1 / 33

The Convergence of University Rankings and System Benchmarking

The Convergence of University Rankings and System Benchmarking. An Apparent Paradox of “ Rankology ”. Questions. Two approaches : University Rankings System Benchmarking Are they: Complementary ? Competing? Consistent?. Outline. (1) Background: from ranking to benchmarking

foster
Télécharger la présentation

The Convergence of University Rankings and System Benchmarking

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Convergence of University Rankings and System Benchmarking An Apparent Paradox of “Rankology”

  2. Questions Two approaches: University Rankings System Benchmarking Are they: Complementary? Competing? Consistent? IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  3. Outline (1) Background: from ranking to benchmarking (2) Method of investigation • Results (4) Interpretation and conclusion IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  4. (1) University Rankings IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  5. U Rankings: a Polarizing Exercise U Rankings: hated/loved, criticized/commended, threatening/stimulating but proliferating (“here to stay”) Ph. Albatch’s advice [“Don’t take too much notice of rankings” (UWN, March 23, 2013)]: unlikely to be widely followed More pitfalls discovered, uncovered, elucidated more attempts to improve methods IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  6. U Rankings: the Disease Methodological caveats Biases: Research, English, STEM Composite indicators: Weighting => Elitism Subjective (reputation) /non transparent Dangerous use (“misuses”, “abuses”) Universities: (1) Focus on competition with others instead of own improvement / Affect strategic planning (2) Focus on biased criteria (research) Policy makers: Focus on a few WCUs instead of whole system Students: Impact on university selection Overall: Impact on financing Commercialization (crowded) market IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  7. From Ranking to Benchmarking “If Ranking is the Disease, Is Benchmarking the Cure?” (JamilSalmi, SunitaKosaraju. Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 5 no.1, June 2011) “Rankings: Neither a Disease nor a Cure” (Ph. Albatch, UWN, 2013) IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  8. (2) System Benchmarking Governance Resources TE SYSTEM Access Quality control Private Providers Equity Economic, Social & Technological Environment IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  9. Benchmarking: Objective & Criteria Objective: assess strength, health and performance of countries' tertiary education systems Criteria: resources, inputs, governance, outputs and outcomes of the system (access, equity, quality, relevance) IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  10. Benchmarking: Main Initiatives • SABER: System Approach for Better Education Results (World Bank) Still under construction • U21 (Universitas 21/ University of Melbourne)Most recent, comprehensive available case  See below • Benchmarking University Governance (World Bank – MENA): Hybrid • AHELO: Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes (OECD)  Still under experimentation IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  11. Hypothesis Benchmarking developed in reaction to Rankings Objectives, level of observation and criteria of Benchmarking and Ranking are quite different ==Shouldn’t they yield different results? IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  12. Method (1) 1/ Select 4 of the more popular university rankings: ARWU, THE, QS, WEBOmetrics 2/ Pick the most recent system benchmarking: U21 3/ Compare their results IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  13. Method (2) Issue: How to compare U and Systems? Solution: Translate U rankings into Country Rankings Method: From: number of top universities to: number of tertiary aged youths in one country potentially served by top universities in that country (e.g. supply of top universities) NB: no correlation between the 2 measures IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  14. NB: Number of Top 400 U and Supply of Top 400 U (THE) : Rank) IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  15. Method (3) Quick look at the 4 leagues selected The “sample”: Top 400 universities IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  16. The 34

  17. Comparing the results of the 4 Rankings (1) Correlation between results of the 4 leagues: (Number of top universities in each country) IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  18. Comparing the results of the 4 Rankings (2) Correlation between results of the 4 leagues: (1) number of top universities in each country IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  19. Comparing the results of the 4 Rankings (3) Correlation between results of the 4 leagues: (2) Supplyof top universities IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  20. Supply: Nbr of top U/ TE aged population The first five countries QS ARWU THE WEBO 1 Finland 16.1 6.9 11.5 9.2 2 New Zealand 14.5 4.8 14.5 2.4 3 Switzerland 13.4 11.8 13.4 11.8 4 Ireland 13.3 8.0 13.3 5.3 5 Denmark 11.5 9.2 11.5 9.2 The last five countries QS ARWU THE WEBO 30 Poland 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.8 31 Mexico 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 32 Brazil0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 33 China 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 34 India 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.01

  21. Benchmarking: “U 21”Method (1) 1/ A priori selection of 48 countries ( +2) 2/ Assessment of countries’ performance based on one overall indicator and 4 “measures”: (1) Resources (2) Environment (3)Connectivity (4)Output IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  22. Benchmarking: Method (2) • Resources (25%): 5 indicators on expenditures (2) Environment (25%): 2 indicators on gender balance, 1 indicator on data quality, 3 indicators on policy and regulatory environment, 1 homegrown index on internal governance IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  23. Benchmarking: Method (3) (3) Connectivity (10%): 2 indicators on degree of internationalization (students & research) (4) Output (40%): 5 indicators on research, 1 indicator on Probability of a person to attend a top 500 university (*) based on ARWU… 1 indicator on enrollment 1 indicator on tertiary educated population 1 indicator on unemployment among tertiary educated population IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  24. Benchmarking: Links between the 5 measures IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  25. Comparing Results of Rankings and Benchmarking (1a) Countries Overlap between UR and SB: U21 & THE: 37 common countries U21 & QS: 40 common countries U21 & ARWU: 37 common countries U21 & WEBO: 41 common countries • Essentially same pool of countries IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  26. Comparing Results of Rankings and Benchmarking (1b) IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  27. Comparing Results of Rankings and Benchmarking (2) IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  28. Comparing Results of Rankings and Benchmarking (3) U21 (Overall) and THE Rankings (R2= 0.74) IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  29. Comparing Results of Rankings and Benchmarking (4) U21 (Resources) & ARWU (Supply): R2 = 0.78 IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  30. Conclusions /Interpretation 1/ Hypothesis not confirmed: a/ same set of countries b/ similar results 2/ Two types of explanations: a/ methodological b/ structural IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  31. Epilogue • System Benchmarking ends up ranking countries • Boundaries between UR and SB are blurred • SB suffers common symptoms with UR • Convergence of the two streams of “Rankology” not surprising • Benchmarking needs to expand its pool of countries to become more relevant IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  32. Take Away IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

  33. Thank You SB UR IREG - Warsaw, 16-17 May 2013

More Related