Angela Yung Chi Hou , 19 Dec, 2012 Fu Jen Catholic University INTERNATIONAL TREND ON UNIVERSITY RANKINGS AND ITS IMPACT ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Presentation Outline • Introduction • Development of Rankings • Limitations of Rankings • Impact of Rankings • Outcomes of Ranking • Use of Rankings • Conclusion
I. Introduction 1. Three major concerns 2. Meeting challenges to higher education in the 21st century 3. Recipe for higher education 4. World class university 5. Global rankings and world class university 6. Rational of college ranking
1. Three Major Concerns for Development of Higher Education in Global Times • Accessibility • Higher education enrollment rate has been increasing in the past decade • Affordability • Finance need is not an impediment for eligible students to attend a college • Accountability • Enormous resources and talent are available in higher education institutions • Help students be ready for college, and be equipped to graduate from college
2. Challenges to Higher Educationin 21st Century • Over expansion of higher education • 2305 post secondary higher education institutions in China • 726 universities and 488 junior colleges in Japan • 201 universities in Korea • 160 universities in Taiwan • 15 in Hong Kong (9/6) • 12 in Macau(4/8) • Private universities outnumber public universities (except China) • Declining birth rate • three are below 1.5 • Declining financial governmental support
3. Recipe for Higher Education - quality assurance and global competitiveness • Set up Internal and External Quality Assurance System • Establishment of National Accrediting agency • Establish Quality Culture on Campus • Compulsory audit • Enhance international academic competitiveness • Launching several Excellence Programs • Brain21 (Korea) • Center for Excellence COE (Japan) • 5 year-50 Billion Program (Taiwan) • China 985 project • Aiming at establishing world class universities
4. What does a world class university look like? • In terminology • world class universities: top universities striving for “excellence” • quality must surpass the expectation of stakeholders • Philip Altbach • excellence in research, top professors, academic freedom and an atmosphere of intellectual excitement, governance, adequate facilities and funding
4. What does a world class university look like? • Jamil Salmi (World Bank) based on two rankings (Shanghai and QS) • a high concentration of talent (faculty and students) • abundant resources to offer a rich learning environment and conduct advanced research • favorable governance • features that encourage strategic vision, innovation and flexibility, and enable institutions to make decisions and manage resources without being encumbered by bureaucracy
5. Relevance between Global Rankings and World Class University • characteristics of world class universities are strongly correlated to most indicators used by global rankings • nations use global rankings as a basis of building world class universities despite methodological flaws
5. Relevance between Global Rankings and World Class University • top administrators at leading universities use global rankings to achieve the short term and long term strategic plans, not just to boycott them • Minnesota’s initiative become one of the top three research institutions in the world • Taiwan National University “Moving into the top 100” at its 80th anniversary • Baylor University one of the U.S. News Top 50 by 2012
6. Rational of College Ranking • Higher education expansion • Resources allocation • Accountability • Benchmarking • Marketization in higher education
II. Development of Rankings National College Ranking Global Ranking Types of Rankings Scoring Methods Five Global Rankings Criteria & Indicators of Rankings
1. National College Ranking • U.S. News & World Report • The most influential college ranking – “American Best Colleges” published by U.S. News & world Report in 1983 • Maclean’s , The Times, CHE, etc.
2. Global Ranking • intense international competitions • global college rankings have drawn international attention
3. Types of Ranking • By region • by country/continent/worldwide • By field / program • such as Engineering/social science/humanities • By subject • i.e., Biology/ Math • College guide • Princeton review
4. Scoring Methods • The indicators were weighted at a certain ratio and the scores were aggregated to rank each college. • The top one university received highest points while the scores for the remaining schools descended accordingly.
