我国创建世界一流大学路径探究——基于世界大学排名分析

文章阐述了英国QS世界大学排名、英国THE世界大学排名、美国USNEWS全球最佳大学排名以及中国ARWU世界大学学术排名等全球公认的四大排行榜体系的基本情况与特点,分析了不同指标体系的特点。同时,结合2016年最新数据,比较了中国大学排行榜中前20所中国内地高校在四大排行榜中的排名情况。在此基础上提出了我国建设世界一流大学和一流学科的几点思考。     

大学排名的一致性研究——以QS、THE、USNews、ARWU四个排行榜为例

大学排行榜层出不穷,良莠不齐,一所高校在不同排行榜中位次不尽相同,有时差异巨大。本文以QS、THE、USNews、ARWU 四个国内比较普遍关注的世界大学排行榜2016 年度发布的排名数据为基础,计算同一高校在四个排行榜中排名结果的标准差值,分析高校在多个排行中排名结果的一致性,并对排名位次和排名结果进行了关联分析。     

最新大学学科排名改写大学排行榜?

目前受全世界范围公认的世界大学排名主要有:QS世界大学排名、THE泰晤士世界大学排名、U.S.News世界大学排名、ARWU世界大学排名。这四大排名分别从不同侧面分析一个大学的教育水平。但正如表多了就搞不清哪个时间准确一样,到底参考哪个大学排行榜呢?一、教育部学科评估全国第四轮学科评估结果中,第四次学科评估。     

五种世界大学排行榜比较研究

本文对上海交通大学世界大学学术排名（ARWU）、武汉大学中国科学评价研究中心世界大学排行榜（RCCSE）、泰晤士报高等教育世界大学排行榜（THE）、Quacquarelli Symonds 世界大学排行榜（QS）和美国新闻与世界报道世界大学排行榜（USNews）五种国际国内知名度较高的世界大学排行榜进行深入分析,比较了它们的评价目的、指标体系和权重分配以及影响,解释了各自特点,从国际和国家层面深入探讨外界对世界大学排行榜的质疑,并为世界大学评价的改进和用户使用排行榜提供了一些建议。     

俄罗斯高校离世界一流还有多远? ——基于世界大学排行榜最新结果的分析

俄罗斯自21世纪伊始便开启向世界一流大学目标迈进的加速模式.基于QS、THE和ARWU世界大学及学科排行榜单中近五年排名结果可发现,俄罗斯高校整体排名前移,传统优势学科继续保持,这与政府和大学双方努力密切相关.但仍存在问题,如在不同排行榜中的成绩参差不齐;在众多新兴前沿学科方面表现欠佳等.这与俄罗斯争创世界一流大学过程中面临的现实困境不无相关:首先,西方话语主导下的国际教育市场与俄罗斯传统学术建制不相适应;其次,俄罗斯政府的高教改革计划因经济原因难有充足的资金支持;最后,在各大世界大学排行榜尤为重视科研指标的情况下,俄罗斯高校科研传统薄弱,综合实力欠佳.因此,俄罗斯高校无论从形式还是实质上迈入世界一流大学之列并形成规模性影响力均道阻且长.     

世界一流大学的“共性”特征——基于“ARWU”、“THE”与“QS”排行榜的分析

2003年6月,ARWU首次发布世界大学排名,其初衷是为了找到中国顶级大学在世界大学中的位置及其与世界一流大学之间的差距,为建设世界一流大学提供参考。ARWU偏好注重科学研究的研究型大学,这使得一些专注本科教育的大学(如美国的文理学院)名次普遍偏低。2010年后各自独立发布世界大学排名的THE与QS,由于"师承同宗",两者的指标体系几近相同,都包含了科研、教学和国际化程度三项指标,并加入了学术声誉等定性指标,在不同程度上弥补了ARWU单纯采用定量指标的不足。三个排行榜不同的指标设计及权重分配,导致同一所大学在不同榜单上的不同表现,但哈佛大学、斯坦福大学、麻省理工学院、剑桥大学、普林斯顿大学、加州理工学院、牛津大学等7所大学同时出现在三大榜单前10名中,且在历年排名中名次基本稳定。这7所大学之所以成为世界一流大学的样板,存在一系列共性特征:拥有世界领先的科研成果、一流的教师队伍、优质的生源、超凡的人才培养能力、充裕的财政投入、优良的硬件设施以及高水平的国际化程度等。建设世界一流大学,既要参照世界一流大学的"共性"特征,也要避免盲目跟从。遵循教育规律,创造性地传承民族传统文化,借鉴人类高等教育改革发展的文明成果,积极探索中国化的世界一流大学之路。     

