1 / 33

Recent developments in rankings: implications for developing countries?

Recent developments in rankings: implications for developing countries?. Jamil Salmi The World Bank IREG-3 Shanghai, 29-30 October 2007. The rankings business. A ranking of league tables September 10, 2005. Gordon’s Brown’s disastrous retreat How do super-jumbo changes air travel

oke
Download Presentation

Recent developments in rankings: implications for developing countries?

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. Recent developments in rankings: implications for developing countries? Jamil Salmi The World Bank IREG-3 Shanghai, 29-30 October 2007

  2. The rankings business A ranking of league tables September 10, 2005

  3. Gordon’s Brown’s disastrous retreat How do super-jumbo changes air travel Meet Fred Thompson Has commercial property peaked? Liu Nian Cai , the man and the myth Rankers, Beware League tables under scrutiny

  4. outline of the presentation • status of rankings • new directions in accountability • prospects for ranking

  5. who prepares the rankings? • A = government agency (Ministry of Higher Education, Higher Education Commission, University Grants Council, etc.) • B = independent organization / professional association / university • C = newspaper / magazine / media • D = accreditation agency • I = International ranking (IA, IB, IC and ID linking the international dimension to the type of institution conducting the ranking)

  6. ranking systems in 2006

  7. ranking systems in 2007

  8. trends • more rankings • except Africa and Middle East • who does the rankings? • less from the press • more from independent think tanks or governments • accepted in growing number of countries • voluntary participation • Austrians, Swiss, Flemish

  9. outline of the presentation • status of rankings • new directions in accountability

  10. what does accountability mean? • information • achievement of results • sanctions

  11. trends in accountability • multiple stakeholders • multiple themes • multiple instruments

  12. multiple stakeholders • government(s) • employers • society at large • professors • students

  13. multiple themes • access • equity • quality • relevance • efficiency • sustainability • nation-building / values

  14. multiple instruments • licensing • evaluation / accreditation • performance-based funding • rankings • assessment of learning outcomes

  15. measurement of outcomes • From inputs to competencies • Bologna process • ABET • Spellings Commission • ”no graduates left behind” • OECD / PISA for tertiary education • World Bank benchmarking tool

  16. country experiences • Australia • Brazil • Canada • Colombia • Jordan • Korea • Mexico • UK • USA

  17. outline of the presentation • status of rankings • new directions in accountability • prospects for ranking

  18. usefulness of rankings? • for the public? • for the institutions? • for the Government?

  19. usefulness of rankings: for individuals • choice based on information

  20. usefulness of rankings: for institutions • benchmarking and self-evaluation • counter-rankings (Paris) • voluntary accountability framework (USA)

  21. from the viewpoint of institutions • sensitive to factors that affect their rankings (benchmarking) • goal setting for strategic planning purposes • forming strategic partnerships • mergers

  22. usefulness of rankings: for governments • rapid QA assessment in lieu of accreditation • international benchmarking • national benchmarking • culture of competition

  23. government use of rankings • Pakistan case • promoting a culture of accurate and transparent information • promoting a culture of quality

  24. new challenges • multiplicity of institutions (and joint programs) • multiplicity of missions • blurring of boundaries between disciplines • emerging disciplines • new delivery modes

  25. conclusion: divisive or helpful?

  26. For sale:charming and peaceful residence away from neighbors, with a wonderful view of the sea, a grand period staircase, and lots and lots of light…”

  27. For sale: charming and peaceful residence away from neighbors, with a wonderful view of the sea, a grand period staircase, and lots and lots of light…”

  28. Bordeauxthe wine producers suing the wine rankers

  29. divisive or helpful? • rankings are here to stay • useful for prospective students • useful in the absence of an established evaluation and/or accreditation system • useful for benchmarking, goal-setting and self-improvement purposes • useful to conduct a healthy debate on issues and challenges • useful to promote a culture of accountability

  30. linking rankings and funding? • Arizona State • RAE (UK, Hong Kong, NZ, Australia) • Nigeria (based on ranking done by Accreditation Commission) • performance premium for academics publishing in journals included in Shanghai ranking (Norway, Australia) • donors and home ministries making scholarship decisions • corporate donors • strengthening the strong and weakening the weak

  31. principles of appropriate ranking instruments • compare similar institutions • focus on program rather than on entire institution • rank by indicator rather than wholesale • outcomes/outputs/results rather than inputs • better if used for self-improvement purposes • make results publicly available

More Related