Ranking of Russian Higher Education Institutions

This article was downloaded by: [Cornell University Library]On: 20 November 2014, At: 02:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Higher Education in EuropePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chee20

Ranking of Russian Higher EducationInstitutionsYuri P. Pokholkov , Alexander I. Chuchalin , Boris L. Agranovich &Sergey B. MogilnitskyPublished online: 29 Oct 2007.

To cite this article: Yuri P. Pokholkov , Alexander I. Chuchalin , Boris L. Agranovich & Sergey B.Mogilnitsky (2007) Ranking of Russian Higher Education Institutions, Higher Education in Europe,32:1, 31-47, DOI: 10.1080/03797720701618864

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03797720701618864

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chee20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/03797720701618864

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03797720701618864

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Ranking of Russian Higher Education Institutions

YURI P. POKHOLKOV, ALEXANDER I. CHUCHALIN,BORIS L. AGRANOVICH and SERGEY B.MOGILNITSKY

This article considers some patterns of ranking higher education institutions which are used inthe Russian Federation to reveal strengths and weaknesses in meeting the national individual,societal and state-related needs, as well as those of the international academic communityconcerning relevant information on Russian higher education institutions.

Introduction

In the last decades of the 20th Century, ranking has become a widespread tool of datasystematisation applicable to the object of study in various fields of human activity andreflecting the current state of these objects and their development prospects in acompetitive environment. Ranking objects in accordance with the assessment methodsof different individual researchers constitute the most frequently used approach toranking system development. There is a great number of ranking types in highereducation, including global rankings of universities.1

The most widespread type of ranking is institutional ranking which implies ratinghigher education institutions in accordance with the results of their complex assessmentby following certain criteria and indices. All types of higher education institutionsirrespective of their major field of studies can participate in institutional ranking. Morefrequently, however, institutional ranking is developed in accordance with categoriessuch as classical universities, technical universities, etc.; groups, such as engineeringhigher education institutions, medical higher education institutions, pedagogical highereducation institutions, etc. As a result, there is an opportunity to compare highereducation institutions providing education in particular fields or for particulareconomic sectors.

It is possible to speak of ranking of educational programmes. By this we imply thathigher education institutions are ranked in accordance with the defined programmesoffered to students.2 In some cases the specialized ranking system is developed inaccordance with the groups of programmes such as electrical engineering, mechanicalengineering, chemical technologies, etc.

In Russia, the national ranking of higher education institutions is becoming popularfor a number of reasons. Foremost, due to Government plans to reform the system ofhigher education, the need for ranking higher education institutions arises whenmaking decisions as to the category they should be attributed to, which can have far-reaching consequences.

1 Available at: ,http://www.thes.co.uk, and http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/.2 Available at: ,http://www.che-ranking.de/.

Higher Education in Europe, Vol. 32, No. 1, April 2007

ISSN 0379-7724 print/ISSN 1469-8358 online/07/010031-17 # 2007 UNESCO

DOI: 10.1080/03797720701618864

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The great demand by Russian society for higher education and an increased need of

highly qualified specialists on the ‘‘intellectual labour market’’ constitutes an increasinginterest, both on an individual as well as societal level in accessible and verifiable

information concerning the quality of education at different higher educationinstitutions. This situation is characterized by the increase in the competitive struggleof higher education institutions for resources.

In these conditions of science and education commercialisation, some investors

appear ready to invest money in higher education institutions which also implies givingcredits to students who pay for their education. These investors need reliable dataconcerning the level of research activity and quality of education at different

educational institutions in order to make decisions on target investments.

Internationalisation of science and higher education in accordance with theBologna Process requirements has initiated a demand for reliable information con-cerning the situation of Russian higher education institutions vis-a-vis their inter-

national partners.

Ranking of Higher Education Institutions by the Ministry ofEducation and Science of the Russian Federation

The Ministry of Higher Education of the Russian Federation (as a part of the formerSoviet Union) started to develop institutional ranking of Russian higher educationinstitutions in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and was endorsed for application in 1972.

