共查询到18条相似文献，搜索用时 156 毫秒
1.
<正>据美国《高等教育纪事报》2013年4月12日报道,世界大学排名机构的数量持续增加,这些排名机构不断变换新的排名方法和用途,大学排名正转变成一个越来越具争议的领域。欧洲大学协会日前发布了一份名为《世界大学排名及其影响II》的报告,概述世界大学排 相似文献
2.
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
3.
大学排名已成为一种全球性现象,世界上几乎所有高等教育规模较大的国家都有大学排名存在。由于排名从宏观上提供了大学问可比的、有时甚至是关键的信息,在一定程度上满足了外界和大学自身了解大学的需求,因此能够长期存在并产生巨大影响。本文以上海交通大学高等教育研究所发布的"世界大学学术排名"为案例,分析了大学排名活动在经济全球化和高等教育国际化背景下所发挥的作用和产生的影响. 相似文献
4.
中国大学排名的"是"与"非" 总被引：7，自引：0，他引：7
近几年来 ,不同机构对中国大学的排名着实点燃起了公众对高等教育关注的热情 ,同时也引起了诸多激烈争论 ,甚至出现过海南人大学子状告中国网大的案例。对中国大学排名的争论 ,涉及如何对其进行正确看待的问题 ,也就是要对中国大学排名有一个基本的价值判断。可以肯定的是 ,中国大学排名尤其是民间机构大学排名的出现 ,是我国大学评价制度的一大进步。与官方相比 ,民间机构对大学排名 ,更为客观、公正。因为由官方对大学进行排名 ,无异于让家长评价自己几个孩子哪个更为优秀 ,难免过多掺杂个人的偏爱感情 ,从而使评价显得主观化。众所周知 ,… 相似文献
5.
虽然《泰晤士报高等教育》的"世界大学排名"是2004年发布的,但是发布大学排名的历史可以追溯到1986年,当时只是发布英国国内的大学学科排名。"世界大学排名"是在英国国内大学排名的基础之上出台的。所以,对英国大学排名历史的梳理应该从1986年开始。"世界大学排名",经历了起步、调整、重大变革等几个阶段,现在终于成为国际高等教育的一个重要品牌。 相似文献
6.
顾雨竹 《大学.研究与评价》2013,(12):65-72
随着高等教育全球化的深化发展,大学越来越关注自身在世界坐标系中所处的位置。当前世界上影响力较大的大学综合实力排名主要有两个,英国《泰晤士报高等教育副刊》与汤森路透公司合作的世界大学排名（THEWorldUniversityRanking,以下简称THE排名）;《美国新闻与世界报道》（U．S．News）与QuacquarelliSymonds（QS）公司合作的QS世界大学排名（QSWorldUniversityRankings,以下简称QS排名）。 相似文献
7.
大学排名是近年来高等教育领域的一大热点话题。联合国教科文组织出版了题为《高等教育排名与问责:善用与滥用》的研究报告。报告阐述了世界一流大学建设背景下大学排名的产生与发展。此外,报告对现有大学排名方法逻辑进行解读,分析其优缺点和社会效应。最后,报告通过对大学排名的善用与滥用反思评价标准,强调大学排名要回归大学本质。此份高等教育排名研究报告的出台对世界学术格局的发展产生了重要影响。 相似文献
8.
大学排名是近年来高等教育领域的一大热点话题。联合国教科文组织出版了题为《高等教育排名与问责:善用与滥用》的研究报告。报告阐述了世界一流大学建设背景下大学排名的产生与发展。此外,报告对现有大学排名方法逻辑进行解读,分析其优缺点和社会效应。最后,报告通过对大学排名的善用与滥用反思评价标准,强调大学排名要回归大学本质。此份高等教育排名研究报告的出台对世界学术格局的发展产生了重要影响。 相似文献
9.
据世界大学新闻网2013年4月20日报道,近年来,俄罗斯对世界大学排名的兴趣日益浓厚。为了解决目前排名方法存在的问题,俄罗斯教育科学部和全国培训基金会共同开发了多维排名方法,并完成了在100多所高等教育机构的试测。 相似文献
10.
大学排名在一定程度上反映了高等教育的质量,满足了公众对大学透明度和信息的需求。但同时,大学排名也可能诱使高校趋同发展,产生片面的导向。改进大学排名应明确排名的目的、作用;使用多渠道数据全面评价;将评价指标重心落在产出上;对排名进行分类,使用有差别的指标体系;建立适当的监督或顾问机构。 相似文献
11.
12.
Simon Marginson 《European Journal of Education》2014,49(1):45-59
University rankings widely affect the behaviours of prospective students and their families, university executive leaders, academic faculty, governments and investors in higher education. Yet the social science foundations of global rankings receive little scrutiny. Rankings that simply recycle reputation without any necessary connection to real outputs are of no common value. It is necessary that rankings be soundly based in scientific terms if a virtuous relationship between performance and ranking is to be established, the worst potentials of rankings are to be constrained, and rankings are optimised as a source of comparative information. This article evaluates six ranking systems, Shanghai ARWU, Leiden University, QS, Scopus, Times Higher Education and U-Multirank, according to six social science criteria and two behavioural criteria. The social science criteria are materiality (rankings must be grounded in the observable higher education world), objectivity (opinion surveys should not be used), externality (ranked universities should not be a source of data about themselves), comprehensiveness (rankings should cover the broadest possible range of functions), particularity (ranking systems should eschew multi-indicators with weights, or proxy measures) and ordinal proportionality (vertical distinctions between universities should not be exaggerated). The behavioural criteria are the alignment of the ranking with tendencies to improved performance of all institutions and countries, and transparency, meaning accessibility to strategy making designed to maximize institutional position. The pure research rankings rate well overall but lack comprehensiveness. U-Multirank is also strong under most criteria but stymied by its 100 per cent reliance on subjective data collected via survey. 相似文献
13.
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
14.
WALDEMAR SIWIN´SKI 《Higher Education in Europe》2002,27(4):399-406
The editor-in-chief of Perspektywy, a major educational publication house in Warsaw, Poland, describes a major activity of his organization, namely the ranking of secondary schools and higher education institutions. Indeed, Perspektywy is the major Polish organization providing rankings and elaborating league tables of Polish higher education institutions. In particular, Perspektywy has teamed up with a leading Polish newspaper, Rzeczpospolita, to produce major rankings in separate listings of the main state-operated and private higher education institutions. The author explains the methodologies employed for both sets of rankings and argues that his organization provides a valuable service to college-bound youth and their parents. 相似文献
15.
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
16.
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
17.
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
18.
Marguerite Clarke 《Higher Education in Europe》2005,30(2):183-197
This article describes two recent efforts to rank the quality of higher education institutions in Australia and New Zealand. After a brief discussion of goals, methods, and results, the author evaluates each ranking using the following questions: Does this methodological approach achieve its objective? Can other countries use the methodology by extension? What can we learn about a country's higher education system using this approach? The aim is to provide readers with a framework for thinking critically about rankings, and about the role they might play in measuring and influencing higher education quality on a global scale. 相似文献