中国高校91个学科跻身世界百强

近年来,中国高校的科研水平持续提高,不断有新的高校出现在世界大学排名的榜单之中。 根据英国QS世界大学学科排名,2013年我国已有13所学校的91个学科进入世界百强。英国的THE—QS世界大学排名中,我国有7所大学进入前200强。在“世界大学学术排名”（ARWU）中,我国大学在学术研究上进入世界500强学校的数量快速增长,2004年只有8所大学,到2012年有27所。     

焦点数字

最新全球大学排行榜(北大47,清华54)英国高等教育调查机构QS公司近日公布了2010世界大学排行榜,剑桥大学首次击败哈佛大学,成为全球排名第一的最高学府.据悉,亚洲地区排名最高的是香港大学,排名第23,日本东京大学紧随其后,排名第24.中国内地共有2所大学挤进世界前100名,北京大学排名第47,清华大学则排名第54。     

焦点数字

最新全球大学排行榜（北大47,清华54）英国高等教育调查机构QS公司近日公布了2010世界大学排行榜,剑桥大学首次击败哈佛大学,成为全球排名第一的最高学府．据悉．亚洲地区排名最高的是香港大学．排名第23,日本东京大学紧随其后,排名第24．中国内地共有2所大学挤进世界前100名,北京大学排名第47,清华大学则排名第54．     

全球大学排名:高等教育作为一个市场

全球化经济背景下的高等教育形成了一个市场,以市场需求为导向。大学排名可以方便高等教育消费者透明、有效地获取高校的信息并进行直观比较。随着知识经济竞争的加剧与全球化发展,大学排名演进成全球性的排名。本文引入目前最为普及的3个全球大学排行榜——上海交通大学"世界大学学术排名"(ARWU)、QS世界大学排名、THE世界大学排名。通过辨析其与高校评估之区别,阐述了大学排名作为"商标"或"品牌"的市场性特点。同时,全球大学排名有利于高等教育的质量保障,但指标设计不当与对"世界一流大学"的盲目追求很可能会对各国高等教育质量的战略发展造成方向性误导与阻碍。     

University Rankings and Social Science

University rankings widely affect the behaviours of prospective students and their families, university executive leaders, academic faculty, governments and investors in higher education. Yet the social science foundations of global rankings receive little scrutiny. Rankings that simply recycle reputation without any necessary connection to real outputs are of no common value. It is necessary that rankings be soundly based in scientific terms if a virtuous relationship between performance and ranking is to be established, the worst potentials of rankings are to be constrained, and rankings are optimised as a source of comparative information. This article evaluates six ranking systems, Shanghai ARWU, Leiden University, QS, Scopus, Times Higher Education and U-Multirank, according to six social science criteria and two behavioural criteria. The social science criteria are materiality (rankings must be grounded in the observable higher education world), objectivity (opinion surveys should not be used), externality (ranked universities should not be a source of data about themselves), comprehensiveness (rankings should cover the broadest possible range of functions), particularity (ranking systems should eschew multi-indicators with weights, or proxy measures) and ordinal proportionality (vertical distinctions between universities should not be exaggerated). The behavioural criteria are the alignment of the ranking with tendencies to improved performance of all institutions and countries, and transparency, meaning accessibility to strategy making designed to maximize institutional position. The pure research rankings rate well overall but lack comprehensiveness. U-Multirank is also strong under most criteria but stymied by its 100 per cent reliance on subjective data collected via survey.     

