Report 2006Assessment of public universities and their faculties           © ARRA, Bratislava 2006
The report includes results of the project “Quality assessment                     of research and development at the univ...
The authors of this report would like to thank the members of                    the Board of Advisors of ARRA, in particu...
Table of contentsSummary.....................................................................................................
Summar                                                                on the “PhD Studies” indicator, which focuses on the...
teachers with PhD degrees (as many as 90%) works at the          VV1 – VV3a). No other faculty in other groups managed toT...
1          Introduction                                                                the best universities in the world?...
Table 1: Faculties that responded to the offer of participation in the student surveyAre interested Faculty of Internation...
2          The role of rankings                                                                 indicators significantly m...
3          On assessment methodology                                                                    faculties with soc...
the faculty that he or she manages should be classified ina different subject area, ARRA considers the request. Thereclass...
Table 2: Classification of faculties (or universities) into subject areas according to ARRA   University                  ...
Table 2: Classification of faculties (or universities) into subject areas according to ARRA (continued)  University       ...
Table 2: Classification of faculties (or universities) into subject areas according to ARRA (continued)  University       ...
Table 2: Classification of faculties (or universities) into subject areas according to ARRA (continued)  University       ...
Table 3: Faculties not assessed in 2006University                                        Faculty                          ...
Table 5: Criteria for assessing universities Area               Code             Description                         VV1  ...
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Assessment HEI 2006
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Assessment HEI 2006

1,774

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,774
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Assessment HEI 2006

  1. 1. Report 2006Assessment of public universities and their faculties © ARRA, Bratislava 2006
  2. 2. The report includes results of the project “Quality assessment of research and development at the universities and institutes of Slovak Academy of Sciences in Bratislava Region”, financed by European Social Fund.This report originated also with financial aid of the following organisations: www.pss.sk www.luba.sk www.orange.sk www.worldbank.sk www.yhman.skMedia partner of ARRA is:www.trend.sk 2
  3. 3. The authors of this report would like to thank the members of the Board of Advisors of ARRA, in particular prof. Stich, prof. Brunovsky, doc. Ferak, prof. Kusa, A. Salner and others, and also the members of the Board of Trustees (in particular the chairperson Ing. J. Kollar) for their critical but always relevant and constructive comments, and also for discussions, analyses and reviews of draft material in the production of the report. One of the factors that enabled ARRA to produce the following analysis was the fact that the SR Ministry of Education publishes a great deal of material and information about higher education. We would like to thank doc. RNDr. Peter Mederly, CSc. for his valuable discussion of this material. The selection of criteria and the set up of the methodology used have been taken, with minor modifications, from the last year’s ARRA Report1. As mentioned in the cited report, conversations with Don Thornhill and Lewis Purser, experts that the World Bank arranged for ARRA, made a significant contribution to the relevant part, and they also deserve our thanks. We would like to point out, however, that the opinions presented in the following report are not necessarily identical with those of the persons named here. The ARRA Agency was able to carry out its activities thanks to contributions from its sponsors, whether financial, in kind, or in the form of know how, in particular Prvá stavebná sporiteľňa, Orange Slovensko, Ľudová banka, the World Bank, GfK – Market Research Institute, Yhman, Trend weekly, and others. The assessment of the work of the Bratislava faculties of universities in the field of research and development and their comparison with SAV institutes was supported by a grant from the European Social Fund.1 Report “Assessment of public universities and their faculties (2005)”, ARRA, December 2005 (www.arra.sk) 3
  4. 4. Table of contentsSummary.................................................................................................................................. 51 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 72 The role of rankings ............................................................................................................ 93 On assessment methodology ............................................................................................. 10 3.1 Basic principles for assessment of higher education institutions ...................................... 10 3.2 Classification of faculties ............................................................................................. 10 3.3 Criteria .................................................................................................................... 1664 Basic characteristics of the indicators and their classification into groups ............................... 18 4.1 “Science and Research” Category ................................................................................ 18 4.1.1 “Publications and Citations” Group ........................................................................ 18 4.1.2 “PhD Studies” Group ............................................................................................ 18 4.1.3 “Grant Success” Group ......................................................................................... 18 4.2 “Study and Education” Category .................................................................................. 18 4.2.1 “Students and Teachers” Group ............................................................................ 18 4.2.2 “Applications for Study” Group .............................................................................. 19 4.2.3 “University Level Criteria” Group ........................................................................... 19 4.3 “Financing” Category .................................................................................................. 195 Method for the assessment of faculties and universities ....................................................... 20 5.1 Illustration of the method for the assessment of faculties and universities....................... 206 Commentary on individual indicators .................................................................................. 21 6.1 Science and research.................................................................................................. 21 6.1.1 “Publications and citations” Group ......................................................................... 21 6.1.2 “PhD Studies” Group .......................................................................................... 499 6.1.3 “Grant Success” Group ....................................................................................... 