1 / 62

The World University Rankings in 2008

The World University Rankings in 2008. The Challenges of University Ranking. Presentation by Martin Ince Contributing editor, THE, QS-Apple 2008 Conference Yonsei University, Korea. Times Higher Education. Since 1971 Weekly newspaper formerly associated with The Times [of London]

pearly
Télécharger la présentation

The World University Rankings in 2008

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 World University Rankings in 2008 Martin Ince Communications Limited

  2. The Challenges of University Ranking Presentation by Martin Ince Contributing editor, THE, QS-Apple 2008 Conference Yonsei University, Korea Martin Ince Communications Limited

  3. Times Higher Education • Since 1971 • Weekly newspaper formerly associated with The Times [of London] • Now in magazine format • Group including TES • Online at www.timeshighereducation.co.uk since 1994 Martin Ince Communications Limited

  4. Why rank universities? • Interest in ranking things and people • Hospitals • Schools • Local authorities • Rich lists; Britain, world, Asians, footballers • Universities: The Times Martin Ince Communications Limited

  5. Does it matter? • Some of these rankings are mainly for entertainment, eg Rich Lists • Others are serious • Bad marks for school or hospital • Likewise for a university department • Over 1000 “failing” public bodies in UK – schools, police forces etc Martin Ince Communications Limited

  6. National Rankings • The Times • produced by John O’Leary, former editor of THE • Institutions as well as subjects Criteria for subjects include: - Teaching quality • Research quality • Entry standards • Employability Martin Ince Communications Limited

  7. National rankings (2) • Criteria for institutions include • Teaching standards • Staff/student ratio • Library spending • Facilities spending • Good degrees • Jobs • Research Martin Ince Communications Limited

  8. The US Comparison • US News and World Report “America’s Best Colleges” • Mainly about how likely you are to graduate • Also student experience eg class size • However, many other tables eg liberal arts, business, engineering colleges • Likewise McLean’s (Canada) et al Martin Ince Communications Limited

  9. Richness of data • Main table in US News has 19 main columns of data • Likewise Times Good University Guide • How can we do this globally? • Why would we want to? Martin Ince Communications Limited

  10. Why world rankings? • Long overdue: higher education has always been very international • Unique position of THE and QS • Universities becoming more global • Knowledge the real factor in international competitiveness • Increasing desire for comparative information Martin Ince Communications Limited

  11. Why world rankings (2)? • GATS • EU and Bologna • 3 million students outside home country • Forecast to be 5 million by 2010 • BTA • UK as a major source and destination • UK as major collaborator • UK universities opening in China and elsewhere Martin Ince Communications Limited

  12. The five flows • Goods • Services • Money • People • Information Martin Ince Communications Limited

  13. And Tony says so • “In 10 years we will think nothing of students going off to university anywhere in the world” Tony Blair at the Labour Party conference, September 2006 Martin Ince Communications Limited

  14. World interest • Interest from governments – UK Treasury, Lambert • EU, Germany • Shanghai Jiao Tong • HEEACT • OECD from 2010 Martin Ince Communications Limited

  15. And of growing importance.. • Soft power conveying cultural importance of a nation • Cheaper and more effective than an army • Prestigious universities mean international regard • Even among non-academics Martin Ince Communications Limited

  16. Soft power (2) • British Council, Goethe Institut, Instituto Cervantes • China recognises this: Confucius Institutes, Shanghai rankings • People like the place where they studied: US, UK, Australia • They absorb its values • And they pay to be there Martin Ince Communications Limited

  17. How to do it? • Audience includes – • Internationally mobile students • Internationally mobile staff • Internationally mobile money • Focus on: • Teaching • Research • International orientation Martin Ince Communications Limited

  18. What are we measuring? • Data on 500 institutions with significant citations • Have to teach undergraduates • Have to teach in at least two areas Martin Ince Communications Limited

  19. Peer review • Peer review is the way academic value is measured • We decided to make it the centrepiece of this ranking • It is the least understood aspect of our work • So here is the explanation Martin Ince Communications Limited

  20. Peer review (2) • Total 5,101 over three years • International spread • Subject spread • Active academics • 40 per cent of possible score Martin Ince Communications Limited

  21. The peers • Gathered by QS list building • 41 per cent in Europe • 30 per cent the Americas • 29 per cent Asia Pacific • Aggregate no more than three years Martin Ince Communications Limited

  22. The question • Online survey • The top 30 universities in the topics they know about • Arts and humanities • Social sciences • Science • Biomedicine • Technology Martin Ince Communications Limited

  23. Plusses • Simple • Understandable • Robust because valid sample • Self-correcting if large enough sample • Hard to cheat Martin Ince Communications Limited

  24. Plusses • Faculty-level response can be seen • Full subject coverage • Especially arts and humanities • Also business, education, law • Mitigates citation issue Martin Ince Communications Limited

