中国大学综合实力排行榜排名方法的比较分析——基于高等教育机构排名柏林原则的视角

高等教育机构排名的柏林原则是国际大学排名机构的基本评价准则。以16项柏林原则为基准，以武书连榜、校友会榜、邱均平榜、软科榜的相关排名方法资料为比较分析对象，逐项对照、分析比较，给予五级等距吻合度评判。研究结果显示，武书连榜获4A、3D，校友会榜获3A、2D，邱均平榜获2A、3D，软科榜获4A、3D。基于对各排行榜的评判和对获得A级和D级的分析，对排名机构提出了两方面的建议：一是应参照柏林原则，自查自纠，改进排名方法，提高排名的规范性；二是应使用《IREG排名审计手册》开展自我审计，有条件者可向IREG学术排名和卓越协会申请排名审计。     

大学排名的影响与作用分析——以“世界大学学术排名”为例

大学排名已成为一种全球性现象,世界上几乎所有高等教育规模较大的国家都有大学排名存在。由于排名从宏观上提供了大学问可比的、有时甚至是关键的信息,在一定程度上满足了外界和大学自身了解大学的需求,因此能够长期存在并产生巨大影响。本文以上海交通大学高等教育研究所发布的"世界大学学术排名"为案例,分析了大学排名活动在经济全球化和高等教育国际化背景下所发挥的作用和产生的影响.     

甄别卓越——德国CHE卓越排名评析

德国CHE卓越排名是对欧洲高校各学科进行排名从而甄别卓越的评价体系,其为欧洲各高校的学科发展提供了可供参考的质量指标。借鉴CHE卓越排名的方法、内容及过程,我国重点学科遴选及学科排名要适时调整,适当考虑服务对象的明晰、排名方法的创新、排名结果的透明和发布平台的普及,充分发挥排名的引导作用。     

The Academic Ranking of World Universities

Shanghai Jiao Tong University1 1. Read about this key university in China at ?http://www.sjtu.edu.cn/www/english/?. View all notes has published on the Internet an Academic Ranking of World Universities that has attracted worldwide attention. Institutions are ranked according to academic or research performance and ranking indicators include major international awards, highly cited researchers in important fields, articles published in selected top journals and/or indexed by major citation indexes, and performance per capita. Methodological problems discussed here include quantitative versus qualitative evaluation, assessing research versus education, the variety of institutions, the language of publications, selection of awards, etc. Technical problems such as the definition and naming of institutions, the merging and splitting of institutions, and the search for and attribution of publications are discussed.     

Impact of excellence programs on Taiwan higher education in terms of quality assurance and academic excellence, examining the conflicting role of Taiwan’s accrediting agencies

Higher Education Evaluation & Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT) was established in 2005 and began to accredit 76 four-year comprehensive universities and colleges in Taiwan in 2006. Commissioned officially with a dual mission, HEEACT has been encouraged to conduct various ranking research projects, including global and national ones starting in 2007. One of the HEEACT’s most influential rankings is “Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities.” Given the fact that more and more national accrediting bodies are developing ranking systems, these dual roles like in the HEEACT case have led to many discussions and raised severe criticism in the quality assurance community due to their different aims and approaches. Therefore, the purposes of the paper are to provide an understanding of the functions of varying quality assessment tools in higher education, to analyze their impact on Taiwan higher education and to examine the conflicting roles of HEEACT while conducting both accreditation and rankings over the institutions that have been granted the two major national Research and Teaching Excellence Programs.     

Global university rankings and their impact on the internationalisation of higher education

Global university rankings are a worldwide trend that emerged in times of the globalisation and internationalisation of higher education. Universities worldwide are now striving to become “world‐class” institutions and are constantly aiming to improve their ranking position. Global rankings of universities are thus perceived by many as an ultimate tool for assessing the level of internationalisation at individual higher education institutions. This article first discusses the meaning of and relationship between the globalisation and internationalisation of higher education, as their influence on the emergence of global rankings is undeniable. It then outlines the methodological designs of four main global university rankings which serve as key prerequisites for the subsequent analyses of both the international(‐isation) indicators that these rankings include and of the international ranking initiatives that focus exclusively on the international outlook of higher education institutions. In the concluding discussion, the article reveals that, due to the predominantly quantitative orientation of global university rankings (on the internationalisation of higher education), their results should not be generalised or understood as a means to improve the quality of (internationalisation of) higher education.     