688 6.2 Study and education................................................................................................. 911 6.2.1 “Students and Teachers” Group .......................................................................... 911 6.2.2 “Applications for Study” Group .........................................................................12222 6.2.3 University-Level Criteria group .........................................................................14141 6.3 Financing..............................................................................................................144447 Comparison of university teachers’ salaries ..................................................................... 14558 Aggregate assessment of faculties within groups ............................................................. 14669 Aggregate assessment of universities ............................................................................1515110 Conclusion ...............................................................................................................1525211 About the authors and the report...............................................................................15353 11.1 People at ARRA .....................................................................................................15353 11.1.1 Board of Advisors ...........................................................................................15353 11.1.2 Board of Trustees ...........................................................................................15353 11.1.3 ARRA members ..............................................................................................15353 11.1.4 ARRA Secretariat ............................................................................................15353 4
  5. 5. Summar on the “PhD Studies” indicator, which focuses on theARRA is submitting, to the public, a report assessing public education of new scientists. It turned out that there was ahigher education institutions and faculties for 2005. lack of correlation between scientific performance (publications and citations VV1 – VV3a) and the number of The present report follows up the last year’s PhD students (VV4), thus high numbers of PhD studentsassessment of faculties and higher education institutions. are being trained at institutions with relatively lowThe report uses the methodology developed last year. scientific performance. It was also found that the successNinety-eight faculties and two higher education institutions rate in PhD studies (indicator VV5) was only 30%.not structured into faculties were divided into six groups Education institutions with the greatest number of PhDbased on the Frascati Manual: natural sciences (NAT, 10 study graduates are not – with an exception for the winnerfaculties), engineering and technology (TECH, 23 in the SOC group (the TVU Faculty of Healthcare andfaculties), medical sciences (MED, 4 faculties), agricultural Social Work) – the most successful ones in scientificsciences (AGRO, 6 faculties), social sciences (SOC, 34 production (publications and citations).faculties), and humanities (HUM, 23 faculties). Of the totalnumber, seven faculties (four social science faculties, one The third group among the science and researchfaculty of engineering and technology, humanity and evaluation criteria dealt with the “Grant Success” of thenatural sciences) were not included in the assessment and faculties (VV7 – VV10). In this group, there was greateradditional 12 were compensated in certain criteria with diversity among the winners in individual Frascati groupsrespect to their short existence. than in publications or PhD students. Surprisingly, in the SOC group, a different faculty succeed in each of the Faculties and higher education institutions were indicators. Particularly in indicator VV9 (funding from stateassessed using 25 indicators grouped into 3 substantively programmes and foreign grants), faculties in the HUM andcompatible groups, namely science and research, study SOC group were generally considerably more successfuland education, and financing. Two indicators from the than in other indicators in the field of science andStudy and Education group and all indicators from the research. TU Košice Faculty of Arts was not only the mostFinancing group are, with respect to data available, used successful one in VV9 within the HUM group but alsoonly on the university level and therefore they are not among all Slovakia’s faculties under assessment.included in the resulting assessment of faculties.Compared to the last year, three new criteria have been Another large group of criteria is focused onadded (VV2a – Number of citations per publication, VV3a – “Study and Education”. This group is subdivided into theNumber of papers with more than 25 citations, and VV9 - “Students and Teachers” and “Applications for Study”Funding from state programmes and foreign grants). groups. In the part “Students and Teachers”, an interesting finding for the SV1 criterion (ratio of the Indicators in all cases measured performance number of students to the number of teachers) was made,intensity rather than total performance. This eliminated the namely that there are relatively large differences amongimpact of the faculty size and the attention was focused on faculties in one group and even among faculties with veryits quality. On the basis of performance in each of the similar orientation (for example, the VŠMU Theatre Facultycriteria, the faculty was assigned a certain number of 8 versus AU Faculty of Music 4 students per teacher, or KUpoints. Their average per indicator groups determined the Faculty of Philosophy 30 and UK Faculty of Philosophy 11ranking of the given institution within its Frascati group. students per teacher). At the same time, it turns out that the ratio of part-time students to full-time students What is positive is that in comparison with the last continues to rise in Slovakia. In 2005, part-time studentsyear, a moderate improvement occurred in all parameters comprised 32% of all students; at 16 of 100 faculties,under assessment and in nearly all institutions under part-time students were even in the majority. In ARRA’sassessment. view, this increase may threaten the quality of higher education, as there is presently no sufficient mechanism to An improvement occurred also in the Science and control the basic standards of part-time study.Research category of indicators. The number of paperspublished by Slovak scientists assessed using the first Like with SV1, it is better in ARRA’s opinion if thecriterion (VV1) has a moderately rising trend. However, value of the ratio of the number of students to the numberthis trend should not be seen necessarily positively. of professors and associate professors (SV2) is lower. ItEmployees of Slovak universities published a total of can be concluded that as expected, this ratio is the lowest12,172 papers that are recorded in WoK in the period 1996 at faculties of arts. Similarly as with SV1, there are large– 2005. 7,326 citations of these papers were recorded. Of differences as well in the values, including at very similarthese 12,172 papers, however, 4,846 papers, i.e., 40%, faculties. An extreme example is, in the SOC group, the KUdid not receive a single citation. This fact shows that even Faculty of Healthcare with the largest number of studentsthe papers’ own author did not cite it during the monitored per professor and associate professor among all facultiesperiod. Compared to the period of 1995 – 2004, when in Slovakia (503.5) while at a similarly oriented TvU Faultythere were 3,823 such papers (30%, the total being of Healthcare and Social Work, there are twelve times11,163), this is an increase by more than 1,000 papers (or fewer students per professor and associate professor.ten percentage points) that no one noticed. Thus,although the quantitative indicator of the number of The third indicator focused on students andpublications increased, their attractiveness for the world’s teachers is the “Proportion of Teachers with PhD” (SV3).scientific community decreased. It is not without interest At 22 of 100 faculties, at least 75% of teachers have PhDthat the increase in the number of publications nearly degrees. However, a surprising fact is that only 45% ofcoincides with the increase in the number of papers that university teachers in Slovakia have complete third level ofno one noticed. higher education and at as many as 38 faculties, not even two third of teachers have PhD degrees. Within the In the second group, in the “Science and groups, the situation differs. The largest number ofResearch” indicator category, attention was concentrated 5
