assessment hei 2007

Report

Assessment of public universities and their faculties (2007)

© ARRA, Bratislava 2007

ARRA, Ivana Bukovčana 16, 84107 Bratislava, IČO: 30857091, Reg. č. VVS/1-900/90-245 03 tel.: +421 2 5443 2246 www.arra.sk E-mail: [email protected] Bank. Spoj.: Slovenská sporiteľňa, č. ú.: 0178751805/0900

2

The authors of this report would like to thank the members of the Board of

Advisors of ARRA, in particular the chairperson Prof. Štich, Prof. Brunovský, Prof.

Kusá, Prof. Bokes and others, and also the members of the Board of Trustees (in

particular the chairperson Ing. J. Kollár) for their comments, discussions, analyses

and reviews.

The selection of criteria and the set up of the methodology used have been

taken, with certain modifications, from previous ARRA reports1. Discussions with Don

Thornhill and Lewis Purser, experts that the World Bank arranged for ARRA,

contributed significantly to criteria selection and dividing the faculties into six groups.

It should be noted, however, that the opinions presented in the following report are

not necessarily identical with those of the persons named here.

The report is part of the project financed by European Social Fund.

ARRA thanks for the support

Partner of ARRA is

1 The reports are published at www.arra.sk, Ranking section.


3

1. Summary

ARRA has been in existence for more than three years. In this period, it

prepared three reports assessing higher education institutions in Slovakia. Since the

beginning, ARRA has been assigning great importance to international cooperation. It

worked closely with dr. Don Thornhill and dr. Lewis Purser, World Bank experts, in

establishing the methodology. ARRA was at the birth of an informal group of ranking

agencies, International Ranking Experts Group (IREG). At the annual meeting of the

Group in Shanghai in October 2007, ARRA became a founding member of a

formalised grouping, and ARRA representative, Prof. Ferdinand Devínsky, was

elected a member of the Steering Committee of the International Observatory on

Academic Ranking.

Until now, ARRA has been obtaining data particularly from the reports of the

Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic. Presently, however, the Ministry does

not attach so much importance to collecting detailed information on higher education

institutions and their faculties. ARRA therefore approached collecting necessary data

directly from higher education institutions from their annual reports and from the

Institute of Information and Prognoses in Education (ARRA thus continues using data

for its assessments that are publicly accessible and that can be verified by anyone).

On the one hand, this situation makes ARRA’s operation more difficult, but, on the

other hand, it reflects the fact that higher education institutions are interested in

their own quality and self-evaluation, which is expressed in their annual reports

(which are also required by the law). The internal and external evaluations may

synergistically result in quality improvement.

However, it should be noted to this encouraging fact that the results of

scientific activity as seen on the basis of VV1 – VV4 indicators show no significant

improvements, but rather to the contrary. Here as well, exceptions can be pointed

out that will hopefully become a prevailing rule in the coming years. Examples of

scientifically successful faculties include the relatively new Faculty of Economic and

Social Sciences, Comenius University, and the Faculty of Healthcare and Social Work,

Trnava University. The first one is making significant progress in the quantity of

scientific publications in journals listed in Current Contents while the other one, even


4

after reclassification from the SOC group to the MED group, shows excellent results –

measured by Slovak standards – and competes with medical faculties with years of

tradition. In addition to these two examples, the Faculty of Education, Trnava

University, also deserves attention being the first faculty in the SOC group having a

publication with more than 25 citations. The successful operation of Trnava

University in the Slovak situation is illustrated by its Faculty of Law ranking highest

among related faculties of public higher education institutions in the SOC group.

Trnava University in general ranks second or third in individual groups. The

successful progress of Trnava University is a proof that even relatively new

institutions (Trnava University was established in 1992) can reach good results, even

if their taking leading positions undoubtedly requires time.

Of course, these are not the only faculties that achieved good results, but they

are among those that improved most remarkably or confirmed their reputation even

among tougher competitors.

The introduction of a new method for the HUM and SOC group faculties’

publication activity assessment has not significantly changed their ranking but

enabled distinguishing among faculties that had zero in the previous assessment that

took into consideration publications in the WoK only. ARRA is working on an

independent method for the assessment of art faculties and higher education

institutions, but this is a very challenging task that will require more time and

discussions.

As mentioned above, the Faculty of Healthcare and Social Work, Trnava

University, compared favourably even in the more challenging conditions of the MED

group, outperforming even certain well-established medical faculties. In the present

report, we moved all medical faculties from the SOC group to the MED group. This

classification better reflects their orientation and this was also requested by several

representatives of the academic community. After the discussions, ARRA accepts that

this solution may be more appropriate.

As an experiment, the report includes – with certain limitations – a private

higher education institution, St. Elizabeth University of Health and Social Sciences,

the first private institution in our assessment, which satisfied the condition of at least

3 years of existence and which provided data upon request. In several criteria, it


5

reaches relatively good results and is comparable to public higher education

institutions in the MED group. ARRA’s ambition is to asses also private higher

education institutions but their position is specific in that they are not obliged to

publish information to such an extent as the public institutions. If private higher

education institutions want to be included in the assessment, they have to provide

more information about themselves to the public. ARRA is trying to obtain

information from private higher education institutions also directly. However,

information thus collected does not satisfy the nature of public accessibility and

verifiability, which ARRA has considered to be the key since the beginning, therefore

private institutions cannot be included in a full-fledged assessment on the basis of

such information.

As of this year, ARRA’s report includes information on the labour market

obtained from the Profesia.sk portal. In the years to come, ARRA plans to expand the

scope and also to continue student surveys. This information will enable the public to

make better decisions concerning the choice of higher education institutions. In this

year’s report, it is included only for illustration and to complement the general

picture.


6

Assessment of public universities and their faculties

1. Summary .................................................................................................. 3

2. Introduction.............................................................................................. 7

3. Adjustments of the assessment methodology.............................................. 8

4. Main results of the assessment..................................................................16 4.1 Universities and faculties of the AGRO group.......................................16 4.2 Universities and faculties of the HUM group ........................................17 4.3 Universities and faculties of the MED group.........................................18 4.4 Universities and faculties of the NAT group .........................................19 4.5 Universities and faculties of the SOC group .........................................20 4.6 Universities and faculties of the TECH group .......................................21 4.7 Results of other ARRA projects ...........................................................23

5. List of appendices ....................................................................................34


7

2. Introduction

ARRA is submitting a report to the public assessing higher education

institutions and faculties for 2006. The report follows up on the basic philosophy and

history of higher education institution rankings reflected in ARRA reports on higher

education institutions for 2004 and 2005. Thanks to three continuous years of

assessment, in this report, ARRA identifies trends in higher education in Slovakia.

