu

  172. 172.

University of Georgia: uga.edu

  173. 173.

University of Hawaii: hawaii.edu

  174. 174.

University of Houston: uh.edu

  175. 175.

University of Idaho: uidaho.edu

  176. 176.

University of Illinois at Chicago: uic.edu

  177. 177.

University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign: illinois.edu

  178. 178.

University of Iowa: uiowa.edu

  179. 179.

University of Kansas: ku.edu

  180. 180.

University of Kentucky: uky.edu

  181. 181.

University of Louisiana at Lafayette: louisiana.edu

  182. 182.

University of Louisville: louisville.edu

  183. 183.

University of Maine: umaine.edu

  184. 184.

University of Maryland, Baltimore County: umbc.edu

  185. 185.

University of Maryland, College Park: umd.edu

  186. 186.

University of Maryland, Eastern Shore: umes.edu

  187. 187.

University of Massachusetts Amherst: umass.edu

  188. 188.

University of Massachusetts Boston: umb.edu

  189. 189.

University of Massachusetts Dartmouth: umassd.edu

  190. 190.

University of Massachusetts Lowell: uml.edu

  191. 191.

University of Memphis: memphis.edu

  192. 192.

University of Miami: miami.edu

  193. 193.

University of Michigan: umich.edu

  194. 194.

University of Minnesota: umn.edu

  195. 195.

University of Mississippi: olemiss.edu

  196. 196.

University of Missouri: missouri.edu

  197. 197.

University of MissouriKansas City: umkc.edu

  198. 198.

University of MissouriSt. Louis: umsl.edu

  199. 199.

University of Montana: umt.edu

  200. 200.

University of Nebraska at Omaha: unomaha.edu

  201. 201.

University of NebraskaLincoln: unl.edu

  202. 202.

University of Nevada, Las Vegas: unlv.edu

  203. 203.

University of Nevada, Reno: unr.edu

  204. 204.

University of New England: une.edu

  205. 205.

University of New Hampshire: unh.edu

  206. 206.

University of New Mexico: unm.edu

  207. 207.

University of New Orleans: uno.edu

  208. 208.

University of North Carolina Wilmington: uncw.edu

  209. 209.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: unc.edu

  210. 210.

University of North Carolina at Charlotte: uncc.edu

  211. 211.

University of North Carolina at Greensboro: uncg.edu

  212. 212.

University of North Dakota: und.edu

  213. 213.

University of North Texas: unt.edu

  214. 214.

University of Notre Dame: nd.edu

  215. 215.

University of Oklahoma: ou.edu

  216. 216.

University of Oregon: uoregon.edu

  217. 217.

University of Pennsylvania: upenn.edu

  218. 218.

University of Pittsburgh: pitt.edu

  219. 219.

University of Puerto Rico: upr.edu

  220. 220.

University of Rhode Island: uri.edu

  221. 221.

University of Rochester: rochester.edu

  222. 222.

University of San Diego: sandiego.edu

  223. 223.

University of South Alabama: southalabama.edu

  224. 224.

University of South Carolina: sc.edu

  225. 225.

University of South Dakota: usd.edu

  226. 226.

University of South Florida: usf.edu

  227. 227.

University of Southern California: usc.edu

  228. 228.

University of Southern Mississippi: usm.edu

  229. 229.

University of Tennessee: utk.edu

  230. 230.

University of Texas Rio Grande Valley: utrgv.edu

  231. 231.

University of Texas at Arlington: uta.edu

  232. 232.

University of Texas at Austin: utexas.edu

  233. 233.

University of Texas at Dallas: utdallas.edu

  234. 234.

University of Texas at El Paso: utep.edu

  235. 235.

University of Texas at San Antonio: utsa.edu

  236. 236.

University of Toledo: utoledo.edu

  237. 237.

University of Tulsa: utulsa.edu

  238. 238.

University of Utah: utah.edu

  239. 239.

University of Vermont: uvm.edu

  240. 240.

University of Virginia: virginia.edu

  241. 241.

University of Washington: washington.edu

  242. 242.

University of WisconsinMadison: wisc.edu

  243. 243.

University of WisconsinMilwaukee: uwm.edu

  244. 244.

University of Wyoming: uwyo.edu

  245. 245.

Utah State University: usu.edu

  246. 246.

Vanderbilt University: vanderbilt.edu

  247. 247.

Villanova University: villanova.edu

  248. 248.

Virginia Commonwealth University: vcu.edu

  249. 249.

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University: vt.edu

  250. 250.

Wake Forest University: wfu.edu

  251. 251.

Washington State University: wsu.edu

  252. 252.