In 1990 it was subject to significant modification following the changes in the socialand economic situation in Russia. In 2001, the Decree of the Russian Ministry of

Education No. 631, dated February 26, 2001 established the technique for collectingand processing information for the official ranking of Russian higher educationinstitutions. Since then, the results of this ranking have been published annually by the

newspaper Poisk.3

At present, the official ranking of Russian higher education institutions is applied inaccordance with the following groups: classical universities, technical universities,medical higher education institutions, pedagogical higher education institutions, etc.

Two categories of parameters evaluating the potential and the efficiency of a highereducational institution are used in the ranking. Figure 1 shows the quantitative

parameters, including weighting co-efficients used in ranking calculations. Aninterpretation of these parameters is given below. To determine varying weights ofranking criteria and to generate ranking lists, the Ministry of Education and Science of

the Russian Federation requests the universities to provide statistics covering fourty-one points of a university’s performance.

Parameters for calculating the ranking are represented by two groups characterizingthe potential and the efficiency of a higher educational institution (see Appendix I).

The processing of data provided by the university is based on the rationing of the

statistical parameters with regard to the university’s student cohort. Thus, the statisticsin each parameter are compared to the maximum valuation and then factored by the

corresponding weighting coefficient. After the final outcomes of university potentialand performance parameters are defined, their ratio is taken as an efficiency index of

3 Available at: ,http://www.poisknews.ru.

32 Y. P. POKHOLKOV, A. I. CHUCHALIN, B. L. AGRANOVICH AND S. B. MOGILNITSKY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the university, which is the basic ranking criterion. As a rule, over 150 technicaluniversities, academies and institutes take part in the ranking of higher engineeringschools using this method.

In 2005, 170 technical and engineering higher education institutions in Russia tookpart in the ranking assessment. Table 1 shows that the higher education institutions(HEIs) in Moscow and St. Petersburg occupy the traditional leading positions.

The model of official ranking of Russian higher education institutions is mainlybased on statistics and quantitative indices. It is quite informative and objectiveprovided all the educational institutions taking part in the ranking submit reliablefigures to the Ministry of Education and Science. This is a doubtless advantage of themodel which determines the aptitude of the official ranking of higher educationinstitutions when the government represented by the Ministry takes managerialdecisions including those which concern financing of higher education institutions bythe Federal Agency for Education. The highly formal approach to assessing universityperformance, the absence of reliable information about education conditions,prospects of alumni’s employment in accordance with their major, opinions of alumniabout the quality of training the educational institution provides and the preparednessfor the professional activity, and particular features of higher education institutions,are considered to be the drawback of this model. All these factors limit the use of thisranking model by society and the individual.

In addition to the institutional ranking of higher education institutions, the Ministryof Education and Science is charged with the development of university ranking on the

FIGURE 1. THE CHART OF PARAMETERS (P) WITH THE WEIGHTING COEFFICIENTS (W) OF THE OFFICIAL

RANKING FOR RUSSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

RANKING OF RUSSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS 33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

range of educational programmes that a higher educational institution offers. Thetechnique of determining the specialised ranking of an institution is similar to that ofthe institutional ranking but concerns specialised departments within the institutionresponsible for graduate degrees. Certainly, such specialised ranking is of greatimportance to ministry since it concerns the development of training specialists forvarious sectors of the national economy. Furthermore, it will be an interesting anduseful tool for prospective students for choosing an educational institution looking fora particular programme. However, this ranking of educational programmes is notpublished, officially explained by the large amount of information; also the ranking ofengineering schools is faced with the challenge of assessing more than 300 engineeringprogrammes included in the State List, as it requires a very precise selection of dataconcerning the quality of training in accordance with the particular programme.