In the future, ARRA intends to include also private higher education

institutions in Slovakia. With respect to the fact that the availability of data for

private higher education institutions is lower than that for public ones, this is a

considerably more difficult task. In this report, ARRA provides an assessment of St.

Elizabeth University of Health and Social Sciences. As this is the only private

institution in the assessment, we have not included it in common graphs and tables

but rather dealt with it separately, of course, in the context of higher education

institutions included in the MED group.

Since the very formation of ARRA, there were discussions about the

assessment of faculties in the HUM and SOC groups. Many scientists in humanities

and social sciences were pointing out that they were discriminated against in their

faculties’ quality assessment, as information on publications was accepted exclusively

from WoK. This is one of the reasons why ARRA decided to take into account other

publications in these two groups. This step enabled differentiation among individual

HUM and SOC faculties in the VV1 to VV4 criteria.

Year after year the ARRA report is more extensive, therefore it is presented in

a changed structure. We hope that it will thus become clearer and thereby more

useful for its readers.


8

3. Adjustments of the assessment methodology

The procedure that ARRA used in assessing Slovak universities in 2007 is

similar to that used in 2006. Modifications to the assessment methodology used in

2007 are listed in the following paragraphs:

a) In addition to publications included in the WoK database, ARRA took

account of publications in journals and books not included in this

database for faculties from the HUM and SOC groups.

b) Healthcare faculties, in accordance with the Frascati Manual and

suggestions from the academic community, were included in the

MED group (previously included in the SOC group; see below for a

more detailed explanation).

c) Criterion SV5, the average age of active professors, was dropped.

The Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic ceased collecting

this data and it is not publicly accessible from other sources (for

example, from annual reports).

This report includes an assessment of private St. Elizabeth University of Health

and Social Sciences. The nature of data that this institution provided to ARRA upon

request does not enable the same type of assessment as for public higher education

institutions. ARRA considers crucial that the data it works with come from publicly

accessible and verifiable sources. The institution does not satisfy this condition or

satisfies it only to a limited extent. This is why it is compared with public higher

education institutions only in the text of the report; it is not included in the general

ranking of institutions or faculties.

Similarly as in the previous assessments, the higher education institution

assessment procedure consists in the following steps in this report:

the selection of indicators for the quality of education and research in

individual universities and the assignment of a certain number of points to

each faculty for the performance in the particular indicator (indicators are


9

arranged into groups and each group of indicators gained a certain number

of points),2

the division of faculties into six groups according to the so-called Frascati

Manual in order to compare only faculties that have the same orientation

and similar working conditions,

assigning point scores to faculties (the ranking of faculties in individual

groups according to the Frascati Manual is based on average points score

in individual groups of indicators),

calculating point scores for the higher education institutions in individual

Frascati groups (the ranking of the institution in the given group is given

by the average assessment of all its faculties included in that group).

The most recent version of the Frascati Manual of 20023 divides subjects of

higher education research and studies into 6 groups:

a) natural sciences,

b) engineering and technology,

c) medical sciences,

d) agricultural sciences,

e) social sciences,

f) humanities.

From 1 June 2005 this division is included in Slovak law4, i.e., applies also to the

Slovak research community.5

After the introduction of such a division into the ranking, it is clear that

theological faculties will not be compared with medical faculties or technically

oriented faculties with social science faculties. However, it will be possible to

compare faculties with the same (or similar) scientific orientation side by side.

Prospective students will thus be able to determine which faculty is the best among

those providing education in their area of interest. To make it even more obvious

2 In 2007, indicators were used that were slightly modified as compared to those of 2006. 3 Frascati Manual, 6th Edition, OECD 2002, Paris, p. 67. 4 Act No. 172/2005 on the Organisation of State Support for Research and Development and Additions to Act No. 575/2001 on the Organisation of Government Activities and the Organisation of the Central State Administration as amended. 5 A more detailed breakdown is given in the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 1997, UNESCO, November 1997, and is described below in the text.


10

that what is important is the ranking within groups and that in Slovak situation,

universities virtually cannot be compared among themselves, as of 2006, ARRA has

ceased publishing the cumulative table ranking all Slovak public higher education

institutions. It is also true at the same time that the quality of a higher education

institution is determined by the quality of its faculties (except for the University of

Veterinary Medicine and the Academy of Fine Arts, which have no faculties and are

therefore assessed as a whole). With respect to the above, ARRA decided to make,

similarly as in 2005 and 2006, the rankings only on the basis of the results of

faculties ranked in groups of subjects according to the prevailing orientation in

accordance with the Frascati Manual.

The criteria (or indicators), by which ARRA produced its rankings, focus on the

intensity of performance rather than on the overall performance. For example, one of

the criteria is the total number of publications by the given faculty listed in the Web

of Knowledge database produced by Thomson Scientific Co. (“WoK” )6 divided by the

number of creative workers in the faculty (teachers and researchers with higher

education). If the number of creative workers did not divide the overall number of

publications, the size of the faculty would be the main influence rather than the

intensity of its work.7

The choice of criteria was also influenced by ARRA’s using only publicly

accessible data. When collecting information on publications not included in the WoK

database, we used faculties’ information on their publication activities published on

their websites. We did not request additional data from the faculties.

The ranking of institutions under assessment thus produced is based on

official data and domestic and foreign sources in the public domain. ARRA adhered to

this key principle also in this report’s assessments.

6 http://www.thomson.com/scientific/scientific.jsp. Thanks to the Ministry of Education, all higher education institutions have access to this database, as do the institutes of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, lecturers and research and artistic staff, the Accreditation Commission and the Ministry of Education. 7 In previous reports, ARRA has been obtaining information on the number of scientific staff from the reports of the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic. Presently the Ministry discontinued collecting data in this structure. The present report uses data from the Institute of Information and Prognoses in Education, which uses a slightly different methodology. A comparison of data from these two sources showed that there were no significant differences that would have influenced the ranking of the faculties and universities under assessment.


11

Detailed information on the assessment methodology may be found in

Appendix 1; the following text presents an overview of changes in the methodology

applied this year.

As mentioned above, only minor modifications to the methodology were made

in the present report versus that of 2006. The assessment now includes the Faculty

of Theology of the Catholic University in Ružomberok, which satisfied the condition of

at least three years of existence. Faculties not assessed by ARRA due to not

satisfying this condition this year can be found in Table 1.

