1 / 41

league tables as policy instruments: the political economy of accountability in tertiary education

league tables as policy instruments: the political economy of accountability in tertiary education. Jamil Salmi and Alenoush Saroyan CIEP, 18-20 June 2006. Lexus-Nexus index on rankings. The rankings business. A ranking of league tables September 10, 2005. outline of the presentation.

ipo
Download Presentation

league tables as policy instruments: the political economy of accountability in tertiary education

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. league tables as policy instruments: the political economy of accountability in tertiary education Jamil Salmi and Alenoush Saroyan CIEP, 18-20 June 2006

  2. Lexus-Nexus index on rankings

  3. The rankings business A ranking of league tables September 10, 2005

  4. outline of the presentation • typology of rankings • a world of controversies • do rankings measure quality? • policy implications

  5. typology of rankings:how is it done? • statistical indicators • produced by institutions • publicly available • survey of “stakeholders” • employers • professors • students • combination of both

  6. typology of rankings: what does it apply to? • entire institution or specific program • gives a global score or measures several dimensions separately • research or teaching / learning

  7. cluster of indicators in league tables as measures of quality • beginning characteristics • learning inputs- staff • learning inputs- resources • learning outputs • final outcomes • research • reputation

  8. who prepares the ranking? • A = government agency (Ministry of Higher Education, Higher Education Commission, University Grants Council, etc.) • B = independent organization / professional association / university • C = newspaper / magazine / media • D = accreditation agency • I = International ranking (IA, IB, IC and ID linking the international dimension to the type of institution conducting the ranking)

  9. ranking systems in 2006

  10. outline of the presentation • typology of rankings • a world of controversies

  11. a thin line between love and hate

  12. a thin line between love and hate • disagreement with principle (“Anglo-Saxon” exercise)

  13. a thin line between love and hate • disagreement with principle (“Anglo-Saxon” exercise) • criticism of methodology

  14. a thin line between love and hate • disagreement with principle (“Anglo-Saxon” exercise) • criticism of methodology • boycotts

  15. boycotts

  16. boycotts • Asiaweek • US News and World Report • McLeans

  17. a thin line between love and hate • disagreement with principle (“Anglo-Saxon” exercise) • criticism of methodology • boycotts (Asiaweek, USA) • court actions (New Zealand, Holland)

  18. outline of the presentation • typology of rankings • a world of controversies • do rankings measure quality?

  19. But do they measure quality? • quality a moving target; Illusive definition • mutlidimensional construct; unidimensional score (subjective weights to indicators) • theoretical justification of measures and methodology • empirical support for indicators

  20. other shortcomings • methodological flaws • lesser emphasis on outcome indicators • few meaningful indicators to assess teaching quality • one size fits all: general disregard for non-research universities and non-university institutions • encourages universities to adjust method of data reporting

  21. and the winner is …

  22. the Anglo-Saxon factor

  23. THES 60 out of top 100 51 31 3 12 1 3 2 2 SJTU 68 of top 100 53 11 4 US UK Canada Australia N.Z. HK Singapore India the “English” factor in the 2005 rankings

  24. outline of the presentation • typology of rankings • a world of controversies • do rankings measure quality? • policy implications

  25. usefulness of rankings? • for the Government? • for the institutions? • for the public?

  26. government use of rankings • Pakistan case

  27. government use of rankings • Pakistan case • promoting a culture of accurate and transparent information

  28. government use of rankings • Pakistan case • promoting a culture of accurate and transparent information • promoting a culture of quality

  29. from the viewpoint of institutions • sensitive to factors that affect their rankings (benchmarking) • goal setting for strategic planning purposes • forming strategic alliances

  30. applying public pressure • Provão

  31. applying public pressure • Provão • France

  32. applying public pressure • Provão • France • Colombia

  33. conclusion: divisive or helpful?

  34. conclusion: divisive or helpful?

  35. conclusion: divisive or helpful? • rankings are here to stay • useful for prospective students • useful in the absence of an established evaluation and/or accreditation system • useful for benchmarking, goal-setting and self-improvement purposes • useful to conduct a healthy debate on issues and challenges • useful to promote a culture of accountability

  36. principles of an appropriate ranking instrument • compare similar institutions • better to focus on program than on entire institution • better to rank by indicator than wholesale (Germany – Pakistan) • better to focus on results rather than inputs (labor market outcomes, publications, patents) • better if used for self-improvement purposes • better to advertise results publicly than to keep them secret

More Related