共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 296 毫秒
1.
Academic quality,league tables,and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems 总被引：5，自引：0，他引：5
The global expansion of access to higher education has increased demand for information on academic quality and has led to the development of university ranking systems or league tables in many countries of the world. A recent UNESCO/CEPES conference on higher education indicators concluded that cross-national research on these ranking systems could make an important contribution to improving the international market for higher education. The comparison and analysis of national university ranking systems can help address a number of important policy questions. First, is there an emerging international consensus on the measurement of academic quality as reflected in these ranking systems? Second, what impact are the different ranking systems having on university and academic behavior in their respective countries? Finally, are there important public interests that are thus far not reflected in these rankings? If so, is there a needed and appropriate role for public policy in the development and distribution of university ranking systems and what might that role be? This paper explores these questions through a comparative analysis of university rankings in Australia, Canada, the UK, and the US. 相似文献
2.
3.
评价对大学的发展具有积极作用。所谓大学评价排名化,主要指排名成为一些大学评价结果的唯一表现形式,参与大学排名的机构愈来愈多,大学排名涉及的领域愈来愈广。值得思考的问题是,这么多的大学排名是否必要?大学排名的评价指标是否合理?所谓大学评价国际化,主要指21世纪之后流行的世界大学排名的实质是评价机构用一个尺度或者说一个国际性的尺度去评价不同国家的大学。四大排行榜已经对一些国家政府的高等教育政策、众多大学的办学理念、方向和行为、普通大众对高等教育的认识等产生了不可低估的影响。世界大学排名评价的科研偏好、英语偏好、理科偏好的特征是值得认真关注的。 相似文献
4.
In this article we explore the dual role of global university rankings in the creation of a new, knowledge-identified, transnational capitalist class and in facilitating new forms of social exclusion. We examine how and why the practice of ranking universities has become widely defined by national and international organisations as an important instrument of political and economic policy. We consider the development of university rankings into a global business combining social research, marketing and public relations, as a tangible policy tool that narrowly redefines the social purposes of higher education itself. Finally, it looks at how the influence of rankings on national funding for teaching and research constrains wider public debate about the meaning of ‘good' and meaningful education in the United Kingdom and other national contexts, particularly by shifting the debate away from democratic publics upward into the elite networked institutions of global capital. We conclude by arguing that, rather than regarding world university rankings as a means to establish criteria of educational value, the practice may be understood as an exclusionary one that furthers the alignment of higher education with neoliberal rationalities at both national and global levels. 相似文献
5.
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. 相似文献
6.
朱高风 《湖州师范学院学报》2014,(6):29-34
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。 相似文献
7.
Andrejs Rauhvargers 《European Journal of Education》2014,49(1):29-44
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. 相似文献
8.
余好 《浙江教育学院学报》2012,(4):69-74
随着高等教育大众化的扩展,全球范围内出现各种世界大学排名,世界大学排名逐渐成为许多国家对高等教育机构进行价值评判的一种重要形式,在一定程度上影响各国发展高等教育所采取的战略决策。尽管各大排名在指标的设定上都会考虑科研能力,但由于排名机构的价值判断不同,各种排名具体采用的指标体系有所区别,它们在价值判断上的差异必然带来排名结果的不同。 相似文献
9.
大学排名自产生以来一直以来备受诟病,备受争议的背后实质上反映出社会公众在对待大学排名方面所体现出的一元、片面的认识,并没有进行充分且辩证的思考。实际上大学排名无论是对社会还是高校的发展,都能够产生一定的积极作用。文章采用二维象限分析法,建构新的研究模型,将大学排名的影响进行详细的整理与归类,归纳出大学排名对两大主体:大学与社会所带来的积极、消极作用,如大学排名能够促进大学管理制度的改革与完善、大学排名对于不同群体的学生选择大学就读具有差异性等。因此,使用二维象限分析法对大学排名的影响进行逐一的分析,有利于从大学与社会的角度打破社会公众对大学排名原有的刻板印象,从而全面地认识大学排名的影响。 相似文献
10.
Maru&#x;a Hauptman Komotar 《European Journal of Education》2019,54(2):299-310
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. 相似文献
11.
20世纪90年代以来,我国的大学排名活动开展得有声有色,在国内甚至国际有一定影响的大学排名已经有5家。大学排名活动已经成为我国高校评估领域一支不可忽视的力量。同时,对大学排名的研究工作也一直没有停止过。各种有关大学排名的研究文章也构成了高等教育研究中的一个小热点。对有关文章的各种观点从比较、作用、质疑和建议等四个方面进行理论梳理与归纳总结。 相似文献
12.
大学排名的产生、演化及其治理，有其特定的市场逻辑。出于政府、高校以及社会公众在大学综合信息占有上的非对称性，这些利益相关者演化为大学排名的首要需求者。当社会过分依赖排名识别高校办学水平信息、政府更多依据排名结果配置高等教育资源时，大学排行榜逐步完成了“知识—物品—商品”的属性转变，大学排名也成了既受追捧又受诟病的商品生产，迫使政府和公众在大学排名上做出无奈化决策和模糊化认同，高校在大学排名中予以选择性参与。要求得大学排名由“乱”向“治”的转变，需要在更好发挥政府作用的基础上，以市场规律为核心优化大学排名资源配置，统合行业自律和政府引导，实施“排名机构成长专业化”和“高等教育治理现代化”的统筹发力。 相似文献
13.
