Ranking effects upon students
description
Transcript of Ranking effects upon students
![Page 1: Ranking effects upon students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062309/56813c94550346895da643c6/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Ranking effects upon students
National Alliance of Student Organization in Romania (ANOSR) Member of European Students' Union (ESU)
Academic cooperation and competitiveness University Ranking Methodologies
17-20 of September
Carmen Dobocan
![Page 2: Ranking effects upon students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062309/56813c94550346895da643c6/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
The National Alliance of Student Organizations from Romania (ANOSR)
- Is composed from 64 local student organizations in different university cities across the country. Mission:Acts as an informational and decision-making interface between the local level, represented by the local organizations, and the national level, the central actor of the educational environment in Romania.
ANOSR’s main goal is to represent the common interests of students from Romania and to stimulate their participation in the educational, social, economic and cultural activities.
![Page 3: Ranking effects upon students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062309/56813c94550346895da643c6/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
The National Alliance of Student Organizations from Romania (ANOSR)
Principles:
•The Principle of Democracy
•The principle of legitimacy and representativeness of the students
•The involvement in the decision making process
•The Principle of Non-Partisanship
![Page 4: Ranking effects upon students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062309/56813c94550346895da643c6/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
We, the students, have witnessed an increasing interest in following and developing
tools for the assessment of institutional performance.
More over, at the Leuven Ministerial Conference, performance and profiling of the higher education institutions (HEI) has been
set up as a priority for the new decade.
![Page 5: Ranking effects upon students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062309/56813c94550346895da643c6/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Context
In the context of a basic ideological framework for ranking, by which
transparency and increasing quality through competition are guaranteed,
students confront with particular issues that are not in the attention of the
academic community.
![Page 6: Ranking effects upon students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062309/56813c94550346895da643c6/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
The confusion within…
Rankings, classification, typology, mapping, benchmarking,
assessing learning outcomes, transparency tools
WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?
![Page 7: Ranking effects upon students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062309/56813c94550346895da643c6/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Rankings
Aim: provide easily interpretable information on the standing of higher education institutions
Most widely known and used:Times Higher Education Supplement (THES)
![Page 8: Ranking effects upon students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062309/56813c94550346895da643c6/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Ranking- declared purposes
•Better information for increasingly mobile students and academics
•Render information for the HEI themselves regarding their relative position
•Render information for public authorities, prospective students and their families, employers, wider society
![Page 9: Ranking effects upon students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062309/56813c94550346895da643c6/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Ranking- declared purposes
•Policy Advice – to Inform (and map) Policy Decisions
•Quality Assurance of Public Spending in Higher Education
•Measuring the Improvement of Institutions
•Identifying Trends and Developments
•Harmonization pressure
![Page 10: Ranking effects upon students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062309/56813c94550346895da643c6/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Parallel view - THES
The THES ‘World University Rankings’ (top 200universities) uses the following as indicators:1. Peer Review Score – 40% (1300 academics in 88 countries)2. Recruiter Review – 10%3. Citations of faculty members – 20%4. Faculty to student-ratio - 20%5. International Faculty – 5%6. International Students – 5%
![Page 11: Ranking effects upon students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062309/56813c94550346895da643c6/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Parallel view - Shanghai Rankings
The Shanghai Rankings (top 500 universities)use the following as indicators:1. Nobel prizes and international awards -30%2. Citations – 40%3. Publications in ‘Science’ and ‘Nature’Journals – 20%4. Compensation for small universities – 10%
![Page 12: Ranking effects upon students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062309/56813c94550346895da643c6/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Which of the criteria mentioned are relevent for students?
![Page 13: Ranking effects upon students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062309/56813c94550346895da643c6/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Critiques of rankings
•Selection of indicators: no theoretical reflection, convenient data, bias.•Weighting of indicators: no theoretical underpinning; no consistency in weights.•Reliability: newspapers like the drama of significant changes year on year; doesn’t reflect real annual changes in institutions.• Statistical insignificance: rankings based on minute insignificant differences.•Focus of attention: rankings of institutions treat them as homogeneous when there is huge variability within institutions.
![Page 14: Ranking effects upon students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062309/56813c94550346895da643c6/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Danger for students
•Impact on Social dimension•Hindering mobility•Harmonization pressure according to a restricted number of criteria and promotion of a single model on institution•Financial impacts•Misleading in their assessment, especially comparing the evolution in time •Shift of the focus from comprehensive QA institutional efforts to the check-list approach
![Page 15: Ranking effects upon students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062309/56813c94550346895da643c6/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Danger on students
No regard for student involvement
•Employers will accept only students from top universities
• Students seen as consumers
• Some universities/faculties not so popular could end in failure
![Page 16: Ranking effects upon students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062309/56813c94550346895da643c6/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Typology – phase one of the project “Classifying European Institutions” funded by ECAim: “better understanding of the various types of higher education institutions, their mission and provisions, support to the European aim of increasing student mobility, inter-institutional and university-industry cooperation, the recognition of degrees and hence the international competitiveness of European higher education”
Typology and classification
![Page 17: Ranking effects upon students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062309/56813c94550346895da643c6/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Typology and classification
Classification Grouping HEI according to their mission profiles (it puts institutions in “mission boxes”)Different from typology as it addresses real institutional characteristics, not conceptual ideal profilesBased on a spider-web scheme approachAllowing for institutional profiling and strategy developmentIn theory, not a ranking
![Page 18: Ranking effects upon students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062309/56813c94550346895da643c6/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Conclusions
Academically interesting tools, but politically very dangerous…
![Page 19: Ranking effects upon students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062309/56813c94550346895da643c6/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Dangers or ‘why are we not reasonable and support typology and classification?”
• Hindering student and staff mobility – difficulties to jump from one box to another
• Leading to ranking interpretations• Potentially hinder diversity and cooperation
between HEI• A predictable influence on financing
systems of HEI• Expensive exercise with no clear
contribution to further developing the EHEA
![Page 20: Ranking effects upon students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062309/56813c94550346895da643c6/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
QA- Built on trust and trust building- It works on QUALITATIVE standards and procedures (the ESG for example), not quantitative - System of peer review for agreed standards- room for diversity of approaches equally valued- HEI as main responsible for QA and values stakeholder engagement- Processes and outcomes are both important – it's about learning- Thin, complex, multidimensional analysis- difficult to compare- Internal responsibility for each institution- a matter of self development- Community of academics and students engaging and ownerships
QA vs RANKING → complementary rather than contradictory
![Page 21: Ranking effects upon students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062309/56813c94550346895da643c6/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
QA vs RANKING → complementary rather than contradictory
Rankings- Minimum standards are not quality (distrust)- Relativism and scoring the diversity of approaches- External control and analysis – not HEI responsible for assessment and no stakeholder involvement- Focus on measurable outputs, not on processes- Indicators and league tables in limited areas – compares what is not comparable- Students as clients needing information – a matter of satisfying consumer demands- Students as mere sources of feedback for indicators
![Page 22: Ranking effects upon students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062309/56813c94550346895da643c6/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Why ranking ?
What more useful information can ranking provide rather than a quality assurance report?
(elaborated by a qualified agency which has a data base with all the institutional programs of HEI)