Table 1: Faculties not assessed in the 2007 Report University Faculty Year

established University of Prešov Faculty of Management 2004 University of Prešov Faculty of Sports 2004 Catholic University Faculty of Healthcare 2004 Constantine the Philosopher University Faculty of Central European Studies 2004

Slovak University of Technology Faculty of Informatics and Information Technologies 2004

Technical University of Košice Faculty of Aeronautics 2004

ARRA also continued assigning compensation points to faculties existing less

than 10 years to prevent them from being handicapped versus those existing for a

longer period. Their list including the compensation factors for 2007 and 2006 is

given in Table 2. The compensation is applied in criteria, in which the period under

assessment exceeds the condition of three years of faculty existence, i.e., in criteria

in the publications and citations group (see below).


12

Table 2: Faculties assigned compensation points in the 2007 Report (the last column shows the last year’s compensation factor in brackets)

More substantial changes occurred in the interpretation of the Frascati

Manual. ARRA decided to include healthcare faculties in the MED group. The main

reason is the study subject being more related to the MED group rather than to the

SOC group where they were classified before. This involves the Faculty of Healthcare

and Social Work, Trnava University; and the Faculty of Social Sciences and

Healthcare, Constantine the Philosopher University.

The most significant change can be considered to be the taking into account

publications not included in the WoK in the assessment of faculties in the HUM and

SOC groups. As opposed to the 2006 Report, criterion VV1, which included only the

numbers of publications reflected in the WoK database (now indicated as VV1A), was

extended – for faculties from the HUM and SOC groups – with data from faculty

annual reports on publications in reviewed journals not included in the WoK

University

Faculty

Year established

Compensation factor

Comenius University

Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences

2002 10/5 (10/4)

University of Prešov

Faculty of Healthcare

2002 10/5 (10/4)

Catholic University

Faculty of Philosophy

2002 10/5 (10/4)

Catholic University

Faculty of Theology

2003 10/4 (10/3)

Catholic University

Faculty of Education

2002 10/5 (10/4)

Constantine the Philosopher University

Faculty of Social Sciences and Healthcare

2002 10/5 (10/4)

Trnava University

Faculty of Law

1999 10/8 (10/7)

Technical University of Košice

Faculty of Arts

1999 10/8 (10/7)

University of Žilina

Faculty of Special Engineering

2002 10/5 (10/4)

University of Economics

Faculty of International Relations

2000 10/7 (10/6)

Slovak University of Agriculture

Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences

2002 10/5 (10/4)

Slovak University of Agriculture

Faculty of European Studies and Regional Development

2002 10/5 (10/4)


13

database (indicated as VV1a) and data on book publications not included in the WoK

database (indicated as VV1b).

Journal publications are structured into several types in faculty reports. These

were assigned different weights. This year’s assessment, which is presented as a

pilot one, assigns weights to individual types of journal publications as indicated in

ARRA Newsletter No. 2. The weights are given in Table 3. When including these

weights and converting them per creative worker, faculty was assigned – in addition

to points obtained for WoK publications (original criterion VV1) – additional points for

other publications, each faculty being able to obtain a maximum of 20 points. The

assessment included a summary number of points for all journal publications in total.

Table 3: Weights for journal publications of faculties not reflected in the WoK

output weight

Foreign scientific journals 8

Local scientific journals 4

Foreign technical journals 6

Local technical journals 3

Papers in international conference proceedings 4

Papers in local conference proceedings 2

Invited lectures abroad 8

Invited lectures – local 4

A similar procedure was applied to book publications.

Table 4: Weights for book publications of faculties not reflected in the WoK

output weight

Scientific and artistic monographs by foreign publishers 20

Scientific and artistic monographs by local publishers 10

Technical book publications by foreign publishers 8

Technical book publications by local publishers 4

Chapters in scientific and artistic monographs by foreign

publishers 8

Chapters in scientific and artistic monographs by local

publishers 4


14

Chapters in technical book publications by foreign publishers 4

Chapters in technical book publications by local publishers 2

Higher education textbooks by foreign publishers 16

Higher education textbooks by local publishers 8

Chapters in higher education textbooks by foreign publishers 8

Chapters in higher education textbooks by local publishers 4

Teaching texts (paperback textbooks, lectures, workbooks) 4

Chapters in teaching texts 2

Secondary school textbooks 7

Other 0

The inclusion of publications not covered by WoK in the assessment of

faculties’ publication activity is motivated by several factors. At least several of them

are presented for illustration. Numerous faculties publish relatively few publications

in journals covered by the WoK database. For various faculties, this has different

causes. These are sometimes historical. Where a faculty was formed from a faculty

focused on the preparation of future teachers for primary and secondary schools,

then they mostly continued this tradition rather than trying to build strong groups in

the given scientific area capable of international competition. In other areas, for

example, in pedagogy, there are no Slovak journals that are included in the WoK

database.

The issue of conditions and criteria for habilitations and inaugurations was

dealt with by ARRA Newsletter No. 4 of October 2007.

The resulting situation, regardless of the causes, is such that the assessment

on the basis of publications in the WoK makes several faculties from the SOC and

HUM groups stand out (in the opinion of report authors, rightly so), but gives zero or

nearly zero assessment to a great majority of them in the “publications and citations”

category. This does not enable differentiated assessment of various faculties whose

research and publication level is objectively different. After extensive discussions,

ARRA therefore approached a modification to the methodology used. It continues to

apply, however, that publications in the WoK are assigned the greatest weight, as in

the report authors’ opinion, they best reflect the quality of the scientific work of the

respective institutions and are of internationally accepted informative value.


15

Foreign institutions assessing the quality of science and research are faced

with similar problems. The solution applied in a pilot form by ARRA is one of several

possible. Another possibility is to choose several local journals in the given area and

include them in the assessment. Similar approach was used, for example, in the FRG

when assessing faculties of law. ARRA worked on this idea but the work is in its

initial stages and its possible application in the Slovak situation would require

considerable effort and costs.


16

4. Main results of the assessment

This chapter of the report’s main part will present the results found in individual

ARRA groups. We will outline trends that can be observed based on three-years’

monitoring of the indicators. In the conclusion of the chapter, we will provide

information on the results of other projects that ARRA participates in and that are

related to higher education.

4.1 Universities and faculties of the AGRO group

teachers and students (SV1-SV4)

applications for study (SV6-SV8)

publications and citations (VV1-VV3a)

PhD. study (VV4- VV6)

grants (VV7-VV10)

AVERAGE Average 2005

Average 2006

1 University of Veterinary Medicine 90 92 80 73 70 81,1 83,4 81,62 Technical University in Zvolen 76 50 34 59 54 54,5 63,2 52,33 Slovak University of Agriculture 65 59 25 78 42 53,7 53,4 55,6

AGRO





grants (VV7-VV10)


Average 2006

1 University of Veterinary Medicine University of Veterinary Medicine 90 92 80 73 70 81,1 83,8 81,6 2 Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences Slovak University of Agriculture 72 52 56 66 67 62,6 41,3 62,4 3 Faculty of Forestry Technical University in Zvolen 87 44 57 45 67 59,9 65,5 57,0 4 Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources Slovak University of Agriculture 67 63 15 83 29 51,3 61,6 53,8 5 Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology Technical University in Zvolen 65 56 10 74 42 49,2 55,5 50,6 6 Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering Slovak University of Agriculture 55 62 4 86 30 47,3 57,1 47,5

AGRO

In the group of agricultural faculties, a swap on the fifth and sixth places

occurred, thanks to which the Technical University in Zvolen moved one rank higher.

