1 / 18

UNIVERSITIES EVALUATIONS AND RANKINGS Philippe VINCKE

UNIVERSITIES EVALUATIONS AND RANKINGS Philippe VINCKE Rector of the Université Libre de Bruxelle s. Evolution of higher Education. New Actors of higher education and research Increasing mobility of students and researchers Accountability of the universities, transparency

traci
Download Presentation

UNIVERSITIES EVALUATIONS AND RANKINGS Philippe VINCKE

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. UNIVERSITIES EVALUATIONS AND RANKINGS Philippe VINCKE Rector of the Université Libre de Bruxelles

  2. Evolution of higher Education • New Actors of higher education and research • Increasing mobility of students and researchers • Accountability of the universities, transparency • Evaluations, comparisons, rankings

  3. Criticisms of the existing rankings (1) • Competencies of the authors of the rankings • Impossibility, for the reader, to reconstruct and verify the results (rankings are not« scientific ») • No information about the goals, the intended uses, the aimed public • Precise definition of « university » : are they all comparable ?

  4. Criticisms of the existing rankings (2) • Choice of the criteria and of their relative importance • Research • Education • Costs • Services • Social aspects • National context, legislation • Financial ressources • Choice of the indicators • Data validation

  5. Criticisms of the existing rankings (3) • Bibliometry • Quality of the data • Discrimination among the scientific fields • Different traditions (journals, books, proceedings, number of authors, time span of valid research) • Supremacy of the publications in English • Which indicators ? (IF, citation index, h index, …) • Experts • Do they exist ? • How to choose them ? • Which questions ? How to treat the answers ?

  6. Numerical « manipulations » (1) • How is it possible to imagine that complex objects such as universities can be characterized by one number ? • The weighted mean can exclude good candidates Example : A 41 97 B 100 38 C 68 68 • Curious effects of normalization

  7. RANKING : A, F, C, H, E,B,G,D

  8. RANKING : A,D,G,B,E,H,C,F

  9. Before : A, F, C, H, E, B, G, D • One modification of the score of A on one criterion. • No change in the scores of the other universities • After :A, D, G, B, E, H, C, F • Inverse ranking !!

  10. Other comments • Rankings are contested but used • Rankings have an influence on reality • Excesses are possible (financial bonus, or incitements,…) • Standardization effect

  11. Conclusions • The rankings relayed by the media are not scientifically valid at this stage • Evaluation of research and higher education is a necessity • But it must be realized by competent people in the context of a clear policy and with explicit goals • There does not exist a unique method applicable in all institutions

  12. Main questions (1) • Wich « objects » ? • Universities (definition?) • Education programmes • Diploma’s • Research centers • Research programmes • …

  13. Main questions (2) • What does one want to do ? • To compare • To select the «  best(s) » • To rank • To define « homogene » categories • To detect strong and weak points • To assign ressources • …

  14. Main questions (3) • For whom ? • External autorities, government, … • Potential partners (universities, research centers, companies,…) • External teachers or researchers • Potential students • Funding agencies • Sponsors • Public opinion, media • Alumni • Internal authorities • Internal teachers or researchers • Internal students • …

  15. Main questions (4) • For each « situation » (characterized by the answers to the 3 previousquestions): • Whichindicators ? • Quality of the data ? • Numericaltreatment of the data !

  16. Different approaches for different concrete questions • Choose the « best » education programme for this student ? (« best » for him) • Allocate financial resources to research centers • Select the universities which could be « good » partners for this company • Identify the strong points of these universities for students interested in studies in that field • Necessity of an interactive decision-aid toolbox for each possible user and question.

More Related