5. Five Global Rankings • Academic Ranking of World Universities • Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 2003 • World University Ranking • QS, 2004 • Webometrics Rankings of World Universities • Spanish National Research Council, 2004 • Performance ranking of scientific papers of world class universities • HEEACT, 2007 • World University Ranking • The Times Higher Education, 2010
6. Criteria & Indicators of Ranking • 2011 ARWU Ranking • 2011 QS Ranking • 2011 Webometrics Ranking • 2011 THE Ranking • 2011 HEEACT Ranking
III. Limitations of Rankings Characteristics of 5 major Global Rankings Methodological Limitations
2. Methodological Limitations of GlobalRankings • Reductionism / Simplicity • Research focus • Unfair for humanities, arts and social science fields • English domination • Arbitrary selection of indicators and weightings • Data quality
IV. Impact of Rankings Outcomes of Rankings Popular Use by Stakeholders Two Major Reports Performance in Asia
1. Outcomes of Rankings • US and UK institutions are on the top • Asia is on rise, particularly those with Excellence policy
2. Popular Use of Global Rankings byStakeholders • Students • to decide where to study • Governments • to know where to invest • Scientists • to know where to work • Institutions • to know where they stand and whom they can partner with
3. Two Major Reports • OECD survey in 2007 showed: • over 50 % of respondents: rankings has a positive impact on the institution’s reputation (student recruitment, academic partnerships and collaborations and staff morale) • majority of the institutions incorporated the outcomes of rankings into strategic planning processes at all levels • 70 % wanted to be in the top 25 internationally
4. Two Major Reports • OECD survey in 2007 showed: • an on–line UK study focused on English Universities ‘ attitudes toward rankings • rankings reflect the views of what properties a good university should develop that influenced the institutional and governmental polices • a high level of agreement that the reputation of an institution might be affected by rankings • many institutions further down in the rankings do not care too much about global rankings
5. Average Number of top 500 Universities of Japan, China, South Korea and Taiwan by three rankings
V. Ranking Outcomes ARWU / QS/ HEEACT/ THE Ranking Number of papers and internationalization in China, Korea, Taiwan and Japan
VI. Use of Rankings Findings in rank Mobility Rank Differences and moving UP in 4 Global Rankings Berlin Principles and Ranking Audit Future Development CHE Excellence Ranking and Research Ranking College Navigator in Taiwan
1. Some Findings in Rank Mobility of Global Rankings • Hou, Yung-chi, & M. Robert (2011) . • An Analysis of Positions Mobility in Global Rankings: Making Institutional Strategic Plans and Positioning for Building World Class Universities. Higher Education Research & Development (SSCI). • To explore the major factors of rank mobility in 4 major rankings.
2. Rank Differences and moving Up in 4 Global Rankings • Comparison among 4 Global Rankings by positions rising • Implication of 4 Global Ranking on making institutional strategic plans
2. Flow Chart of Implication of 4 Global Ranking on Making Institutional Strategic Plans Technology/Internet International Reputation Academic Excellence • Short term(3-5 years)Mid-term 5-15 yearsLong-term(15~30years) Webometrics Ranking QS Rankings ARWU/Shanghai Ranking HEEACT Ranking: Used to inspect the quality and quantity of FACUTLY publications annually
3. Berlin Principles and Ranking Audit • International Ranking Expert Group (IREG) • founded in 2004 • by the UNESCO European Centre for Higher Education (UNESCO-CEPES) in Bucharest and the Institute for Higher Education Policy in Washington, DC.
3. Berlin Principles and Ranking Audit • It is upon this initiative that IREG’s second meeting (Berlin, 18 to 20 May, 2006) has been convened to consider a set of principles of quality and good practice in HEI rankings—the Berlin Principles on Ranking of Higher Education Institutions. • IREG-5 in Oct, 5-7, 2010 proposed “Ranking Audit”
3. Berlin Principles: What Rankings and League Tables should Consider • To ensure the quality of rankings: research methods, indicators, data quality, transparency, varying user’s interests, etc. • 4 major principles • Purposes and Goals of Rankings • Design and Weighting of Indicators • Collection and Processing of Data • Presentation of Ranking Results • 19 criteria of audit published by IREG
4. Future Development for Rankings • Field/subject based ranking • Varying ranking providers • More interactive, multi-dimensional, personalized • CHE European Excellence Ranking • College Navigator in Taiwan • Web-based • Benefit student mobility • Student survey
5. CHE Excellence Ranking and Research Ranking • Multi-dimensional global ranking that will be based on the CHE ranking approach. • Results of the feasibility study will be available in mid-2011. • One aspect will be the development of a concept to introduce a web-based tool for personalized rankings for particular target groups on a global scale.
College Navigator in Taiwan Published in 2009 50 50 • Goal • lead to a match between the student and the institution or the program that they’re most interested • Selection of Institutions • 69 4-year colleges and universities evaluated by HEEACT from 2006 to 2010. • 77 University of Technology and Technical College