The position of the University of Veterinary Medicine in this group remains

unchanged.


17

4.2 Universities and faculties of the HUM group





grants (VV7-VV10)


Average 2006

1 Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 81 60 1 65 3 42,0 48,2 41,72 Comenius University 55 45 26 52 25 40,6 47,5 36,73 University of Trnava 61 36 15 52 36 40,0 51,6 39,94 Academy of Fine Arts and Design 62 83 - 40 12 39,5 52,3 39,65 University of Prešov 49 35 28 25 25 32,6 46,2 36,66 Constantine the Philosopher University 39 58 1 31 11 27,9 38,9 24,87 Academy of Arts 61 51 3 13 7 27,0 37,4 28,28 Technical University of Košice 43 63 0 - 5 22,3 27,6 36,69 Matej Bel University 41 33 5 19 4 20,4 28,8 2210 Catholic University 36 29 5 23 3 19,3 30,9 22,211 University of St. Cyril and Methodius 38 31 6 - 16 18,1 27,7 20,1

HUM





grants (VV7-VV10)

AVERAGEAverage

2005Average

20061 Faculty of Arts Comenius University 56 44 50 44 62 51,0 64,7 44,9 2 Faculty of Humanities and Natural Sciences University of Prešov 49 35 74 14 67 47,6 53,0 47,6 3 Faculty of Theology University of Trnava 70 39 2 71 50 46,3 44,7 42,5 4 Faculty of Music and Dance Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 82 69 0 61 1 42,6 42,6 43,3 5 Faculty of Theatre Arts Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 85 52 1 42 32 42,3 49,0 39,3 6 Faculty of Film and Television Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 81 52 1 68 4 41,3 47,9 42,7 7 Academy of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Fine Arts and Design 62 83 - 40 12 39,5 50,1 39,6 8 Evangelical Theological Faculty Comenius University 55 54 25 51 12 39,4 42,3 36,5 9 Faculty of Performing Arts Academy of Arts 73 67 0 12 19 34,1 47,1 34,6 10 Faculty of Arts University of Trnava 51 34 28 33 22 33,8 51,0 37,3 11 Faculty of Arts University of Prešov 47 37 35 27 16 32,2 53,8 42,6 12 Roman Catholic Theological Faculty of Cyril and MethodiusComenius University 54 37 4 63 - 31,5 42,0 28,8 13 Orthodox Theological Faculty University of Prešov 60 34 2 46 13 31,3 43,4 35,2 14 Faculty of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Arts 66 65 1 12 8 30,3 34,6 24,7 15 Faculty of Arts Constantine the Philosopher University 39 58 1 31 11 27,9 35,3 24,8 16 Faculty of the Humanities Matej Bel University 42 35 9 32 9 25,5 35,2 27,1 17 Faculty of Dramatic Arts Academy of Arts 68 48 1 - - 23,5 32,4 25,3 18 Faculty of Arts Technical University of Košice 43 63 0 - 5 22,3 28,0 36,6 19 Faculty of Arts Catholic University 36 25 10 26 3 20,0 26,5 22,2 20 Greek Catholic Theological Faculty University of Prešov 41 34 2 13 6 19,4 27,9 21,0 21 Faculty of Theology Catholic University 36 32 1 21 3 18,6 n.a. n.a.22 Faculty of Arts University of St. Cyril and Methodius 38 31 6 - 16 18,1 27,4 20,1 23 Faculty of Philology Matej Bel University 41 31 1 5 - 15,4 20,5 16,9

HUM

Only several more significant shifts occurred among the faculties with

prevailing focus on humanities. The move of the Comenius University Faculty of

Philosophy from the second to the first rank may be seen as a trend – last year

already it progressed two ranks to the second position. The Faculty of Theology,

Trnava University, did better than last year (moving from the sixth rank to the third

one); the Faculty of Music, Academy of Arts improved too. On the contrary, the


18

Faculty of Philosophy of Prešov fell from the fifth to the eleventh rank and even

deeper drop was experienced by the Faculty of Arts, Technical University in Košice.

Changes in faculties’ rankings occurred also due to Comenius University’s

progress from the fourth to the second place in the group.

4.3 Universities and faculties of the MED group





grants (VV7-VV10)


Average 2006

1 Comenius University 83 80 53 40 60 63,3 71,1 73,62 University of Trnava 64 38 97 100 4 60,7 n.a. n.a.3 Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 72 62 51 36 46 53,5 67,7 54,44 Constantine the Philosopher University 32 57 1 42 33 32,9 n.a. n.a.5 University of Prešov 25 41 1 22 - 17,7 n.a. n.a.

MED





grants (VV7-VV10)

AVERAGEAverage

2005Average

20061 Jessenius Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 83 85 32 52 94 69,2 72,3 78,8 2 Faculty of Pharmacy Comenius University 75 79 85 24 60 64,6 79,3 78,5 3 Faculty of Health Care and Social Work University of Trnava 64 38 97 100 4 60,7 n.a. n.a.4 Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 90 75 42 45 27 56,0 63,0 63,6 5 Faculty of Medicine Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 72 62 51 36 46 53,5 70,7 54,4 6 Faculty of Social Sciences and Health Constantine the Philosopher University 32 57 1 42 33 32,9 n.a. n.a.7 Faculty of Health Care University of Prešov 25 41 1 22 - 17,7 n.a. n.a.

MED

No changes occurred among medical and healthcare faculties. In 2007, this

group included three healthcare-oriented faculties, previously assessed within the

SOC group. Interestingly, the Faculty of Healthcare and Social Work, Trnava

University, did very good among well-established medical faculties and took the third

place overall. The success of this faculty is underlined by the fact that it

outperformed Comenius University’s Faculty of Medicine and the Faculty of Medicine

of Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice.

This group of “healthcare” faculties undoubtedly includes St. Elizabeth

University of Health and Social Sciences. It was assessed only experimentally (not

included in the ranking) with respect to different nature of data and unavailability of

certain necessary information (explained above). However, if it was assessed, it

would rank between the second and third third of the table.


