1 / 17

Natalya Kryvulina, Andrey Kashyn June, 2009 Astana, Kazakhstan

Natalya Kryvulina, Andrey Kashyn June, 2009 Astana, Kazakhstan. Compass Ranking: General Information. 2. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT.

idalia
Download Presentation

Natalya Kryvulina, Andrey Kashyn June, 2009 Astana, Kazakhstan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Natalya Kryvulina, Andrey Kashyn June, 2009 Astana, Kazakhstan

  2. Compass Ranking: General Information 2

  3. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT Compass is a ranking of Ukrainian higher education institutions by the level of employers' and graduates’ satisfaction with education (knowledge and skills) they receive in Ukrainian universities. Project Initiators Compass Ranking was launched by System Capital Management (SCM) with a support of Rinat Akhmetov's Foundation for Development of Ukraine within the confines of the project "SCM to Higher Education Institutions". Research and Analysis Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) performs methodological and research and analytical work within the framework of the ranking. 3

  4. ABOUT SYSTEM CAPITAL MANAGEMENT • System Capital Management is Ukraine’s leading financial and industrial group operating in four core business areas: • metals and mining, • power generation and distribution, • banking and insurance, • telecommunications.   • SCM Group has revenues in excess of $9.563 billion and over 165,000 employees and is committed to responsible, profitable and sustainable growth. 4

  5. MOTIVATION • Motivation • SCM, one of major employers of Ukraine, understands that due to a lack of fully qualified staff it is necessary to provide a transparent and independent mechanism to assess the terms of development of intellectual potential of the country. • Key reasons for the ranking: • "gap" between the labour market demands and the level of training provided by higher education institutions; • education process oriented approach of the existing system (scientific base, equipment, teaching staff, etc.) instead of practice oriented approach (does the market really need what the teaching staff provides with the help of the base and the equipment?); • lack of a transparent mechanism of public control over the quality of higher education in Ukraine, which could reflect demands of all the stakeholders: employers, university entrants and students. 5

  6. PILOT PROJECT: COMPASS 2008, BRIEF OVERVIEW • The Compass project waslaunched in 2008. • Methodology for the pilot project was developed and submitted tonational and international educationexperts (Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, World Bank) for assessment. 6

  7. EXPERT BOARD • Key Objectives • To ensure transparency, openness and objective nature of the ranking; • Participation in continuous improvement of the ranking procedures; • Assessment of the Compass ranking results. • Expert Board consists of: • the World Bank • Academy of Educational Science • Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine • State Employment Service • Confederation of Employers of Ukraine • Foundation for Effective Governance 7

  8. PARTICIPANTS • Participants of the ranking include higher education institutions (228 - in 2008, 234 - in 2009) of the III-IV levels of accreditation irrespective of their form of ownership, which train specialists and masters in five areas: • management and economic professions, • law, • engineering and technical professions, • information technologies, • architecture/construction. 8

  9. COMPASS RESULTS 2009 • Ranking results are given in the analytical report of the project. • The 2009 Compass results include the following rankings: • Overall ranking of Ukrainian education institutions - 10 places (234 higher education institutions); • Ranking of higher education institutions of Ukraine by areas of training (broken down by 5 selected education areas the most important for the real sector); • Regional rankings of higher education institutions of Ukraine (broken down by 4 regions of Ukraine, which include all the Oblasts). • Compass ranking results 2009 were published in Korrespondent Magazine and Segodnya Newspaper on May 22, 2009. 9

  10. WEBSITE: WWW.YOURCOMPASS.ORG 10

  11. Ranking Methodology 11

  12. 2009 COMPASS CRITERIA • The following criteria were taken into account while constructing ranking "Compass 2009": • Graduates opinion. Opinion of young professionals (universities alumni of 2003-2008) regarding possibilities of obtaining compatible education in the university from which they graduated. This includes such aspects as evaluation of the practical significance of the education, university support in the employment process, working experience of the alumni, satisfaction with their own university and defining by the alumni universities providing the best training in general. • Employers opinion. Employers identify the Ukrainian universities that provide students with the best training for the employment at their company. • Expert opinion. Expert companies identify the best Ukrainian universities providing the best training for the employment at their company. • Cooperation between universities and companies-employers. Number of companies-employers and experts cooperating with universities. 12

  13. CONSTRUCTION OF THE RANKING Total ranking score was calculated as a sum of the weighted scores obtained by the university by each rating criteria: Total ranking score = RC1*W1 + RC2*W2 + RC3*W3 + RC4*W4, where RC – ranking criteria, W – weight of the ranking criteria. A university position in the ranking was determined by the resulting values of the total ranking score. The universities, which have close values of the obtained scores, were grouped together. On the whole, universities in the overall ranking were distributed by 10 positions. In addition to the overall ranking, rankings by training areas and regional rankings were also compiled. 13

  14. WEIGHTS OF THE RANKING CRITERIA Calculation of weights for the ranking criteria Weights were used in the process of integrating ranking criteria into the total ranking score. Factor analysis was carried out with the purpose of calculation of weights for the particular ranking criteria. Ranking weights were calculated on the ground of the received factor scores. 14

  15. Data Collection Methodology 15

  16. DATA COLLECTION • Data collection time frame: February – April 2009. • Research methods: personal and telephone interview, e-mail and on-line survey. • This survey methodology was applied with the aim of reaching the larger number of alumni from various universities and difficult to reach respondents (employers, experts). • Methodology included surveys of the following target groups: • Companies-employers- representatives of 953 companies were interviewed. • Experts - representatives of 331 companies were interviewed. • University alumni – 1129 alumni were interviewed. 16

  17. Thank you for your attention! June, 2009

More Related