Transcript Policy context of quality assurance: Role of accreditation

Role rankingów w systemie oceny jakości oraz ich miejsce w
budowaniu prestiżu wyższych uczelni
[z odniesieniem do polskich uczelni technicznych]
Jan Sadlak
President, IREG Observatory on Academic Ranking and Excellence
XIII Kolegium Prorektorów ds. Nauki i Rozwoju publicznych wyższych szkol
technicznych,
Politechnika Łódzka, 21 czerwca 2012
1
Kontekst i główne cechy “nowego porzadku” [new compact]
funkcjonowania szkolnictwa wyższego [na szczeblu systemu]
 massification of student enrolment
[zbliżanie sie do poziomu powyżej 50 % tradycyjnej grupy podejmującej studia
wyższe];
 big numbers [institutions, providers and programs] and
diversification
[world wide: around 20,500, and in Europe some 4,500 HE institutions that
enroll more than 19 million students and employ 1.5 million staff];
 science: global, highly competitive, costly and economically
relevant enterprise
[joint effect of knowledge-based/dependent economy and effect of
globalization in which creativity, innovation and research became a major
contributor to technological advancement and social progress];
 changes in relations between the state and higher education
with regard to financing and quality assurance
2
Nowy porządek w którym obecnie funkcjonują systemy szkolnictwa
wyższego wymaga nowych strategii, szybko wdrążający je
porządek prawny, przejrzyste regulacje oraz adekwatne [oraz
szeroko zrozumiale] procedury i mierniki oceny jakości
funkcjonowania systemu, uczelni, programów, etc.
Jednocześnie obecne warunki [lokalne i międzynarodowe] i kontekst w
jakim funkcjonują wyższe uczelnie wymagają szczególnej uwagi
odnośnie konkurencyjności i “miejsca w akademickiej hierarchii”
[prestiż].
3
Nowe strategie i regulacje [nastawione na jakość i konkurencyjność] [1]
Chiny: National Plan for Medium and Long-term Education Reform and
Development (2010-2020) which has as a principal objective: “to
speed up the transition from the world’s largest education system to
one of the world’s best, and from a country with larger scale of
human resource to a country rich in human resources”. In order to
implement this strategic objective China has accelerated building of
a number of world-class universities and faculties (Project 985 –
funding of about $100 billion US dollars), opening up of the best
faculties to the world, and to participate in or set up collaborative
international academic organizations and global science plans.
Indie: Under the 11th Five-Year Plan (2007-2012) is foreseen, among
other things, establishing of 8 new Indian Institutes of Technology, 7
Indian Institutes of Management and 30 Central Universities [out of
which 14 would be “world class universities”].
4
Nowe strategie i regulacje [jakość, konkurencyjność] [2]
Europa: zmiany wynikające z założeń i celów określonych przez Proces
Boloński i Lisbon Strategy ale jednoczesnie szereg „narodowych inicjatyw”:
Niemcy: Excellence Initiative 2006-2011 – 40 graduate schools, 30 clusters of
excellence, institutional strategies to promote top-level research];
Francja: Investir Pour l’Avenir: Priorités stratégiques d’investissement et
emprunt national [€ 35 billions of ‘public borrowing’ - out of which € 16 billion
for higher education and research to create some 5-10 world-class
campuses];
Rosja: creation of a special category of universities – 2 federal universities and
some 40 national research institutions; automatic recognition of degrees of
the world’s leading universities in order to attract high quality researchers
and professionals [US$4.1 billion to allocated in support of higher education
in 2011-2015];
Dania: within a so-called “Globalisation Funds” which foresee support the
foundations for attaining world-class status for some Danish universities and
as a goal “to have at least one university among the top 10 in Europe by
2020 as measured by the THE ranking”;
Finlandia: creation of cluster universities e.g. Alto University.
Mergers of universities are also foreseen in Latvia and Czech Republic.