19

4.4 Universities and faculties of the NAT group





grants (VV7-VV10)


Average 2006

1 Comenius University 87 66 73 81 80 77,5 77,6 81,92 Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 78 54 67 67 43 61,7 67,2 65,43 Technical University in Zvolen 55 65 13 75 34 48,4 48,5 46,24 Constantine the Philosopher University 52 79 13 60 29 46,4 46,3 50,15 Matej Bel University 42 44 13 37 16 30,2 40,9 34,16 University of St. Cyril and Methodius 52 42 12 7 12 25,1 28,5 23,97 University of Žilina 36 62 1 14 9 24,3 37,1 27,8

NAT





grants (VV7-VV10)

AVERAGEAverage

2005Average

20061 Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics Comenius University 98 55 96 71 83 80,5 82,3 82,6 2 Faculty of Natural Sciences Comenius University 77 77 51 91 77 74,5 72,0 81,2 3 Faculty of Natural Sciences Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 78 54 67 67 43 61,7 68,2 65,4 4 Faculty of Ecology and Environmental Sciences Technical University in Zvolen 55 65 13 75 34 48,4 47,0 46,2 5 Faculty of Natural Sciences Constantine the Philosopher University 52 79 13 60 29 46,4 44,9 50,1 6 Faculty of Natural Sciences Matej Bel University 42 44 13 37 16 30,2 37,1 34,1 7 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of St. Cyril and Methodius 52 42 12 7 12 25,1 25,8 23,9 8 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of Žilina 36 62 1 14 9 24,3 35,4 27,8

NAT

Faculties focused on natural sciences form one of the most stable groups. In

the year under assessment, certain faculties swapped places but the differences in

terms of points remained small. The Faculty of Ecology and Environmental Sciences

of the Technical University in Zvolen returned to the fourth place and pushed the

Faculty of Natural Sciences of Constantine the Philosopher University back to the fifth

place where it had been in 2005. At the end of the table, faculties of the University of

SS Cyril and Methodius and of Žilina University swapped places. These changes were

exactly copied also in the assessment of universities in this group. Comenius

University holds the lead, represented by two faculties in the forefront positions: the

Faculty of Natural Sciences (2nd place) and the Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and

Informatics (1st place).


20

4.5 Universities and faculties of the SOC group





grants (VV7-VV10)


Average 2006

1 Technical University of Košice 59 41 25 22 90 47,5 49,0 462 Slovak University of Agriculture 58 56 23 50 37 44,7 43,0 40,93 University of Trnava 69 35 43 28 42 43,6 51,2 474 University of Žilina 62 69 1 53 18 40,6 45,2 39,75 University of Economics 66 39 20 51 22 39,7 36,6 34,86 Comenius University 65 56 19 44 14 39,6 41,5 37,67 Constantine the Philosopher University 52 43 2 41 25 32,5 30,0 32,48 Matej Bel University 67 43 6 27 13 31,1 31,1 28,69 Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 60 37 12 9 8 25,3 30,7 27,510 Catholic University 44 32 7 18 14 23,1 34,4 23,811 University of Prešov 48 33 1 24 9 22,9 35,5 24,612 University of St. Cyril and Methodius 41 64 1 - 8 22,8 25,9 22,313 Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 39 39 1 - 13 18,5 27,6 27,3

SOC





grants (VV7-VV10)

AVERAGEAverage

2005Average

20061 Faculty of International Relations University of Economics 67 69 18 96 43 58,8 40,4 48,8 2 Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Comenius University 82 44 22 70 28 49,1 51,9 47,5 3 Faculty of Education University of Trnava 66 34 82 26 37 48,9 37,6 39,0 4 Faculty of Economics Technical University of Košice 59 41 25 22 90 47,5 47,5 46,0 5 Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences Comenius University 76 70 54 21 16 47,3 40,6 35,6 6 Faculty of European Studies and Regional Development Slovak University of Agriculture 48 45 39 48 53 46,5 34,1 37,7 7 Faculty of Economics and Management Slovak University of Agriculture 67 67 8 52 22 43,0 46,6 44,2 8 Faculty of Operation and Economics of Transport and CommunicationsUniversity of Žilina 62 69 1 53 18 40,6 39,9 39,7 9 Faculty of Commerce University of Economics 62 35 31 54 15 39,3 35,6 37,8 10 Faculty of Business Economics University of Economics 64 33 21 46 32 39,0 32,2 28,9 11 Faculty of Law University of Trnava 73 36 4 31 48 38,4 34,4 37,4 12 Faculty of Political Sciences and International Relations Matej Bel University 87 38 8 30 28 38,4 30,1 28,0 13 Faculty of Management Comenius University 50 71 9 54 6 38,1 32,7 34,4 14 Faculty of National Economy University of Economics 76 30 24 38 17 37,2 36,7 34,8 15 Faculty of Law Comenius University 58 60 3 37 11 33,7 36,8 33,7 16 Faculty of Education Matej Bel University 66 45 7 37 12 33,4 30,2 29,4 17 Faculty of Economic Informatics University of Economics 57 35 21 40 10 32,6 31,8 29,1 18 Faculty of Education Constantine the Philosopher University 52 43 2 41 25 32,5 35,7 31,8 19 Faculty of Business Management University of Economics 68 33 9 35 12 31,1 32,8 29,5 20 Faculty of Education Comenius University 60 36 5 40 10 30,0 40,1 37,0 21 Faculty of Law Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 73 40 10 18 8 29,8 32,5 27,9 22 Faculty of Economics Matej Bel University 55 41 7 27 8 27,6 32,9 32,6 23 Faculty of Law Matej Bel University 60 49 0 14 2 25,2 28,6 24,4 24 Faculty of Education Catholic University 44 32 7 18 14 23,1 31,9 23,8 25 Faculty of Education University of Prešov 48 33 1 24 9 22,9 33,0 39,0 26 Faculty of Mass Media Communication University of St. Cyril and Methodius 41 64 1 - 8 22,8 25,0 22,3 27 Faculty of Public Administration Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 48 33 15 - 8 20,9 30,0 37,1 28 Faculty of Social and Economic Relations Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 39 39 1 - 13 18,5 26,1 27,1

SOC

Compared to 2006, three healthcare faculties were moved from the SOC

group to the MED group, including the previous leader of the group – the Faculty of

Healthcare and Social Work, Trnava University. Among the faculties that remained in

the group, the best position was kept by the University of Economics’ Faculty of

International Relations. The most significant move is the progress of the Matej Bel


21

University’s Faculty of Political Sciences and International Relations from the 22nd

(taking into consideration the reclassification of healthcare faculties) to the 12th

place. The only representative of Trenčín University did worse – the Faculty of Social

and Economic Relations. By taking the last place, it placed its parent university at the

end of the SOC group ranking. What is noteworthy is also the move of Trnava

University’s Faculty of Education from the seventh (or sixth) place to the third one.

