Transcript Slide 1

Using Rankings to Drive Internal
Quality Improvements
Dr. Kevin Downing
City University of Hong Kong
&
Ms. Mandy Mok
QS Asia
Presentation Outline
2
1
Dominant Global Ranking Systems
2
What’s Wrong With Rankings?
3
What’s the Use of Rankings?
4
Final Remarks
THE-QS World University Rankings
International Student 5%
International Staff 5%
 Score calculated based on the
proportion of Full Time Equivalent (FTE)
faculty that are international.
 Score calculated based on the
proportion of total students that are
international.
Academic Peer Review 40%
Citation/Staff 20%
 Score based on research performance
factored against the size of the research
body .
 Five years of publication data with
citations from Scopus.
 Number of citations is divided by the
number of FTE staff to give an indication
of the density of research.
THE-QS
Rankings
 Academics indicate which field they
specialise in and then list up to 30
universities they regard as leaders in this
field.
 Composite score drawn from peer review
survey (which is divided into five subject
areas). Results compiled based on three
years’ worth of responses totaling 6,354 in
2008.
 Safeguards against individuals voting for
their own university strengthened.
 Rise of Asian universities is least apparent
in this ranking.
Employer Review 10%
Staff/Student 20%
 Score based simply on the student
faculty ratio, the higher the number of
faculty per student the higher the score.
 Full- and part-time numbers for staff
and students obtained; FTEs used
throughout as far as possible.
 Score based on responses to employer
survey. 2,339 responses in 2008.
 Recruiter names are sourced through QS
databases, media partners and partner
schools & universities.
 Responses are weighted by region to
reach a final score.
Shanghai Jiao Tong Academic Ranking of
World Universities
Per Capita Performance 10%
Quality of Education 10%
 Per capita academic performance of
an institution.
 Alumni of an institution winning Nobel
Prizes and Fields Medals.
Research Output (Nature and Science) 20%
Quality of Faculty (A) 20%
 Staff of an institution winning Nobel
Prizes and Fields Medals.
Quality of Faculty (B) 20%
 Highly cited researchers in 21 broad
subject categories.
Shanghai
Jiao Tong
Rankings
 Articles published in Nature and Science in
the previous year.
A weight of 100% is assigned for
corresponding author affiliation, 50% for first
author affiliation (second author affiliation if the
first author affiliation is the same as
corresponding author affiliation), 25% for the
next author affiliation, and 10% for all other
author affiliations. Only publications of article
type are considered.
Research Output (SSCI and SCI) 20%
 Total number of articles indexed by Science
Citation Index-Expanded and Social Science
Citation Index in the previous year. Only
publications of article type are considered.
What is Wrong with Rankings The THE-QS Example?
Peer Review (40%)
International
Faculty/Student
(5% each)
Faculty Student Ratio
(20%)
Employer Review
(10%)
• Indicator of existing market
position of the institution, rather
than its particular merits.
• Success of the university or its
marketing division?
• Not a particularly sophisticated
indicator of learning and teaching
quality.
• Indicator of graduate employability
and work-readiness rather than
academic strength.
Competition: McDonald’s or The
Rosetta Stone?
The McDonaldisation of Higher Education
• Higher education is being turned into a commodity, with a menu of ‘fast’ options emerging
from the sectorisation of institutions both within their own countries and globally.
Sectorisation
• Sectorisation of institutions into high end research intensive universities and learning and
teaching-based universities.
Benefit of THE-QS for ‘Younger’ Institutions
• ‘Younger’ institutions with a rapidly developing research base can take advantage of ranking
systems to demonstrate their evolvement to governments and funding bodies to reassess their
identified (existing) national roles.
Competition and the Rosetta Stone
• Competition drives improvements and increases the pace of discovery throughout human
history. The cost of avoidance of healthy competition is stagnation.
What’s the use of rankings?
Global Market Demand
• International study trends show that world wide demand for education is
on the rise. Higher Education is becoming more global and competitive.
