WORLD CLASS UNIVERSITIES

Megawati Santoso Direktorat Kelembagaan DITJEN DIKTI May-2007 1

REFERENCES

   The Workshop of the International Education (8-9 November 2006) Works of World Class University Team formed by Minister of National Education (2006) On line search literatures (2007) 2

    Rankings Systems (International & Indonesia) & It’s foundation Rankings vs quality Are we going world class?

How do we start? 3

Ranking Systems

      Shanghai Jiaotong University (SJTU) Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) US News & World Report CHE/DAAD in Germany Webomatrics Many others sprouting (200 USA, 4ICU) 4

Prof. Nian Cai LIU Leader of the Shanghai Ranking Group Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, P.R. of China Dr. Jan Sadlak

Director of the European Center for Higher Education CEPES, UNESCO, Bucharest Romania

Prof. Detlef Müller-Böling

Director of the Center for Higher Education Development CHE Gütersloh, Germany

Mr. Martin Ince

Commissioning Editor Times Higher Education Supplement THES, London, UK

INDONESIA CRITERIA

  Kriteria Majelis Penelitian Untuk Tolok Ukur Penelitian Kriteria Direktorat Kelembagaan Untuk Tolok Ukur Kesehatan Organisasi, Output, Outcome   Kriteria Mutu Untuk Tingkat Program Studi (Tpsdp, Imhere, Phk, Grantees) Dan menambahkan kriteria baru:  Kriteria Mutu Untuk Tingkat Institusi (Tpsdp, Imhere, Phk, Grantees) Kriteria Kemanfaatan Pt Bagi Bangsa 6

Ranking System Fondations

     Needs of valuable Scientific researches Expansion of Worldwide R&D activities The number and intensity of student and researcher exchange programs, international collaboration, and working stays outside the own country The strong demand for accountability, evidence of quality, and ‘value for money’. Increasing competition for financial support and for the best students and researchers between universities within nations and worldwide. 7

Ranking System Fondations

  Universities strive for belonging to the top of their country, or even to the world top. This implies the existence of some kind of a league (a national one, or an international one), to which one can only be admitted on the basis of performance.

The higher the performance, the better chances a university has to become a member of an elite league and to reach a high ranking position in this league. Clearly, the basic question is: How can we identify the best universities in the world? 8

Ranking VS Quality

  SJTU  Quality of Education: alumni with awards    Quality of Academics: academics with awards Research Output: bibliometric data & citations Size: output related to size THES   Peer review (40%), recruiter review (10%) Int’l faculty & students (10%)   Staff:Student ratio (20%) Citations by faculty (20%) – size adjusted 9

Ranking VS Quality

 Webomatrics

“

PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages "important".

”

10

Ranking VS Quality

 8 6 4 2 1 3 5 7 9 Top 200 USA Peer assess- ment score (5.0=highest) Average freshman retention rate 2005 actual graduation rate Faculty resources rank % of classes w/50 or more ('05) % faculty who are full time ('05) SAT/ACT 25th-75th percentile ('05) Acceptance rate ('05) Alumni giving rank 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Graduation & retention rank 2005 predicted graduation rate 2005 overperf.(+)/ underperf.(-) % of classes w/fewer than 20 ('05) Student/ faculty ratio ('05) Selectivity rank Freshmen in top 10% of HS class Financial resources rank Avg. alumni giving rate 11

Ranking VS Quality

•4icu.org Web Popularity Ranking methodology Universities and Colleges are sorted by our exclusive 4icu.org Web Popularity Ranking.

The ranking is based upon an algorithm including three unbiased and independent web metrics: Google Page Rank , total number of inbound links and Alexa Traffic Rank .

The aim of this website is to provide an approximate and relative popularity index of world-wide Universities and Colleges based upon the popularity of their website. This can especially help international students to understand how popular a specific University or College is in a foreign country.

We do not, by any means, claim to rank organisations, or their programs, by the quality of education or level of services provided.

12

 THES

Ranking VS Quality

Criteria Indicator

Peer Review Research Quality Graduate Employability International Outlook Teaching Quality Citations per Faculty Recruiter Review International Faculty International Students Student Faculty

Brief Description Weight*

Composite score drawn from peer review (which is divided into five subject areas). 3,703 responses from 190.000 respondents. 40% Score based on research performance factored against the size of the research body 20% Score based on responses to recruiter survey. 738 responses 10% Score based on proportion of international faculty Score based on proportion of international students 5% 5% Score based on student/faculty ratio 20%

UI = 250; ITB = 258; UGM = 270; UNDIP = 495

13

WEBOMATRICS

14

80 84 85 86 89 90 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 73 74 75 RANK UNIVERSITY   NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY   KEIO UNIVERSITY   UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   BEIJING UNIVERSITY   CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   KYOTO UNIVERSITY   NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY   TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY CHINA   SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   UNIVERSITY OF TSUKUBA   HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY   INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BANDUNG   BEIJING NORMAL UNIVERSITY   HARBIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   TOKYO UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE   KHON KAEN UNIVERSITY   TONGJI UNIVERSITY   INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KANPUR   TOKYO UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY   MEIJI UNIVERSITY   GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY world R 139 150 152 157 190 216 218 239 300 336 337 338 362 927 934 937 982 1,009 1,011 1,018 1,025 1,032 15 1,076

ARE WE GOING WORLD CLASS?

16

ARE WE GOING WORLD CLASS?

The Costs and Benefits of World-Class Universities By Philip G. Altbach  The dictionary defines world class as "ranking among the foremost in the world; of an international standard of excellence."  Fair enough, but in higher education, who decides? The following characteristics have by no means been agreed upon by teams of experts—they are meant simply as benchmarks to provide the basis for debate and analysis. 17

ARE WE GOING WORLD CLASS?