  25. Minuses • Biases include • Age • Size • Name • Beijing • Loughborough Martin Ince Communications Limited

  26. Employers • Another group who know about university quality • Innovation in 2005 • Mainly private sector • At 10 per cent of total • Therefore academics cut from 50 to 40 per cent • Will be improved in future years • 2007 sample 1,471 Martin Ince Communications Limited

  27. Employers are: • Americas 43 per cent • Europeans 32 per cent • Asia Pacific 25 per cent • Again, maximum three years aggregation Martin Ince Communications Limited

  28. Quantitative measures • Aim to measure universities in terms of • Student commitment • Research commitment • International commitment and competitiveness Martin Ince Communications Limited

  29. How to do this • Extensive data gathering exercise • By UK firm QS • Mix of data sources • National • Institutional • Direct contact Martin Ince Communications Limited

  30. First quantitative criterion… • Staff/student ratio • Classic measure of commitment to teaching • 20 per cent of final score Martin Ince Communications Limited

  31. How international? • Two criteria rated at 5 per cent each • Is this somewhere where people want to be? • Staff • Students • Again raises issues • Visiting scholars? • EU cross-border students? • Doing full courses? • Geography advantage Martin Ince Communications Limited

  32. Citations • Classic measure of research quality • Use Scopus data Martin Ince Communications Limited

  33. Citations (2) • Citations per staff member to see density of brain power • Not citations per paper • Avoids medical and US bias Martin Ince Communications Limited

  34. Citations (3) • Well-understood bias • against non-English publication • against arts and humanities • against national-oriented topics This accounts for the final 20 per cent Martin Ince Communications Limited

  35. Changes in 2007 • Scopus: better at Asia • Also more transparent • Better at non-English sources • Deeper Martin Ince Communications Limited

  36. Changes (2) • Z score: Measure distance from centre Normalise top to 100 Effects outliers such as CalTech, LSE Martin Ince Communications Limited

  37. Changes (3) • Harder to cheat Main effects in South Asia FTEs more rigorously defined These soft changes bigger effect than methodology changes More understanding of odd claims Martin Ince Communications Limited

  38. What did we find? • Harvard • The US – 57 in top 200 • Yale Oxbridge logjam at 2 Martin Ince Communications Limited

  39. But… • The top 200 includes universities in 28 states • US, UK, Australia, Netherlands • Korea, China, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong • Continental Europe • Developing world: Unam, Brazil (2), Cape Town 200= Martin Ince Communications Limited

  40. International commitment • US shows up badly • HKUST top for international staff, LSE in sixth place • London School of Economics top for international students • Yale among few US with international staff Martin Ince Communications Limited

  41. Peer review • Berkeley the winner • Cambridge, Oxford, Stanford, Harvard popular • Well-liked universities all over the world • Little evidence of patriotism bias • US, UK, Australia, Japan, China, Canada, Singapore dominate the top 20 Martin Ince Communications Limited

  42. Citations • Medical faculty is a big plus • Or major biomedical income • CalTech the winner by some distance, then Stanford, MIT, ENS • Big country effect is at work here Martin Ince Communications Limited

  43. Staff/student ratio • Winner CalTech, US • US, French, Swiss, etc institutions all well placed • Harvard shows badly here at 15th • Asian and European universities well-placed • Weak correlation with research – but not zero Martin Ince Communications Limited

  44. Take home message • Small variations don’t matter much • A position can be gained by many combinations of weakness and strength • eg, many Asian institutions do well despite scoring low on citations • Will improve if more visible publications Martin Ince Communications Limited

  45. Things that don’t work • Library spending • Course cost • Completion • Entry standards • Wealth • Alumni giving Martin Ince Communications Limited

  46. Comparison with Shanghai Jiao Tong • Not a newspaper • Nobel + Fields prizes Nobel 6/9 in 2007 Fields 4/6 in 21st century • These used twice • Science and Nature • Science and Social Science citations • 500 rather than our 200 Martin Ince Communications Limited

  47. Comparison with Shanghai Jiao Tong • But: • Ends up looking rather similar near the top • Share 133/200 Martin Ince Communications Limited

  48. And with HEEACT • Science focus • Of main policy interest • Avoids Nobel Prize bias • Likewise Science and Nature • Use of ESI means some gaps - 127 from 540 in THE/QS Martin Ince Communications Limited

  49. Response • More work than writing the thing • Last year about 30 newspaper articles in Mexico alone • Interest from media, universities etc across Europe and Asia • Less from the US • Political response – Ireland, Malaysia, Switzerland Martin Ince Communications Limited

  50. Job creation • More people looking at it than doing it • Leiden, CEPES • IREG • All highly valuable Martin Ince Communications Limited

More Related