5
Nowe strategie i regulacje [jakość i konkurencyjność] [3]
Polska:
- Inwestycje w laboratoria, aparaturę i infrastrukturę [ponad 20 mld zł];
- selekcja najlepszych kierunków studiów [lista wyroznionych 25 wydziałów, w
tym 8 wydziałów na uczelniach technicznych – 3 Politechnika Wrocławska,
1 Politechnika Warszawska, 1 Politechnika Gdańska, 1 Politechnika
Poznańska, 1 Politechnika Krakowska, 1 Politechnika Śląska. Uczelnie
otrzymają dotacje w wysokości do 3 mln zł];
- konkurs na najlepsze programy studiów [dotacja w wysokości 1 milion zł];
- konkurs w ramach projektu Krajowe Naukowe Ośrodki Wiodące [najlepsze
wydziały lub instytuty uczelni, które otrzymają w ciągu pięciu lat dodatkowe
dofinansowanie w kwocie ok. 50 mln zł];
- decyzja o utworzeniu Polskiej Agencji Wymiany Akademickiej.
„Polskie uczelnie mogą stać się najlepszymi uniwersytetami w Europie. Nie zaklinam tymi
słowami rzeczywistości i nie najlepszej dziś pozycji naszych szkół wyższych w
międzynarodowych rankingach. Gdyż już dziś zaczynają się wyłaniać elitarne jednostki,
które mogą walczyć o pozycję europejskich liderów”.
[wypowiedz Prof. Barbary Kudryckiej, Ministra Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego w dniu 6
czerwca 2012]
6
Procedury i mierniki oceny jakości
New landscape of higher education creates, combined with calls for greater
accountability and transparency, demand for “quality assurance” based on shared
basis for evaluation [standards] as well as information [supported by evidence]
which is readable by a large and diversified stakeholders about quality and
performance of HE institutions and their activities.
Main instruments used for this purpose are:
 Accreditation;
 Benchmarking;
 Rankings/League tables.
Peer-review: Assessment procedure regarding the quality by experts (in most cases
not associated with a given institution). For institutional and program evaluation such
procedure implies self-evaluation combined with on-site visits.
.
7
Akredytacja
Accreditation: a process during which HE institution or study program is a subject evaluation
by competent body in order to establish if the given institution or programme meet a set of
standards with regard to teaching, research and services.
There are three main types of accreditation: institutional, study programs and
profession-related.
New phenomenon: multiple, international and professional accreditations as quality label:
- in engineering: EUR-ACE/European Accreditation of Engineering Programs,
U.S. ABET Inc./Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology];
- in business education: EQUIS/European Quality Improvement System of
the European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD), AMBA of the Association
of MBAs; AACSB International Accreditation of the Association to Advance Collegiate
Schools of Business [so-called “triple crown” accreditation].
In US: non-governmental, peer-review and usually a volunteer process.
In Europe: since adoption of the Bologna Process regime it is mostly compulsory and
growingly internationalized – a creation of EQAR-European Quality Assurance Register.
8
Benchmarking
It is a standard/reference point reflecting the best practice in a given
domain. It can be established externally [ISO standards] or internally
[by peers] in order to:
- serve as a diagnostic instrument to better understand the process;
- provide comparison with competition in order improve position your
institution;
- facilitate learning from other members of the “benchmarking club”
[learning from peers];
- influence setting up of the system-wide standards.
It is heavily relying on indicators. It does not produce ranking.
9
Rankings
“Rankings” is a procedure which purpose is to collect data and information
according to established methodology in order to display the comparative
standing of the institutions of HE or certain domains of its performance. The
results are presented in an organized, most often hierarchical, order.
Already in the early 1970s “ranking” has been recommended as one of types of
evidence for academic staff assessment and program evaluation.
Source: Frederick E. Balderston, Managing Today’s University, 1974.
However, popularity of rankings is based on the fact that it is a kind of
“consumer guide” for potential students [number of present day, mainly national
rankings, continue to point out to this function and call themselves as “good
university guides”.
10
Rankingi: dlaczego sa robione [i dlaczego sa obecnie tak “popularne”]
 to provide basis “to make informed decision” when taking such
decision requires information on performance of a given higher
education institution or its activities (potential students, parents,
politicians, foundations, funding agencies, research councils,
employers, international organizations and bodies);
 to foster healthy competition among HE institutions;
 to stimulate an emergence of centres of excellence – the best
universities now have worldwide reach;
 to provide additional rationale for allocation of funds;
 to provide additional rationale for selection of partners.
Overall, rankings are convenient tool for marketing, policy debates,
selection of partners, identification and recognition of academic
excellence as well as public relations to attract the best talent and
funding.
11
Czy celem reformy ma być uzyskanie lepszych miejsc w rankingach?