 John D. Rockefeller once asked Charles W. Eliot, president of Harvard University for almost forty years in the late nineteenth century, what it would take to create the equivalent of a world-class university. Eliot responded that it would require $50 million and two hundred years. He was wrong. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the University of Chicago became a world-class institution in two decades for slightly more than $50 million—donated by Rockefeller himself. The price tag for such an endeavor has ballooned since then, not only because of inflation but also because of the increased complexity and cost of academic institutions today. The competition has also become much fiercer. Now, it might take more than $500 million along with clever leadership and much good luck. 18

ARE WE GOING WORLD CLASS?

  Excellence in research underpins the idea of world class—research that is recognized by peers and that pushes back the frontiers of knowledge. Academic freedom and an atmosphere of intellectual excitement are also central to a world-class university. 19

ARE WE GOING WORLD CLASS?

  The governance of the institution is very important. World-class universities have a significant measure of internal self-governance and an entrenched tradition, often buttressed by statutes, ensuring that the academic community has control over the central elements of academic life—the admission of students, the curriculum, the criteria for the award of degrees, the selection of new members of the professoriate, and the basic direction of the academic work of the institution. Adequate facilities for academic work are essential 20

ARE WE GOING WORLD CLASS?

  Adequate funding must be available to support the university's research and teaching as well as its other functions, and the support must be consistent and long term. Funding is a special challenge now, because governments in many countries are disinvesting in higher education. Academic institutions are everywhere asked to pay for an increasing part of their budgets through tuition and student fees, funds raised by consulting and selling research-based products, and other revenue generating activities.

21

ARE WE GOING WORLD CLASS?

IN CONCLUSION:  Research universities have the ability to raise significant funds through various means, but no substitute exists for consistent and substantial public financial support. Without it, developing and sustaining world-class universities is impossible.

HOW IS PUBLIC SUPPORT US: When we deliver quality of education 22

23

How do we start?

  DGHE has set the 2010 vision for higher education in Indonesia in which QUALITY has been the first focus that national higher education institutions in Indonesia must be working on Internationalization of higher education is believed to be one among the ways that can lead a higher education institution to achieve quality 24

Internationalisation



“Way of thinking and acting not constrained by national boundaries or traditions and which actively seeks inspiration, understanding, and input from outside (Indonesia)”

paraphrased from 1999 Monash U. annual plan, cited by Grant McBurnie in “Pursuing Internationalization…” 25

What is the goal?

 Comprehensive internationalization of the university?

 “World class” university?

 Systematic steps toward excellence?

26

International Positioning

    How our target group sees us in relation to your competition It is about the students’ perception of us The defining characteristics of our university have placed us where we are now Mismatch (?) between how we see ourself and how our prospective students see us 27

Positioning – parameters (PQSDP)

     Pricing  luxury, quality, good value, low value, cheaper, cheapest Quality  what is the prospective student’s perception of your quality ?

Service & Support  what’s that ?

Distribution  transnational delivery, local consumption, e-delivery Packaging  your environment and your presentation 28

Where to start?

     Within region (Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, China, Korea, Japan) Short-term group study abroad (faculty led) Reciprocal exchanges (summer/semester) Collaborations through research centers Join/establish consortia 29

C ategory Form s and C onditions of M obility People

Students Professors/scholars Researchers/ Experts/consultants

Program s

Course, program sub-degree, degree, post graduate

Providers

Institutions O rganizations Companies Projects A cademic projects Services

D evelopm ent Educational C om m ercial C ooperation L inkages Trade

Semester/year abroad Full degrees Field/research w ork Internships Sabbaticals Consulting Tw inning Franchised A rticulated/ V alidated Joint/D ouble A w ard O nline/D istance Branch Campus V irtual U niversity M erger/A cquisition Independent Institutions Research Curriculum Capacity Building Educational services Source: Jane Knight, 2006 30

It can be concluded…

  There are many definitions and meanings on Internationalization of Higher Education, but essentially it should contain not only physical but also non-physical aspects.

To start the internationalization, higher education institutions must first clearly define what the motivation is, and they must have internationalization statement that is agreed and consistently followed up by the top management of the universities 31

  To be in the ranking list is important but it does not mean everything (It does not mean that our university is out of the quality) But the most important thing is how to continuously improve tha quality of all aspect of education Accreditation has proved to give good motivational effect for institutions, and to get more positive respond from public and that Accreditation does not mean automatic comparison, even locally 32

 International standard could be achieved through continual development of, among others:      Flourishing research culture Increase the use of English Increase the productivity of existing agreements with foreign universities Build up and make use of the existing linkages with other stake holders out of the campus especially industries and government Maintain the relationship with alumni as well as with professional associations 33

DON’T FORGET OUR ROLES

STAKE HOLDERS EXPECTATIONS (USERS, STUDENTS, PARENTS, GOVERNM, MANAGEMENT, LECTURES, INSTITUTIONS ETC) VISSION/ MISSION OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION

• •

SECONDARY SCHOOL ETC SELECTION PROCESS FACILITIES.

STUDENTS GOALS/ OBJECTIVES ENVIRONMENT GRADUATE USERS OF GRADUATED

• • • •

UNIVERSITY INDUSTRY ENTREPRENEUR ETC METHODE LECTURES CURRICULUM MATERIALS YH/STM/PPM/06 REGULATOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION – DIKTI, BAN

34

35

Terima kasih atas kebaikan Bapak dan Ibu untuk mencerna dan memperkaya informasi yang disampaikan pagi ini.

36