  6. 6. teachers with PhD degrees (as many as 90%) works at the VV1 – VV3a). No other faculty in other groups managed toTvU Faculty of Healthcare and Social Work in the SOC similarly combine the success in scientific production withgroup. the attractiveness for students. Thus, apparently, students do not consider the institution’s research production to be Indicator SV4 – “The number of professors and the decisive factor. Although faculties with monopolisticassociate professors divided by the number of all teachers” position have an advantage from this point of view,shows how many pedagogues having the highest scientific conclusions can be made as to which faculties are the firstrank are among the faculty teaching staff. This ratio varies choice for the applicants.between 10% and 60% with great differences amongindividual faculties in each group. For most of the faculties, The faculties that are most popular with foreignthe value of this ratio is approximately in the middle of the students (SV8) are not identical with those most popularinterval. More than half of the professors and associate with Slovak students (SV7). In general, however, facultiesprofessors in the teaching staff are at only four of the of the HUM groups are most popular again, includingfaculties under assessment, of which two are from the particularly higher education institutions of art andHUM group (the VSMU Theatre Faculty and the TVU theology (the best being the VŠMU Faculty of Music andFaculty of Theology), one from the TECH group (the STU Dance with 15.8% of foreign students). The MED group isFaculty of Chemical and Food Technology) and one from dominated by the UK Jessenius Faculty of Medicine withthe AGRO group (the TU Zvolen Faculty of Forestry). 12.4% of foreign students. The highest percentage of students with other than Slovak citizenship (18%) is at the The average age of professors measured in the University of Veterinary Medicine with the other faculties inSV5 indicator ranges from 51 to 65 years. For most of the the AGRO group, similarly as in the TECH and NAT groups,faculties, its value is approximately in the middle of the not reaching even two percent. In the SOC group, theinterval. For SV5 as well, there are differences in the most successful Faculty is that of International Relationsaverage age of the professors within individual groups. having 4.6% of foreign students.The “youngest” Slovak faculty is the PU Faculty of GreekCatholic Theology with the average age of professors There can be no doubt that as in the past,being 51 years. In general, the age of professors in Slovak universities are in the present the heart and the drivinguniversities is relatively high. force for the development of the knowledge-based society. They are irreplaceable for the prosperity and positive The “Applications for study” subgroup assessed development of the fast changing world. There arethe extent, to which education institutions are popular however, two requirements for them to carry out theiramong prospective students. Most students relative to tasks: that their free spirit is preserved and that theplanned available places (SV6) traditionally apply at education and research that they provide and carry outfaculties in the HUM and SOC groups. For the most have a high level of quality. This study may alsopopular faculties, this is as many as 9 (the TvU Faculty of encourage universities and their faculties to think aboutPhilosophy) and 8 (the SPU Faculty of Economics and their performance and to try to find ways to improve.Management) students per planned place. Whiletraditionally fewer students apply at NAT, TECH and AGRO Once again we are happy to be able to conclude(for the best faculties, this ranges between two and three that in comparison to 2004, nearly all Slovak universityapplicants per planned place), for the TU Košice Faculty of faculties, almost in all parameters, improved theirMining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnology performance during the year. This has been undoubtedly(TECH), there are as many as 8 applicants per place contributed to by the improving economic situation of theavailable. In the MED group, there are 5.5 students per country, in certain cases also by the ongoing internationalplanned place at the UK Jessenius Faculty of Medicine. The evaluation of Slovak higher education institutions inactual students’ interest in studying at a particular faculty cooperation with the European University Associationwas measured by comparing the number of registrations (EUA). The ARRA study is trying to reflect and helpto the number of admissions to the given faculty (SV7). monitor this development. We can only hope now that theSimilarly as with the SV6 indicator, most students register situation will continue to improve. It would be very daringwith faculties in the SOC, HUM and MED groups. to believe that two assessments are sufficient to makeConcerning the scientific performance and quality of substantial conclusions on the development trends.science, it can be concluded that only the UK Faculty of However, it is undoubted that if such assessmentPharmacy was most popular among students in its group continues to be conducted for a longer period of time, it(SV7) being, at the same time, the most successful in will be easier to see as to which direction the Slovakscientific creativity (in publishing and publication citations higher education is taking. 6
