1 / 28

Rankings in Higher Education – Shortcomings , Principles and the CHE Approach

Prof. Dr. Frank Ziegele Barcelona | 8.4.2010 . Rankings in Higher Education – Shortcomings , Principles and the CHE Approach. www.che-concept.de. Structure. Existing Rankings: Problems + Shortcomings. Good Practice: The IREG-Principles.

pier
Télécharger la présentation

Rankings in Higher Education – Shortcomings , Principles and the CHE Approach

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. Prof. Dr. Frank Ziegele Barcelona | 8.4.2010 Rankings in Higher Education – Shortcomings, Principlesandthe CHE Approach www.che-concept.de

  2. Structure Existing Rankings: Problems + Shortcomings Good Practice: The IREG-Principles CHE Ranking as an IREG-Proof Approach Effects of CHE Ranking Rankings in Higher Education | Ziegele | 8.04.2010

  3. Rankings • The „DNA“ ofrankings: • rankingsdifferby… … types of institutions that are doing rankings …objects of ranking (universi-ties, faculties, systems) • … information for prospective students (US News, CHE) • …informa-tion about global positioning (Shanghai Jiatong, THES) • … informa-tion for HE community (bibliometric “Leiden Ranking”) • … dimensions and indicators: • teaching & learning, • research, • internationali-sation, • social impact etc. …goals, targetgroups Rankings in Higher Education | Ziegele | 8.04.2010

  4. Rankings: Problems + Shortcomings Indicators of existing world rankings Rankings in Higher Education | Ziegele | 8.04.2010

  5. Rankings: Problems + Shortcomings Problems + shortcomings: the existing (global) rankings…   … are biased against other fields than the (bio-medical, natural) sciences … are biased against non-English-speaking countries   … are focussing on research • … make only the profile of y comprehensive research universities transparent • no specialised universities • no non-university higher education institutions (e. g. polytechnics) • no non-university research institutions (e.g. CNRS, MPI)  … have severe problems with regard to validity / reliability Rankings in Higher Education | Ziegele | 8.04.2010

  6. Rankings: Problems + Shortcomings Problems + shortcomings: the existing (global) rankings…   … tend to produce a university monoculture … do not show disciplinary differences, show only institutional average    … sometimes are more reputation- than performance driven …exaggerate small differences in league tables  …are often not focused on specific target groups … have in some cases intransparent methods Rankings in Higher Education | Ziegele | 8.04.2010

  7. Rankings: Problems + Shortcomings lack of discipline-orientedperformancemeasurement in research example: primary form ofwrittencommunicationsbydisciplinegroup

  8. Structure Existing Rankings: Problems + Shortcomings Good Practice: The IREG-Principles CHE Ranking as an IREG-Proof Approach Effects of CHE Ranking Rankings in Higher Education | Ziegele | 8.04.2010

  9. IREG-Principles • Rankings havebecomepartofframeworkof national accountabilityandqualityassurance • International Ranking Expert Group founded in 2004 by UNESCO-CEPES (Bucharest) + National Center for Higher Education Policy (Washington) • Setup of • Berlin Principles on Ranking of Higher Education Institutions • in May 2006 • RANKING IMPACT • COORDINATION • CONVERGENCE Rankings in Higher Education | Ziegele | 8.04.2010

  10. Structure Existing Rankings: Problems + Shortcomings Good Practice: The IREG-Principles CHE Ranking as an IREG-Proof Approach Effects of CHE Ranking Rankings in Higher Education | Ziegele | 8.04.2010

  11. about 15 yearsexperiencewithrankings startwith 2 disciplines (large, gooddata) moredisciplines, work on acceptance work on methods, establishmentofroutines fromgeneralfearstomethodologicaldiscussions „spin-offs“ withspecialfocus (researchranking, stateranking, „hotelmum“, sports…) internationalization Rankings in Higher Education | Ziegele | 8.04.2010

  12. publication of CHE ranking today analysis DIE ZEIT differentiation densification overview 5 indicators; „Study Guide“ all data + interactive ranking www.das-ranking.de

  13. CHE Principles   Norankingofwholeinstitutions… • … but fieldspecificrankings Universities are heterogeneous units; fields differ in their performance Ranking of whole institutions gives misleading averages IREG Berlin Principle No. 2: Rankings should be “clear about their purpose and their target groups. Rankings have to be designed with due regard to their purpose.” Rankings in Higher Education | Ziegele | 8.04.2010