Lepsza pozycja w rankingu jest sprawdzianem efektu rozwoju polskich
uczelni. Po rozwiązaniu problemu dostępu na studia wyższe
pozostaje:
• generalny problem jakości studiów;
• niska pozycja polskich uczelni w rankingach rzutują negatywnie na
możliwości partnerstwa międzynarodowego [e.g. przyjazdy
studentów, możliwość udziału w konsorcjach międzynarodowych,
pozycję w programach ramowych, grantach ERC, itd.]
Źródło: Musimy wzmocnić siłę polskich uczelni, Rozmowa Prof. Jerzym
Woźnickim, prezesem Fundacji Rektorów Polskich,
Forum Akademickie, No.2, 2012
12
Główne typy rankingów
Taking into consideration a methodological approach there are two
types of ranking:
- One-dimensional [oparte na jednorodnym zbiorze cech], which goal
is assessing performance of all institutions included in the ranking
according to one set of indicators and weight attached to a given
indicator;
- Multi-dimensional [pozwalające na preferencyjny wybór cech z
określonego ich zbioru], which use one set of indicators to construct
an overall list of performing institutions but its methodology enable
users to weight indicators by using own criteria and preferences
[ranking a la carte].
Jedne i drugie mogą być krajowe, regionalne lub międzynarodowe
obejmujące wszystkie lub określone typy uczelni lub programy studiów.
13
Kto przygotwuje rankingi
Contrary to general view, the number and type of providers of
ranking is quite diversified:
- individual/group initiatives [mostly academics or universities];
- media [usually in collaboration with specialized research teams
or partners];
- ministries and governmental agencies;
- independent professional organizations;
- accrediting bodies;
- funding organizations;
- international organizations
- others.
14
Ranking Nestle Polska S.A. [wspolnie z portalem nk.pl]
15
Data and information used for rankings
Surveys [badania ankietowe] which allow receiving opinions of various
stakeholders [with a clear preference for peer-review] in order to produce
indexes on quality and prestige of different institutions, study programmes
and other activities;
Public domain data and information collected by government agencies and
various agencies involved in higher education and research;
Data and information collected from institutions of higher education; regularly
collected [internal needs and external requirements] or requested by and
provided to those conducting rankings;
Bibliometric data, of which the most important are:
- Web of Science (WoS) of Thomson Reuters, covers over 9,000 journals
and book series in the natural sciences, social sciences, arts and
humanities. It publishes two data bases – Science Citation Index/SCI, and
Social Sciences Citation Index/SSCI;
- SCOPUS of Elsevier, same basic structure as WoS but more inclusive as
it covers more than 20,000 peer-reviewed journals + conference papers;
- Google’s Scholar, functions as an automatic recording of citations by
using Google’s search engine.
16
Międzynarodowe rankingi [w których występują lub powinny
występować polskie uczelnie techniczne]
•
Academic Ranking of World Universities/Shanghai Ranking
- Centre for World-Class Universities, Shanghai's Jiao Tong University, China
www.arwu.org
•
QS World University Rankings
- QS Quacquqrelli Symonds Ltd., United Kingdom
www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings
•
Webometrics - Ranking Web of World Universities
- Cybermetrics Lab, the National Research Council of Spain
www.webometrics.info/
•
Scimago Institutions Rankings World Reports [SIR World Report 2011]
- SCImago Research Group, Spain
www.scimagolab.com
•
URAP – University Ranking by Academic Performance
- Research Laboratory at Informatics Institute of Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
www.urapcenter.org
17
ARWU Ranking Methodology
Selection of Universities:
- any university that has any Nobel and Fields Medals laureates,
highly cited researchers, or papers published in Nature or Science;
- universities of every country with significant amount of papers
indexed by Citation Indexes in Web of Science of Thomson
Reuters.
Number of
universities
scanned
> 2000
Number of
universities
actually
ranked
1000
Number of
universities
published
Top 500
Top 100
Top 100
ARWU
ARWU-FIELD
ARWU-SUBJECT
18
ARWU Methodology: criteria and weights
Criteria
Quality
of Education
Indicator
Code
Weight
Alumni of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields
Medals
Alumni
10%
Staff of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals
Award
20%
Highly cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories
HiCi
20%
Papers published in Nature and Science*
N&S
20%
Papers indexed in Science Citation Index-expanded and
Social Science Citation Index [Thomson Reuters data base]
PUB
20%
Per capita academic performance of an institution
PCP
10%
Quality
of Faculty
Research
Output
Per Capita
Performance
19
Country
ARWU 2010 - Institution
Hungary
Univ. Szeged
Hungary
Eotvos Lorand Univ.