The Ranking System of the Russian Technical UniversitiesAssociation

In 1991, Tomsk Polytechnic University, in partnership with Bauman State TechnicalUniversity and a number of other Russian higher education institutions, developed amodel and criteria for a national technical university. Later, they were used in thetransformation of more than 100 technical higher education institutions intouniversities. Since 1995, the Russian Technical Universities Association has publishedrankings of Russian technical universities in the newspaper Tekhnosfera.

The ranking system proposed by the Russian Technical Universities Associationdiffers from the system of the official ranking established by the Russian Ministry ofEducation and Science. Its main difference is that its basis is formed by the model andcriteria of technical university dealing with the education in a wide range of disciplinesincluding science, engineering, technology, economics, and humanities. Figure 2 showsthe corresponding parameters with their weight coefficients used in calculations,

TABLE 1. TOP 10 TECHNICAL AND ENGINEERING HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS OF RUSSIA

Rank Institution

1 Bauman Moscow State Technical University2 Moscow State University of Mining3 Moscow State Technological University (Stankin)4 Gubkin Russian State University of Oil and Gas (Moscow)5 St. Petersburg State Institute of Mining (Technical University)6 St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University7 Moscow Power Engineering Institute (Technical University)8 Moscow State University of Electronic Technology (Technical University)9 Tomsk Polytechnic University10 St. Petersburg State Technological Institute (Technical University)

Source: The Technical Universities Association of Russia.This system detects technical university ranking approved by the Expert Council of the RussianUniversities Association (17/04/95) and the Council of the Technical Universities Association ofRussia (10/01/95). Available at: , http://www.political-organizations.ru/politic_organisation_r43i524919_5906.htm.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

followed by the interpretation of parameters (see the list of parameters in Appendix II).

The technology of data processing required by a technical university is similar to thatused by the Russian Ministry of Education and Science.

Table 2 presents the list of top ten technical universities according to the rankingassessment provided by the Russian Technical Universities Association.

Since the model of university ranking proposed by the Russian Technical

Universities Association is to a great extent similar to that proposed by the RussianMinistry of Education and Science, it has almost the same advantages and

disadvantages.

Ranking of Russian Universities by Kariera Magazine

Since 1999, Kariera Magazine has been inviting all Russian higher education

institutions to participate in a ranking of the top 100 universities of the RussianFederation. The ranking is performed using twenty-four parameters (see Appendix III)with their weight co-efficients and the interpretation of these parameters is given in

Figure 3.

The rating scale from one to ten, setting maximum and minimum correspondingparameters, is used to define the score for each parameter. The final ranking of the

university is defined as the sum of scores on every parameter taking into accountweight coefficients. Data for the calculation of parameters are gathered from varioussources, including statistical data presented by the university, results of opinion polls

FIGURE 2. PARAMETERS (P) AND WEIGHTING COEFFICIENTS (W) OF UNIVERSITY RANKING BY THE

RUSSIAN TECHNICAL UNIVERSITIES ASSOCIATION


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

conducted among the representatives of the local authorities and leading Russian and

foreign companies working in various spheres of industry and business that provideworking places for university graduates, as well as mass media analyses of universityperformance.

Firstly, universities are ranked into classical, technical, economic, medical,

institutions etc. Then, the results are summarised in a table to define the top 100

FIGURE 3. PARAMETERS (P) AND WEIGHT COEFFICIENTS (W) OF UNIVERSITY RANKING BY THE

KARIERA MAGAZINE

TABLE 2. TOP TEN TECHNICAL UNIVERSITIES ASSESSMENT PROVIDED BY THE RUSSIAN TECHNICAL

UNIVERSITIES ASSOCIATION.

