Upload
kim-huijpen
View
1.603
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Presentation on international rankings of universities by Kim Huijpen. Presented on Monday the 17th of October 2011 to managers Marketing & Communication of Delft University of Technology . Sheets 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28 and 29 are from earlier presentations by Johan Verweij. Sheets 2 and 23 are based on sheets from earlier presentations by Johan Verweij.
Citation preview
1Challenge the future
International rankings of universities
An overview for managers M&C TU DelftKim Huijpen, Strategic Policy Affairs | 17/10/11
2Challenge the future
International rankings
1. Context2. Criticism3. Overview4. The position of the TU Delft5. New initiatives to improve rankings6. How do we use international rankings?7. Do we influence international rankings?
3Challenge the future
Context
Rankings fill in a need• Stakeholders – students, parents, governments,
accreditation councils, industry (inter)national organizations – want to know the differences between HEI’s and how they perform
Rankings are more and more used (directly or indirectly via reputation)• By the media• By governmental institutions (reallocation of funds)• By students (Asia)• By HEI’s themselves! For marketing purposes or to
select partners for cooperation
4Challenge the future
International rankings, criticism and new developments
Most important international rankings in 2011• QS-, THE-, Shanghai-, HEEACT-, Leiden-ranking• not 5 rankings, but 66 (11+6+7+17+25)
Criticism• content: bias for big & old universities, focus on research,
bias for natural & medical sciences, language bias, comparison of whole HEI’s
• methodology: adding up all kind of indicators, numbering, dubious weighting, intransparency, institutions deliver data, methodological changes
5Challenge the future
Criticism
Conceptual1. some universities have an advantage: Anglo-Saxon,
beta- and medical disciplines, focus on research, big, old, general
2. you can’t compare whole universities3. you can’t add up all the indicators
Methodology4. underpinning of the weight factors5. sensitivity for outliers: best HEI=100 (z-scores are
better)6. methodological changes in time
Data7. limited or no insight in the raw data8. data provided by HEI’s themselves: mistakes,
manipulation
6Challenge the future
Overview: similarities and differences
Ranking
Focus Indicators
Data Time Type
QS ResearchEducationInternat.
SubjectiveObjective
Own ResearchDbase (Scopus)Data HEI’s
Present GeneralField
THE ResearchEducationInternat.Income
SubjectiveObjective
Own ResearchDbase (WoS)Data HEI’s
Present GeneralField
Shangha
i
Research Objective Dbases (e.g. WoS, Nobel-prize.org)
PastPresent
GeneralFieldSubject
Leiden Research Objective Dbase (WoS) Present General
HEEACT Research Objective Dbase (WoS/ESI) Present GeneralFieldSubject
7Challenge the future
QS World University Rankings®
& Times Higher Education World University Rankings
• In October 2009, QS and THE ended their collaboration
• Now there are two rankings:
1. QS World University rankings (QS-ranking) with the methodology of the old ranking• Published in September 2011
2. A new ranking by the Times Higher Education Supplement with Thomson Reuters: Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE-ranking)• Published in October 2011
8Challenge the future
Indicators QS ranking (old THE)
Fields:• ‘natural science’• ‘life sciences &
biomedicine’ ‘engineering & IT’
• ‘social sciences’• ‘arts and
humanities
Ranking by field: solely based on ‘academic peer review’
9Challenge the future
QS-ranking 2005-2011 (general)TU Delft from 108 (2010) to 104 (2011)
10Challenge the future
QS-ranking 2005-2011 (engineering)TU Delft stayed at position 18
11Challenge the future
QS-ranking 2005-2011 (natural sciences)TU Delft from 84 (2010) to 79 (2011)
12Challenge the future
THE-ranking (with Thomson Reuters)
Fields:• ‘Engineering &
Technology’• ‘Life Sciences’• ‘Clinical, pre-
clinical & Health’• ‘Physical
Science’• ‘Social Sciences’• ‘Arts &
Humanities’
Ranking by field: based on same 13 indicators with slightly different weighting
13Challenge the future
Position of 3TU’s, LDE and IDEA League in THE-ranking 2011
University general ranking – top 400 (2010)(the lower, the better)
TU Delft 104 (151)
TU Eindhoven 115 (114)
Universiteit Twente 200 (185)
Universiteit Leiden 79 (124)
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
157 (159)
Imperial College London 8 (9)
ETH Zurich 15 (15)
Ecole Polytechnique* 63 (39)
Aachen RWTH 168 (182)
* ParisTech exists of eleven ‘Grandes Ecoles Paris’ of which Ecole Polytechnique is the most well known.