Internationale Hochschulrankings

Despite disagreement about their validity, reliability and effects, international rankings of universities have become widely used by students and higher education institutions. This article compares three international rankings of universities and analyzes, based on the academic literature, the extent to which they assess relevant aspects of teaching and research and whether these aspects are measured adequately. We study the Academic Ranking of World Universities published by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, the World University Ranking published by the British magazine Times Higher Education Supplement and the Excellence Ranking published by the German Centre for Higher Education Development (CHE). The analysis is based on the academic literature about these international rankings and the publications by the rankings’ publishers. We draw conclusions about the design of rankings and develop further research questions.     

中国大学排名的目的、困惑与出路

中国大学排名真正开展始于1987年,在10余年的发展历程中,全面引进吸收了西方大学排名的经验,开展了广泛深入的大学排名活动,初步建立了中国大学排名的体系,以民间大学排名为主体、以大学综合排名为主要内容的排名工作已经规模化。目前,主要在排名主体资质、排名指标体系、排名信息获取、排名结果公布等方面存在许多争议。未来的发展趋势是:寻求高等教育大众化条件下大学排名的多元化发展道路。     

Creating a common grammar for European higher education governance

This paper addresses the interaction between European Union policies and national higher education sectors in the countries involved in the TRUE project (England, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and Switzerland) making the case for European governance. Relevant for this matter is the role of political processes that evolve at European level shaping political discourses and practices, thus creating a common grammar for European higher education governance. By empirically focusing on evaluation and funding policies the paper argues that European governance reflects in how this common grammar is being created and reconfiguring the environment within which European higher education systems and institutions are developing.     

大学排名：功能及其局限

大学排名在一定程度上反映了高等教育的质量,满足了公众对大学透明度和信息的需求。但同时,大学排名也可能诱使高校趋同发展,产生片面的导向。改进大学排名应明确排名的目的、作用;使用多渠道数据全面评价;将评价指标重心落在产出上;对排名进行分类,使用有差别的指标体系;建立适当的监督或顾问机构。     

Identifying the Best Buys in U.S. Higher Education

Which U.S. institutions of higher education offer the best value to consumers? To answer this question, we evaluate U.S. institutions relative to a data envelopment analysis (DEA) multi-factor frontier based on 2000?C2001 data for 1,179 4-year institutions. The resulting DEA ??best buy?? scores allow the ranking of institutions by a weighted sum of institutional characteristics per dollar of average net price. The net price is calculated as tuition, fees, room, and board less per student financial aid. Institutional characteristics include SAT score, athletic expenditures, instructional expenditures, value of buildings, dorm capacity, and student body characteristics. The DEA scores indicate the distance of each institution from the ??best buy?? frontier for the chosen characteristics, providing an objective means of ranking institutions as the best values in higher education.     

Towards the In‐College Evaluation of TEC Programmes

Abstract

The advent of the single European market has generated new demands for training and consultancy, and many further and higher education institutions have been anxious to exploit the commercial opportunities that have been created. In general, however, institutions have been more successful in providing training for the public sector than they have been for the private sector. A survey of FHE reveals the kinds of single‐market training that are on offer, and suggests that the training that is available needs to be more precisely geared to the requirements of business if colleges and universities are to make further inroads into the private sector. It is argued that much training is currently ‘supply led’ rather than ‘demand led’, and that institutions need to recognise important differences between information needs, skills needs and qualifications needs in the design of their single market provision. There are, however, examples of good practice, and institutions’ perceptions of their own needs in improving their European training are also discussed. The article concludes with some practical steps that institutions might consider in order to improve their single‐market training.

‘The training performance of industry and commerce in this country must be raised to meet the greater commitment and higher standards of other European countries.’

The words belong to the then Minister for Further and Higher Education, Robert Jackson, and were spoken in 1990 at the launch of the Department of Education and Science‐funded PICKUP Europe Unit ‐‐ an initiative designed to help further and higher education (FHE) to meet the training needs of industry and business in anticipation of the changes heralded by the single European market (SEM). Helping industry and business to respond to the challenges of the enlarged European market fitted well into the PICKUP scheme, which was intended to encourage FHE institutions to make their expertise and resources available for the purposes of updating and reskilling the labour force. It reflected the Government's desire to build a stronger link between education and wealth creation, and to foster competence‐based, as well as knowledge‐based, aspects of educational provision. The 282 measures associated with completion of the single market have made it increasingly important that workers at all levels are familiar with the new Europe in which they will produce goods and services, but just how effectively are further and higher education institutions facing up to their own challenge, and providing the ‘training for Europe’ that is considered so important in ensuring that British businesses exploit the opportunities of the single market?     