  7. 7. 1 Introduction the best universities in the world?” On an invitation fromARRA is submitting, to the public, a report assessing the presidium of the International Ranking Expert Grouppublic higher education institutions and faculties for (IREG), ARRA became a member of this expert body and2005. In its starting points and goals, the report took part in the international conference “Methodology andfollowed up the basic principles and history of higher Quality Standards of Rankings”, which was held on 19 Mayeducation institutions’ rankings reflected in the first 2006 in Berlin and was attended by nearly 50 experts fromARRA report on higher education institutions for 2004. all over the world. At this conference, principles of rankingsIt seems that “rankings serve a variety of purposes, were agreed for the first time5. Being a member of IREG,good and bad. Rankings are also inevitable – in the era ARRA is trying to adopt these international principles to theof massification, those who finance higher education extent permitted by the present Slovak situation.and the public want to know which academicinstitutions are the best.”2 It is also true that the Also the European principles of quality assurance,ranking boom does not go unnoticed by any of the adopted in 2005 in Bergen by ministers of education withingroups involved. the Bologna Process6, are relevant for the higher education and research quality assessment. It is interesting that even those highereducation institutions that have negative attitudes to In addition to new features in the field of rankingranking impatiently await the results (e.g., of the on the international level, ARRA brings its own extension of“Shanghai Ranking”3) to see their ranking and to this year’s assessment process. A decision was made tobenchmark with other higher education institutions of extend the higher education institutions assessment basedthe world. The reasons are varied; however, the main on publicly available information with assessment fromones include: students’ point of view. To this end, ARRA prepared an • curiosity as to how we are doing in anonymous student survey in cooperation with GfK –comparison with the world (unfortunately, there is no Market Research Institute jointly with CKM and with theSlovak higher education institution among the first 500 support from the Orange Account Foundation. The resultshigher education institutions published in the Shanghai of this survey will be published separately in the firstRanking), quarter of 20077. GfK offered the faculties the possibility of • massification of higher education and its modifying the questionnaire, asking their own exclusiveimpact on the quality of education and research, questions and gaining access to all data gathered about the • competition for students – domestic and, to faculty. Of all faculties approached, 18 confirmedan ever greater extent, international, cooperation. Although some of them lack lists of students’ • competitiveness, e-mail addresses, which is a necessary condition for a • good ranking supporting a good starting faculty’s participation in the survey, it is a positive findingposition in various negotiations, e.g., on funding, etc. that several such faculties will shortly compile a database of addresses also on the basis of this request. Three faculties A remarkable finding4 is that there is a strong responded explicitly negatively, the rest did not respond.correlation between the research background of a An overview of individual faculties’ responses is shown inleader and the position of the university in a world Table 1.league table. The higher the ranking of the university,the more likely it is that the citations of its president ARRA is grateful for the cooperation received fromwill also be high (presidents of the top fifty have 2.5 all faculties that enabled it to approach the students or attimes more citations on average than those of the least showed a willingness to cooperate, even if theirbottom fifty). Obviously, as everywhere, there are technical conditions did not enable such cooperation afterexceptions from this correlation, particularly in the field all. Sadly, on the basis of the above it seems that only lessof art and humanities. However, the trend is apparent. than 20% of Slovak higher education institutions’ faculties are interested in knowing the opinion of their students on ARRA is convinced that besides information on what and how they are doing. Such disinterest in students’the ranking of the higher education institutions or their opinion by faculties exceeds the most pessimisticfaculties in tables (throughout the text, only public expectations. ARRA appreciates the cooperation andhigher education institutions and their faculties are support from the University Student Council.analysed), it is crucial that there is a continuousdiscussion on higher education institutions’ quality.ARRA is pleased to state that the discussion initiatedfollowing the publication of the 2005 Report as well asthe subsequent seminar of invited participants wereheld – apart from a few emotional reactions – in aconstructive spirit, particularly with the objective oftrying to analyse the situation and find paths leadingto a higher quality of our higher education. Two events need to be added to the history ofranking, which events are of crucial importance for this 5process. The first was the conference at Leiden The Berlin Principles on Ranking of Higher Education, CEPES, CHE, IHEP, Berlin, 2006.University on 16 February 2006 entitled “The 6 http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00-Challenges of University Ranking. How can we identify Main_doc/050221_ENQA_report.pdf 7 In the case of student questionnaires, ARRA approached also private higher education institutions, as the students’ view of a2 Altbach, Ph. G., International Higher Education, 42, 6 higher education institution is equally important for public as well(2006). as private higher education institutions. For explanation of reasons3 http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn for which ARRA is not yet assessing private higher education4 Goodall, A., International Higher Education. 42, 3, (2006). institutions, see below in the text. 7
  8. 8. Table 1: Faculties that responded to the offer of participation in the student surveyAre interested Faculty of International Relations University of Economics in Bratislava Faculty of Management and Informatics University of Žilina Faculty of Philosophy Catholic university in Ružomberok Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Comenius University in Bratislava Informatics Faculty of the Humanities Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica International Business College IMS in Prešov Faculty of Economics and Management Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra Faculty of Economics Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica Faculty of Pharmacy Comenius University in Bratislava Faculty of Economics Technical university in Košice University of St. Cyril and Methodius in Faculty of Mass Media Communication Trnava Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Comenius University in Bratislava Faculty of Arts Comenius University in Bratislava Faculty of Operation and Economics of University of Žilina Transport and Communications Faculty of Business Management University of Economics in Bratislava Faculty of Material Sciences and Slovak University of Technology in Technology Bratislava Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology Technical university in Zvolen Faculty of Education University of TrnavaAre not interested Faculty of Special Technologies Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín Faculty of Law Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica Constantine the Philosopher University Faculty of Natural Sciences in Nitra 8