Hungary
Semmelweis Univ. Med
Hungary
Budapest Univ. of Tech.
Hungary
Univ. Debrecen
Poland
Alumni
Award
HiCi
N&S
PUB
PCP
Total
Rank
0
15.4
7.2
6.7
24.1
13.2
12.4
301-400
16.9
0
10.2
9
24.2
13.2
12.1
301-400
0
0
7.2
2.6
22.3
10.3
7.7
601-700
11.9
0
0
3.3
20.7
9.9
7.2
601-700
0
0
0
1.5
21.7
9.5
5.8
801-900
Jagiellonian Univ.
11.9
0
7.2
5.5
31.8
14.9
11.9
301-400
Poland
Univ. Warsaw
18.5
0
0
6.9
33.6
16
11.9
301-400
Poland
Univ. Wroclaw
7.5
0
0
2.4
23.1
10.4
7.1
601-700
Poland
Adam Mickiewicz Univ.
0
0
0
1.5
25.3
11.1
6.7
701-800
Poland
Wroclaw Univ. of Tech.
0
0
0
0
24.3
10.6
6.1
701-800
Poland
Warsaw Univ. of Tech.
0
0
0
1.5
22.1
9.7
5.9
801-900
Poland
Univ. Gdansk
0
0
0
6
16
7.5
5.3
801-900
Poland
AGH/Univ Sci. and Tech.
0
0
0
0
20.5
9
5.2
901-1000
Poland
Gdansk Univ. of Tech.
0
0
0
0
17.9
7.8
4.5
901-1000
Romania
Univ. Bucharest
10.7
0
0
3.7
24.4
11.3
8
501-600
Romania
Univ. Babes Bolyai
0
0
0
0
22.9
10
5.8
801-900
Romania
Polytech. Univ. Bucharest
0
0
0
0
21.4
9.4
5.4
801-900
Russia
Moscow State Univ.
46.8
34.1
0
9.6
52.4
31.2
27.9
Russia
St Petersburg State Univ.
26.1
0
0
4.8
29.6
15.4
11.4
301-400
Russia
Novosibirsk State Univ.
15.1
0
0
0
18.8
9.4
6.4
701-800
Russia
Voronezh State Univ.
9.2
0
0
0
13.3
6.5
4.4
901-1000
74
20
Country
ARWU 2011 - Institution
Score on
Alumni
Score on
Award
Score on
HiCi
Score on
N&S
Score on
PUB
Score on
PCP
Total
Score
World
Rank
Russia
Moscow State Univ
47.4
34.1
0.0
10.1
46.9
31.2
26.9
77
Czech
Charles Univ Prague
10.2
0.0
0.0
13.4
43.2
18.1
14.6
201-300
Poland
Univ Warsaw
17.6
0.0
0.0
8.4
35.1
17.6
12.6
301-400
Poland
Jagiellonian Univ
11.8
0.0
7.2
7.5
31.3
15.7
12.3
301-400
Hungary
Univ Szeged
0.0
15.4
7.2
6.8
21.3
13.0
11.8
301-400
Hungary
Eotvos Lorand Univ
15.6
0.0
10.2
9.5
22.9
13.3
11.8
301-400
Russia
St Petersburg State Univ
30.6
0.0
0.0
4.8
26.8
16.0
11.3
301-400
Hungary
Semmelweis Univ Med
0.0
0.0
7.2
2.6
22.3
10.9
7.7
601-700
Romania
Univ Bucharest
10.2
0.0
0.0
3.7
23.1
11.3
7.7
601-700
Poland
Univ Wroclaw
5.9
0.0
0.0
2.8
22.8
10.8
7.0
601-700
Czech
Masaryk Univ
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.2
23.0
14.7
6.9
601-700
Hungary
Budapest Univ Tech
11.8
0.0
0.0
3.4
19.4
9.8
6.9
601-700
Russia
Novosibirsk State Univ
15.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.9
10.5
6.8
601-700
Russia
Moscow Inst Phys&Technol
24.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.5
10.4
6.6
701-800
Czech
Czech Tech Univ - Prague
8.3
0.0
0.0
2.1
19.2
11.9
6.5
701-800
Czech
Palacky Univ
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.9
19.6
15.5
6.4
701-800
Romania
Univ Babes Bolyai
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.4
23.3
10.8
6.4
701-800
Poland
Wroclaw Univ Technol
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.9
11.0
6.1
701-800
Poland
Adam Mickiewicz Univ
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.0
10.6
5.8
801-900
Poland
Warsaw Univ Technol
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
21.0
9.7
5.8
801-900
Poland
AGH Univ Sci Technol
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
21.3
9.9
5.7
801-900
Romania
Polytech Univ Bucharest
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.2
9.8
5.4
801-900
Hungary
Univ Debrecen
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
19.4
9.0
5.2
901-1000
Poland
Univ Gdansk
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.6
15.3
7.5
5.1
901-1000
21
ARWU “szanghajski ranking” 2008-2011: Obserwacje i rekomendacje
Obserwacje:
- brak polskich uczelni technicznych w pierwszej 500-ce czołowych uczelni świata [wg.
