Ranking Tertiary Education Systems Jamil Salmi Astana 15 June 2009.
-
Upload
giovanna-percifield -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
Transcript of Ranking Tertiary Education Systems Jamil Salmi Astana 15 June 2009.
Ranking Tertiary Education Systems
Jamil Salmi
Astana 15 June 2009
Benchmarking Tertiary Education Systems
Jamil Salmi
Astana 15 June 2009
3
4
the power of rankings
• public debate– Malaysia
– France
– Brazil
5
institutional behavior
• positive reactions– increased data-based decision making
– improvements in teaching and learning practices
– mergers or institutional collaboration
6
institutional behavior (II)
• negative reactions– less interest for low-income and minority
students
– distorted resource allocation to favor research over teaching
– neglect of established institutional research practices
– managing to the rankings (cheating?)
7
outline of the presentation
• world-class university or world-class tertiary education system?
• rankings of university systems
• benchmarking tertiary education systems
8
the search for excellence
my university is…
more world-class than yours
9
the WCU disease
• governments
• institutions– strategic efforts
– lobbying for resource concentration
10
11
the WCU disease
• governments
• institutions
• World Bank
13
how do you recognize a world-class university?
• everyone wants one
• no one knows what it is
• no one knows how to get onePhilip G. Altbach
14
15
reality check
• well-performing countries without world-class universities– and vice-versa
16
top 50 universities
comparison of rankings
WEF WB K4D SJTU
USA Denmark US (1)
Switzerland Sweden UK (4)
Denmark Finland Japan (19)
Sweden Netherlands Switzerland (24)
Singapore Norway Canada (24)
Finland Canada France (42)
Germany Switzerland Denmark (45)
Netherlands UK Netherlands (47)
Japan USA Sweden (51)
Canada Australia Germany (55)
17
18
reality check
• well-performing countries without world-class universities
• time dimension of alignment?– emerging economies vs. mature economies
• country size– Harvard vs. Canada
19
reality check
• institutional differentiation– different types of institutions for meeting
various learning and training needs
– regional engagement
– technology transfer through human capital formation
20
21
evolution of Nokia income
22
outline of the presentation
• world-class university or world-class tertiary education system?
• rankings of university systems
23
SJTU ranking (2008)Country Ranking Country
Rank of Top University in Country
1 USA 1 2 UK 4 3 Japan 19 4 Switzerland 24 4 Canada 24 6 France 42 7 Denmark 45 8 Netherlands 47 9 Sweden 51 10 Germany 55 11 Australia 59 12 Norway 64 13 Israel 65 14 Finland 68 15 Russia 70
16-20 Belgium, Brazil, Italy, Singapore
101 – 151
21-26 Argentina, Austria, Mexico, Spain, South Korea, Taiwan
152 – 200
27-33 China, Czech Republic, Greece. Hong Kong, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa
201 – 302
34-36 Hungary, India, Poland 303 – 401 37-40 Chile, Portugal, Slovenia,
Turkey 402 – 503
adjusting for size
24
University World News
25
SJTU
26
QS SAFE National System Strength Ranking
• US• UK• Australia• Germany• Canada• Japan• France• Netherlands• South Korea • Sweden
• number & ranking• access to top U• flagship U• investment
27
28
Lisbon Council
29
• ranking of university systems (17 OECD countries)
• beyond research• multi-dimensional (access and
completion, labor market outcomes, lifelong learning, responsiveness, ability to attract foreign students)
• pioneer work
limitations
• face same methodological questions as university rankings– focus on universities – research bias– composite index with arbitrary weights– statistical robustness– choice of indicators
30
31
outline of the presentation
• world-class university or world-class tertiary education system?
• rankings of university systems
• benchmarking tertiary education systems
32
cross-country comparisons help increase knowledge
is this flower big or small?
it depends on the size of neighboring flowers
33
multi-dimension comparisons enriches the diagnosis
how does this flower compare with the others?
wider but shorter
purpose
• improving performance– through comparisons
• competitors
• good practices
– diagnosis (identification of areas for improvement)
– definition of specific corrective interventions
34
35
purpose (II)
• need to understand the determinants of performance– no consensus on what countries should do to
improve their performance
– wide variations in system performance with similar funding levels and common country characteristics
36
Brazil and Chile
• public spending on tertiary education = .8% and .3% of GDP respectively
• enrollment rates are 24% and 38% respectively
37
why is a comprehensive benchmarking tool important?
• performance is more than– building world-class universities
– enrolling students (equity and quality agenda)
• learning & labor market outcomes linked to the totality of the education experience
38
approach
• elaborating a theoretical framework
• selecting indicators
• finding / generating the data
• analysis– diagnosis (areas for improvement)
– identification of possible solutions
39
preliminary step
• defining a system– US
– EU
– small states
40
elaborating the theoretical framework
• distinction between performance and health of system– how good are the system’s actual outcomes?
– does it operate under conditions known to lead to high performance?
• definition of outcomes / outputs / results
• identification of determinants and causality relationships– informed by empirical evidence
41
results framework
• research production
• technology transfer
• quality and relevance of education and training– labor market outcomes
– measuring learning outcomes
42
results framework
• equity
• values and behaviors
• social and cultural engagement
determinants (inputs and processes)
• access and equity (enrollment, institutional diversification, pathways)
• quality and relevance (standards, teaching and learning, research, local engagement)
43
determinants (inputs and processes)
• sustainable financing (resource mobilization, allocation, efficient use)
• capacity to improve (system and institutional governance)
44
45
indicators and data
• selecting and defining the right indicators
• finding comparable and reliable data (statistical sources and surveys)– objective
– verifiable
46
47
Benchmarking
Tertiary Education
Upgrade your knowledge –
measure, assess and compare your universities!
48
conclusions
• exploratory work
• different type of analysis– who? governments and donors
– what: system lens vs. institutional
• multi-dimensional
49
main challenges ahead
• defining and measuring multiplicity of outputs
• finding reliable data
• linking results and causes to be able to take action