Rank Institution

1 Bauman Moscow State Technical University2 Moscow Power Engineering Institute (Technical University)3 St. Petersburg State Technological Institute (Technical University)4 Tomsk Polytechnic University5 Moscow State University of Mining6 St. Petersburg State Electrotechnical University (LETI)7 Moscow State Aviation Technological University8 Ufa State Aviation Technical University9 Moscow Engineering Physics Institute (State University) (MEPhI)10 Kaliningrad State Technical University named after Tupolev

Source: The Technical Universities Association of Russia.This system detects technical university ranking approved by the Expert Council of the RussianUniversities Association (17/04/95) and the Council of the Technical Universities Association ofRussia (10/01/95). Available at: ,http://www.political-organizations.ru/politic_organisation_r43i524919_5906.htm.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

universities regardless of their profile. Over 140 Russian universities took part in the

latest ranking exercise by Kariera. The ranking model proposed by Kariera is moresociety-and individual-oriented compared to the ranking models proposed by the

Russian Ministry of Education and Science and by the Russian Technical UniversitiesAssociation. To a significant extent the model is based on information which might beinteresting to prospective students. This is regarded as an advantage of the model.

However, a ranking of universities compiled irrespective of the field of specialisedtraining has a substantial disadvantage. It can be useful only for those potentialstudents who wish to obtain a general high-quality education, regardless of the field of

future employment. This ranking model is less helpful for more demanding and career-oriented enrollees who have already chosen their future profession, since educational

institutions occupying high positions are not equally strong in different fields ofspecialised training. It should also be noted that the ranking system of Kariera is mostlybased on qualitative data obtained from the media. At the same time, it fails to take

into account the opinions of a university’s students and alumni and representatives ofthe academic community. The system provides insufficient assessment of facilities for

education and research which to a great extent determines the quality of graduatetraining at a university.

The Criteria for the Awarding of Status of a ‘‘Special ValuedObject of Cultural Heritage of the Russian Federation’’

Russian Regulation no. 1487 on Special Valued Objects of Cultural Heritage of theRussian Federation was approved by the President on 30 November 1992. Accordingto this regulation, ‘‘historical, cultural and natural complexes, architectural construc-

tions, enterprises, cultural organisations and institutions, as well as other objects thatpresent physical, intellectual, and artistic value of prototype and unique nature from

historical, archaeological, cultural, scientific, and artistic points of view located on theterritory of the Russian Federation’’ are given the status of ‘‘Special Valued Objects ofCultural Heritage of the Russian Federation’’. Such objects include the Moscow

Kremlin, the Hermitage in St. Petersburg, etc.

Eight higher education institutions that have made significant contributions to theformation and development of Russian science and education and have this status are:Lomonosov Moscow State University, Bauman Moscow State Technical University,

St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg State Mining University, Herzen St.Petersburg State Pedagogical University, Kazan State University, Tomsk Polytechnic

University, and Tomsk State University.

The criteria applied to HEIs that have acquired the status of Special Valued Objectsof Cultural Heritage of the Russian Federation, are shown in Figure 4 (see Appendix IV).

Higher education institutions that aim to obtain the status of Special Valued Objectsof Cultural Heritage of the Russian Federation submit the application to an expert

committee approved by the Russian Federation President Decree, and provideinformation proving that the university meets all stated criteria. The committeeconducts the assessment of the university performance and makes the decision which is

then approved by the Russian Federation President Decree. Universities having thestatus of Special Valued Objects of Cultural Heritage of the Russian Federation receive

additional financial support from the government.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

General Analysis Results

The analysis of various ranking principles of higher education institutions allows us tomake the following statements:

1. Objectives defining the methodology of ranking, structure of criteria and indices,and the procedure of information collection and data processing are considered tobe the system factor of any ranking system, including university rankings. Itshould be noted that one and the same university can have different rankingposition depending on the purpose of the assessment;

2. The insufficient quality of some ranking systems can be explained by the tendencyto treat all HEIs as a homogeneous group of objects, while the majority ofuniversities are individual in nature. It is impossible to conduct qualitative rankingof universities that implement various missions (for example, Humboldt,Newman, Napoleon, and American universities) using the unified system ofcriteria, indices, and methods of data processing. There is a need to developdifferent ranking criteria for HEIs with various models of performance;