欧洲学分转换系统与俄罗斯高校的学分制改革

为应对全球化和市场经济的挑战,俄罗斯高等教育系统积极学习、借鉴欧洲高等教育发展的经验.实行欧洲学分转换系统是欧洲高等教育空间一体化建设的重要举措.本文在介绍欧洲学分转换系统基本特征的基础上,对俄罗斯利用欧洲学分转换系统改革高校教学过程组织模式的原因及措施进行了阐述.     

Shifting fundaments of European higher education governance: competition,ranking, autonomy and accountability

In the present study we provide an interpretation of a general narrative of transnational governance of higher education. All the elements of the narrative – competition, ranking autonomy and accountability – are visibly present in contemporary higher education policy agenda. We examine these not as separate ideas and practices but as an interlinked whole, bringing an amount of coherence to transnational governance of higher education in Europe. All the elements, as they are currently represented in policy statements by the European higher education establishment, are premised on social atomist ontology and ideology of competition. Consequently, drawing on textual evidence we argue that the recent trend for increasing universities' institutional autonomy and accountability has been justified by reference to competitive logic, which, in turn, has been strengthened by the practice of comparative ranking. The article contributes to diagnosing potential misconceptions that frame the current higher education policy-making in Europe.     

The Times/The Times Higher Education Supplement --League Tables in Britain: An Insider's View

The Times has been a pioneer in the publication of university league tables in the United Kingdom as an aid to the application process for young people seeking to select the most appropriate course programmes and institutions. It published its unified league table for the first time in 1993. The Times Higher Education Supplement, a weekly newspaper under the same ownership, has complemented The Times operation by publishing simultaneously the data on which The Times ranking is based. These data are intended specifically for consumption by a readership drawn from among academics and administrators in the universities and other higher education institutions of the country. The underlying philosophy of The Times/The Times Higher Education Supplement operation is to reflect the greatest degree of objectivity using publicly available and verifiable data as proxies for measures of performance across a range of criteria. The methodology is subject to continuous review in consultation with the universities.     

Where Are the Global Rankings Leading Us? An Analysis of Recent Methodological Changes and New Developments

This article is based on the analysis of the changes in global university rankings and the new ‘products’ based on rankings data in the period since mid-2011. It is a summary and continuation of the European University Association (EUA)-commissioned report ‘Global University Rankings Their Impact, Report II’ which was launched in April 2013. It covers the changes in the ranking methodologies which have been the most visible in the CWTS Leiden Ranking and Webometrics and which have replaced some indicators with newly designed ones. Changes have been made in other rankings as well, but they are less visible. A new U21 ranking was launched in 2012. It is an attempt to rank national higher education systems rather than individual universities. New rankings by conventional ranking providers have demonstrated that in reputation rankings or reputation indicators the scores drop even more sharply than in the most élitist rankings and therefore can be used for even narrower groups of universities. Several ranking providers have started their own data collections and combine ranking data with the data from the newly established data collections and use them for several multi-indicator classifications or profiling tools. QS has been most productive and has added not only classification and profiling tools, but has also launched a ranking of student cities, and ‘stars’ that universities can obtain. Generally, the rankings’ impact is growing. Let us see where it will bring us. At the same time, some rankings providers have changed language and explain the biases, flaws and misunderstandings created through misuse of rankings or using ranking indicators without proper knowledge.     

Impact evaluation from quality assurance agencies’ perspectives: methodological approaches,experiences and expectations

Starting from the main objective of external quality assurance (EQA) procedures to assure and improve the quality of higher education institutions and its provisions, the paper examines expected impacts of EQA procedures on institutions from the perspectives of three European quality assurance agencies. First, the paper examines the expected impacts of different standard parts of a typical peer review procedure on higher education institutions and assesses when a procedure is most likely to have an effect on the institution. The second part presents the current practices of the three EQA agencies, AQU Catalunya (Spain), Evaluationsagentur Baden-Württemberg (evalag) (Germany) and the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (Finland) on assessing the impact of their EQA procedures.