  9. 9. 2 The role of rankings indicators significantly more important than others (e.g.The basic and common characteristic of all foreign research performance is given a higher value than, say,approaches to rankings (ARRA’s assessment including) is the number of students per teacher) and may thereforethat they attempt to provide information to the general give them a different weighting. This can in turn make apublic, in particular to prospective students. The objective fundamental difference in the ranking of the faculties andis to help them select a suitable school or faculty and/or universities in “his/her” resulting table. For this reasonarea of study or study programme. Ranking is not in ranking provides an image of the university and its statusprinciple an activity carried out for its own sake to put alongside other universities entirely in terms of theuniversities into an order (although such evaluations are selected indicators. However, everyone involved inalso published). Ranking is, or is trying to be, an aid for creating ranking tries to choose a range of criteria andpeople who are choosing a place to study and need indicators that will be relevant to the broadest possibleorientation in the education marketplace. group of recipients. No ranking system can automatically identify the This is one of the reasons why ARRA does notbest faculty or university for an applicant but the assign weights to individual indicators. All indicators enterinformation provided can be of great assistance in their the assessment within their group with the same weight.decision-making. It appears that at present, the position of However, in cooperation with the Trend weekly, thea school in this or that ladder is a secondary factor in their interested parties are able (through www.arra.sk orchoice of where to study. This is applicable also to www.etrend.sk) to connect to a specially set up calculatorcountries where ranking has a longer tradition than in and to rank the faculties with custom weights assigned toSlovakia. The main factor is whether the given higher individual criteria.education institution will enable them to study the area ofstudy that they are interested in. It is only after that – if A number of universities insist that this form ofthere are a number of providers – that they start to comparison has limited significance because everyconsider other criteria such as the availability of university is unique and special in some way, or has itsaccommodation, the costs associated with study, the own specific characteristics. One could agree with theattractiveness of the place of study, the options for sports, opinion that there are no two identical universities in thecultural and other activities and also the standing of the world. However, if there are, for example, four faculties offaculty or the university among other institutions. This is law, five faculties of philosophy or three faculties ofone of the reasons why several ranking agencies included medicine, providing the same degree for the same form of“calculators” in their websites that can be used to increase higher education in the same area or programme, aor reduce the weight of individual criteria, to choose those question could be asked which of them is the best in theirthat the applicant considers important8. ARRA too, in group, which of them is outstanding and in what respect.cooperation with the TREND weekly, provides this optionas described below. It is also true that it is not possible to compare the incomparable, such as universities with 13 different In addition to providing information to the public faculties and a highly focused institution that is not evenand prospective students, assessments of quality aim to divided into faculties. An appropriate solution to thisincrease competition among universities through their situation is the categorisation of the science andoutput so that – as in the worlds advanced economies – technology subjects according to the “Frascati Manual”. Inprospective students are guided not only by the the OECD countries (the Organization for Economicgeographical proximity of a university but also the quality Cooperation and Development), the Frascati Manual hasof the education that it provides. We expect that the been used to categorise subjects in science andimportance of quality factors will increase hand in hand technology since 1963.9with the complexity and the technical and intellectualdemands of the Slovak economy. In the final analysis, it is up to prospective students to decide, just as employers must decide when The second common characteristic of assessments employing graduates. And it is always better if decisionsis that although they use different numbers of criteria, are taken on the basis of accessible and verified datathere is nearly always a relatively small number of groups rather than traditional, often inaccurate and incompleteof criteria that reflect the institution’s performance in impressions or feelings associated with the givenresearch and education and related parameters, institution. The ARRA assessment has the ambition ofperspectives on the institution from within (students and becoming one of several bases serving as a source ofthe academic community) and also from outside (e.g. information for decision-making.employers, or even the school’s own graduates). Another very important characteristic of ranking isthat every such assessment must always be looked at interms of the criteria that it uses. In other words, everyranking corresponds only to the criteria that are chosenand used. In addition every compiler (but also everyreader) may consider (and then also makes) certain8 For example:- www.che.de/cms/?aetObiect=2&aetName=CHE-RankinQ&QetLanQ=de, 9- The authorship of this manual is quite often attributed incorrectly.www.daad.de/deutschland/studium/hochschulrankina/04690.en.ht Because the first meeting of OECD experts in this matter tookml, place in 1963 in the Italian village of Frascati, the work that was- www.studiekeuzel23.nl/web/site/default.aspx, created there was called the Manual from Frascati or The Frascati- www.etrend.sk Manual. 9
  10. 10. 3 On assessment methodology faculties with social science faculties. However, it will be possible to compare faculties with the same (or similar)3.1 Basic principles for scientific orientation side by side. Prospective students willassessment of higher education thus be able to determine which faculty ranks highest among those providing education in their area of interest.institutions ARRA will also separately publish, in overview tables, the performance of faculties in groups of related criteria,ARRA’s approach in assessing Slovak universities is the which will facilitate comparison based on what the specificsame as is used elsewhere in the world. It is based on applicant (or other recipient of the report) considersthree pillars. The first is quantitative information in the important.public domain, which is generally accepted as a reliableindicator of academic quality. The second is an To make it even more obvious that what isindependent view of the results. The third is a group important is the ranking within groups and that in Slovak(cluster) approach to the assessment of faculties and situation, universities cannot be compared amonghigher education institutions. themselves, as of this year, ARRA will not be publishing the cumulative table ranking all Slovak public higher The procedure that ARRA has used in assessing education institutions. At the same time, however, it ispublic universities (when talking about Slovak universities valid that the quality of a higher education institution isfrom now on, only public institutions will be referred to) in determined by the quality of its faculties. ARRA, therefore,Slovakia in 2005, was based on the following steps: like in the last year, will rank the higher education • the selection of indicators for the institutions on the basis of the results of faculties included quality of education and research in individual according to the Frascati Manual. universities and the assignment of a certain number of points to each faculty for the performance in each The criteria used by ARRA are identical with or indicator (indicators are arranged into groups and similar to those used elsewhere in the world. Of course, each group of indicators gained a certain number of they reflect certain specific features of