14Challenge the future
THE Engineering and Technology Universities 2011-2012 (Top 50)
• TU Delft rose from 33 (2010) to 22 (2011)• TU Delft is the only Dutch university in this ranking Top 50 Engineering and Technology Universities 2011-
20121 California Institute of Technology, United States1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States3 Princeton University, United States4 University of California, Berkeley, United States5 Stanford University, United States
9 ETH Zürich, Switzerland10 Imperial College London, United Kingdom
22 Delft University of Technology, Netherlands29 École Polytechnique, France
15Challenge the future
Citation impact THE (30%) vsnew Crown Indicator CWTS
Position of Dutch universities: THE-ranking ’11 (blue) & new Crown Indicator CWTS ’10 (red)
16Challenge the future
Indicators Shanghai-ranking (since '03)
Focus Indicators Weighting
Quality of
education
Alumni winning Nobel
prizes and fields medals
Alumn
i
10%
Quality of faculty Staff winning Nobel prizes
and fields medals
Award 20%
Highly cited researchers HiCI 20%
Research output Articles and papers in
Nature and Science
N&S 20%
Articles and papers in SCI
and SSCI
PUB 20%
17Challenge the future
Shanghai-ranking 2011 (general)TU Delft: 151-200
Universiteit Academic Ranking of World Universities - 2011 (2010)
National rank 2011 (2010)
TU Delft 151-200 (151-200) 7-9 (7-9)
Universiteit Twente 301-400 (301-400) 11-12 (10-11)
TU Eindhoven 301-400 (401-500) 11-12 (12)
Universiteit Leiden 65 (70) 2 (2)
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
151-200 (151-200) 7-9 (7-9)
ETH Zurich 23 (23) 1 (1)
Imperial College London 24 (26) 4 (4)
Ecole Polytechnique* 301-400 (201-300) 14-17 (8-13)
RWTH Aachen University 201-300 (201-300) 15-23 (15-23)* ParisTech exists of eleven ‘Grandes Ecoles Paris’ of which Ecole Polytechnique is the most well known.
18Challenge the future
Shanghai-ranking 2011Field Rankings
• The TU Delft and University of Twente are in only one of five Field Rankings (top 100) between 76-100: • ‘Engineering/Technology and Computer Sciences’
(Engineering, Computer Science en Materials Science)• Last year TU Eindhoven was in none of the Field
rankings• Now TU/e is on position 52-75 of
‘Engineering/Technology and Computer Sciences’• TU/e has one full professor in ISIHighlyCited.com • But:
• Thomson Reuters seems to stop with ISIHighlyCited.com
19Challenge the future
New developments
improvement of existing rankings• more attention for education, finance and field (THE)• more representative survey on reputation (QS, THE)• rankings per field and subject (Shanghai, HEEACT)
new rankings and classifications (education and third mission, fields and subjects, ranking per indicator, no numbering)• CHE university ranking: BSc-students (EWI/LR, TBM)• CHE excellence ranking: MSc/PhD-students (EWI/TNW)
• 2012: EWI• U-Map (CHEPS): types/profiles• U-Multirank (CHERPA/CHE): institutional and field*
rankings* e.g. engineering
20Challenge the future
1. Teaching & learning profile2. Student profile3. Research involvement4. Knowledge exchange5. International orientation6. Regional engagement
U-Map dimensions
Presentation F. van Vught on the 13th DAIR seminar (4-11-09)
21Challenge the future
Example European Classification of HEI’s (U-Map)
22Challenge the future
How do we use international rankings?