tego rankingu] ale należy zaznaczyć ze 3 uczelnie techniczne – Politechnika
Warszawska, Politechnika Wrocławska oraz AGH sa w kolejnych edycjach wśród
pierwszego 1000-ca klasyfikowanych uczelni [Politechnika Gdanska wypadla z tej
klasyfikacji w edycji rankingu 2011];
- polskie uczelnie techniczne “najlepiej” wypadają jeśli chodzi o wskaźnik wyników badan
[Research Output] który stanowi 40% całościowej ocenie a zwlaszcza jeśli chodzi o
publikacje wysoko notowanych publikacjach [indexed in Science Citation Index of
Thomson Reuters] co stanowi 20% całościowej oceny danej uczelni;
- stosunkowo dobrze polskie uczelnie techniczne osiągają wyniki jeśli chodzi o wskaźnik
“Per Capita Performance” [the weighted score of all other five indicators divided by
the number of full-time equivalent academic staff] który stanowi 10% oceny uczelni.
Rekomendacje:
- celem dla polskich uczelni technicznych powinno być zwiększenie liczby publikacji w
Nature i Science [należy nadmienić ze polska publikacja w tych prestiżowych
pismach ukazuje sie w nich przeciętnie raz na cztery lata, wg. raportu
“Produktywność naukowa wyższych szkol publicznych”, A.Partek, J. WolszczakDrelacz, Politechnika Gdańska, 2010].
22
Exist since 2004. Evaluates 600 universities in the world [also regional presentations].
Published annually in October online at www.topuniversities.com.
Six indicators to evaluate the overall position of a university:
- Academic Peer Review [survey to identify universities they consider excellent in their
own broad field of knowledge] 40%;
- Global Employer Review [survey to identify universities they consider to be best at
preparing their graduates for the workplace] 10%;
- Citations per Faculty Member [using information from Scopus, to measure research
productivity] 20%;
- Student Faculty Ratio [as proxy for commitment to teaching] 20%;
- International Students [the proportion of international students to all students] 5%;
- International Faculty [the proportion of faculty to a total number] 5%.
In addition rankings in five key subject areas are produced: Engineering & Technology,
Natural Sciences, Life Sciences & Biomedicine, Arts & Humanities, and Social
Sciences [200 universities are presented in this ranking].
23
Obserwacja:
- w porównaniu z QA 2010 nastąpił wyraźny spadek pozycji polskich
uczelni w edycji QS 2011 [np. UJ z pozycji 304 na 393 a UW z
pozycji 364 do grupy uczelni sklasyfikowanych na miejscu 400-450;
Politechnika Warszawska “wypadła” z klasyfikacji uczelni
technicznych - z programami Engineering & Technology, Natural
Sciences .
- brak polskich uczelni technicznych w rankingu w 2011 QS World
University Rankings by Subject – Engineering & Technology;
Natural Sciences .
Jak wytłumaczyć ten wynik? Zdaniem Bena Sowtera, głównego
analityka w QS, przyczyny sa następujące:
- dropping of “academic standing” [prestige] according to the latest
information collected from Academic Peer Review survey [some
15,000 replies has been received];
- it looks that particular problem area of Polish universities is the low
number of international faculty and inability to attract the
international students and high-standing academics.
24
Webometrics or Ranking Web of World Universities
Conceptual argument:
“ The web presence and visibility are probably the best proxies for describing the overall
performance of the Universities in the 21st century, and possibly they are also the only ones
able to classify all of them in a confident way”.