For the first time in the three years of assessment and still as the only one in the

SOC group, Trnava University’s Faculty of Education has a publication cited more

than 25 times, which also proves that even at SOC-type faculties, papers with

international response can be created.

4.6 Universities and faculties of the TECH group





grants (VV7-VV10)


Average 2006

1 Slovak University of Technology 65 57 30 48 49 49,7 51,9 51,52 Technical University of Košice 54 41 11 49 33 37,9 47,5 41,33 University of Žilina 52 48 4 43 29 35,2 40,1 34,64 Technical University in Zvolen 59 40 0 43 13 31,0 55,5 39,95 Slovak University of Agriculture 56 44 2 29 18 29,8 42,0 33,86 Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 52 34 11 28 22 29,5 40,1 21,4

TECH





grants (VV7-VV10)

AVERAGEAverage

2005Average

20061 Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology Slovak University of Technology 100 46 100 77 98 84,1 80,4 82,52 Faculty of Electrical Engineering Slovak University of Technology 66 50 40 49 81 57,1 58,6 61,13 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering University of Žilina 67 35 6 68 67 48,6 49,8 46,94 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Slovak University of Technology 58 65 15 39 41 43,8 45,5 46,65 Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and GeotechnologyTechnical University of Košice 41 51 15 69 40 43,4 53,4 46,26 Faculty of Metallurgy Technical University of Košice 67 34 18 63 28 42,2 51,7 48,47 Faculty of Architecture Slovak University of Technology 62 86 0 51 10 41,8 45,6 47,18 Faculty of Industrial Technologies Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 56 35 27 38 51 41,5 48,4 439 Faculty of Civil Engineering Slovak University of Technology 60 47 19 40 32 39,5 47,2 41,310 Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics Technical University of Košice 57 41 12 43 30 36,4 49,9 39,811 Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Žilina 51 60 0 37 32 36,0 34,8 32,912 Faculty of Civil Engineering Technical University of Košice 65 46 14 34 21 35,9 44,5 38,313 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Technical University of Košice 46 37 6 56 32 35,3 50,4 38,814 Faculty of Manufacturing Technologies Technical University of Košice 51 40 2 30 49 34,4 38,2 36,615 Faculty of Electrical Engineering University of Žilina 58 43 5 35 23 32,9 39,3 35,216 Faculty of Material Sciences and Technology Slovak University of Technology 44 45 7 32 33 32,0 33,1 30,417 Faculty of Environmental and Manufacturing Technology Technical University in Zvolen 59 40 0 43 13 31,0 39,9 54,518 Faculty of Management Science and Informatics University of Žilina 39 47 8 45 10 30,0 n.a. 32,219 Faculty of Agricultural Engineering Slovak University of Agriculture 56 44 2 29 18 29,8 41,1 33,820 Faculty of Special Engineering University of Žilina 43 54 - 31 14 28,4 35,7 35,921 Faculty of Special Technology Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 60 33 - 26 8 25,5 33,4 31,822 Faculty of Mechatronics Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 41 33 5 20 8 21,4 28,3 19,5

TECH


22

The ranking of universities in the TECH group of faculties is relatively stable.

The only change is the swapping of places between the Technical University in

Zvolen, which moved from the third to the fourth place, and Žilina University. To a

considerable extent, this move can be attributed to the Faculty of Environmental and

Production Technologies of the Technical University in Zvolen, which dropped from

the tenth to the seventeenth place. This decline only underlines the falling trend,

with this faculty having reached the third rank in the TECH group in the 2005

assessment. Overall, it has lost 14 positions since 2005. The faculties of Žilina

University improved only moderately. The most successful faculty of this university is

the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, which took the 3rd rank (compared to last

year’s fifth). A drop among the best faculties of this group was seen again by the

Faculty of Metallurgy of the Technical University of Košice (third last year) losing

three ranks similarly as the Faculty of Architecture of the Slovak University of

Technology (a drop from the fourth to the seventh place). The institution with the

least satisfactory ranking in the group continues to be Trenčín University of

Alexander Dubček.


23

4.7 Results of other ARRA projects

4.7.1 Student Survey project

ARRA considers students to be an important source of information about

higher education institutions. They have the direct experience. Therefore at the end

of 2006, ARRA, jointly with the GfK Slovakia research agency, conducted a survey of

students’ satisfaction with higher education institutions. The survey results were

published in March 2007 in ARRA Newsletter No. 2/2007.

ARRA’s objective was, in cooperation with GfK Slovakia, to gradually prepare a

survey involving a representative part of students of all faculties of Slovak higher

education institutions so that the results objectively reflect the reality also on the

level of faculties.

The higher education student satisfaction survey conducted at the turn of

2006 and 2007 is representative with respect to all full-time students of higher

education institutions in Slovakia. Data collection took place between 9 November

and 31 December 2006 on a sample of 2,015 respondents. The survey was

conducted on a target group of second and higher year students. It will become part

of the general assessment once representative participation of students of all

faculties is reached.

Full time students of higher education institutions are not very satisfied with

their study. Full satisfaction was expressed by only approximately one seventh of the

students (14%). Next 45% are moderately satisfied with their institution. Explicit

dissatisfaction was expressed by nearly 20% of students.

The survey was determining satisfaction even in a greater detail within

individual aspects of the study. Students are most satisfied with their teachers. On

the contrary, they are least satisfied with the organisation of teaching and availability

and use of computers and the Internet at the institutions.

The situation differs very much at different faculties (even at the same

university). There is great satisfaction with certain faculties while with others it is

relatively low. However, the sample size in this survey does not enable a more

detailed insight into individual faculties.


24

Graph 1: If you were able to decide

again whether to start studying at

your present faculty or at another

faculty, would you choose your present

faculty again?

Likewise, the students’ loyalty

to their institution is reduced.

Approximately one third of the

present higher education students

would not recommend the institution

they are studying at to their

acquaintances. Similarly, one third of

the respondents would not choose

their institution again. Only one third

of students are certain about their

repeated choice of the same faculty

(34%).

When students were choosing the present institution, they took into

consideration a number of various criteria. The quality of the institution and later

career prospects were not the most important factor for each student. Important

reasons included, for example, the vicinity of the institution, friends studying in the

same town, but also admission without entrance tests. The demand in high quality of

the higher education institution is not very obvious and unambiguous on the part of

students.

According to the reasons based on which they chose the higher education

institution, the students could be divided into four categories:

Good institution (28% of students)

The main reason for selecting an institution was its quality. What was taken into

consideration was the institution’s prestige, quality of teachers, career prospects.