Until now• Participation in QS-/THE-/CHE-ranking and U-map• Internal memos for the Executive Board • Annual report • Website‘facts and figures’• Marketing and PR
23Challenge the future
“Proof of the pudding…?”
24Challenge the future
Reserved way of commenting
TU Delft 22ste in Times Top 50 Technology Universities• Collegevoorzitter Dirk Jan van den Berg is blij te zien
dat de TU Delft in vergelijking met universiteiten wereldwijd goed beoordeeld wordt. De algemene THE World University Ranking kijkt naar 13 indicatoren en probeert zo de universiteit in de volle breedte te beoordelen. “Daarmee is onze positie in de ranking een mooi compliment voor de onderzoekers en docenten.”
• [...] “Hoe mooi de stijging van de TU Delft en andere Nederlandse universiteiten ook is, het laat ook zien dat het goed is om de waarde van dergelijke ranglijsten te relativeren. Kleine wijzigingen in de methode hebben een grote invloed op de uitkomst.”
25Challenge the future
How do we choose a ranking for marketing purposes?
Ideology versus pragmatism
26Challenge the future
Should we influence our position in international rankings? No
No We hold a good position in the rankings which are most
important to us (THE-Technology, Shanghai-Engineering, Leiden- “Crown Indicator”)
We useAn elaborate internal planning and evaluation cycle providing
all kind of data. These data are related to the way the government finances universities (dissertations, students, diploma’s)
There are national reviews of our educational- and research-programmes which we use to improve our performance. These reviews include peer reviews and data on publications and citations
27Challenge the future
Should we influence our position in international rankings? Yes
Ways to influence rankings• Neglect some rankings (marketing, annual report)• Do not participate:
- no choice: Shanghai, HEEACT, Leiden- choice: QS, THE, CHE, U-Map/U-Multirank
• Make agreements with other universities about data delivering
• Make well considered decision about interpretation of definitions
• Check and influence databases used by rankings:- WoS (THE/Shanghai/HEEACT) and Scopus (QS)- WoS/Highly cited (Shanghai)- Recruiters (QS): e.g. 180 HEI’s gave 45.000 names
• Include ranking-indicators in internal P&E-cycle (choose, monitor and benchmark indicators)
28Challenge the future
However, it is difficult to influence the rankings
Your position is dependent upon• Your own performances• The performances of other HEI’s• The way you and other HEI’s report data to the
ranking institutions• Methodological changes introduced by the ranking
institutions
29Challenge the future
Messages
• More and more international rankings (need)• Are used by several stakeholders and affect your
reputation• Are biased and have methodological drawbacks
• However, methodologies are improving• Nevertheless, important to be in the rankings• It is difficult for specialized universities to reach a
high position in general rankings (TU Delft: technology/engineering)• However, field normalization is improving
• New initiatives to improve international rankings:• CHE rankings• European Classification and Multidimensional ranking
project
30Challenge the future
Questions and discussion:
Do we need a ‘ranking strategy’?
Which rankings do we choose for marketing purposes?
• More information: • www.3tu.nl/uploads/media/Rankings_en_3TU.pdf
• Thanks to Johan Verweij• I elaborated on his presentations
Kim Huijpen, Policy Advisor, TU Delft / Corporate Policy AffairsT +31 (0)15 27 85296 | E [email protected] | @KimHuijpen
31Challenge the future
References
Sheets 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28 and 29 are from earlier presentations by Johan Verweij
Sheets 2 and 23 are based on sheets from earlier presentations by Johan Verweij
Websites rankings:• http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2011.html
• http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011
• http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/top-40
0.html
• http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2010/TOP/100
• http://www.socialsciences.leiden.edu/cwts/products-services/leiden-ranking-2010-cw
ts.html