Difficulties and Possibilities of University Rankings in Hungary

1. Difficulties and Possibilities of University Rankings in Hungary Magdolna Orosz (Eötvös Loránd University Budapest, Hungary) Academic cooperation and competitiveness. University ranking methodologies Babes-Bolyai University, 17 – 20 September 2009

2. Importance of University Rankings • growing importance of rankings: • restructuring of university education in Europe / worldwide (Bologna Process) • increasing the relevance of high quality degrees on the job market • funding of higher education and its institutions • strategy/policy for universities

3. Changes and Challenges • before 1950: • publicly subsidized higher education system limited to a small fraction of the population • in the past few decades: • transformation of that elite model into a mass higher education system, with enrollment levels often exceeding 50 percent cf. Ben W. Ansell (2008: 189)

4. Changes and Challenges Higher education policy in the OECD: • trilemma among: • the level of enrollment, • the degree of subsidization, • the overall public cost of higher education • choice among: • mass enrollment • full subsidization • relatively low public total cost

5. Changes and Challenges • 3 models: • the partially private model: mass, partially private, inexpensive higher education system • the mass public model: mass, fully public, expensive higher education system • the elite model: inexpensive, publicly funded, elite higher education system (cf. Ansell 2008: 190)

6. Dilemmas for Hungary • Hungary before 1990: • Elite model (without subsidizing high[er] quality) • restricted access to higher education: some aspects of quality excellence combined with political and social factors/considerations • Hungary after 1990: • moving towards the mass (dominantly public [subsidized]) model • 70 HEIs in Hungary • 2009: 400,000 students enrolled in HEIs • since 2006: Bologna system BA + MA + PhD • 2009: starting MA-level courses

7. Dilemmas for Hungary/HEIs • Conflicting exigences and expectations: • quality vs. quantity • elite vs. mass education • academic vs. professional education • BA/BSc vs. MA/MSc + PhD • research university vs. “mass” university • competitive (research) funding vs. (full) public funding • globalisation vs. localisation/regionalisation • “globalized” disciplines (Sciences) vs. “localized” disciplines (Social Sciences/Humanities)

8. Rankings • importance of rankings: • for the HEIs – for the students – for higher education policy makers – for the job market • mutual relations between these stakeholders • on the basis of different/divergent aspects • research excellence • educational excellence • users’ judgments • variable combinations of ranking aspects

9. International Rankings • ARWU (Academic Ranking of World Universities) – Shanghai Ranking (since 2004) • Ranking criteria: • Alumni of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (10%); • Staff of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (20%); • Highly cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories (20%); Articles published in Nature and Science (20%); • Articles indexed in Science Citation Index-expanded, and Social Citation Index (20%); • per capita academic performance of an institution (10%); • 2008: ELTE – 303-400 (+ University of Szeged) • Main features:ranking of research performance, no ranking of education, no evaluation of institutional infrastructure/users’ assessment

10. International Rankings • The Times Higher Education Ranking – THE-QS World University Rankings • 6 distinct indicators: • Academic Peer Review (in 5 subject areas) (40%); Employer Review (10%); Faculty Student Ratio (20%); Citations per Faculty (20%); International Faculty (5%), International Students (5%) • Ranking 2008: ELTE: 401-500 (in the Ranking of European Universities: 195) • Main features: mixed criteria (research excellence – educational excellence + internalization)

11. International Rankings • Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers of World Universities – by Higher Education Evaluation and the Accreditation Council of Taiwan (since 2007) • bibliometric methods – indicators: • 1) research productivity:  number of articles; • 2) research impact: number of citations; • 3) research excellence:  H-index, Highly Cited Papers, articles in high-impact journals • Hungary: Semmelweis University 415 (worldwide)/185 (Europe), ELTE: 463/204 • Main feature: ranking only by research excellence criteria

12. International Rankings • Webometrics Ranking of World Universities: global performance and visibility • web presence reflecting the activities of universities • Indicators: size; visibility; rich files; Scholar • Web performance = / ≠ academic excellence → consequences for university policy • Top 500: Technical Univ. Budapest = 276, ELTE = 296

13. International Rankings • LERU (League of European Research Universities): 20 members • invitation: quantitative and qualitative analysis in a two-stage process: • 1) basic data (number of faculties, faculty staff, students, PhD degrees; scientific publications; science and technology indicatiors; competitively funded research (international + national level); academy membership; national and international awards • 2) size of faculties; postgraduate (PhD) training; total competitive research funding from external resources (in relation to faculty size); postdoctoral programs; undergraduate programs • Main features: mixed criteria

14. European Rankings • Centre for Higher Education Development: • user-centered, multidimensional, considering trends, grouping approach • CHERPA-Network (Consortium for Higher Education and Research Performance Assessment) • purposes: • alternative design for a global ranking of universities • to measure higher education’s core functions of research, teaching and outreach • to provide a valid, fair comparison of institutions

15. Rankings in Hungary • OFIK (National Higher Education Information Centre) • multiple criteria, on the basis of information from HEIs, students’ assessments, faculty evaluation, fields of study considered – basis for other rankings • HVG (weekly economic journal): • 2 main criteria: student excellence, academic staff excellence + students’ questionnaires, job market evaluations • Népszabadság Top 40 (national broadsheet): • on the basis of HEIs information, mixed criteria (education, staff and research excellence, infrastructure, internationalization • Hungarian Top 10 universities: mostly large (comprehensive) universities with long educational and research traditions

16. Rankings and Higher Education Policy • usefulness of rankings (cf. the dilemmas) • for higher education government: excellence vs. mass higher education – or perhaps their combination? • for HEIs: information about strengths and weaknesses, about (international) trends – one of the ”tools” for defining university policy, strategic decisions for becoming/staying excellent • for students’ side: influencing decisions • for the job market: information about the potential value of degrees, trends – possibility/ need for feedback to HEIs • rankings: • no exclusive tool, in combination with others • need refining with respect to institutional, national and regional tendencies

17. Rankings – A Comparisonfor Reconsidering Dilemmas

18. Thank you for your attention!