academic cooperation and competitiveness. university ranking methodologies transparency tools vs....

Academic cooperation and competitiveness. University ranking

methodologies

TRANSPARENCY TOOLS VS.

RANKINGS

Prof. univ. dr. Radu Mircea Damian

Chair, CDESR

Council of Europe

Academic cooperation and competitiveness. University ranking methodologies

Rankings:Scope(s)

MethodologiesConsequences


Mission of universities: preparation for sustainable employment; preparation for live as active citizens in

democratic societies; personal development; the development and maintenance, through

teaching, learning and research, of a broad, advanced knowledge base.Rec (2007) 6 by the Committee of Ministers to member states on the public responsibility for higher education and research


European Higher Education Area:

diversity of institutions

autonomy of institutions

academic freedom


CDESR – Council of Europe Position Paper

QUALITY ASSURANCE, RANKING AND CLASSIFICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE MISSIONS

OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Presented at the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve, 28-29 April 2009


EUROPEAN COMISSION - projects feasibility

studies on „transparency tools“


Transparency tools equivalent to rankings,

league tables etc ?

YES and NO answers


Criteria and indicators (transparency tools) match the mission of universities – the evaluation must fit the purpose of the institution


Rankings Classical rankings (Shanghai ARWU –

90%research, THE-QS world university ranking – 50% reputation, US News & world report – US Best colleges - 45% learning inputs and beginning characteristics)Reference: Report to Council of Europe by Susana Melo, University rankings: What can they tell about higher education? Strasbourg, February 2009


RankingsAlternative rankings (CHE-

University Ranking, The University Systems Ranking (USR) developed by Lisbon Council etc.)

Reference: Report to Council of Europe by Susana Melo, University rankings: What can they tell about higher education? Strasbourg, February 2009


ConsequencesEuropean Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA):

„Besides quality assurance agencies that enshrine their activities in the ESG, there is a growing number of providers of information about higher education. The proliferation of ranking schemes is one aspect of this increasing need for information about higher education institutions and their activities.“

“ENQA agrees with, and supports (…) especially the pursuit of excellence, transparency and accountability, which are directly related to quality assurance.”


ConsequencesEuropean Student’s Union (ESU):

„Ranking systems do not help to improve the quality of Higher Education Institutions as they line them up according to simplistic ranking criteria. ESU strongly opposes the introduction of rankings into the Bologna Process. Rankings, or so-called «transparency instruments», provide a false sense of knowledge of the institutions’ performance and quality, are inaccurate and scarcely focus on the information needs of the students.“


ConsequencesEuropean University Association :

„There is a fundamental difference between Quality Assurance and rankings: QA process should always be internally driven (even if there

are external incentives) and aim at enhancing the quality of activities (usually through recommendations) and therefore foster a quality culture.

rankings are externally driven and only state the current situation of an institution in comparison to other institutions on

the basis of selected indicators.“


Conclusions (partial!) On-going discussion: “rank or be ranked” If you are ranked: there is always an “appeals-procedures”; you (university

or government) either challenge or take action: what action? If you (EHEA) rank: there is no appeal procedure; governments will certainly

take action (good side&bad side) Still more questions than answers on methodlogies Transparency tools: more related to Quality Assurance and cooperation Rankings: competition first

Invitation for discussion!


Conclusions

academic cooperation and competitiveness. university ranking methodologies transparency tools vs....

Documents