Slovak higher points),10 education. ARRA used only information in the public • the division of faculties into six groups domain and did not request information from individual according to the Frascati Manual (details given below) faculties in 2006. The ranking produced is based on official in order to compare only faculties that have the same data and domestic and foreign sources in the public orientation and similar working conditions, domain. • assigning point scores to faculties (the ranking of faculties in individual groups according to the Frascati Manual is based on average points score 3.2 Classification of faculties in individual groups of indicators), • calculating point scores for the higher The faculties of Slovak universities were divided into education institutions in individual groups according groups based on their field of study using the definitions to the Frascati Manual (the ranking of the higher given in the Frascati Manual as follows: education institution in the given group is given by • natural sciences (NAT) consisting of mathematics the average assessment of all its faculties included in and computer sciences, physical sciences, chemical that group). sciences, biological sciences and Earth and related The most recent version of the Frascati Manual of environmental sciences,200211 divides higher education institutions’ subjects into 6 • engineering and technology (TECH) consisting ofgroups: civil engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, and other a) natural sciences, engineering and technological sciences, b) engineering and technology, • medical sciences (MED) including basic medicine c) medical sciences, and dentistry, clinical medicine and pharmaceutical d) agricultural sciences, sciences (nursing and healthcare are included in the e) social sciences, social sciences), f) humanities. • agricultural sciences (AGRO) consisting of From 1 June 2005 this division will be included in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, veterinary medicineSlovak law12, i.e. also in the Slovak research community.13 and allied subjects, • social sciences (SOC) including psychology, After the introduction of such a division into the economics, educational sciences, law, politicalranking, it is clear that theological faculties will not be science, nursing, healthcare, other social sciences.compared with medical faculties or technically oriented • humanities (HUM) are history, languages and literature and other humanities.10 Certain new indicators were included in 2006. However, to be Some higher education faculties are difficult toable to compare and hence to identify the trends in individual categorise into a particular subject area due to theinstitutions’ development, institutions are ranked also based on diversity of their components. Their various componentsexclusively the quality indicators used last year. (e.g., departments) conduct activities lying in multiple11 Frascati Manual, 6th Edition, OECD 2002, Paris, p. 67. subject areas. An example is the faculties of philosophy,12 Act No. 172/2005 on the Organisation of State Support for whose activities are included in both the humanities andResearch and Development and Additions to Act No. 575/2001 on social sciences groups. They were classified according tothe Organisation of Government Activities and the Organisation ofthe Central State Administration as amended. the subject area group, into which the majority of activities13 A more detailed breakdown is given in the International fall. It was mentioned in the last year’s report that if theStandard Classification of Education (ISCED) 1997, UNESCO, dean of a particular faculty contacts ARRA to request thatNovember 1997, and is described below in the text. 10
  11. 11. the faculty that he or she manages should be classified ina different subject area, ARRA considers the request. Thereclassification of the Žilina University Faculty ofManagement and Informatics has been requested by itsdean and ARRA accommodated this request. No similarrequest occurred so far.1414 Part of the professional public objected to the inclusion of theTvU Faculty of Healthcare and Social Work among social sciencefaculties, particularly because most of its research activities arefocused on medicine and healthcare disciplines. However, facultiesof this type are typical representatives of social science faculties.The fact that the number of publications, in particular, by tworepresentatives of the particular faculty in the field of drugscomprises nearly half of the sum of publications by all remaining 39faculties of the social science group, and the number of citations iseven more than four times higher, is a sad indication of thesefaculties’ condition; however, it cannot serve as a reason to changea procedure used generally in the world. 11
  12. 12. Table 2: Classification of faculties (or universities) into subject areas according to ARRA University Group Faculty (web) Abbreviation Akadémia umení www.aku.sk AU (Academy of Arts) HUM Fakulta dramatických umení DramUm AU (Faculty of Dramatic Arts) HUM Fakulta muzických umení MuzUm AU (Faculty of Performing Arts) HUM Fakulta výtvarných umení VýtvarUm AU (Faculty of Fine Arts and Design) Ekonomická univerzita www.euba.sk EU BA (University of Economics) SOC Fakulta hospodárskej informatiky HospInfo EU BA (Faculty of Economic Informatics) SOC Fakulta medzinárodných vzťahov MedzVzťah EU BA (Faculty of International Relations) SOC Fakulta podnikového manažmentu PodnMan EU BA (Faculty of Business Management) SOC Národohospodárska fakulta NárHosp EU BA (Faculty of National Economy) SOC Obchodná fakulta Obchod EU BA (Faculty of Commerce) SOC Podnikovohospodárska fakulta PodnHosp EU BA (Faculty of Business Economics) Katolícka univerzita www.ku.sk KU (Catholic University) HUM Filozofická fakulta Fil KU (Faculty of Philosophy) SOC Pedagogická fakulta Pedag KU (Pedagogical Faculty) HUM Teologická fakulta Teol KU (Faculty of Theology) Prešovská univerzita www.unipo.sk PU (University of Prešov) HUM Fakulta humanitných a prírodných vied HumPrír PU (Faculty of the Humanities and Natural Sciences) SOC Fakulta manažmentu Manag PU (Faculty of Management) SOC Fakulta športu TV PU (Faculty of Sports) SOC Fakulta zdravotníctva Zdravotnícka PU (Faculty of Health Care) HUM Filozofická fakulta Fil PU (Faculty of Arts) HUM Gréckokatolícka bohoslovecká Greckokat PU (Greek Catholic Theological Faculty) SOC Pedagogická fakulta Pedag PU (Faculty of Education) HUM Pravoslávna bohoslovecká fakulta Pravosl PU (Orthodox Theological Faculty) Slovenská poľnohospodárska www.spu.sk SPU univerzita (Slovak University of Agriculture) AGRO Fakulta agrobiológie potravinových zdrojov Agro SPU (Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources) AGRO Fakulta biotechnológie a potravinárstva BiotPotr SPU (Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences) SOC Fakulta ekonomiky a manažmentu EkonomMan. SPU (Faculty of Economics and Management) SOC Fakulta európskych štúdií a regionálneho rozvoja Eur.ŠT. SPU (Faculty of European Studies and Regional Development) AGRO Fakulta záhradníctva a krajinného inžinierstva Záhrad SPU (Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering) TECH Mechanizačná fakulta Mech SPU (Faculty of Agricultural Engineering) 12