3. In some instances, the ranking of HEIs is set up on the basis of their comparisonusing a system of standard indices. In fact, such assessments result in keeping tosome standardised samples. However, efficiency and quality of universityperformance is measured not only by the ability to conform with the establishedpatterns, but also by the ability to produce new values and standards in the sphereof education and science, while normative ranking methodology allows forqualitative characteristics and does not consider alternative ones;

4. One of the disadvantages of ranking methodology is the need for them to be basedon statistics that might seem ‘‘impartial’’ from a researcher’s point of view, butshows accurate and proved indices. However, integral results of activities which do

FIGURE 4. THE SYSTEM OF CRITERIA FOR AWARDING THE STATUS OF A SPECIAL VALUED OBJECT OF

CULTURAL HERITAGE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

not operate apart from separate groups of indices due to their emergent properties,

are essential for HEIs. Subjective data on university performance obtained fromproper expert assessments should prevail when included in a ranking system;

5. As a rule, university ranking systems are formed on the basis of a multiple modelof their versatile performance. In this case, there is a need to define relativeimportance of every factor, as well as its weight. The definition of weight co-

efficients is one of the most essential stages of ranking. It requires specialinvestigation based on recommendations that are provided by either leadingspecialists or by the opinion of the target audience;

6. The developing of university ranking systems is a challenging, thorough, and long-run process involving a great number of highly qualified specialists. Thus, it is

advisable for the authoritative national and international institutions to play thekey role in further improvement of HEI ranking systems;

7. The following factors of specialised ranking systems are of great interest from anindividual and societal perspective:

- universities providing graduate training in similar fields (e.g. 10–15 fields inengineering and technology) should be the subject of ranking;

- a balanced approach to the assessment of the activities of a university and thequality of its graduate training on the basis of objective and subjective data should

form the basis for ranking systems;

- official statistical data on the potential, activity and productivity of a university in

the sphere of science and education should form the base objective information;

- official statistical data on scientific research and graduate training according tosimilar educational groups should be used as specialised objective information;

- the processed data of opinion polls carried out among expert target groups,including students, graduates, employers and the representatives of academicsocieties should be used as subjective information;

- the final HEI ranking should be a balanced integral assessment of their activities

according to all sources of objective and subjective information.

A New Ranking System Developed by the Russian Associationfor Engineering Education

The Russian Association for Engineering Education (RAEE), established in 1992 asthe association for higher education institutions, had been developing its rankingsystem for higher engineering schools since the end of the 1990s. In 1999, the RAEE

was reorganised into a public organisation whose individual members are scientists,university staff, engineers, representatives of industry and business, etc. The RussianAssociation for Engineering Education has branches in more than sixty regions ofRussia (http://www.aeer.ru).

The RAEE mission is to promote the development of Russian engineering education

and training by means of creating an internationally recognised system of professionalquality assessment and accreditation of educational programmes of Russian highereducation institutions in the sphere of engineering and technology (http://www.ac-raee.ru). The Russian Association for Engineering Education plans to achieve high

accreditation results in international acknowledgement of engineering programmes by


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

joining the Washington Accord and other organisations in Europe in particular, withinthe framework of the Bologna Process. The RAEE takes part in a number of projectsof the European Commission, including the Accreditation of European EngineeringProgrammes and Graduates (EUR-ACE) Project, carried out under the auspices of theFederation Europeenne d’Associations Nationales d’Ingenieurs/European Federationof National Engineering Associations (FEANI) aimed at the creation of unifiedstandards in engineer training in Europe (http://www.feani.org).

The Russian Association for Engineering Education has developed a new rankingsystem of Russian universities which offer different educational programmes inengineering and technology. The system suggests that university ranking should bedivided according to defined graduate training fields: electrical engineering, electronics,mechanical engineering, material science, etc. The system is aimed at two mainaudiences. The first is prospective students, who choose the university for anengineering education of high quality, for the purposes of further employment at ahigh-income level and good promotional prospects. The investors are the secondcategory, who finance students and universities, which propose educational pro-grammes of high quality and provide the required conditions for investments with highprofitability opportunities.