Since 2004, the Webometrics Ranking is published twice a year [data is collected during the first weeks
of January and July for being public at the end of both months]. At present it covers more than
20,000 higher education Institutions worldwide [20,300 in 2012].
Źródła informacji: Google and Scimago Research Group.
Kryteria/siła:
- Visibility [50%] – liczba stron zewnętrznych przekierowanych do strony danej uczelni;
- Size [10%] – liczba stron [excluding the rich files];
- Rich files [10%] – suma różnego rodzaju stron: pdf, doc+docx, ppt+ppts oraz ps+eps;
- Scholar [15%] – liczba publikacji na Google Scholar [za lata 2007-2011] oraz liczba publikacji w bazie
danych Scimago Research Group.
Wyniki edycji 2012 [styczeń]:
wśród 64 państw ujętych w tym rankingu Polska znajduje sie na 39 miejscu;
polskie uczelnie techniczne sa zróżnicowane jeśli chodzi o zajmowane miejsce – od czołowych
pozycji takich uczleni jak - AGH [301miejsce], Politechniki Warszawskiej [354] do znacznie niżej
pozycji takich uczelni jak Politechnika Poznańska [miejsce 3547] czy Politechnika Łódzka [miejsce
3917].
25
Scimago Institutions Rankings [SIR World Report 2011] [1]
It is a relatively new ranking. 2011 is the third edition. It label itself as “the most
comprehensive ranking of institutions with significant scientific output”. It includes
more than 3,000 institutions, from104 countries, grouped in five sectors: Higher
Education, Health System, Government Agencies, Corporations and Others. Higher
education institutions represent mor than 80% of ranked institutions.
Źródła informacji: Elsevier’s Scopus.
Kryteria:
• Output [O]: number of scientific papers published in scholarly journals;
• International Collaboration [IC]: “Output” ratio that has been produced in
collaboration with foreign institutions;
• Normalized Impact [NI]: scores indicating the scientific impact that institution has
over the scientific community. The values are expressed in percentages and show
the relationship of the institution's average impact to the world average, which is 1 (a
score of 0.8 means the institution is cited 20% below world average and 1.3 means
the institution is cited 30% above world average);
• High Quality Publications [Q1]: ration of publications that an institution publishes in
the most influential scholarly journal of the world;
• Excellence Rate: indicates which percentage of an institution's scientific output is
included into the set formed by the 10% of the most cited papers in the respective
fields.
26
Scimago Institutions Rankings [SIR World Report 2011] [2]
Wyniki:
- 50 polskich instytucji i jednostek zostało objętych tym rankingiem
[Rosja 34, Czech Republic 26, Romania 19, Hungary 8, Ukraine 7].
- najwyższą lokatę zajmuje PAN [świat 81, region C&E Europe 2,
Polska 1]. Z polskich uczelni najwyższe miejsce zajmuje UJ
[363/10/2], następnie UW [490/14/3].
- jeśli chodzi o uczelnie techniczne to zajmują one następujące
miejsca:
Politechnika Warszawska [538/15/4]; Politechnika Wrocławska
[603/17/5]; AGH [735/26/6]; Łódzka [896/37/11], Gdańska
[1057/48/16]; Śląska [1099/54/17]; P-Poznanska [1226/58/19];
Zach-Pomorski U Techniczny [1703/90/24]; WAT [2044/114/30];
Krakowska [2272/133/32]; Rzeszowska [2307/139/33]; PBialostocka [2327/142/35]; P-Czestochowska [[2633/165/43];
Lubelska [2716/172/45]; Opolska [2887/189/49].
27
URAP – University Ranking by Academic Performance [1]
Number of Articles
Current Scientific
Productivity
2010
ISI
Google Scholar Results
Long - Term Overall
Productivity
2006 - 2010
ISI
Citation
Research Impact
2010
ISI
Cumulative Journal
Impact
Scientific Impact
2006 - 2010
ISI
H-Index
Research Quality
2006 - 2010
ISI
International
Collaboration
International Acceptance
2006 - 2010
ISI
The Delphi system was conducted to assign weighting scores to the above indicators. Total score of 600 is
distributed to each indicator as follows:
Number of Articles:
21 %
Citation:
21 %
Total documents:
10 %
Journal Impact Total:
18 %
Journal Citation Impact/H-Index:
15 %
Internationa Collaboration:
15 %
28
URAP – University Ranking by Academic Performance [2]
URAP zebrał dane dla około 2,500 uczelni z czego najwyżej stojących 2,000
uczelni zostało sklasyfikowane. Wśród nich sklasyfikowanych zostało 35
polskich uczelni. Dwie polskie uczelnie – UJ i UW znalazły sie wśród trzeciej
setki i otrzymały ogólną kategorie “A”.