  13. 13. Table 2: Classification of faculties (or universities) into subject areas according to ARRA (continued) University Group Faculty (web) Abbreviation Slovenská technická univerzita www.stuba.sk STUBA (Slovak University of Technology) TECH Fakulta architektúry Archit STUBA (Faculty of Architecture) TECH Fakulta elektrotechniky (Faculty of Electrical Elektr STUBA Engineering) TECH Fakulta chemickej a potravinárskej technológie ChemTechn STUBA (Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology) NAT Fakulta informatiky a informačných technológií Infor.aInf.Tech. (Faculty of Informatics and Information STUBA Technologies) TECH Materiálovotechnologická fakulta MatTechn STUBA (Faculty of Material Sciences and Technology) TECH Stavebná fakulta Stav STUBA (Faculty of Civil Engineering) TECH Strojnícka fakulta Stroj STUBA (Faculty of Mechanical Engineering) Technická univerzita Košice www.tuke.sk TUKE (Technical University of Košice) SOC Ekonomická fakulta Ekonom TUKE (Faculty of Economics) TECH Fakulta BERG Ban TUKE (Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnology) TECH Fakulta elektrotechniky a informatiky Elektr TUKE (Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics) HUM Fakulta umení Umení TUKE (Faculty of Arts) TECH Fakulta výrobných technológií VýrTech TUKE (Faculty of Manufacturing Technologies) TECH Hutnícka fakulta Hutn TUKE (Faculty of Metallurgy) TECH Letecká fakulta Let TUKE (Faculty of Aeronautics) TECH Stavebná fakulta Stav TUKE (Faculty of Civil Engineering) TECH Strojnícka fakulta Stroj TUKE (Faculty of Mechanical Engineering) Technická univerzita Zvolen www.tuzvo.sk TUZV (Technical University in Zvolen) AGRO Drevárska fakulta Drev TUZV (Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology) NAT Fakulta ekológie a environmentalistiky Ekolenv TUZ (Faculty of Ecology and Environmental Sciences) TECH Fakulta environmentálnej a výrobnej techniky V EnvirTech TUZ (Faculty of Environmental and Manufacturing Technology) AGRO Lesnícka fakulta Les TUZV (Faculty of Forestry) Trenčianska univerzita A. www.tnuni.sk TUAD Dubčeka (Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín) TECH Fakulta mechatroniky MechTron TUAD (Faculty of Mechatronics) TECH Fakulta priemyselných technológií PriemTechn TUAD (Faculty of Industrial Technologies) SOC Fakulta sociálno-ekonomických vzťahov SocEkon TUAD (Faculty of Social and Economic Relations) TECH Fakulta špeciálnej techniky ŠpecTechn TUAD (Faculty of Special Technology) 13
  14. 14. Table 2: Classification of faculties (or universities) into subject areas according to ARRA (continued) University Group Faculty (web) Abbreviation Trnavská univerzita www.truni.sk TVU (University of Trnava) SOC Fakulta zdravotníctva a sociálnej práce ZdravSoc TVU (Faculty of Health Care and Social Work) HUM Filozofická fakulta Fil TVU (Faculty of Arts) SOC Pedagogická fakulta Pedag TVU (Faculty of Education) SOC Právnicka fakulta Práv TVU (Faculty of Law) HUM Teologická fakulta Teol TVU (Faculty of Theology) Univerzita Komenského www.uniba.sk UK (Comenius University) HUM Evanjelická bohoslovecká fakulta Evanj UK (Evangelical Theological Faculty) SOC Fakulta managementu Manag UK (Faculty of Management) NAT Fakulta matematiky, fyziky a informatiky FMFI UK (Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics) SOC Fakulta sociálnych a ekonomických vied SocEkon UK (Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences) SOC Fakulta telesnej výchovy a športu TV UK (Faculty of Physical Education and Sports) MED Farmaceutická fakulta Farm UK (Faculty of Pharmacy) HUM Filozofická fakulta Fil UK (Faculty of Arts) MED Jesseniova lekárska fakulta JessenLek UK (Jessenius Faculty of Medicine) MED Lekárska fakulta Lek UK (Faculty of Medicine) SOC Pedagogická fakulta Pedag UK (Faculty of Education) SOC Právnicka fakulta Práv UK (Faculty of Law) NAT Prírodovedecká fakulta Prír UK (Faculty of Natural Sciences) HUM Rímskokatolícka cyr.-met. bohoslovecká fakulta RímsKat UK (Roman Catholic Theological Faculty of Cyril and Methodius) Univerzita Konštantína Filozofa www.ukf.sk UKF (Constantine the Philosopher University) NAT Fakulta prírodných vied Prír UKF (Faculty of Natural Sciences) SOC Fakulta sociálnych vied Soc UKF (Faculty of Social Sciences and Health) SOC Fakulta stredoeurópskych štúdií Stredoeur.Št. UKF (Faculty of Central European Studies) HUM Filozofická fakulta Fil UKF (Faculty of Arts) SOC Pedagogická fakulta Pedag UKF (Faculty of Education) Univerzita Mateja Bela www.umb.sk UMB (Matej Bel University) SOC Ekonomická fakulta Ekonom UMB (Faculty of Economics) HUM Fakulta humanitných vied Hum UMB (Faculty of the Humanities) SOC Fakulta politických vied Polit UMB (Faculty of Political Sciences) NAT Fakulta prírodných vied Prír UMB (Faculty of Natural Sciences) HUM Filologická fakulta Filolo UMB (Faculty of Philology) SOC Pedagogická fakulta Pedag UMB (Faculty of Education) SOC Právnicka fakulta Práv UMB (Faculty of Law) 14
  15. 15. Table 2: Classification of faculties (or universities) into subject areas according to ARRA (continued) University Group Faculty (web) Abbreviation Univerzita Pavla Jozefa Šafárika www.upjs.sk UPJŠ (Pavol Jozef Šafárik University) SOC Fakulta verejnej správy VerSpr UPJŠ (Faculty of Public Administration) MED Lekárska fakulta Lek UPJŠ (Faculty of Medicine) SOC Právnicka fakulta Práv UPJŠ (Faculty of Law) NAT Prírodovedecká fakulta Prír UPJŠ (Faculty of Natural Sciences) Univerzita sv. Cyrila a Metoda www.ucm.sk UCM (University of St. Cyril and Methodius) SOC Fakulta masmediálnej komunikácie MasMed UCM (Faculty of Mass Media Communication) NAT Fakulta prírodných vied Prír UCM (Faculty of Natural Sciences) HUM Filozofická fakulta Fil UCM (Faculty of Arts) Univerzita veterinárskeho AGRO www.uvm.sk UVL lekárstva (University of Veterinary Medicine) Vysoká škola múzických umení www.vsmu.sk VŠMU (Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts) HUM Divadelná fakulta Divadelná VŠMU (Faculty of Theatre Arts) HUM Filmová a televízna fakulta FilmTel VŠMU (Faculty of Film and Television) HUM Hudobná a tanečná fakulta HudTan VŠMU (Faculty of Music and Dance) Vysoká škola výtvarných umení HUM www.vsvu.sk VŠVU (Academy of Fine Arts and Design) Žilinská univerzita www.utc.sk ŽU (University of Žilina) TECH Elektrotechnická fakulta Elektr ŽU (Faculty of Electrical Engineering) SOC Fakulta PEDAS Pedas ŽU (Faculty of Operation and Economics of Transport and Communications) NAT Fakulta prírodných vied Prír ŽU (Faculty of Natural Sciences) SOC Fakulta riadenia a informatiky Riadenia ŽU (Faculty of Management and Informatics) TECH Fakulta špeciálneho inžinierstva ŠpecInž ŽU (Faculty of Special Engineering) TECH Stavebná fakulta Stav ŽU (Faculty of Civil Engineering) TECH Strojnícka fakulta Stroj ŽU (Faculty of Mechanical Engineering) VV1 criterion as if it had 10 publications (the number of After discussions with higher education institutions publications will be divided by the number of years ofand with the expert public, ARRA carried out two faculty’s existence and multiplied by ten, i.e., the length ofmodifications in the assessment. It decided not to assess the period under assessment). An overview of the changesfaculties that had not had at least one complete education is shown in Tables 3 and 4.cycle completed in 2005, i.e., those that were formed in2003 and afterwards. At the same time, it decided to In this year either, ARRA does not assess privateassign compensation points to more recently established higher education institutions. The reason is the absence offaculties (established in 1996 – 2002) in criteria concerning comparable data and the fact that an overwhelminglonger periods (that is, VV1, VV2, VV3, and VV3a) majority of them has been in existence for a period shorterdepending on the length of their existence. The than 3 years. However, the assessment of private highercompensation points will not be apparent in data charts education institutions and their comparison to the publicbut in assignment of points in individual criteria. For ones is a task faced by ARRA in the forthcoming future.example, a faculty existing for 4 years having 4publications per creative worker will be assessed in the 15