The RAEE considers the new ranking model as a component of the national systemof general professional quality assessment of graduate training in engineering andtechnology together with the already existing accreditation mechanisms of educationalprogrammes implemented by the RAEE Accreditation Centre and planned certifica-tion and registration of professional engineers.

The ranking system presupposes an integral assessment of universities according totheir resources, processes, and results of activities, using three groups of parameters,being elaborated on the basis of data obtained from various sources. Figure 5 illustratesthe formation principle of integral ranking system using three groups of parameters(see Appendix V).

The first group includes parameters based on university statistics reflecting the mostimportant resources, processes and outcomes, related to graduate training inaccordance with particular programmes. The second group of parameters concernsquality of research and graduate training according to different groups. The thirdgroup of parameters is based on the results of a balanced university assessment bytarget expert groups comprising employers from industry and business, teaching staff,scientists, students and university graduates.

The university potential in graduate training is regarded as the key quality factor. Itsassessment is formed on the basis of university activities defined by governmental orregional statistics and includes university resources (staff, informational, social, andfinancial) and activities (research and educational).

The list of indices of university potential in the field of graduate training in terms ofquality assessment factors is presented below.

The quality of graduate training at the university according to the groups of parame-ters is assessed by basic characteristics of resources and activities (recognised scientificschools, accreditation of educational programmes in Russian, foreign and internationalprofessional organisations, competitive selection of students entering the university,stability of full-time students’ cohort, State Attestation Commission results, etc.).

The integrated quality assessment of graduate training by target expert groups canbe achieved as a result of leveling the universities ranking on the basis of their


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

comparative assessment made by employers and representatives of the academicsociety, as well as on the basis of data received through a questionnaire among studentsand university graduates in the training fields.

Senior students are asked to answer questions on the competency level of universityteachers, the content of university courses, learning conditions (teacher developmentfacilities, conditions and facilities of university classrooms), hostel living conditions,cultural and sports activities at the university. Students are also required to assess thepossibility of their successful job placement according to the training received at theuniversity, the possibility of applying their knowledge for their future successful career,as well as the possibility of the furthering of their knowledge at the university in orderto improve their qualifications.

Students that graduated from the university three to five years ago are asked toassess the level of graduate training for further professional activities, development ofbusiness and personal skills, the university’s assistance in graduate job placement. Thegraduates are also asked to share their opinions on the possibility of applying theirknowledge gained at the university, the correlation of their real salary with theirexpectations, the university’s assistance in their professional career, as well as to givesome advice to other potential students considering an education at a particularuniversity.

The technique of defining university rankings by the quality of graduate training indifferent learning groups includes several stages. The data from state statistic records as

FIGURE 5. DIAGRAM OF THE RAEE UNIVERSITIES RANKING SYSTEMS


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

well as departmental documents (annual reports on research work, etc.) are used for

the formation of sub-ranking according to potential. The ranking system according tothe potential of graduate training is shown by every index of the group ‘‘University

Resources’’, following the sub-ranking of the university according to the descendingscale of the sum of places. Sub-ranking of the group ‘‘University Activities’’ is carriedout in a similar way. Sub-ranking in these two groups is summed up taking into

account their weight coefficients, and universities are ranked by the descending figuresof the obtained sum.

Data from state statistics, departmental reports, including reports on the activities ofthe State Attestation Commission on educational lines (specialties) are used for the

development of sub-ranking according to the quality of graduate training. HEIsranking in different training groups is carried out according to each index (Figure 5)

following HEIs sub-ranking by the quality of graduate training on the basis of the sumof places.

The development of sub-ranking on the basis of the opinions of expert target groupsis carried out as a result of thorough consideration of corresponding applications.

Consideration of applications from employers and the representatives of academicsocieties is carried out on the basis of pair-wise comparison. The assessment of theopinions of students and graduates is made according to a five-index scale received

during the experts’ assessment. The final assessment of the quality of graduate trainingat the university is defined on the basis of a balanced sum of indices assigned by each

target expert to the university according to the descending scale of the sum of theseindices.

