IREG-4 Conference, Astana 2009 1 PERSPEKTYWY RANKING 2009 Updated Methodological Approach Waldemar...

1

IREG-4 Conference, Astana 2009

PERSPEKTYWY PERSPEKTYWY RANKING 2009RANKING 2009

Updated Methodological Approach

Waldemar Siwiński, President, Perspektywy Education Foundation, Poland

Mapping of academic excellenceMapping of academic excellence

2

PERSPEKTYWY RANKINGPERSPEKTYWY RANKINGMapping of academic excellence


PLAN of presentation

Perspektywy Education Foundation. Perspektywy university Ranking – basic facts:

target group, changes in Polish HE system, criteria of Ranking 2009.

Methodology evolution 2000-2009. Ranking credibility:

consultation, presentation.

Summary.

3



private, non-profit organization, IREG Secretariat, promotes Polish HE abroad

program Study in Poland , organizes conferences and

seminars on education, prepares and publishes rankings, Member of Academic

Cooperation Association established to support HE

in Poland.

Perspektywy Education Foundation:

4



The Foundation in cooperation with the Conference of Rectors of Academic Schools in Poland runs a multi-year program “Study in Poland” promoting Polish universities abroad.

Perspektywy Education Foundation:

5



The beginnings of the Perspektywy rankings go back to 1992. Since then Perspektywy have published over 40 rankings:

at first these were rankings of secondary schools – because of baby-boom period,

then rankings of universities and MBA studies.

The university ranking in Poland prepared by the Perspektywy Foundation annually since 2000.

Published by the monthly magazine Perspektywy and the national daily newspaper Rzeczpospolita.

The only ranking in Poland published continuously every year.

Perspektywy Ranking History

6



Prospective students - target group

Warsaw University Information Day

7



Changes in Polish HE system Number of HEIs increased by 175% in past decade. Growth of private HEIs sector. In 2009: 139 public and 322 private HEIs.

Number of HEI in Poland

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 year

Private HEI Public HEI

8



Changes in Polish HE system

Baby-boom students wave.

Students/graduates in Poland

0200 000400 000600 000800 000

1 000 0001 200 0001 400 0001 600 0001 800 0002 000 000

year

students graduates

9



What is ranking?What is ranking?

RANKING IS INFORMATION ARRANGED IN ORDERinformation about: universities, faculties and programs sorted and arranged to serve those who seek such information: high school graduates (and their parents) looking

for college or university, academics who want to compare its own faculty

with other in the field, politicians searching for tools to best (let’s hope!)

allocate financial recourses.

10



Two subjective factors?Two subjective factors?

Depending on the purpose of a ranking there always are two subjective elements present: CRITERIA and their PERCENTAGE WEIGHT.

All other factors can be objective and standardized:methodology of measuring, data verification, mode of presentation, but the selection of criteria and their weight will always remain subjective.

11



Kapitula – Supervisory BoardKapitula – Supervisory Board Chairman: Prof. Marek Safjan, f. President of the Constitutional

Tribunal, appointed Member, European Court of Justice. Members: Prof. Marek Rocki, Senator, President of the State Accreditation

Committee, Prof. Tadeusz Tołłoczko, f. Rector of the Warsaw Medical University, Waldemar Siwiński, President of the Perspektywy Education

Foundation, f. President of the Polish Press Agency, Włodzimierz Kiciński, President, Nordea Bank Polska S.A., Dr Grzegorz Wójtowicz, f. Persident of the National Bank of Poland, Piotr Gabryel, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, “Rzeczpospolita”, Dr Jan Sadlak, Director, UNESCO-CEPES, Prof. Joanicjusz Nazarko, f. Rector, Bialystock Technical University, Dr Jan Krzysztof Frąckowiak, Director, Polish Science Contact

Agency “PolSCA” in Brussels, Dr Jerzy Głuszczyński, Vice President, PENTOR Research

International.

12



PRESTIGE - 30% Peer review (14%). Employers’ reputation (14%). Olympians’ preferences (2%).

SCIENTIFIC STRENGHT - 40% Scientific potential (8%). Scientific titles awarded (8%). Growth of HEI’s own faculty (8%). Saturation with the staff with highest qualifications (4%). Rights to award scientific degrees (4%). Breadth of teaching offer (4%). Publications (2%). Citations (2%). Doctoral programs (2%). Accreditation (1%). Research projects (1%).