  16. 16. Table 3: Faculties not assessed in 2006University Faculty EstablishedCatholic University Faculty of Health Care 2004University of Prešov Faculty of Management 2004University of Prešov Faculty of Sports 2004Slovak Technical University Faculty of Informatics and Information 2004 TechnologiesTechnical University of Košice Faculty of Aeronautics 2004Constantine the Philosopher University Faculty of Central European Studies 2004Catholic University Faculty of Theology 2003Table 4: Faculties assigned compensation points in 2006University Faculty Established Compensation factorCatholic University Faculty of Philosophy 2002 10/4Catholic University Pedagogical Faculty 2002 10/4University of Prešov Faculty of Health Care 2002 10/4Slovak University of Agriculture Faculty of Biotechnology and Food 2002 10/4 SciencesSlovak University of Agriculture Faculty of European Studies and 2002 10/4 Regional DevelopmentComenius University Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences 2002 10/4Constantine the Philosopher University Faculty of SocialSciences and Health 2002 10/4University of Žilina Faculty of Special Engineering 2002 10/4University of Economics Faculty of International Relations 2000 10/6Technical University of Košice Faculty of Arts 1999 10/7University of Trnava Faculty of Law 1999 10/7Pavol Jozef Šafárik University Faculty of Public Administration 1997 10/7 Numbers for professors and associate professors3.3 Criteria refer to the relative average number of chairs occupied in 2005.The criteria, by which ARRA produced its rankings, focuson the intensity of performance rather than on the overall In other assessments as well, the evaluation ofperformance. For example, one of the criteria is the total institutions with a focus on humanities – and partially alsonumber of publications by the given faculty listed in the on social sciences – represents a certain problem. ARRAWeb of Knowledge database produced by the company sought special criteria and internationally comparable,Thomson Scientific Co. (“WoK” )15 divided by the number publicly accessible data for social sciences and humanities.of creative workers in the faculty (teachers and Even “Shanghai” was not successful in this respect.researchers). If the number of creative workers did not Although The Times Higher Education Supplement17 uses adivide the overall number of publications, the size of the standard criterion of the number of citations perfaculty would be the main influence and not the intensity publication for social sciences, it does not do so forof its work. humanities. On the basis of discussions on this topic, ARRA approached the concerned faculties with a request of In 2005, ARRA used a number of criteria from cooperation in this sensitive matter and it will seek athose initially proposed and discussed with domestic and solution that will more accurately reflect the quality offoreign experts, as shown in Table 5. A complete list of these faculties’ scientific work. It is encouraging thatcriteria, at which the assessment has the ambition to several faculties have already promised such cooperationarrive, is given in the last year’s report. ARRA will asses and have also proposed specific solutions.the criteria from the field of student comfort in the springof 2007, in the framework of the student survey16 already Until the establishment of a new assessmentmentioned. method, if any, ARRA will proceed identically as in the previous year, that is, use identical criteria for both HUM Some data were available only for universities as a and SOC as in other groups of faculties. One of thewhole and not for individual faculties (marked with asterisk reasons for such a decision is the fact that among facultiesin Table 5). Therefore, these are not included in the final focused on humanities and social sciences, there areassessment of the faculties. several faculties achieving good assessment even under these relatively strenuous conditions, and had they been15 left out of the report or had the assessment using http://www.thomson.com/scientific/scientific.isp. The Thomson standard criteria been abandoned, it could have beenWeb of Knowledge (WoK) includes the following databases: Webof Science (WoS), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI- these faculties that might feel aggrieved.EXPANDED), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Arts &Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) and Essential ScienceIndicators (ESI). Thanks to the SR Ministry of Education, alluniversities in Slovakia have access to this database, as do theuniversity teachers and research and artistic employees, theAccreditation Commission, the SR Ministry of Education, and theSlovak Academy of Sciences.16 The assessment in this field is based on the student survey.Considering the organisation of the academic year, an ideal timefor data collection is November and December. However, dataprocessing will take some time, therefore it cannot be included in 17this report and will be published separately. THES, 27 October 2006, p. 9 16
  17. 17. Table 5: Criteria for assessing universities Area Code Description VV1 Number of publications in WoK for the years 1996 – 2005 per creative worker VV2 Number of citations in WoK for the years 1996 – 2005 per creative worker VV2a Number of citations in WoK per publication in WoK for the years 1996 – 2005 Number of publications in WoK having at least 5 citations in WoK for the years VV3 1996 – 2005 per creative worker Number of publications in WoK having at least 25 citations in WoK for the years VV3a 1996 – 2005 per creative worker Science and VV4 Number of full-time PhD students per professor or associate professor in 2005 research Average annual number of PhD graduates in 2003 – 2005 in proportion to the VV5 number of professors and associate professors The number of full-time PhD students divided by the number of bachelor’s and VV6 master’s degree full-time students VV7 Grant funding from the KEGA and VEGA agencies per creative worker in 2005 VV8 Grant funding from the APVV agency per creative worker in 2005 VV9 Funding from foreign grants and state programmes per creative worker VV10 Total grant funding from agencies per creative worker SV1 Proportion of the number of full-time and part-time students per teacher in 2005 Proportion of the number of full-time and part-time students per professor or SV2 associate professor in 2005 Proportion of professors, associate professors and other teachers with PhD to the SV3 total number of teachers Study and SV4 Proportion of professors and associate professors to all teachers education SV5 Average age of active professors Ratio of the actual number of applications received to the planned number in SV6 2005 SV7 Ratio of registered and admitted students in 2005 SV8 Proportion of foreign students Proportion of graduates unemployed for longer than 3 months of institution’s SV9* graduates in 2005 Number of students taking part in study abroad (SAIA administered scholarship SV10* programmes and the Socrates EC programme) per 100 students F1* Costs of the higher education institution’s main activities per student Proportion of the result of the university’s business activities to the overall costs Financing F2* of its main activities Proportion of the grants obtained to the overall costs of institution’s main F3* activities 17

×