Final ranking of higher education institutions is developed as a balanced sub-ranking sum of the university potential in graduate training based on statistic data and

departmental documents on the quality of graduate training assessed by target expertgroups. In Spring 2005, the Russian Association for Engineering Educationimplemented a pilot project on the formation of the ranking systems in a number of

universities dealing with graduate training in the field of engineering and technology onthe basis of a new model.

References

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION. The Decree No. 631, On Ranking of

Higher Education Institutions, 26 February 2001.

PRESIDENCY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION. Regulation No. 1487, On Special Valued Objects of

Cultural Heritage of the Russian Federation, 30 November 1992.

THE RUSSIAN ASSOCIATION FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION. (2005). Journal Higher Education in

Russia. No. 11. Available at: http://www.novrosen.ru.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

APPENDIX I: GROUPS OF PARAMETERS FOR THE CALCULATIONOF UNIVERSITY RANKINGS

Group 1: University Potential1.1. Intellectual potentialP1.1.1. Qualification of teaching staffP1.1.2. Potential of university teaching staffP1.1.3. Links between academic and research activities1.2. Facilities and information resourcesP1.2.1. Facilities for studies and researchP1.2.2. Workshops and laboratory equipmentP1.2.3. Access to computersP1.2.4. Access to library resources1.3. Social and cultural facilitiesP1.3.1. Availability of hostelsP1.3.2. Availability of public cateringP1.3.3. Availability of health care facilitiesP1.3.4. Availability of sporting facilities

Group 2: University Performance2.1 Education and trainingP2.1.1 Graduate trainingP2.1.2. Post-graduate trainingP2.1.3. Post-graduate training efficiencyP2.1.4. PhD-graduate training2.2. Knowledge and technology development and approvalP2.2.1. State-guaranteed funds for researchP2.2.2. Competitiveness of applied scienceP2.2.3. Textbook publishing and development of teaching materialsP2.2.4. Competitiveness of education and production

APPENDIX II: PARAMETERS OF THE RANKING SYSTEM OF THERUSSIAN TECHNICAL UNIVERSITIES ASSOCIATION

1. University potential1.1. Intellectual resourcesP1.1.1. Number of teaching and research staffP1.1.2 Qualification of teaching and research staffP1.1.3. Doctors of science under the age of 50, PhD-holders under the age of 35P1.1.4. Members of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), national andinternational academiesP1.1.5. Public recognition (winners of national and international prizes in academicand research areas)1.2. Facilities and information resourcesP1.2.1. Facilities for studies and research (key assets value)P1.2.2. Number of academic councils (doctoral degree)P1.2.3. Information resourcesP1.2.4. Library resources


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

P1.2.5. University staff involved in activities of the Russian Academy of Sciences(RAS) and industry consultancy1.3. Social resourcesP1.3.1. Availability of hostelsP1.3.2. Availability of public cateringP1.3.3. Availability of health care facilitiesP1.3.4. Availability of sporting facilities

2. University performance2.1. EducationP2.1.1. Number of studentsP2.1.2. Number of programmesP2.1.3. Number of post graduate and PhD studentsP2.1.4. Doctorate and post-graduate trainingP2.1.5. Hi-tech research activity2.2. Research and publicationP2.2.1. Research and experimental workP2.2.2. Production of textbooks, teaching materials, monographs, etc. (published in thelast 3 years; number of pages)2.3. Facilities developmentP2.3.1.Value-added equipment2.4. International activityP2.4.1. Internships abroad (students and post-graduates)P2.4.2. Number of international students, post-graduate students, etc.P2.4.3. Number of students, post-graduate students, teaching and research staff andfull time professors teaching or working in educational, research and productioninstitutions established by a university together with foreign enterprises, companies andhigher education institutions