13



STUDYING ENVIRONMENT - 15% Student / staff ratio (6%). Printed Library stock (2%). Electronic collection (2%). Cultural opportunities (1%). Sport achievements (1%). Facilities for out of town students (1%). Individual development opportunities (2%).

INTERNATIONALIZATION - 15% Students’ mobility in & outbound (5%). Programs taught in a foreign language (4%). Students studying in a foreign language (3%). Multicultural composition of student body (1%). Courses given in foreign languages (0,5%). Foreign teaching staff (1%). Summer schools (0,5%).

14



15



Foreign students in PolandForeign students in Poland

4259

52026563

7380

7608

8106

882910 092

11 752 13 695

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

1990/1991

2000/2001

2002/2003

2004/2005

2006/2007

16



Year 2000: 15 criteria in 3 groups.Year 2009:29 criteria in 4 groups.

17



Supervisory Board receives proposals to introduced new criteria.

Stabilization of the main group of criteria. Changes of the system reflects changes in the

world. Implementing sources not available few years

ago (database).

New CriteriaNew Criteria ( (PlannedPlanned))

18



New CriteriaNew Criteria ( (PlannedPlanned))

Introduction of „Innovation”, as a new group, with new criteria: technoparks, sturtups, patents...

Modified criteria within the existed group f.e.: increased weight of „citations” in „Scientific

strength”, „research centers”.

19



Technoparks in Poland

Wrocław Technopark

20



We know how to make rankings; the key-question now is how to gain credibility and acceptance within the: academic society, policy makers.

Ranking can act as an important factor in improving quality of the higher education.

Ranking CredibilityRanking Credibility

21



Presentation of results is equally important as results themselves.

Interactive presentation of results on the Internet. www.perspektywy.pl www.perspektywy.org

Front-pages of monthly magazine Perspektywy presenting rankings since 2002...

22



Gaining CredibilityGaining Credibility

Data collected primarily from sources independent from the ranked HEIs, include: Quantitative and Qualitative Survey conducted by

the Perspektywy, Survey of employers conducted

by PENTOR International SA, SCOPUS abstract and citation base, report on HEIs published by the Statistical Office, data available at the Ministry of Science and Higher

Education.

23



Maintaining credibility Maintaining credibility

Consultations with academic community: independent Supervisory Board of Ranking

Kapituła, collaboration with Conference of Rectors, ongoing contacts with universities, seminars for HEIs, being flexible but sticking to principles.

24



Multidimensional, detailed presentation of ranked universities in Perspektywy magazine .

„Pu

blic

atio

ns”

and

„ci

tatio

ns”.

25



Multidimensional, detailed presentation of ranked universities in Perspektywy magazine .

„Int

ern

atio

na

lizat

ion

”.

26



Award giving ceremonyAward giving ceremony 2000 2000..

27



Broad presentation of Broad presentation of resultsresults

Winner of 2004 ranking, prof. Barbara Kudrycka, rector of the MBA college.

Ceremony 2007: prof. Barbara Kurdrycka, the Minister of High Education awards best HEIs.

28



Rankings belong to the group of tools – not unlike accreditation and benchmarking, used to improve the quality of higher education.

“The outcomes of the Perspektywy University Ranking fully correspond with the results of accreditation process carried by the State Accreditation Committee. In fact the ranking provides even a fuller picture of universities, since it takes into account more factors and indicators, and analyze them

deeper. Rankings, updated annually, are also more actual.” Prof. Marek Rocki,

the head of the State Accreditation Committee

Ranking CredibilityRanking Credibility

29



ConclusionsConclusions Today everything gets ranked.

Instead of applauding the only winner – let’s look for strong and weak sides of various universities.

Rankings offer an important tool for improving the quality of Higher Education.

30



ConclusionsConclusions Today everything gets ranked.

Instead of applauding the only winner – let’s look for strong and weak sides of various universities.

Rankings offer an important tool for improving the quality of Higher Education.

It is critical how, and in what way, rankings are published and presented to the public.

31



Thank you for Thank you for attentionattention

Waldemar SiwińskiWaldemar Siwiń[email protected]@perspektywy.pl

www.perspektywy.orgwww.perspektywy.org

IREG-4 Conference, Astana 2009 1 PERSPEKTYWY RANKING 2009 Updated Methodological Approach Waldemar...

Documents

Transcript of IREG-4 Conference, Astana 2009 1 PERSPEKTYWY RANKING 2009 Updated Methodological Approach Waldemar...