大学排名的发展和两大世界大学排行榜指标比较

随着高等教育的成熟和发展,大学排行榜由美国首先产生,并席卷到世界各国。美国、英国、中国等国通过国际间合作或自己的研究都先后开展了大学排名的工作,本文追述世界大学排行榜发展的历史,比较目前最著名的《泰晤士报·高等教育副刊》的THE排行榜和国际高等教育资讯机构Quacquarelli Symonds公司的排行榜的两大世界大学排名指标体系,为我校进行大学排行榜的研究提供参考。     

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.     

科学英才的机构迁移与大学竞争力的关系

文章以汤姆森高引用科学家数据库中2430名高被引科学家为样本,以上海交通大学ARWU排名为大学竞争力的依据,对科学英才的机构迁移与大学竞争力的关系进行分析发现:竞争力越强的大学汇集的科学英才数量越多;大学竞争力越强,从校外招聘的科学英才比例越低;且大学竞争力越强,科学英才留下来的可能性越大。同时针对中国研究型大学师资队伍建设中存在的问题提出如下建议:加强世界一流大学建设,优化人才引进的环境;注重研究生教育质量,提高自我培育高水平师资的能力。     

Language games: University responses to ranking metrics

League tables of universities that measure performance in various ways are now commonplace, with numerous bodies providing their own rankings of how institutions throughout the world are seen to be performing on a range of metrics. This paper uses Lyotard's notion of language games to theorise that universities are regaining some power over being placed on league tables by creating narratives that manipulate their rankings to promote their own strengths. This paper examines the findings of a study involving university responses to global rankings throughout 2016 produced by two major ranking bodies, Times Higher Education and QS Top Universities. The existing literature has established that ranking tables can be used as a vehicle for humiliation and can produce terrors for all those involved. Thus, the significance of this study's findings is in new ways of theorising university responses to appearing on league tables at a time when academia is a high‐stakes activity where institutions’ abilities are measured and reported on at a global scale.     

Defining standards for rankings: An investigation of global university rankings according to the Berlin Principles

The role of universities as the engines of knowledge-based economies drives global internationalisation of higher education. This contributes to a competitive environment where higher education rankings indicate market value. Even though rankings are influential and are used a lot, ranking systems have been heavily critiqued. One of the problems is that there are few if any external checks on how rankings are created. The purpose of the study on which this article reports was to evaluate ranking systems. Within the scope of the study, we have sought to reveal to what extent current ranking systems comply with the Berlin Principles—prepared to create certain rules for rankings, and to ensure that rankings represent quality. A document analysis of publicly available documents online was carried out together with a review of printed and electronic publications on ranking systems. An evaluation form was prepared and used in this study for field experts to fill in. Findings show that ranking systems comply with the Berlin Principles in terms of methodology, transparency, and acceptability at a level that ranges from moderate to low. Overall, rankings do not consider differences in higher education and are not transparent about the processes by which rankings are developed. Rankings should for this reason be interpreted carefully and methodological weaknesses of rankings that can lead to false inferences should be recognised.     

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.     

世界大学排名发展现状及其评价研究

近年来,大学排名备受关注,引发了社会各界对应该如何评价大学的思考。世界大学排名到底有多少？ 他们之间的联系和区别是什么？ 大学排名需要遵循什么基本原则？ 针对这些问题,本文通过梳理国内外各大排行榜的相关信息,对各大排行榜进行评价,使大家能理性看待各大排行榜。     

世界大学排名方法解构与比较研究——基于THE与QS的分析

针对当前国内每一次大学排行榜公布时都会引发质疑的情况,本文试图以国际上享有较高声誉的THE和QS推出的2011世界大学排名为例,解构THE和QS大学排名方法,并从指标选取、指标赋权、数据采集及数据处理四个维度对排名方法进行比较分析,同时对排名方法的发展趋势进行预判。