叶林 《浙江教育学院学报》2011,(6):76-79,84
大学排行榜诞生于20世纪80年代,目前已经发展成为考生及家长择校的重要信息源,当今大学验证其学术地位不可忽视的参考源,更是政府政策调控的依据和工具。它可分为综合排行榜、专业排行榜和特色排行榜,不同的排行方式会产生不同的排行结果。尊重顾客、加强国际间的合作、开发既具有可比性又符合国情的多元评估指标将是未来大学排行榜的必然趋势。 相似文献
14.
Valentina Goglio 《Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management》2016,38(2):212-226
In roughly a decade, university rankings gained the foreground in the policy arena for higher education and their influence is not going to decrease. However, several methodological shortcomings and warnings about the unintended consequences for national higher education systems have been raised. Against this background, this paper stresses that the individual recipients of information contained in university rankings are currently overlooked. Indeed, university rankings are addressed to a generic recipient, but actually, there are multiple audiences for rankings, and each of these audiences has different needs and each one attributes a different value to information attached to rankings. Referring to a theoretical tool borrowed from bioethics, this paper highlights that the ranking game involves a variety of recipients and that the current setting of the ranking panorama leaves room for gaps to emerge. 相似文献
15.
理想的大学排名目的和意义在于,作为服务于公共问责的有益工具,为排名使用者提供关于大学教育质量的可靠信息,同时激励大学提升质量。然而,当前大学排名所采用的大部分指标与院校选择性程度高度相关,为学生提供的大学教育质量信息不充分;且由于大学排名主要是大学教育作为准商品参与市场竞争的产物,指标设计偏重于高等教育对训练人力和发展科研的价值,忽视学生个人发展、教育公平等这些隐蔽但影响深远的社会价值,导致高等教育生态恶化,社会不公加剧。要解决这些问题,＂教育增值＂评价的发展是一个可能的改进途径,但不是根本的解决之道。归根结底,大学排名只是众多评价方式之一,不应也不可能承担质量评价的全部责任。Abstract： The idealistic purpose of university ranking is to encourage the self-improvement of universities as well as providing reliable information to users on higher education quality for public accountability.Nevertheless,most current rankings advocate indices related highly to the academic selectivity of institutions,while having nothing to do with quality of their performances.At the same time,since the rankings are mostly pushed by competition among universities as quasi-merchandise,it was inevitable that some social values of higher education as labor training and research were emphasized more than others such as student individual development and social justice,which are more invisible but influential from a long term.The rankings therefore ruined the ecology of higher education competition and made social injustice more serious.Value-added evaluation might bring some light to the darkness of rankings but not the primary way to solve the problem since it is functioned as one of the many measures in quality assessment. 相似文献
16.
Since the start of the twenty-first century, university rankings have become internationalized. Global rankings have a variety of uses, levels of popularity and rationales and they are here to stay. An examination of the results of the current global ranking reveals that well-reputed world-class universities are amongst the top ranked ones. A major concern for university administrators in many parts of the world is how to use the global rankings wisely in their mid-term and long-term strategic planning for building their institutions into world-class universities. Four major global rankings have been developed: the Academic Ranking of World Universities, the World University Rankings, the Webometrics Ranking of World Universities and the Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities. The main purpose of this paper is to explore the most influential indicators in these global university rankings that will affect the rank mobility of an institution. Based on an analysis of correlation coefficients and K-means clustering, a model of strategic institutional planning for building a world-class university is proposed. 相似文献
17.
德国CHE大学排名及其启示 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
从1998年开始,德国高等教育发展中心发布了CHE大学排名,这一排名在国际上引起了广泛的关注.因为在排名的内容上它关注大学教育的质量,在排名的方法上它不对大学做整体的次序排名而是针对单个学科构建了一个没有名次的排行榜,并且以分组的方式呈现各个评价指标的结果.这种独一无二的方法在一定程度上克服了传统大学排名的弊端,对德国高等教育的发展和其他国家的大学排名产生了积极的影响.CHE大学排名的理念与实践都值得我们借鉴. 相似文献
18.
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. 相似文献
19.
This study investigates female undergraduates’ aspirations for master's and doctoral degree programs in Taiwan's universalized and stratified higher education system. It considers the potential effects of economic prospects, parental attitudes, and gender values. First, graduate education is perceived as a means to enhance one's comparative advantages in the competitive labour market. Secondly, parental expectations and women's aspirations seem to decline with education level. They are higher for a master's education and much lower for a doctoral education, implying the influence of family background and traditional gender values, despite some improvements. Finally, specialization and university ranking also substantially affect women's aspirations for graduate education. 相似文献
20.
ABSTRACT For over a decade, global university rankings have played a growing role in the status competition in higher education. More recently, we have seen a proliferation in rankings of innovation and urbanization. In this article, we argue that while these new measurements bring with them some conceptual adjustments, they draw heavily on existing rankings and embrace the embedded competitive logic. Local rankings of innovation objectify higher education as an element of global competitiveness. Furthermore, we argue that this logical shift is made with the help university rankings that now come to bridge global competition and local innovation; the existing global university rankings are directly used in the composite indicators of local innovation or their methodology is copied. Consequently, political imaginaries of global competition are now projected to regional and city level. 相似文献