Global Market Shaping
• University rankings shape the global market in higher education as
much as (or more than) they describe it. By changing the rankings we
alter global competition.
Global Market Value
• Knowledge is the key driver of international competitiveness. Ranking
will raise global awareness of those institutions and universities being
ranked.
Using Rankings to Improve
Institutional Quality
Identify Core Focus Areas
• Ranking criteria help an institution focus on core areas of practice and
encourage an evidence-based approach to quality improvement.
Strategic Planning
• Data driven decision making based on institutional performance
indicators. Strategy can then be aligned with indicators to improve
quality.
Funding Lobbying
• Rankings can be used to lobby government and funding bodies.
What’s the use of rankings?
Examples from City University of Hong Kong
External
Benchmarking
Use ranking criteria to identify
appropriate benchmarks in line with
institutional aspirations.
Benchmark against ‘best practice’ and
learn from peer institutions.
College/School Level
Departmental Level
Annual assessment based on quantitative
performance indicators for learning and
teaching, research, and knowledge transfer.
Establish panel of
management and external
experts to consider
anomalous data or
representations from
departments. Strategy
can then be developed to
address issues of
accountability and
improve quality.
Performance Indicators
% International
Students
Average
Entry
A-Level
Score
Input
Quality
Index
% Self-financed
Students
Average
Entry
English
Score
% Faculty
to Total
Academic
Staff
% Faculty with
PhD or
Professional
Accreditation
Staffing and
Resources
Index
Number of
Students
Per
Faculty
% International
Faculty
% Outbound
Exchange
Students
% Graduates with
FT Employment
(within 6 months
of completion)
Output
Quality
Index
% Student with
Internship
Experience
Staircase Model
Threshold 
(One star)
Input Quality
Index
Staffing and
Resources Index
Output Quality
Index
Towards
Excellence 
(Two star)
Excellence 
(Three star)
Example Growth Chart (Department X)
Current
Performance
Input
Quality
Index
Staffing
Resources
Index
Output
Quality
Index
Threshold * (One
star)
Towards
Excellence **
(Two star)
Excellence ***
(Three star)
Transition
Delta
Average Entry A-Level
Score
15.8
0.2
Average Entry English
Score
3
0.5
% International Students
18%
2%
% Self-financed Students
0%
0%
% Faculty (A to I Grade) to
Total Academic Staff
62%
18%
% International Faculty
(FTE)
51%
0%
Number of Studends Per
Faculty
9
-2
% Faculty with PhD or
Professional Accreditation
91%
9%
% Outbound Exchange
Students
17%
3%
% Students with Intership
Experience
53%
17%
97.5%
2.5%
% Graduates with FT
Employment (within 6
months of completion)
Example Growth Chart (Department Y)
Current
Performance
Input
Quality
Index
Staffing
Resources
Index
Output
Quality
Index
Threshold * (One
star)
Towards
Excellence **
(Two star)
Excellence ***
(Three star)
Transition
Delta
Average Entry A-Level
Score
13.8
0.2
Average Entry English
Score
1.6
0.9
% International Students
3%
7%
% Self-financed Students
39%
1%
% Faculty (A to I Grade) to
Total Academic Staff
30%
10%
% International Faculty
(FTE)
31%
9%
Number of Studends Per
Faculty
14
-1
% Faculty with PhD or
Professional Accreditation
60%
20%
% Outbound Exchange
Students
0%
15%
12.5%
17.5%
93%
2%
% Students with Intership
Experience
% Graduates with FT
Employment (within 6
months of completion)
Final Remarks
“
Rankings provide comparative
measures of institutions global
standing, they can foster
healthy competition among the
best higher education
institutions.
’’
“
Rankings can be effective selfevaluation tools for universities to
bring about practical positive strategic
change which will benefit both
stakeholders and students.
“
’’
Rankings are here to stay, so
better make the best use of
them.
’’