As cheap as possible (24% of students)

They chose the institution according to the distance from their home. The

objective was to minimise the costs of the studies. Other reasons were not

important.

neither yes, nor no

8,9%

rather not17,6%

definitely not

7,8%

rather yes31,4%

definitely yes

34,3%


25

The easier way (23% of students)

These students had no choice. They study at an institution that was the only one

to accept them, or they were admitted to the institution without entrance tests

(and tried nowhere else).

Student life (25% of students)

More important than the choice of the institution was the choice of the place

where the institution resides. The primary reasons included friends, possibility of

working while studying, etc. The quality of the studies was secondary.

Only a little more than half of the students are of the opinion that the

knowledge they are acquiring at the institution will be useful in the practice (53%).

One third of the students find it partially useful (35%).

What is encouraging is that over 80% of students want to work in an area

identical with or similar to the one they are studying at the moment. About one sixth

of students plan to work in a different area (17%).

rather in another area

12,7%

definitely in another area

4,3%

I have not thought about

it yet4,4%

rather in the same area

45,5%

definitely in the same area

33,1%

Graph 2: Once you finish your

studies, do you plan to work in the

same area as you studied?

Approximately 60% of students attend institutions outside of the area of their

domicile. Approximately 43% of students live at various types of dormitories and

17% live in private rented accommodation.

A large majority of university students work while studying. Only

approximately 17% of students do not make any money. An average student has


26

slightly less than SKK 5000 available per month. However, one tenth of students

have over SKK 10,000 available per month.

Student Survey project was kindly supported by


27

4.7.2 Project “Top Scientists”

The discussion on the reform of higher education in Slovakia is often

reduced only to the number of higher education students and less is spoken about

the quality of education they are receiving. The quality of education cannot be

separated from the quality of scientific and research work. Since the establishment of

first universities, these institutions were not only the centres of knowledge but also

of its further deepening and development.

The public discussion on the quality of science in Slovakia often does not

rely on facts but rather on subjective opinions of the involved. This is one of the

reasons why ARRA, with the support from the Penta Foundation, decided to identify

top scientists in Slovakia and show how they compare with international competitors.

International comparisons of the quality of science in Slovakia show that

Slovakia is significantly lagging behind comparable countries of the European Union

in the dynamics of acquisition of internationally recognised scientific knowledge.

Between 1995 and 2006, the scientific production measured by the number of

publications in journals listed in Current Contents increased by mere 14%. For

comparison, in the Czech Republic this increase was 99.5% and in Poland as many

as 113.5%. In the per capita figure, Slovakia outperformed only Poland. On the other

hand, in 1995, Slovakia ranked second after Austria. When we compare the scientific

base and tradition of scientific work before 1995 with the results in 2005, we cannot

arrive at a conclusion other than that creative scientific activity is stagnating.

Table 5: Numbers of publications in WoS in the period of 1995 – 2006 in

selected countries.

State 1995 2006 change in % number of papers per million residents

Czech Republic 3,756 7,494 99.5 749.4 Hungary 3,666 6,127 67 612.7 Poland 8,077 17,244 113.5 431.1 Austria 6,437 11,205 74 1,600.7 Slovakia 2,179 2,494 14 479.6


28

Therefore in 2007, ARRA started to work in a project with the objective of

identifying scientists with exceptional, internationally comparable results. In the first

phase, the project was implemented in physics and chemistry and the results are

published on ARRA website. In cooperation with experts from other disciplines, the

project continues in biology, mathematics, economics, pharmaceutics, medical

sciences, earth sciences, and environmental sciences.

The methodology is based on a generally acceptable fact that significant

scientific results must be reviewed and particularly published so that they are

accessible to broad international scientific community, be subject to analysis and

criticism, and particularly that the results can be followed up by other scientists. This

is why we used standard indicators recognised internationally – publications and

responses thereto (citations) according to international databases, namely the Web

of Science (WoS).

For the identification of significant scientists, individual personalities, it is

appropriate to use a somewhat different approach than for universal assessments of

entire institutions. Our methodology relies on Hirsch “h-index”, which was defined by

physicist Jorge E. Hirsch in 2005 (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA) as the measure of

impact of individual’s scientific work. This “h-index” expresses the highest number of

publications, of which each is cited at least h times. For example, E. J. Corey,

laureate of the Nobel Prize for chemistry, has an h-index of 132, which means that

he published 132 papers, each of which was cited at least 132 times. It should be

noted that this is a challenging indicator. A lower h-index may be significantly

influenced by self-citations (when some of the co-authors cites his/her own work).

This is why we eliminated self-citations in our methodology (as the WoS counts them

in), which reduces the original h-index. We refer to such index as H-index.

Table 6: Citation rates for publications in the world in individual fields in

1995 – 2006

Scientific discipline Number of

publications Citations

Average number of

citations per

publication

Limit H-index

for top

scientists

Biology 542,513 8,482,803 15.64 18

Chemistry 1,070,973 9339628 8.72 15


29

Economics 140,075 631,644 4.51 5

Pharmaceutics 159,810 1,596,203 9.99 12

Physics 854,823 6,407,290 7.5 13

Mathematics 220,644 611,306 2.77 6

Environmental

sciences 221,284 1,909,148 8.63 12

Earth sciences 245,179 1,950,007 7.95 10

Medical sciences 1,868,486 20,643,979 11.05 15

The publication frequency and the average number of citations per paper

differ for individual scientific disciplines, as shown in Table 6 according to data from

the WoS. If we are to reflect the success of scientists in individual disciplines, this

fact needs to be taken into consideration. Chemical sciences show an average

citation frequency approximately in the centre of the interval. We will analyse this in

a more detailed ARRA report for individual scientific disciplines, which will be

published in the first half of 2008.

Table 7: Number of top scientists

Scientific discipline

Number of scientists

with Ha greater than

the limit

Number of scientists

with a publication cited

more than 100 times

Biology 3 3

Chemistry 21 16

Economics 0 0

Pharmaceutics 2 0

Physics 11 6

Mathematics 12 2

Environmental sciences 0 0

Earth sciences 2 0

Medical sciences 3 3

Table 7 documents the scientific contribution of Slovak scientists to

international science in individual scientific disciplines. The second column of Table 7

shows the number of scientists with an H-index equal to or greater than the limit

value given in Table 6. The greatest number of top scientists are in natural sciences,


30

particularly in chemistry, physics, and mathematics. On the other hand, economics

and environmental sciences do not have a single representative.

The last column of Table 7 shows the number of scientists in individual

scientific disciplines who exceed the limit H-index and at the same time published

a paper cited in the WoS at least 100 times, i.e., except for biology, 10 times more

than the average citation rate. A paper cited more than 100 times is certainly a

significant contribution on the international scale in the given scientific discipline. If

an author has a high H-index and, at the same time, at least one paper cited more

than 100 times, he/she should be considered a “super top” of the Slovak science.

