1 / 20

Searching for Globally Feasible Indicators from Domestic Rankings

Searching for Globally Feasible Indicators from Domestic Rankings. Ya Lan Xie and Ying Cheng Graduate School of Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China. The Fourth Meeting of International Ranking Expert Group 14 - 16 June 2009, Astana, Kazakhstan. Background.

thu
Download Presentation

Searching for Globally Feasible Indicators from Domestic 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. Searching for Globally Feasible Indicators from Domestic Rankings YaLanXie and Ying Cheng Graduate School of Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China The Fourth Meeting of International Ranking Expert Group 14 - 16 June 2009, Astana, Kazakhstan

  2. Background • The new global rankings have been published one after another in recent years • Rankings have problems and global rankings have additional problems, because “Not all nations or systems share the same values and beliefs about what constitutes ‘quality’ in tertiary institutions, …” 5th Item of Berlin Principles • Consequently, very limited indicators have been used in global rankings

  3. Aim of the study • Are there some indictors used by domestic rankings that can also be used for global rankings? • Analysis of their International comparability • Examination of their relevance to institutions’ quality

  4. Samples: 11 rankings in 8 countries

  5. Assignation of indicators into 63 categories • Incoming students grades • Performance on nationally standardized tests • Acceptance rate • Student structure • Proportion of international students • Proportion of postgraduates to all students • Proportion of students who study abroad with • Education conditions • Number of doctoral programs • Number of master‘s programs • Excellent programs, nationally selected • Programs of specialty • Class size differentiation • Special class • Excellent course/textbooks/research on instruction, nationally selected • Education outputs • Bachelors granted • Doctorates Granted • Masters granted • Graduation rate • Retention rate • Student awards, mixed • Honors awarded to graduates • Performance of graduates • Employment/unemployment rate of graduates • Proportion of graduates pursuing further education • Physical infrastructure • Facilities and equipments • Library resources • Teaching, research and living places • Finance • Finance, private sources • Finance, source from university business • Resources for faculty • Faculty salary • Resources for student • Spending per student • Scholarships & bursaries • Other resources for students • Research funding and projects • Number of research projects, international • Number of research projects, national • Research income, international • Research income, national competitive • Research income, total • Faculty structure • Average age of professors • Number or proportion of professors • Proportion of faculties with the highest degree • Proportion of full-time faculty • Faculty award • Faculty who won major national awards • Human resources - teaching • Students/faculty (staff) ratio • Human resources - research • Postdoctoral appointees • Proportion of research staff • Research teams, nationally selected • National Academy Membership • Top scholars, internationally selected • Assessment by university administrators • Assessment by foreign university administrators • Assessment by domestic university administrators • Assessment by scholars • Assessment by domestic scholars • Assessment by employers • Assessment by domestic employers • Students' opinion • Alumni giving rate • Student evaluation/satisfaction • Social influence • Social influence, nationally • Reputation, general • Reputation, general • Research Capacity • Excellent research labs/centers/units, nationally selected • Publications & Patents • Publications with high international visibility or impact • Publications & citations in international indexes • Publications & citations in national indexes • Books, international • Books, mixed • Publication, mixed • Patents, national • Excellent research products, nationally selected

  6. Classification of indicator categories according to their international comparability and universality

  7. Group 1: Comparable at a global level • Those indicators • EITHER can show universities’ global competence, e.g. • Publications and citations in international indexes • Globally selected top scholars, such as winners of International awards, highly cited researchers • OR are measurements of internationalization • Proportion of international students • Research income from international source

  8. Group 2: Fairly comparable at a global level • The actual meaning of an indicator is relatively similar in different higher education systems, e.g. • Degrees granted (Bachelor, Master’s, Doctor) • Employment rate of graduates • Spending per student • Domestic publications and patents • Total research income • Proportion of faculties with the highest degree • Students/staff ratio • Student evaluation/satisfaction • ……

  9. Group 3: Hardly comparable at a global level • The effectiveness of an indicator is heavily affected by different higher education systems, e.g. • Acceptance rate • Number of Master’s or Doctoral programs • Alumni giving rate • Graduation rate • Retention rate • Proportion of full-time faculty • Assessment by domestic administrators/scholars

  10. Group 4: Uncomparable at a global level • Not universities in all countries have such indicator, e.g. • National Academy Membership • Faculty who won major national awards • Excellent course/textbooks, nationally selected • Excellent programs, nationally selected • Excellent research labs/centers/units, nationally selected • Excellent research products, nationally selected • Honors awarded to graduates • Performance on nationally standardized tests or benchmarks • Research income, national competitive

  11. Number of Indicator Categories in each Group

  12. Frequency of indicators by groups in 11 rankings

  13. Weight of indicators by groups in 11 rankings

  14. The design of indicators for global rankings: TWO PATHS

  15. Can these indicators be actually used in global rankings? • Group 1: Comparable at a global level • Number of international projects • Books published at international editing houses • Group 2: Fairly Comparable at a global level • Number of Bachelors granted • Average age of professors

  16. Group 1 & Group 2 indicators that are used by rankings in Three or More Countries

  17. Commonly used indicators

  18. Should some indicators be normalized to be more comparable at a global level and how? • Employment rate of graduates • Normalized by national employment rates or not? • Spending (of an university) per student • Normalized by GDP per capita or not? • Total research income • Normalized by Purchasing Power Parity instead of exchange rate?

  19. Underlying questions • Does a decision need to be made across countries? • To what extent a university is a global university? • Global rankings: Tomeasure universities’ performance as comprehensive as possible OR only to measure their “globalized part”?

  20. Thanks for your attention!

More Related