  14. CHE Principles   Nocompositeoverallindicator… • … but multi-dimensional ranking Composite indicators blur profiles and strengths & weaknesses There are neither theoretical nor empirical arguments for specific weights for single indicators As there is heterogeneity of preferences on indicators among target groups, rankings should leave decision about relevance of indicators to users Rankings in Higher Education | Ziegele | 8.04.2010

  15. CHE Principles   Noleaguetables… • … but groupapproach (top, middle, bottom) Small differences in the numerical value of an indicator lead to big differences in league table positions League tables tend to exaggerate differences between HEIs Rankings should refer to groups / clusters rather than to single league table positions Rankings in Higher Education | Ziegele | 8.04.2010

  16. CHE Ranking city, university students study outcome internatio- nalisation teaching resources research labour market, employability overall assessment (students, professors) upto 34 indicators Ranking + information cleartarget: supportstudentchoice (+ helpinstitutionsto satisfyneeds, identifystrengths/weaknesses) Rankings in Higher Education | Ziegele | 8.04.2010

  17. CHE Ranking ... from different data sources: • publications /citations • (bibliometric analysis) examples research • research grants • (faculties/departments) • research reputation • (professors survey) Rankings in Higher Education | Ziegele | 8.04.2010

  18. CHE Ranking ... facts as well as judgements: • study duration (fact) examples teaching • student assessment of contact • between students and professors • student assessment of course • organisation Rankings in Higher Education | Ziegele | 8.04.2010

  19. CHE Ranking The CHE Ranking isuptothe IREG standards 33 fields (covering 80% of German students) ► field-specificapproach Rankings in Higher Education | Ziegele | 8.04.2010

  20. CHE Ranking Indicatoroverview upto 34 indicators (factsandjudgements) ► multi-dimensional approach Rankings in Higher Education | Ziegele | 8.04.2010

  21. CHE Ranking Sortingbyindicator Alphabetical order showinggroups ►groupapproach Rankings in Higher Education | Ziegele | 8.04.2010

  22. CHE Ranking Option ofpersonalization Rankings in Higher Education | Ziegele | 8.04.2010

  23. aspectsofrankingqualityassurance development in dialoguewith HEIs, students disciplinaryadvisoryboards completetransparency, permanent communication supportingresearchprojects Rankings in Higher Education | Ziegele | 8.04.2010

  24. Side Remark: EU-project Global Ranking French presidencybringsnewdynamicto global ranking – CHE-rankingservesas model EU-tenderGlobal Ranking discipline-specific different typesofuniversities + non-universityresearch multi-dimensional Rankings in Higher Education | Ziegele | 8.04.2010

  25. Structure Existing Rankings: Problems + Shortcomings Good Practice: The IREG-Principles CHE Ranking as an IREG-Proof Approach Effects of CHE Ranking Rankings in Higher Education | Ziegele | 8.04.2010

  26. Effectsof CHE Ranking effects on the individual level • studentsuserankingsas a sourceofinformation • 2/3 useit in GER • 1,4 Mio, clicks p.a. • theyhave a provenimpact on thenumberofapplications • academicsuserankingsforanalysisofstrengthsandweaknesses, assourceofprestige • individual problem: manyinformationrequests • employersuserankingsasinformationsourceabouttheirapplicants • relevance also forcooperations Rankings in Higher Education | Ziegele | 8.04.2010

  27. Effectsof CHE Ranking effects on theinstitutionallevel • HEIs userankingsasreferencefortheir SWOT-analysis • CHE offersspecialanalysistothem • also roleforadvertising , pointing out profile • ministriesand HEIs userankingsasreferencefortargetagreementsanddecisions • but should not link resultsdirectlytofundingallocation • badresult: cutbackorinvestment? • all stakeholderscanuserankingstoevaluate (political) reformsandtoget a pictureofinstitutionaldiversity in HE Rankings in Higher Education | Ziegele | 8.04.2010

  28. Prof. Dr. Frank Ziegele Barcelona | 8.4.2010 Rankings in Higher Education – Shortcomings, Principlesandthe CHE Approach www.che-concept.de

More Related