Jeśli chodzi o polskie uczelnie techniczne to URAP ranking obejmuje 11
uczelni technicznych [w tym WAT]. Najwyższe miejsca zajmują PWroclawska i Warszawska obie skwalifikowano do grupy pierwszych 600
uczelni i otrzymały kategorie “B++” [ogólne miejsce 636 i 654]. Następne
kolejne miejsca zajmują: AGH - 812, P-Gdanska – 812, P-Lodzka – 837
[wszystkie te uczelnie otrzymały kategorie “B++”]. Do następnej grupy
uczelni [kategoria “B+”] zaliczone zostały P-Gdanska – 991, P-Poznanska –
1132, P-Slaska – 1192. A w kategorii “B”: P-Szczecinska – 1520, WAT –
1590, P-Rzeszowska – 1638, Krakowska – 1733.
29
Universitas 21 Ranking of National Higher Education Systems
It is a new ranking responding to the arguments that a nation’s
economic developments depends on performance of higher education
sector and not only on a particular institution or program.
It is an initiative of Universitas 21 [global network of research-intensive
universities]. It uses 20 indicators grouped under four main headings,
each weighted differently in the final aggregate score:
- Resources: investment by government and private sector on
teaching and research - 25 %;
- Output: research and its impact, and ability of system to produce an
educated workforce which meets labor market needs - 40 %;
- Connectivity: international students and proportion of articles coauthored with international collaborators – 10%;
- Environment: government policy and regulation, institutional and
socio-economic diversity and participation opportunities – 25%.
30
“U-Multirank: Multi-dimensional Global University Ranking”
• Project is funded by the European Commission which aim is to crate a
multi-dimentional ranking system for HE institutions based on
mapping the different strengths and missions of universities [to reflect
diversity of HE] covering: teaching, research and knowledge
exchange, international orientation, and regional engagement.
• Outcome: multidimensional perspective of ‘institutional profiles’, no
overall ‘league tables’, two-level analysis - institutional and ‘field’.
Project is going to be implemented in the course of 2012-2013 by a
consortium led by CHE-Centre for Higher Education Development.
31
Krytyka rankingów
• Questionable methodologies [especially with regard to weighting
scales] and validity of data [especially from surveys];
• Biased towards the research productivity and encourages
convergence towards a research-dominated model and reduces the
system diversity [academic drift];
• Introduces hierarchies among HE institutions and members of the
academic community [not in line with an ethos of “academic
corporatism”];
• “Come off as well as possible in a ranking” can become an
obsession;
• Hinders open-to-everyone academic cooperation and encourages
cluster mentality;
• Tend to focus on certain academic fields and not comprehensive
performance of entire institution.
32
Ogólne wnioski i rekomendacje
Szereg polskich uczelni ma ambicje i potencjał aby polepszyć swoje
miejsce w międzynarodowych rankingach. Ale aby to zrealizować
jest potrzeba:
• potraktowanie tego celu jako przedsięwzięcie ważne dla całej
społeczności danej uczelni - od studenta do władz uczelni
[włączając to również absolwentów i partnerów];
• Przyjęcie “wysokich standardów” jako zasady odnoszącej sie nie
tylko do badan ale także w zakresie koncepcji i oferty kształcenia “otwarte na wejściu elitarne na wyjściu” co wymaga odpowiednio
wysokich wymogów w egzekwowaniu wiedzy [“Tough courses do
more than transmit genuine knowledge and skills. They provide the
experience – and instil confidence – of completing something
difficult”, Robert J. Samuelson];
• Zrozumienie ze rankingi sa instrumentem wspierającym powyższe
działania a nie celem w samym sobie a uzyskanie lepszej pozycji w
międzynarodowych rankingach wykracza poza działania
promocyjne;
• Zrozumienie ze lepsza pozycja w rankingach międzynarodowych
umacnia pozycje danej uczelni a “samozadowolenie” często
oznacza regres.
33