Most authors of such papers are in chemistry. Some of them published several

papers that were cited more than 100 times. Some of them reach 400 citations.

When we take a look at the workplaces of the best scientists in the

disciplines analysed so far, we find that most of them work at Comenius University

(27, i.e., approximately one half of all top scientists identified by us), at the institutes

of the Slovak Academy of Sciences (19) and at the Slovak University of Technology

(7). Scientists with several significant multi-author papers work at Comenius

University and at P. J. Šafárik University. These institutions were built in the long

term as centres of scientific research in Slovakia.

The extensive parameters in Table 5, the number of publications registered

in international databases, clearly document the stagnation of the Slovak science.

Unfortunately, we also lag behind in the performance of top scientists. In our

successful disciplines, in chemistry and physics, we compared top Slovak and Czech

scientists according to the h-index. There are substantially more Czech scientists

exceeding the limit values than suggested by the proportion of both countries’

populations, and absolute values – namely in chemistry – are higher than the

analogous parameters in Slovakia. In the Slovak science, we have only several truly

internationally recognised personalities.

Project “Top Scientists” was kindly supported by


31

4.7.3 Information from the Profesia.sk portal

The quality of higher education cannot be separated from the success of

higher education institutions’ graduates in the labour market. The demand in higher

education institution graduates is the reflection of the reputation that the given

higher education institution or faculty has among the public. This indicates the

quality of the education institution – its teaching as well as scientific part. ARRA

considers the link between the labour market and the education sphere to be crucial

for the increase of the higher education quality as well as for further economic

growth of Slovakia and has therefore viewed the success of graduates in the labour

market, the number of unemployed graduates, and the employers’ opinion as

important indicators of quality of the given higher education institution.

ARRA approached employers with a request of cooperation in creating an

overview of their requirements or preferences in the recruitment of new employees.

This effort of ARRA has not been successful so far. Only few employers were willing

to provide information and even this data was not sufficiently representative to

understand the general situation of graduates in the labour market. On the other

hand, the information on the number of unemployed graduates does not provide a

sufficient picture, as their total number is very low and the distribution among higher

education institutions is rather random.

Due to the above-mentioned reason, ARRA decided to obtain relevant

information from a source other than the employers. It established cooperation with

the Profesia.sk portal, the largest web portal mediating job offers to job seekers. The

services offered by Profesia.sk include an option for the job seekers to send their

standardised curriculum vitae to the portal registry, from which the employers select

appropriate candidates for vacant positions. Since 1 January 2006, approximately

88,000 CV’s were added to the database and 18,000 CV’s were selected by

employers as appropriate for the positions open by them.

This data file is the most important one for ARRA. It does not only show the

structure of job seekers but also provides information as to which job seekers were

sought by the companies. The data processed brought new, previously unpublished

facts about the reputation of education institutions in Slovakia but also about the


32

ratio of supply and demand in the labour market in relation to higher education

institution graduates.

When assessing the indicator “employers’ interest in graduates”, the strong

position of private higher education institutions was apparent, as they dominated the

top ten institutions. After a deeper analysis of the results it can be concluded that it

was significantly influenced by the composition of students and graduates of private

higher education institutions. The students of this kind of institutions include many of

those who study while working and study only to increase their qualification. This

therefore does not involve regular graduates without experience in full-time jobs but

rather people with working experience that is highly appreciated by the employers

and these graduates thus have a comparative advantage against those enrolled in

higher education institutions immediately after completing their secondary education,

that is, against most of the higher education institution graduates.

The discussion on the relation between education and the labour market

includes also the factor of graduates becoming employed within the specialisation

they graduated in. Graduates of faculties of electrical engineering and informatics

rank best. The first ten faculties include as many as 7 faculties with this

specialisation. The other end of this ranking shows faculties with a focus on the

humanities or social sciences, including, for example, faculties of education.

Graduates of these faculties usually get jobs particularly in administration or in other

fields unrelated to the field they graduated in.

What is a surprising finding is the fact that only few primary and secondary

schools seek employees through the Profesia.sk portal. On the one hand, there is a

relatively strong declared interest in the work in the education sector and, on the

other hand, there is the publicised lack of teachers at primary and secondary schools.

Only private primary and secondary schools seek employees on the Internet. A

question arises as to how the recruitment of new staff in public education sector

occurs, these constituting an overwhelming majority of the segment.

The situation in healthcare is somewhat different with no demand on the part

of employers and no supply on the part of job seekers. It can be assumed that

healthcare facilities find new staff using other than public channels.


33

The information obtained from the Profesia.sk portal confirmed the strong

interest of the labour market in technical graduates, particularly in electrical

engineers and computer scientists, and a relative lack of interest in job seekers with

education in the humanities. Comparing the numbers of students of technical and

non-technical disciplines in Slovakia, it can be clearly seen that students do not

attach significant importance to information on career prospects when choosing

higher education institutions.

What is also important for the labour market is the criterion “declared interest

of graduates in job positions”. This indicates the quality of students’ preparation for

the profession as well as the graduates’ loyalty to the specialisation they are

studying. From this viewpoint, the most successful faculties appear to be those of

technology, economics, and law.

Up until now, Slovakia lacked any information on the behaviour of graduates

and employers in the labour market. This ARRA research in cooperation with the

Profesia.sk portal is a pilot project of a longer-term cooperation.

ARRA thanks for the cooperation to portal


34

5. List of appendices

Appendix 1 Frascati manual, classification of faculties

Appendix 2 Classification of indicators into groups and the assessment methodology

Appendix 3 Book publications and journal publications outside of the WoK, weighting, data collection method and the method of their inclusion in the HUM and SOC group assessment

Appendix 4 VV1b and VV1c (note: only the HUM and SOC groups were included in the assessment in the manner explained above)

Appendix 5 Experimental assessment of St. Elizabeth University of Health and Social Sciences

Appendix 6a SV1 – SV4, all graphs and a summary table

Appendix 6b SV6 – SV8, all graphs and a summary table

Appendix 6c VV1 – VV3a, all graphs and a summary table

Appendix 6d VV4 – VV6, all graphs and a summary table

Appendix 6e VV7 – VV10, all graphs and a summary table

Appendix 7 Ranking of faculties and universities from the years 2005 and 2006

Appendix 8 Main results of the student survey

Appendix 9 About the authors and the report

Appendix 10 People at ARRA

assessment hei 2007

Documents

education arra

arra representative

faculties2007 arra

arra thanks

summary arra

board ofadvisors of

previous arra reports1

higher education institutions