1 / 20

National university rankings and the evolution of global rankings

National university rankings and the evolution of global rankings. How quality and competitiveness of the European universities are reflected in global academic rankings?. Kazimierz Bilanow Managing Director, Perspektywy Education Foundation, Poland. Introduction.

rufus
Télécharger la présentation

National university rankings and the evolution of global rankings

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. National university rankingsand the evolution of global rankings How quality and competitiveness of the European universities are reflected in global academic rankings? Kazimierz Bilanow Managing Director, Perspektywy Education Foundation, Poland

  2. Introduction Global university ranking is a relatively new phenomenon: • rankings of the first generation (1.0), • compared to advanced national rankings (US News & World Report and Perspektywy in Poland), global rankings demonstrate limitations, • more data becomes available, • steps towards global rankings of the second generation (2.0). Warsaw, 18-19, May 2010

  3. Ranking construction: • defining whom the ranking is made for, • defining a group of higher education institutions to be included in the ranking, • selecting adequate criteria to define and characterize a group of HEIs, • attributing percentage weight to selected criteria, • securing acceptance for the ranking among the main groups of stakeholders. Calculations based on the multi-criteria analysis(MCA). Warsaw, 18-19, May 2010

  4. National v. global ranking • National ranking • large group of detailed criteria available, • groups of HEIs easy to define. • Global rankings • selection of HEIs and relevant criteria more difficult, • higher education systems differ greatly from one country to another. Warsaw, 18-19, May 2010

  5. National v. global ranking National rankings: • rich data available, • large spectrum of criteria (32 – Perspektywy), • provide more precise picture of HEI, • HEIs know faster if steps taken contributed to improvement of their position in ranking. Global rankings: • lack of compatible and up-to-date worldwide statistics on higher education, • feed-back is slow and provides less information. Warsaw, 18-19, May 2010

  6. National rankings: • US News & World Report prepared by Bob Morse since 1983. • Perspektywy University Ranking since 2000. • “Self educating” rankings that closely follow changes in Higher Education. • Use spectrum of criteria reflecting different missions of universities and various aspects of their activities. • National rankings are published in over 40 countries. Warsaw, 18-19, May 2010

  7. Case study – evolution of a ranking 32 criteria in 5 groups: Studying environment Prestige Internationalisation Scientific strength Innovation

  8. Global rankings: • Shanghai ranking (ARWU) – published by Professor Nian Cai Liu of the Shanghai Jiao Tong University (since 2003), • QS-THE ranking (2004-2009), • Leiden ranking, • Webometrics. • limitations in the number of criteria, • lack of flexibility allowing for evolution, • still young phenomenon yet to grow and evolve. Warsaw, 18-19, May 2010

  9. House of ranking… Peer review Innovation Internatio- nalisation Studying environment Working environment Prestige + employers Scientific strength

  10. ARWU ranking Peer Review (partly) Studying environment Scientific Strength (partly)

  11. Leiden University ranking (bibliometrics)... Studying environment Warsaw, 18-19, May 2010

  12. THE-QS ranking… Peer review Studying environment Internatio- nalisation Prestige + employers

  13. Webometrics ranking… Innovation

  14. Global rankings 2.0 New generation global rankings: • wider range of criteria, • allow for complex analysis, • some under construction: • (U-Multirank European global ranking), • new global ranking THE underway: • number of criteria increased to 13 or even 16, • introduction of international ranking panel. Warsaw, 18-19, May 2010

  15. Warsaw, 18-19, May 2010

  16. Future… • For universities and ministries of education, national rankings provide a more thorough and in-depth information than global rankings do. • Global rankings have their place too, especially if they: • are properly constructed, • provide clear information about themselves. Warsaw, 18-19, May 2010

  17. Rankings’ evaluation • Measures directed to the improvement of the quality of rankings. • Berlin Principles adopted in 2006; international group of rankers and ranking experts (IREG)led by Jan Sadlak • IREG Observatory on Academic Ranking and Excellence established in 2009. Warsaw, 18-19, May 2010

  18. Rankings’ evaluation Warsaw, 18-19, May 2010

  19. Rankings’ evaluation Community of rankers: • understand social responsibility, • read arising expectations, • take action to improve quality national and global rankings. Warsaw, 18-19, May 2010

  20. Only the combination of all criteria give a full picture… Thank you for your attention Kazimierz Bilanow Ph.D. Managing Director, Perspektywy Education Foundation, Poland k.bilanow@perspektywy.pl www.perspektywy.org

More Related