University Rankings, Diversity, and the New ... - Sense Publishers

More documents

Recommendations

Info

UNIVERSITY RANKINGS AND LEAGUE TABLES and put the power of ranking in the hands of the consumer by following an ‘any-size-fits-all’ approach. As Merisotis (2002) has noted, university rankings are here to stay. As imperfect as they are, they satisfy a public demand for transparency and information that institutions and governments have not been able to meet on their own. Moreover, as higher education becomes more costly for individuals and families, the demand for comparative information on universities will increase. As a means of delivering that information, however, league tables are only in their infancy, and all of them can clearly benefit from greater analysis of the assumptions implicit in their own schemes. This is particularly the case with respect to international league tables, which have a restricted range of possible indicators due to the lack of available cross-national comparative data. To the extent that international ranking schemes are taking on a quality assurance role in the growing international student market, this suggests that the global higher education community needs to begin to look at how best to collect and report data on institutions so as to permit thoughtful and responsible inter-institutional comparisons. NOTES 1 2 An organization with which both of the present authors are associated. The term stems from UK-based chart listings that were often compared with Premier League professional soccer or football standings in England during the 1990s and can now be found in an extremely wide variety of contexts in Britain today. REFERENCES Dill, D.D. and Soo, M. 2004. Is There a Global Definition of Academic Quality? A Cross-National Analysis of University Ranking Systems. Chapel Hill, NC: Public Policy for Academic Quality Background Paper, University of North Carolina. Finnie, R. and Usher, A. 2005. Measuring the Quality of Post-secondary Education: Concepts, Current Practices and a Strategic Plan. Kingston, Ont.: Canadian Policy Research Networks. Merisotis, J. 2002. “On the Ranking of Higher Education Institutions”. Higher Education in Europe 27(4), 361–363. Pascarella, E. and Terenzini, P. 2005. How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Salmi, J. 2007. Recent Developments in Rankings: Implications for Developing Countries? Presentation given at the 3rd meeting of the International Rankings Expert Group, Shanghai, October 29, 2007. Usher, A. and Savino, M. 2006. A World of Difference. A Global Survey of University League Tables. Toronto: Educational Policy Institute (EPI). NEW RANKINGS CITED IN THIS REPORT Cybermetrics Lab. (2007). Webometrics Ranking of World Universities. Madrid: Cybermetrics Lab. Hermoza Piscoya, L. (2007). Ranking Universitario en el Perú: Plan Piloto. Lima: Asamblea Nacional de Rectores. Linovitskaya, O. et al. (2007). University Ranking in Ukraine. Ukraine: UNESCO-CEPES/Zerkalo Nedeli. 17
USHER AND MEDOW National Accreditation Centre. (2007). Ranking of Leading Higher Education Institutions on Kazakhstan- 2007. Astana: Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Rappoport, D. et al. (2004). Rankings de Universidades Chilenas Según Los Ingresos de Sus Titulados. Agustinas: Banco Central de Chile Documentos de Trabajo. ResearchNed. (2007). De Best Studies 2007-University Colleges. Amsterdam: Elsevier. SCImago Research Group. (2007). Ranking Iberoamericano de Instituciones de Investigacion. Granada/Madrid: SCImago Research Group/www.Universia.com. Steenkamp, F. et al. (2006). Keuzegids Hoger Onderwijs 2006-2007. Leiden: Verzamelgids. Tamkang University. (2003) Academic Ranking of Universities in Taiwan. Taipei: Tamkang University. 18
Page 1 and 2: G L O B A L P E R S P E C T I V E S
Page 3 and 4: GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON HIGHER EDUCA
Page 5 and 6: A C.I.P. record for this book is av
Page 7 and 8: TABLE OF CONTENTS Towards Unified a
Page 9 and 10: STENSAKER AND KEHM There is growing
Page 11 and 12: STENSAKER AND KEHM of higher educat
Page 13 and 14: STENSAKER AND KEHM perspective, the
Page 15 and 16: STENSAKER AND KEHM about their view
Page 17 and 18: STENSAKER AND KEHM according to Mar
Page 19 and 20: STENSAKER AND KEHM Second, and very
Page 22: PART I: METHODOLOGY
Page 25 and 26: USHER AND MEDOW WHAT ARE UNIVERSITY
Page 27 and 28: USHER AND MEDOW With only a few exc
Page 29 and 30: USHER AND MEDOW data from universit
Page 31 and 32: USHER AND MEDOW Table 1. League Tab
Page 33 and 34: USHER AND MEDOW Other regional patt
Page 35 and 36: USHER AND MEDOW RANKINGS WITHOUT LE
Page 37: USHER AND MEDOW currently being und
Page 41 and 42: FEDERKEIL REPUTATION INDICATORS IN
Page 43 and 44: FEDERKEIL In particular, reputation
Page 45 and 46: FEDERKEIL Discipline Reputation sco
Page 47 and 48: FEDERKEIL The relationship between
Page 49 and 50: FEDERKEIL 41% 40% percent of cases
Page 51 and 52: FEDERKEIL 100 THES 2005: repu
Page 53 and 54: FEDERKEIL universities. According t

University Rankings, Diversity, and the New ... - Sense Publishers

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?