APPENDIX III: PARAMETERS OF THE KARIERA MAGAZINERANKING

1. University imageP1.1. Index of public assessmentP1.2. Number of references in Russian mass mediaP1.3. Index of international acknowledgementP1.4. Competition

2. StudentsP2.1. Average score of school leaving certificatesP2.2. Average score of summer examination sessionP2.3. Average score of final examinationsP2.4. Graduates with honors diplomasP2.5. Graduates studying for postgraduate or master degreesP2.6. Graduates employed in accordance with the obtained degree

3. Teaching staffP3.1. Number of teaching staff per 100 studentsP3.2. Percentage of candidates and doctors of science in the total number of teaching staffP3.3. Percentage of teaching load for salaried teachers


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

P3.4. Number of full and corresponding members of State academies

P3.5. Number of doctoral degrees (in the last 5 years)

P3.6. Number of monographs (in the last 5 years)

4. Academic programmes

P4.1. Index of programmes renovations

P4.2. Index of continuous/extended education programmes

5. Learning conditions

P5.1. Total educational expenses per student

P5.2. University’s library stock of the university per student

P5.3. Educational area per student

P5.4. Hostel area per student

P5.5. Sports centre area per student

P5.6. Number of computers per student

APPENDIX IV: CRITERIA FOR THE STATUS OF ‘‘SPECIAL VALUEDOBJECT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE OF THE RUSSIANFEDERATION’’

1. Background

C1.1 Character of the originating culture

C1.2 Founders

C1.3 Initial objectives of creating the object

2. History

C2.1 Age of the object

C2.2 Periods of object development

C2.3 Value of the object for Russia during various periods of its development

3. Origin

C3.1 Number of originated cultural objects

C3.2 Character of originated cultural objects

C3.3 Self-preservation of the object

4. Traditions

C4.1 Cognitive activity

C4.2 Practical activity

C4.3 Communication

5. Innovations

C5.1 Cognitive activity

C5.2 Practical activity

C5.3 Communication

C5.4 Axiological activity

6. Influence

C6.1 Art

C6.2 Science

C6.3 Education


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

C6.4 Engineering

C6.5 Technology

C6.6 Politics

C6.7 Law

C6.8 Morale

7. Cultural heritage

C7.1 Art

C7.2 Science

C7.3 Education

C7.4 Engineering

C7.5 Technology

C7.6 Politics

C7.7 Law

C7.8 Morale

8. Values

C8.1 Spiritual values

C8.2 Material values

9. Recognition

C9.1 Russian social institutions

C9.2 Foreign social institutions

C9.3 Publicity

APPENDIX V: INTERPRETATION OF SUB-RANKING INDICES OFTHE RAEE UNIVERSITIES POTENTIAL

University Resources

1. Staff resources

1.1. Number of teaching staff per 100 full-time students

1.2. Number of Candidates of Science (PhD) per 100 full-time students

1.3. Number of Doctors of Science and professors per 100 full-time students

1.4. Number of teaching staff who are members of the Russian Academy of Sciences,

national and international academies per 100 full-time students

2. Informational resources

2.1. Library stock of the university per one full-time student

2.2. Total number of computers and computer stations at the university per one full-time student

3. Social resources

3.1. Percentage of non-resident students living in hostels

3.2. Floor space of roofed sports buildings per one full-time student

4. Financial resources

4.1. University budget in thousand rubles per one full-time student


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

University Activities

5. Educational activity5.1. Percentage of educational programmes that obtained professional accreditation inRussia5.2. Percentage of educational programmes which obtained accreditation abroad5.3. Percentage of full-time students actively involved in research work5.4. Existence of the certified quality management system at the university5.5. Competitive selection of full-time students5.6. Percentage of international students at the university5.7. Stability of full-time students’ cohort

6. Research activity6.1. Number of research papers per one professor6.2. Number of Candidate of Science theses during the last 3 years per 100 staff6.3. Number of Doctor of Science during the last 3 years per 100 staff6.4. Percentage of teaching staff participating in the research


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Documents

Ranking of Russian Higher Education Institutions