National university rankings and the evolution of global rankings Kazimierz Bilanow Managing Director, Perspektywy Education Foundation, Poland How quality

National university rankingsNational university rankings

and the evolution of global rankingsand the evolution of global rankings

Kazimierz BilanowKazimierz Bilanow

Managing Director, Perspektywy Education Foundation, Managing Director, Perspektywy Education Foundation, PolandPoland

How quality and competitiveness of the European universities are reflected in global academic

rankings?

National university rankings and the evolution of global rankings

Warsaw, 18-19, May 2010 2

IntroductionIntroduction

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 constructionRanking 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 rankingNational 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 rankingNational v. global rankingNational 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: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.


7

32 criteria in 5 groups:

Studying environment

Prestige

Internationalisation

Scientific strength

Innovation

Case study Case study – evolution – evolution of a rankingof a ranking


Warsaw, 18-19, May 2010 8

Global rankings: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.


House of House of ranking…ranking…

Scientific strength

Working environment


Internatio-nalisation

Peer Peer review review

Prestige + Prestige + employersemployers

Innovation


ARWUARWU rankingranking

Scientific Strength(partly)


Peer Peer ReviewReview(partly)(partly)

ARWU ranking

10%

20%

10%

20%

20%

20%

Alumni Nobel & Field Medal 10%

Staff Nobel & Field Medal 20%

Per capita academic performance of an institution 10%

Nature & Science citation 20%

SCI & SSCI citation 20%

Highly cited researchers 20%


Warsaw, 18-19, May 2010 11

Leiden University ranking (bibliometrics)...Leiden University ranking (bibliometrics)...



THE-QSTHE-QS ranking…ranking…


Internatio-nalisation

Peer Peer review review

Prestige + Prestige + employersemployers

THES ranking

20%

5%

5%

40%

10%

20%

Students/Staff Ratio 20%

International Students 5%

International Staff 5%

Academic Peer Review (6354 resp.) 40%

Reputation Employers (2339 resp.) 10%

Citations TSD or Scopus per faculty number 20%


WebometricsWebometrics ranking… ranking…

Innovation


Warsaw, 18-19, May 2010 14

Global rankings 2.0Global 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

US News & World Report criteria

AR

WU

TH

E-Q

S

Ta

iwa

n

We

bo

me

tric

10% Economic activity/Innovation Research income from industry (scaled)

International diversityRatio of international to domestic staffUndergraduate entrants (scaled) 20%PhDs/undergraduate degrees awardedPhDs awarded (scaled)Reputation survey (teaching)Institutional income (scaled) 10%

Academic papers (scaled)

Citation impact (normalised by subject) 20% 15%

Research income (scaled)

Research income from public sources/industry

Reputation survey (research) 40%

ARWU Nobel Prize 10%ARWU Professors with Nobel Prize 20%Webometrics: Internet reslources 85%

10%

100%

10% Ratio of international to domestic students

25% Institutional indicators

55% Research indicators

60%


Warsaw, 18-19, May 2010 16

Future…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 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 Rankings’ evaluation


Warsaw, 18-19, May 2010 19

Rankings’ evaluationRankings’ evaluation

Community of rankers:

understand social responsibility,

read arising expectations,

take action to improve quality national and global rankings.


OOnly nly the the combincombination ation ofof all criteria all criteria give a give a full full picture…picture…

Thank you Thank you

for your for your attentionattention

Kazimierz Bilanow Ph.D.Kazimierz Bilanow Ph.D.

Managing Director, Perspektywy Managing Director, Perspektywy Education Foundation, Education Foundation,

PolandPoland

k.bilanowk.bilanow@@perspektywyperspektywy..plpl

wwwwww..perspektywyperspektywy..orgorg

Documents

National university rankings and the evolution of global rankings Kazimierz Bilanow Managing Director, Perspektywy Education Foundation, Poland How quality